Bits and pieces (originally written to be posted at the beginning of Feb.)

A breakthrough in renewable energy? And guess who’s helping out? Not intentionally, I’m sure - from

BASED, a new American Prospect newsletter

“A new study says geothermal could smash growth forecasts with the backing of a powerful ally: the oil and gas industry. “Long-dormant geothermal energy is having a moment in the sun (I have to wonder if the pun was intended or not). Recent technological advancements have transformed the potential of hot rocks as a renewable-energy resource, and now, a stream of federal and state incentives have put geothermal on the cusp of breakout success. “Hot rocks near the Earth’s surface contain immense quantities of energy. In some places, that subsurface heat breaks through in geysers, hot springs, and steam vents near volcanic activity. Humans long ago identified the potential of this energy as a resource. Way back in 1892, Boise, Idaho, created the United States’ first district heating system, piping hot water into buildings from nearby hot springs. Today, the bulk of U.S. geothermal is concentrated in California and Nevada, which have relatively shallow geothermal resources. “Until the past decade, it was expensive and technically challenging to dig deeper. But those obstacles have been rapidly cleared, setting off a volley of deep geothermal exploration projects. The up-front cost is high, but district systems pay dividends in lower long-term bills for heating and cooling.”   Now comes the irony. The technological advances, that have made it possible for the oil and gas industry to tap previously unreachable sources or oil and gas, have provided the tools to make geothermal energy readily available and price competitive. Wouldn’t it be great if the industry that is one of the major sources of greenhouse gases will go down in history as helping to provide for its own demise? For once, unintended consequences may end up benefitting humankind.

 

A peek behind the continual dust ups with China on the day we shot down the big, bad balloon - from the Intercept

 

“A WAR BETWEEN China and Taiwan will be extremely good for business at America’s Frontier Fund, a tech investment outfit whose co-founder and CEO sits on both the State Department Foreign Affairs Policy Board and President Joe Biden’s Intelligence Advisory Board, according to audio from a February 1 event.

 

“The remarks occurred at a tech finance symposium hosted at the Manhattan offices of Silicon Valley Bank. According to attendee Jack Poulson, head of the watchdog group Tech Inquiry, an individual who identified himself as “Tom” attended the event in place of Jordan Blashek, America’s Frontier Fund’s president and chief operating officer.

 

“Following the panel discussion, “Tom” spoke with a gaggle of other attendees and held forth on AFF’s investment in so-called choke points: sectors that would spike in value during a volatile geopolitical crisis, like computer chips or rare earth minerals. It turns out, according to audio published by Poulson, that a war in the Pacific would be tremendous for AFF’s bottom line.”

 

I applaud the Intercept for its reporting on this, but have to wonder, is this news to anyone? War is good for big business, particularly if it’s fought on someone else’s turf. We have the war in Ukraine to bleed the Russians dry, why not one in the Pacific to bleed the Chinese dry and make a buck (or a few trillion) for starving billionaire Masters of War in the process? Then, with the return of the US and friends to hegemonic power, both military and economic, we and our junior partners (Western Europe and Japan) can get back to the business of exploiting the Global South and our working classes at home.

 

Recent developments seem to indicate that this is front and center in Biden and his fellow corporate Dems minds. Since taking office, one of Biden’s top priorities has been shifting American foreign policy toward confronting China, which he views as the biggest long-term threat to American interests, while still providing massive amounts of advanced weapons to Ukraine. Those are two things that centrist Dems and not totally crazy Republicans can unite around. And who says that bipartisanship is dead?

 

 

Government regulation of business – benefits v costs

 

I’m not a big fan of Paul Krugman, but every once in a while, he focuses attention in the right direction, sort of. In a NYT opinion piece on Feb. 7^th, he took on the conservatives’ argument that government regulations restrict the business community from promoting growth in productivity. While not denying this, he pointed out that it only looks at one side of the equation, the costs. But what about the benefits?

 

In the late 1970s, as productivity lagged behind its breakneck pace from the post WW II era, Ronald Reagan took aim at government regulation as the problem. He popularized “supply-side economics” (aka, trickle-down economics) as a solution to both lagging productivity gains and inflation, which was running at rates of over 10%.

 

Take the Occupational Safety and Health Act, passed in

 

Krugman’s conclusion: “And the broader lesson is that measured productivity isn’t the only thing that matters. What, after all, is the economy for? The goal is to improve people’s lives (my emphasis, since this is where Krugman and I totally disagree – the goal in capitalist society is to increase the wealth and power of the 1%, and it always has been.) This is often achieved by increasing gross domestic product per capita, but G.D.P. is an indicator, not an ultimate goal. We could have a bigger economy if we were willing to have filthy air and a lot more injured workers, but that’s not a trade-off we want to make.” (Paul, I couldn’t agree more if the “we” you are talking about is ordinary working-class Americans. You’ve identified the problem, but your class perspective leads to a faulty analysis.)