At least Detroit also hates Tom Friedman

Charlatan billionaire asshole. Anyway. Via the blog opit, (oldephartteintraining – I don’t know what it means, either), also via autoblog (actually quite an interesting read):

Toyota and GM fire back at NY Times’ Tom Friedman

The other day New York Times columnist Tom Friedman put himself squarely in the cross-hairs of Toyota and the rest of the auto industry. Friedman took aim at Toyota for riding the “green wave” with the Prius while at the same time producing ever larger trucks like the Tundra and the new Land Cruiser. He also slammed them for supporting the Hill-Terry fuel economy bill in Congress rather than the more stringent Senate bill that was passed a few months ago. The Michigan congressional delegation got hit in the fire fight as well for defending the interests of their hometown industry. After all, no politician from any other state would ever make short sighted moves to placate the voters in their district, so why should John Dingell (D-MI)?

Toyota and General Motors wasted no time in publicly responding on their respective corporate blogs. Toyota’s Communications VP Irv Miller was first up on the Open Road blog and was quickly followed up by Tom Wilkinson of GM on the FYI blog. Both repeated the mantra that even with high mileage vehicles like the Prius available, consumers still continue to demand big powerful cars and trucks. Just increasing the CAFE standards won’t do anything to influence demand for larger vehicles. They also responded to Friedman’s comments about higher mileage cars being available overseas by reminding him that there is demand driven by high fuel taxes in other countries. Without similar tax changes here to influence demand, CAFE standards will only frustrate buyers by ensuring the vehicles they want are not available.

Now, having established that I don’t like Friedman, I nevertheless agree with his ongoing argument that the US needs to do something about its being technologically behind (although one wonders how much his portfolios profit from the companies doing the holding-behind). I also agree with this.

Meanwhile, of the responses of Toyota and GM, I find these two points the most puzzling:

Toyota and GM want higher fuel taxes. Right? I mean, is there another way to interpret that? I don’t see it (meanwhile, the UK is in fact increasing fuel duties).

CAFE standards are bad because they don’t let motorists drive what they like. By which definition so are laws saying that you can’t drive a tank, or, say, a monster truck, on the road. Or that you can’t drive a vehicle that spews asbestos into the air around it. I mean, really. The whole point of intervention is when some consumers choose to do things that the rest of us thing are stupid and dangerous. It’s one of those decisions we make as a society.

Also, Toyota and GM want bans on underage smoking and drinking lifted. Also they want drugs decriminalised. Junkies are being unfairly frustrated by the lack of availability of the drugs and needles they want. Also gambling.

Sweet. I suppose, this time, I tip my hat to Thomas Friedman, for extracting from auto manufacturers such entertainment.

Climate change disaster is upon us, warns UN

First, over at the Guardian:

Sir John, a British diplomat who is also known as the UN’s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said dire predictions about the impact of global warming on humanity were already coming true.

“We are seeing the effects of climate change. Any year can be a freak but the pattern looks pretty clear to be honest. That’s why we’re trying … to say, of course you’ve got to deal with mitigation of emissions, but this is here and now, this is with us already,” he said.

As a measure of the worsening situation, Ocha, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – part of the UN secretariat that employs Sir John – has issued 13 emergency “flash” appeals so far this year. The number is three more than in 2005, which held the previous record.

Two years ago only half the international disasters dealt with by Ocha had anything to do with the climate; this year all but one of the 13 emergency appeals is climate-related. “And 2007 is not finished. We will certainly have more by the end of the year, I fear,” added Sir John, who is in charge of channelling international relief efforts to disaster areas.

More appeals were likely in the coming weeks, as floods hit west Africa. “All these events on their own didn’t have massive death tolls, but if you add all these little disasters together you get a mega disaster,” he said.

Sweet. Mega-disaster. Two things: first,

The Ocha appeals represent the tip of an iceberg since they are launched only with the agreement of the affected country. India was badly affected by floods that hit the rest of the Asian region in July. But unlike its neighbour, Pakistan, India did not call on the UN for help.

Ocha believes that 66 million people were made homeless or were otherwise affected across south Asia. The lives of several million more people were turned upside down across Africa. Sudan, Mozambique, Madagascar, Zambia and Uganda experienced disastrous floods, and Swaziland and Lesotho declared emergencies because of severe drought that reduced harvests by half.

The latest appeal from Ocha was launched yesterday, to try to raise emergency relief funds for Ghana, where more than 400,000 people are reported to be homeless as a result of flooding. Appeals may also be started for Togo and Burkina Faso.

I do agree that there are incentive problems, here. It is in the interests of the UN’s Office for the Co-Ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to paint a bleak picture. Or is it? This sort of talk does not make we want to donate money – it makes me think there’s nothing I can do (besides, I thought Bono was fixing this stuff?).

Secondly, and relatedly, there is the problem of us. Our brains, and the trouble we have dealing with things on a large scale (and, in my case, remembering where I saw the review of the book talking about this – I think it was in Wired magazine, but I can’t find it). Increase the scale of the problem, and you diminish our capacity to get our feeble minds around it. Besides, Dancing With the Stars is about to start.

So while I acknowledge a bias problem on the part of OCHA, I just don’t see that it’s significant enough to make me turn my back on the problem. Opinions differ, of course, but

… just as global warming starts to make itself felt, there are signs that “donor fatigue” has set in. Of about $338m (£166m) requested for Ocha’s 13 flash appeals this year, only $114m has so far come from donors.

Meanwhile, over at the blog Inhabitat comes a more pro-active voice, and one with which I am indeed sympathetic:

Architecture2030 is making their opposition to coal abundantly clear- continuing their anti-coal campaign, they’ve released a full page spread in The New York Times last Friday that read, “Want to stop global warming? Stop Coal.” What follows is a compelling case for ending our reliance on coal, supported by graphics and statistics that blame coal for global warming, along with a plan of action to repair the damage.

Based on their statistics, Architecture2030 predicts that based on our current rate of growth and coal usage, the planet will reach 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by 2035, triggering everything from glacial melting to rising sea levels. We are currently at 385 ppm, and are increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at approx. 2 ppm annually.

The link to Architecture2030 is worth following. As is the remainder of the article. Like George Monbiot’s Heat, like the report Zero Carbon Britain, there is a lot here that should, by rights, be commonly understood. That it is possible to reduce, drastically, our impact on the planet, without drastically affecting our economies (the two precautionary principles of climate change do not need to be in conflict, I guess, is my point).

The flip-side to this, of course, is carbon sequestration, which does/may show some promise – but not without its continued use driving the technological change. I already know my stance on coal, though – yours?

The Durbin anti-bankruptcy bill, and why the Austrians are so often right

The bastards. Busy, lately. Marking exams (first one on the pile: didn’t know a supply curve from a demand curve; second one spoiled by my tears).

Via the blog Calculated Risk, comes the news that the government is legislating kindnesses to make-up for all the dicky, cruel, shit-headed elements of the Bankruptcy Bill – now that the consequences of whoring out legislation to asshole creditors has become apparent even to politicians, generally the most stupid of the dinosaurs.

Among them, Dick Durbin’s contribution:

To help families save their homes, the Durbin bill would:

• Eliminate a provision of the bankruptcy law that prohibits modifications to mortgage loans on the debtor’s primary residence, so that primary mortgages are treated the same as vacation homes and family farms.
• Extend the time frame debtors are allowed for repayment, to support long-term mortgage restructuring.
• Waive the bankruptcy counseling requirement for families whose houses are already scheduled for foreclosure sale, so that precious time is not lost as families fight to save their homes.

To further help families get back on their feet financially as they go through bankruptcy, the bill would also:

• Combat excessive fees that are sometimes charged to debtors in bankruptcy.
• Maintain debtors’ legal claims against predatory lenders while in bankruptcy.
• Reinforce that bankruptcy judges can rule on core issues rather than deferring to arbitration.
• Enact a higher homestead floor for homeowners over the age of 55, to help older homeowners who are fighting to keep their homes as they go through bankruptcy but live in states with low homestead floors.
• Reinforce that consumer protection claims are still available in bankruptcy.

How ’bout legislation promising that legislators will fucking pay attention, next time they pass legislation like this? No? Okay.

Arlen Specter has some plan, someone else has some plan. Yes, our governments are always helpful when their cures start causing new cancers (yes, I’m aware Senator Specter has a health problem. No, I don’t accept that I should avoid mentioning sensitive things – my brain can handle the difference). Like I said. The Austrians are so often proved right.

The Austrian school, by the by, basically holds that governments should not intervene in markets, because every time they do that cock something up. Then they need to intervene again. Then again, etc. In the end, they run/ruin the entire economy.

Meanwhile, over at the Financial Times, I read this one:

Investment banks are offering finance to “vulture funds” on improved terms if the money is used to buy debt from them, according to bankers and managers of the funds.

Banks keen to shift a backlog of well over $200bn of leveraged buy-out debt are tying leverage for recovery, or vulture, funds run by hedge funds and private equity to the sale of the debt.

The financing amounts to a hidden discount, allowing the banks to minimise public discounts on LBO debt they are having to sell at below face value.

But it could help to accelerate the clearing of the debt hangover, which has added to the credit squeeze by limiting bank willingness to make new loans.

It reminded me almost immediately of that neat Google Video clip I posted yesterday, about the fundamental dodginess of this thing we call ‘money’. It seems to me that there is something very wrong, here. If this isn’t borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, I just don’t know what is. Just how is this supposed to help matters?

‘Bankers’, apparently, have an answer:

Bankers said there was nothing wrong with offering cheaper or longer-dated finance tied to LBO debt, with one comparing it to branded car loans.

“Buyers have to look at the all-in costs of the package, the finance and sale price together,” he said.

Banks tying finance to the sale of such loans will remain exposed to potential defaults by borrowers, shifting from direct exposure to a company to exposure to a fund itself exposed to the company.

Yeah – no, I don’t think it is. Nor do I think Bankers get to be the ones to tell me whether their banking practices are good for the economy. I think they’ve kind of demonstrated that they don’t get to have the T-bird for a long, long time. To us, at least. Clearly not to, say, the head of the Federal Bloody Reserve.

At least the Financial Times writer was decent enough (you reading this, mainstream newspapers?) to add in the afterthought of something resembling reality: that the exposure to the debt doesn’t go away – it does sits with another money-making, yield-chasing middle-man. Meanwhile the stock market charges ahead as we all picture rate cuts and throw our rapidly-depreciating dollars at Bear Sterns stocks.

Ted Rall knows health care reform

Laugh? I nearly died…