Trump’s sanctions on Iran pose a threat he never thought of

Posted by on

Sanctions are used by the US to punish rivals and discourage challenges to American power. The US has imposed (by executive order only) sanctions on a record 944 individuals and entities in the last year. This year it could reach 1000. Such carrots as aid, investment or diplomacy are not even discussed. Sanctions are widely regarded in other countries as assaults on sovereignty and as American coercion and bullying, and because the US dollar dominates international finance the US, with the cooperation of its European allies, has been able to wield the weapon of sanctions effectively. (Actually, the word effectively is misleading – historically, sanctions often backfire.)

Following Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal, European diplomats are now apparently completing work on a payment system that Iran can use, that will allow the Iranians and others to bypass America and its sanctions. Among the participants are China, Russia and India. If it can be successfully set up it could make countries like Iran politically independent and reduce the ability of the US to fight terrorism.

More worrying still would be a decline in the value of the dollar as the main currency of reference and trade. I well remember the time when the British pound was top dog. When it lost that status Britain lost mightily by no longer profiting from seigneurage, or the ability to create value simply by printing currency. That a single person, deeply ignorant as he is and unwilling to listen to any experienced advice, can be allowed to put the dollar at risk just shows how debased the system has become, threatening the very security and wellbeing of the country. Those who support Trump seem to be happy with swagger but know nothing about finance.

By the way, Iran is an example of how some Americans have a desperate desire for bogeymen. It was the Americans and the British who originally put the Shah in power by force. All these years later we are still scrapping with Iran, withdrawing from the only agreement we have had that might have improved relations. Isn’t it time to do a deal that would at last put history behind us? (the Epicurean way) Of course any deal needs two participants, but isn’t reconciliation what diplomacy is about? Or are four syllable words tough to understand?

Taxing meat?

Posted by on

In the past 50 years, per capita meat consumption across the world has nearly doubled, from 23kg a year to 43kg, while total consumption has risen fourfold. And although there are signs that some higher-income countries have reached “peak meat”, the UN has estimated that global consumption will rise a further 76% by around 2050, owing to growing demand from middle-income countries such as China. Livestock farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions; it leads to biodiversity loss, as wild land is cultivated to grow animal feed – which in turn puts a strain on water resources.

The fact is that there is a limited amount of grazing land, and the world is going to have a problem feeding a predicted 9 billion human beings with a diet as rich in meat as we currently enjoy. Meat production creates greenhouse gases, and its spread leads to deforestation, water shortages, and vast ocean desd zones from pollution. Moreover, meat is not even healthy, and livestock generate 14.5% of all manmade greenhouse gas emissions. In the West beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses. Is the answer to tax meat? We have been successful in stopping smoking, more or less.

One option is to tax fossil fuels in order to keep global temperature rises to under 2%, the thinking being that higher oil prices would be accompanied by higher prices for nitrogen fertilisers. Since this is not politically on the cards, scientists suggest differential taxes for different animals, the problem with this being that they don’t agree which species is the most harmful in terms of methane emissions, nitrogen and phosphate pollution, effects on biodiversity and carbon stored in the soil. One group recommends a 40% tax on beef and an 8.5% tax on chickens, whereas another group advocates a 40% tax on chickens and 28% on beef.

All sorts of issues make a flat tax on all meat simpler, and this could be done by imposing VAT (or sales tax)on all meat, with exemptions for small farms in order to encourage entrants into farming. (Guardian 28/4/17)

I must declare an interest: I am personally a virtual vegetarian, and haven’t eaten beef or pork for ages, just some chicken for the protein. I am in favour of a programme for building more fish farms and encouraging people to eat a Mediterranean-style diet, including fish. We cannot for much longer over-fish the seas, or overfill the fields with grazing cattle and pigs. Put sales taxes on beef, pork and mutton, and apply the proceeds to counter global warming.

George Orwell, where are you now?

Posted by on

A CNN reporter has been denied access to White House Press briefings on a trumped up charge of manhandling a White House staff member, shown on video. The video indicated absolutely no “inappropriate behaviour” – on the contrary, the inappropriate behahiour was on the part of the Assistant to Sarah Sanders, a shocking suppression of free speech and freedom of the Press. (But who cares (WE DO!)

“We stand by our decision to revoke this individual’s Press pass. We will not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video.” Sarah Sanders, White House Press Secretary.

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.” — George Orwell, 1984

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your own eyes. It was their final, most essential command”. – George Orwell 1984

If you sincerely follow Epicurus then you will be deeply disturbed by the hard right’s cynical misrepresentations and straight lies

Let’s get back to teaching some practical skills!

Posted by on

75% of English and Welsh children aged 11-16 say it is important to go to university, down from 86% in 2013. The proportion who are “very likely to” actually go to university has fallen from 38% to 32%. (Ipsos Mori/The Guardian)

Why should anyone be surprised? University is too expensive, and whitecollar job prospects poor. On the other hand, there are too few colleges where people can learn real-world skills like carpentry, electrics, plumbing and bricklaying. Now, in their “infinite wisdom” the “people” (a bare majority) have voted both to discourage immigrants from coming to the UK and to endanger the economy, our houses will begin to fall apart, our computers pack up, our cars malfunction, our food will rot in the fields, and no one will know how to mend a fuse.

Meanwhile, the universities take huge fees from youngsters, who have to borrow the money to be (in some instances) indifferently taught. The winners are the university administrators, who are paying themselves Big Company salaries, while many teaching staff haven’t seen a raise for years (exactly the same in America!).

The loser in all this is the nation. Never mind, I hear the old guard say, we have used the money saved to buy a big, beautiful aircraft carrier (any aircraft on it yet?) and are paying a fortune for a Chinese nuclear power plant (instead of investing in clean energy). Surely, on top of the Brexit fiasco all this has to mark the death throes of a centralizing government that is simultaneously incompetent. Disraeli will be groaning in his grave!

Jordan Peterson and the rise of conservative pseudo-intellectualism

Posted by on

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian professor of psychology, who has recently become famous because of his critiques of political correctness, post-modernism and left-wing notions of cultural appropriation and gender theory. His rise to prominence has been sudden: he is now ubiquitous on television, newspapers and magazines. Peterson is particularly popular amongst educated young men, frustrated with the prevailing progressive culture in academia and respectable society more broadly.

But despite his academic credentials, Peterson’s ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny. He argues that men are victims of the feminisation of culture and public policy, when women are still more likely to be victims of gender-based discrimination. His climate change denial is repudiated by the overwhelming majority of scientists, and his obsession with ‘Cultural Marxism’ is both highly conspiratorial and borderline anti-Semitic. And while he views even mildly leftist views as a stepping stone to totalitarianism, he turns a blind eye to the far more blatant authoritarianism of the contemporary political right.

However, Peterson’s gravitas shouldn’t be viewed in isolation, but as part of a broader trend. It’s undeniable that most professors are on the liberal side of the political spectrum, even if they aren’t the raving Marxists in Peterson’s imagination. There is clearly an awful lot of dissatisfaction with what is often a narrow spectrum of views on college campuses, and demand for a greater degree of intellectual curiosity, where taboos are broken and a wider range of ideals explored. Conservative notions of hierarchy, order and discipline ought to be debated thoroughly, not dismissed as antiquated prejudices.

Peterson also inadvertently reveals the poverty of contemporary conservative thought. Rather than debating progressive ideas rationally and factually, today’s conservatives increasingly prefer to indulge in conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks and playing the victim card. For instance, instead of simply explaining why social constructivism isn’t a good theory for understanding human institutions and behaviour, conservative pseudo-intellectuals attack constructivism’s proponents as evil post-modernists who lack morality and wish to bring down Western civilisation.

So while I agree with Peterson insofar as I think popular left-wing ideas ought to be scrutinised and debated freely, engaging in paranoia only emboldens Peterson’s critics. Conservative professors, however few there are, should be given more publicity. But only if their ideas are grounded in facts, and if they have a basic regard for the legitimacy of their opponents. If the likes of Jordan Peterson were to become the face of conservative academia, universities will become even more of a progressive echo chamber than they already are.