Durkin intentionally ignores the last twenty years or so of climate data, which shows a huge divergence between the prediction of the solar-radiance model (which predicts temperature reduction) and the actual data which shows a sharp increase in global temperature. We are in fact going through the warmest period of climate since man invented farming. Durkin conveniently terminates his graphs at 1988.

The scariest part lies in something that was mentioned in Durkin’s film as an argument against human produced CO₂ as a cause of global warming– that the warming didn’t coincide with the post-war industrial boom.

This can hardly be accounted as an argument for his point of view, as climate effects often lag behind their causes by as much as several hundred years. Unfortunately for us the lag between carbon emission growth to temperature increase simply means that it might take us as many years or more between the time we finally hit the breaks on our carbon emissions to when we see the benefits, meanwhile we’re probably in for a hell of a ride. Literally.

As a side note, if anyone is interested, one of the prevailing theories of why we have only felt the effects of our emissions in the last twenty years is because the oceans were capable of absorbing a large amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but we have since saturated them.

Bookmark to:

The article details attempts by schools around the world to ban unhealthy candy, which brought about a new type of dealer — the candy man: William Guntrip is a junk food dealer, and is making almost $100 daily selling junkfood on the playground.

The economic angle in the article is “some markets are irrepressible” and I agree completely.

Educate and regulate, do not ban.

Bookmark to:

In (very) brief- this program privatizes the role of the unemployment insurance office and leaves it off to private firms whose profits come from a cut of the ’savings’ that the government gains when they do not pay unemployment benefits, supposedly when the unemployed find jobs, but really when they are allowed to deny them benefits on various excuses. As Adiv accurately describes it: “The plan, in short, puts the company and the welfare recipient at odds with each other.”

The point I would like to stress however, is that the problem inherent in this program is that the metrics and incentives of this program are all wrong. One of the main faults of privatizing governmental roles is that a monetary metric (profit) is just wrong for determining when a governmental job is done right.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think that competition is a great tool to make systems more efficient. Privatization should mean to put more than one entity on the same job and provide higher compensation to the one that does the work better, however, make sure that ‘does the work better’ is measured correctly. In a free-market economy, a commercial enterprise does better when it creates more shareholder value but a government entity does its work better when it performs its role in the best possible fashion. If you are going to privatize, the metric should fit the job and be mapped directly to monetary compensation.

While the Wisconsin plan provides a monetary bonus to the implementing firm if more than 40% the unemployed under their care find jobs, but:
a) 40% is an unrealistic number in the Israeli market, so it is there “one suspects, for the sake of appearances” as Adiv states.
b) The bonus amount is not directly mapped to the number of unemployed who find employment and it is only provided if this unrealistic goal is met.
c) Bigger profits can be made by the company by ’saving’ on benefits…

Another problem with the implementation, that instead of allowing true competition between two or more companies, the companies each get their own geographical zone and become the sole operator there, so the competition is nullified.

In any case a more in-depth examination of the issue of privatization with competition and correct metrics will be a subject of a later post.

Bookmark to: