Open thread Nov. 20, 2009 (with GW)
Update:
Menzie Chin weighs in:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/11/the_global_surf.html
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
Update:
Menzie Chin weighs in:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/11/the_global_surf.html
Not a good day for the Warmists.
“A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain’s largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the “evidence” on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud ,conspiracy,and deceit in the entire operation.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/scientific_scandal_appears_to.html
Sammy beat me to the Global Warming story of the year, and maybe the century. One commenter has provided his list of ?issues?:
Robert M. (14:15:43) :
So,
What we have here is evidence that the team has engaged in:
1. Conspiracy
2. Government Fraud
3. Computer Fraud
4. Obstruction of Justice
5. Environmental Law Violations (Falsifying lab data pertaining to environmental regulations) (snicker)
6. Suppression of evidence
7. Tampering with evidence
8. Public Corruption
9. Bribery
Does that cover it?
The Team refers to the Hockey Stick Team, Phil Jones, the primary miscreant in this debacle, Michael Mann, Ken Briffa (remember his name from a few weeks ago re: the magic tree), and Gavin Schmidt.
Before going down the path of this can not be true, Hadley, CRU has confirmed they have been hacked, and the list of email writers and recipients confirming the veracity of specific emails is rapidly growing.
While we are discussing hacking. it might very well have been an inside job by a disgruntled conscience ridden co-worker.
The photosphere is abuzz, and even Andy Revkin of the NYT has weighed in: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
A very brief list of other sources are: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/#more-12962
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fenvironmentalcapital%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Environmental+Capital+-+WSJ.com%29
and I would include the Fox News link, but no one here would actually go to it.
I invite the Real Climate crowd to jump in to comment, because even their ?Real Global Warming Science Blog? has been thoroughly tarred. Someone else must bring the feathers
CoRev,
My understanding is that although CRU and Hadley have a close working relationship, but they are two different entities, so it’s not quite right to conflate the two. Regarding the FOI data, I don’t know what the law is in England, but CRU is not a govt entity, so I don’t know that FOI rules apply. For example, you could delete information that you own off of your computer because an FOI request directed at you would be a dead letter. It probably would a crime if Hadley deleted the emails, but not if CRU deleted the emails. An FOI request against Hadley does not apply to nongovernmental entities like CRU. It would take some other kind of legal writ.
Some of the interpretations appear to be taken out of context. For example, tweaking the sea surface temperature data was clearly the right thing to do. The problem is that they should have made it clear that the data was tweaked. And the comment about delaying some comments in the queue is something that makes sense. Note that they did not say that they blocked or deleted posts, only that they were holding them up in order to publish a contemporaneous response. That’s actually a good idea and helps organize posts.
I would like to see more of what they were talking about concerning the AR(4) modeling. I know the AR(4) “analysis” that McIntyre did was nothing short of embarrasingly amateurish.
By the way, you made some comments over at Econbrowser that were simply incorrect. Temperature and CO2 concentrations are strongly correlated (0.78) even if you do it the naive way. Doing the analysis correctly gets you an even higher correlation. The comment about negative correlations over some decades is (a) meaningless, and (b) appears to be based on an eyeball analysis of levels data rather than differenced data.
Question for CoRev:
Several times you have said that you agree that the globe is warming. On a number of occasions you have made comments about the myth of the “Hockey Stick.” My question is, given that you agree the earth is warming, why is the “Hockey Stick” debate something that is even worth discussing? Why do anti-GW folks think it’s important to debunk the “Hockey Stick” given that they agree the globe is warming?
Slugs,
What’s wrong with warm weather? I’ll be making another pathetic attempt to surf tomorrow. Its november in Massachusetts and I’m going to the beach. This seems like a good thing to me.
Yikes, how did that last one happen.
Slugs,
What’s wrong with warm weather? I’ll be making another pathetic attempt to surf tomorrow. Its november in Massachusetts and I’m going to the beach. This seems like a good thing to me.
2slugs, I appreciate your comments. They at least make me think.
As far as the chart Menzie was showing, the negative correlations were obviously to short term trends and not the century long anomaly baseline used in the chart. Smoothing data and then comparing them against such a long baseline leads to burying the short term signals. That makes identifying tipping points difficult at best. Tipping points? That is what we are supposed to be protecting against, yes? Kinda hard to ID them when you bury them in data manipulation.
Which then brings us to some of the email traffic in the hacked files. Spinning and taking out of context for misdirection is immature. You said: “Some of the interpretations appear to be taken out of context. For example, tweaking the sea surface temperature data was clearly the right thing to do. The problem is that they should have made it clear that the data was tweaked.” But you ignored the full context of hiding the 1940 spikes in Sea Surface and Land mass Temps. (My paraphrase) Now using a “trick” to produce some results may be perfectly legitimate, but when that “trick” was used to hide something adds some clarity to the use.
Furthermore, the discussions in the emails re: using the “trick” his word. Well on the Pro-AGW blogs the discussion centered on the use of “trick” not what was actually done, splicing two distinctly different set of data to pad the end point. Why do that? To show a rising graph versus the falling graph of the original data set. Of course one had to have read articles by that amateur, Stephen McIntyre, and since, several others to get that picture of why the “trick” needed to be used.
Why the weak misdirection at the beginning of your comment? Meaningless and factless.
Yes there is an equivalent FOI law in the UK. Dr Jones may be liable for a felony.
Yes, the Climate Research Unit is operated at the Hadley Climate Research Center, a facility of the East Anglia Univ. I guess in your DOD unit you do not have tenants in private or other organizational unit facilities?
As Sammy said, not a good day for Warmists.
This comment has been removed by the author.
2slugs asks: “My question is, given that you agree the earth is warming, why is the “Hockey Stick” debate something that is even worth discussing?” Simple. The HS was used to rationalize the use of the term “unprecedented rise in temperatures.” The “unprecedented” claim is used to frighten the ignorant masses.
The “unprecedented” rise of temps indicated by the HS has been shown to be false. Although temps are rising, they are within natural variability. We are still below the peak of the Medieval Warming Period, a period immense human development.
If these temp rises are within normal variability, then why are we willing to risk so much wealth to fight something that is not outside what we have already historically seen?
A shooting rampage carried out by US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan that killed 13 and injured 31 in Fort hood, Texas has once again put Muslims in America under the spotlight – especially those serving in the army. Moments after Major Hasan was announced as the suspected shooter, there was clear discomfort among newscasters and commentators regarding his religious and ethnic background. It’s also been widely reported that Muslim service members have sometimes faced attacks from fellow services members. Howard M. Friedman, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Toledo, says in his blog ReligionClause : “The military has been actively recruiting Muslims with the linguistic skills and cultural understanding needed to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ah yes, Not simple is it? You need Muslims in the Army but if you recruit them then you have to watch them like hawks for fear they might shoot people. What to do? Well nothing that the dumb warmongers can come up with. They still don’t understand that a war vs a religion is doomed to failure. And that a nation stupid enough to get into one can exhaust itself in the process.
CoRev,
“If these temp rises are within normal variability, then why are we willing to risk so much wealth to fight something that is not outside what we have already historically seen?”
Good question, let’s change to Mc Chrystal and Petraeus and ask why occupy Iraq and Afghanistan given there is no historical basis for expecting anything from this form of big government role in solving the wrong issue?
I find it interesting that big government is bad in the case of health care and environment, wasting wealth while it is okay in militarist pursuits.
I suppose Gandhi would understand “view truth as you see it in each case and not worry on any foolish consistency”.
Big government is good if the wealth is wasted for militarism, but don’t waste the wealth anywhere else.
ilsm
Krugman introduces a bit of good sense into the stimulus debate. The US’s total debt is not unprecedented and nations with more debt are not falling apart. The anti-stimulus people are by and large people who would like to see the economy get much worse because this would be bad for Obama, and they put their hatred for Obama ahead of the well being of the public.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/fiscal-perspective/
2slugs, here is another’s answer to your question of why the HS? It is from Cohenite, an Aussie lawyer, and very knowledgeable in the climate sciences. IRC he is co-authoring a paper for peer review. His comment: “…Consider this, the hockey-stick is the centre-piece of AGW because it purports to show that current temperature and climate is exceptional; the HS is shattered but it was based on data from CRU as were the 3rd and 4th IPCC ARs; in AR4 after reading through chapter after chapter of dodgy science and, plucked from someone’s backside, confidence levels that prove nothing, we come to CHP 9, the attribution chp where the scientists sign off on mankind as the cause of the proven[sic] effects described in the other chapters. And what names do we find there Jones, Santer, Stott, many of the e-mailers now caught up in this manifest FRAUD.
So we have the finished product, the HS, revealed to be a dog’s breakfast; now the data which was associated with the HS and every other aspect of this bs, is revealed to have been deliberately doctored and obfuscated. People are going to sue and prosecute and I’m going to help them.”
Does that help answer the question? I especially like the dog’s breakfast description.
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) — Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for additional troops sent to Afghanistan and that NATO should provide half of the new soldiers.
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
Hmmmm….Let’s see how much the warmongers like their war if they have to pay for it. To be watched.
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) — Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for additional troops sent to Afghanistan and that NATO should provide half of the new soldiers.
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
Hmmmm….Let’s see how much the warmongers like their war if they have to pay for it. To be watched.
In the news – University of East Anglia CRU emails and reports
2slugbaits – “Regarding the FOI data, I don’t know what the law is in England, but CRU is not a govt entity, so I don’t know that FOI rules apply. … It probably would a crime if Hadley deleted the emails, but not if CRU deleted the emails. An FOI request against Hadley does not apply to nongovernmental entities like CRU. It would take some other kind of legal writ.”
CoRev is correct. The U.K. Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to the University of East Anglia (UEA).
In the news – University of East Anglia CRU emails and reports
U.K. Freedom of Information Act 2000
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1
and
(for further info only)
http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/_mmtmp-customer-service-manual/frame.htm
University of East Anglia – FOIA Advisory [“Your Rights”]
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/foi_rights
University of East Anglia – FOIA Requests for Information
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/foi_requests
University of East Anglia – FOIA Guidance for Staff
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/guidance
University of East Anglia – Publication Scheme
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/pub_sch
UEA FOIA – climate data (actual example)
13 February 2007
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/disclosure/FOI_07-04?mode=print
In the news – University of East Anglia CRU emails and reports
University of East Anglia – FOIA Requests for Information
http://www.uea.ac.uk/csed/programme2/pp/foi
and
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/foi_requests
“As of 1 January 2005, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 gave everyone the right of access to information held by government, local authorities and public bodies including universities. All of UEA’s digital and printed records – whether current or archived – are now open to greater scrutiny and many UEA staff will potentially be affected.”
“Requests can come into the university at any point, from anywhere in the world, and it is vital that staff keep their records in order so we can respond to requests.”
—–
“Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, individuals have the right to request any information that is held by the University. This includes all digital and print records and information regardless of how old the information is and where it is stored. The University has 20 working days in which to deal with a request.”
“Requests must be submitted in a recorded format (letter, email or fax) and state the name and address of the requestor and what information is required from the University with enough clarity so that we can identify what is being requested.”
“The University already makes public large quantities of the information that it holds, and a description of all that we publish is available in our Publication Scheme or from the University’s Information Policy and Compliance Manager.”
In the news – University of East Anglia CRU emails and reports
2slugbaits – “Regarding the FOI data, I don’t know what the law is in England, but CRU is not a govt entity, so I don’t know that FOI rules apply. … It probably would a crime if Hadley deleted the emails, but not if CRU deleted the emails. An FOI request against Hadley does not apply to nongovernmental entities like CRU. It would take some other kind of legal writ.”
As explained upthread, the U.K. Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to the University of East Anglia (UEA). Here’s some published staff guidance.
University of East Anglia – FOIA Guidance for Staff
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/guidance
EXCERPT:
“5 key facts that all staff should know about Freedom of Information
• The Act gives everyone both in and outside UEA a right of access to ANY recorded information held by UEA
• A request for information must be answered within 20 working days
• If you receive a request for information which mentions FOI, is not information you routinely provide, is unusual, or you are unsure of, you should pass the request to your FOIA contact or the Information Policy and Compliance Manager
• You should ensure that UEA records are well maintained and accessible to other staff, so that they can locate information needed to answer a request when you are not there
• As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional”
TWO WAYS OF POSTING COMMENTS
Here’s a heads up for those interested.
I am publishing my comments using the JS-Kit comment window. It’s available if you click on the title of the post, and then click on the comments link further down. Don’t click on the one to the upper right of the post – it’s not working.
You may have noticed that some links posted by others aren’t working. Those appear to have been posted directly using Blogger comments. The links I have posted are active and that may have something to do with posting via JS-Kit.
Anyway, the JS-Kit comment thread is still available for your use. And those comments show up under the Blogger comment thread.
By the way, the JS-Kit comments appear to be the only comments accessible once a main post has fallen off the active list of posts. While this may be a temporary problem, you should be aware of this problem.
CoRev,
A lot of people are making the charge that deleting emails from CRU’s server is illegal because of a pending FOI request. Since CRU is not a government entity (unlike Hadley, which is a govt entity), I’m not at all sure that the FOI would apply. Part of the problem is that Watts has been conflating Hadley and CRU and suggesting that they are one in the same. They aren’t.
The GW argument is not and has never been that levels of warming are unprecedented. The argument has always been that the rate of temperature change is unprecedented. That’s a big difference. Levels and rates are two different things. The Hockey Stick argument is about levels. Telling us that the Middle Ages may have been warmer than today may or may not be true, but it is also irrelevant. Now if someone could show that the rate of temperature increase was higher in the Middle Ages than it is today, then that would be an important contribution.
Smoothing data and then comparing them against such a long baseline leads to burying the short term signals.
Ummmm….no. Smoothing data removes false signals so that you aren’t chasing white noise. I think they’re confusing smoothing and trend detection. Different things.
MG,
Thanks. So effective in 2005 CRU would be covered under the FOI.
Based on the gist of the exchanges it sounds like the FOI request was something that had been hanging around for a long time, so I wonder about the 20 day thing. Was the FOI request denied? Just go into a dead letter box? I know that in the US govt you have to protect data if there is an FOI request, but if the request is denied then you are free to delete documentation.
2slugs, why the locking in on FOIA? For me it’s one of the minor issues. I don’t care if Jones goes to jail or not. What is important is that the truth re: their science be tranparent. It has not been; therefore, several months ago there was a FOIA campaign to gather what information he would release. AFAIK none was forthcoming.
As to your comment re: rate versus level, both may be important. What is more important is how are they measured, and there is where the questions arise. Those measurements are largely defined by the highly questionable work of the TEAM.
Rate or level, there is little evidence that shows rate is unprecedented. We already know about level.
A piece of advice if you start googling for unprecedented CC impacts. Be very careful that a report you may cite is not one by the Team or based upon a TEAM report. Bad supporting or foundational evidence/data does not improve with use in a new report.
CoRev,
The FOI request seems to have been a major concern over at the Fox News sources, so that’s why wondered about it.
rate versus level, both may be important.
No, only the rate that is important. Level changes that take centuries are likely due to natural processes; but if you see sharp rate increases alongside sharp increases in CO2, this makes the natural process explanation a little hard to swallow. And on a more technical level, whenever you’re looking at levels data, there is always the risk that what you are observing is autocorrelation…and that’s especially the case with temperature data. Rates of change are about differences…taken to the limit the difference becomes a differential and the rate is the derivative, or instantaneous rate of change.
Is the CRU data for the last 100 years significantly different from what others are finding? I suspect that what you call faking the data is what CRU would call cleansing the data and providing temporary data pending final reports. So would you call it faking the data when BEA and BLS seasonally adjust statistics? Are they lying when they give out initial, corrected and final revisions?
It is most interesting, and informative, that the same economists that brought us globalization are the most agressive proponents of the “science” of global warming. Good grief !
Chris – “Krugman introduces a bit of good sense into the stimulus debate. The US’s total debt is not unprecedented and nations with more debt are not falling apart. The anti-stimulus people are by and large people who would like to see the economy get much worse because this would be bad for Obama, and they put their hatred for Obama ahead of the well being of the public.”
I hate to break the news to you, but three of the four nations cited by Krugman are in serious economic trouble. Only Belgium appears to be in fair shape.
You want to cite and compare economic conditions in Japan and Italy to the USA? I would rethink that one.
I was surprised that Paul Krugman foolishly cited Japan, Italy, and Belgium along with the USA in his debt graph. I understand the point he was trying to make, but he has to know that Italy and Japan are in very serious economic trouble. Their problems are huge.
Belgium was recovering from its debt problems prior to the mid 2000s, and it is yet to be seen whether Belgium will continue on its previous successful path.
Should you read the OECD reports and articles cited below, note the considerable focus placed on fiscal budget management and deficit spending for each country.
Italy – OECD report – Economic Survey of Italy 2009
http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3343,en_2649_33733_42987824_1_1_1_1,00.html
and
http://www.oecd.org/document/6/0,3343,en_2649_33733_43017286_1_1_1_1,00.html
Italy – Nov 19, 2009 – OECD sees firmer Italy rebound, warns on deficit
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/11/19/afx7139769.html
Belgium – OECD report – Economic Survey of Belgium 2009
http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,3343,en_33873108_33873261_43239821_1_1_1_1,00.html
and
http://www.oecd.org/document/41/0,3343,en_33873108_33873261_43239401_1_1_1_1,00.html
Japan – OECD report – Economic Survey of Japan 2009
http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3343,en_33873108_33873539_42514158_1_1_1_1,00.html
and
http://www.oecd.org/document/19/0,3343,en_33873108_33873539_43783443_1_1_1_1,00.html
Japan – Nov 18, 2009 – OECD chief: no reform in sight on Japan public debt
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/11/18/2009-11-18T060522Z_01_T217274_RTRIDST_0_JAPAN-ECONOMY-OECD.html
Japan – Nov 20, 2009 – OECD Says Japan’s Growth Is Inhibited by High Debt, Deflation
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a9m3OPM.S6Ng
It is not, and never has been CO2 levels that are supposed to be the cause of warming. It is water vapor in the atmosphere. Please get it right.
MG,
It’s a bit hard to take the Bloomberg article seriously. At the top of the article they talk about the threat of high interest rates choking off economic growth due to high levels of public debt. Then towards the bottom of the article we learn that the interest rate is 0.1%. Is that their idea of high interest rates? Krugman’s point was that if bondholders are not concerned about default risks with Japan, Italy and Belgium, then why would they be concerned about a default risk with the US?
We have a lot of serious economic problems right now, but high interest rates and inflation are not among them.
Sandi Rubinspan – “It is most interesting, and informative, that the same economists that brought us globalization are the most agressive proponents of the “science” of global warming. Good grief !”
That’s a good observation. They’re probably also proud members of the NIMBY crowd. Perhaps they foolishly think that tourism will be the primary income for the U.S. in the future.
2slugbaits,
I understand Krugman’s point, but Japan and Italy are in bad shape as spelled out by OECD. The U.S. doesn’t want to follow their lead.
Note this assessment including remarks from Deputy Prime Minister Naoto Kan.
Japan – TOKYO, Nov. 20, 2009 (Kyodo News International)
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3653102
Japan – “The latest economic outlook released Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that deflationary pressures continue unabated in Japan and called on the central bank to deal with them appropriately, such as maintaining interest rates at their current low levels. Recent price data have fueled concern. The country’s core consumer price index, excluding fresh food prices, fell for seven months through September. It dropped a record-fast 2.4 percent in August from a year earlier and 2.3 percent in September.”
“Japanese wholesale prices, meanwhile, dropped 6.7 percent in October after registering an 8.0 percent fall in September and the sharpest ever 8.5 percent slide in August.”
“Some analysts say what seems to be a sudden government campaign to take up deflation as an urgent issue to the economy highlights the challenges facing the state finances.”
“They say declining tax revenues, which follow sluggish corporate earnings due mainly to the yen’s rise against other major currencies, may force the government to issue more debts to finance its budget and economic stimulus packages.”
MG Thanks for the scare. I know how desperate things are in Japan and Belgium. Simply terrible. Standard of living in Italy down there near Zimbabwe, right? You are the master of dumping links into a comment, but often they don’t amount to anything. I’d take Krugman as an economist over you any day. Where is your Nobel Prize, by the way?
2slugs, in your 1127 comment you appear to be resorting to mud slinging. Y’ano the practice of taking some mud and throwing it against the wall to wee what sticks.
BTW, if you are fixing on the rate, you are just continuing to believe in the already demolished HS.
To: Sandi Rubinspan who said…
“It is not, and never has been CO2 levels that are supposed to be the cause of warming. It is water vapor in the atmosphere. Please get it right.”
Only if it were so simple, but it certainly is not. H2O is the most prevalent GHG, yes. But, the argument revolves about the total effect of GHGs on temps versus the other causes of temp increases, and, the impact of evil mankind on the totality of those causes.
MG Here is some other data for you. Public debt as % of GDP for Singapore is 99%, for Israel is 77% for France is 68%. The standard of living there is quite terrible, right? While for Peru it is 24%, and for Ecuador it is 25%, and Guatemala it is 26%; Russia is 6.5%. Those countries are basking in prosperity of course. Then the per capita PPE income of Japan is $34,100 compared to $37,500 for Belgium, $35,500 for Germany and $31,400 for Italy. Just awful what high levels of public debt do to the standard of living, right?
MG is alarmed at the “bad shape” that Italy and Japan are in. But MG what about Russia, the UK, Spain, the US, Portugal? Those countries are in fine shape, right? Only Italy and Japan are going to the dogs these days. Why? Oh those terrible levels of debt. That’s the reason. LOL
I was surprised that Paul Krugman foolishly cited Japan, Italy, and Belgium along with the USA in his debt graph. —MG
Foolish? Krugman? Please. You and I might be “foolish” but I don’t think Krugman is “foolish”. Perhaps Princeton will fire him and hire you?
***I understand Krugman’s point, but Japan and Italy are in bad shape as spelled out by OECD.***
I’m not sure that you do understand Krugman. Krugman’s concern seems to be that a premature attempt at deficit reduction will lead to the US ending up in Japan’s situation — a more or permanently sick economy. And without Japan’s advantages — a high savings rate and a current account surplus.
Krugman is NOT arguing that Japan and Italy are models to be followed. Quite the opposite in fact. What he is arguing is that trying to balance the budget before the economy recovers may very will put us further down Japan’s track.
The point of Italy, Japan, and Belgium is that high levels of debt do not lead to the apocalypse — at least not immediately.
Krugman was one of the minority of voices who predicted severe economic problems well in advance. All in all, he is probably worth listening to.
(If memory serves me, hasn’t Italy been in severe economic trouble more or less continuously for a Century or more?)
CoRev,
2slugs, in your 1127 comment you appear to be resorting to mud slinging.
No. It’s not that I’m above mud slinging, but in this case I really did mean that the FOI issue was a major topic of discussion at some of the Fox News sources. Okay, I should have been clearer. What I meant was that it was a big issue in many of Rupert Murdoch’s news media. For example, I saw several Murdoch owned news organizations in Australia that really focused on that angle. And notice that the lawyer you quoted was from Australia. So in this case I wasn’t being my usual snarky self. The whole CRU hacking was a big topic in the Murdoch/Fox News media.
***I would like to see more of what they were talking about concerning the AR(4) modeling. I know the AR(4) “analysis” that McIntyre did was nothing short of embarrasingly amateurish.*** 2slugs
Without defending McIntyre, IMO, amateurish looks to be the state of the art in Climate Science.
I’d ask you to do three things:
1. Read AR-4 ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html ) — not the whole thing — that’s too much to expect of anyone not actually convicted by a jury of his peers. But do some random sampling. IMO, it is poorly, written, self-congratulatory and pretty much a mess. It certainly has failed to give me warm fuzzy feelings about the IPCC and its efforts
2. Look into the data the climate scientists are using. My skepticism started with a recalibration of satellite data in the mid 1990s that brought the results which previously showed stratospheric cooling into agreement with the desired answer — warming. I could not at the time, and do not now, see any justification for the recalibration other than making the answer come out “right”.
There’s a more accessible example of questionable data here ( http://www.surfacestations.org/ ). It certainly looks like some/much of the historical US surface temperature data may contain biases that will be pretty much impossible to remove. What’s missing so far is an analysis of the data from the sites where the data is not prima facia questionable. I submit that if “Climate Science” were actually a science, this situation would have been recognized and dealt with decades ago.
3. Google “IPCC peer review” Even given that there are numerous critics of just about everything you care to name, I think you will come away with a few doubts about how open the IPCC is to views and data that do not fit their agenda.
I would not argue that all climate scientists are frauds. They probably aren’t. But I do think that the public is not being exposed to the full range of views held by serious climate analysts.
MG,
“Note this assessment including remarks from Deputy Prime Minister Naoto Kan.”
Why should I note the comments of someone who clearly doesn’t have a clue. He’s a politician, not a deep thinker. Japan’s economy is in the dumper and has been for quite awhile. Monetary policy in Japan is completely ineffective. That pretty much leaves fiscal policy as the only alternative…it’s that or stare at another lost decade. Except that in Japan’s case the “lost decade” was actually 17 years. Japan’s problem has been that they get temporary bouts of intelligent policy, expand fiscal policy and and run deficits, and then just as it starts to work they get scared and reverse course. After almost a full generation of this go/stop/go/stop policy they’ve managed to get the worst of both worlds. They’re ending up with huge debt and nothing to show for it. Krugman has been making three points. The first is that running a large debt as a percent of GDP in the US or Japan is not like running a huge debt in Argentina. And long term Treasuries do not show any evidence that the bond market is worried about the debt. Right now there’s too much savings chasing too few investment opportunities, so high interest rates are not a problem. If only they were a problem! The second point that Krugman is making is that continued price deflation increases the debt burden. So a country that reduces deficits in a liquidity trap because that country is worried about deficits has it exactly backwards. Normal rules don’t apply when you’re in a liquidity trap. Krugman’s third point is that it is better to run huge deficits up front and make sure the deficits are large enough to do the job. A year ago Krugman warned that a half-hearted approach to recovery by focusing too much on short term deficits would, in the end, lead to higher levels of debt. You don’t want to dribble out several “fiscally responsible” sets of recovery and stimulus package. Do the job right with one big package instead of several weak sister approaches. And now it appears that some in the Administration are recognizing that the first stimulus package was too small, so we’re looking at round two. In the end this incremental approach will lead us with more debt than if they had done the job right the first time around.
2slugs said: “The whole CRU hacking was a big topic in the Murdoch/Fox News media.”
What’s your point? And, yes, with that comment you are just being your usual snarky self. Why not reference the NYT article?
BTW, the latest HS from all the Brouhaha is the hit rate at Watts Up With That.
CoRev,
I think this answers the question:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/
2slugs, your implacable belief in the size versus the target of the stimulus is disappointing. Even Sr. “O” staffers are beginning to recognize the obvious.
CoRev,
I’ve never been happy with the allocation of the stimulus. Too much on tax cuts, which have a much weaker effect on aggregate demand. That’s not an opinion, it’s a result of some fairly straightforward math. If you disagree, then you’re free to present your model of how tax cuts have a stronger fiscal punch that direct spending. And I mean an actual model, not John Boehner talking points.
The size of the stimulus package was also not up to the job. As Romer’s own report shows, they only attempted to cover 3 million jobs when they recognized that the recession would lose about 5 million.
***Too much on tax cuts, which have a much weaker effect on aggregate demand.***
On top of which, tax cuts other than income tax cuts to low income taxpayers tend to be cuts on future profits/income rather than current profits/income — they kick in AFTER the recovery — which is exactly when anyone with half a brain sould want to increase taxes and start paying down the mountain of debt that the unregulated_free_market/I_never_saw_a_war_I_didn’t_like dingbats have saddled us with.
The Republican favorite — Capital Gains tax cuts comes at a time when few people have Capital Gains, and many of those who do, have offsetting capital losses.
vtcodger:
Thanks, you answered MG better than I did. I do have one additional thought for MG. Often the quickest way to tell the quality of a person’s mind is to note whom they respect and whom they “diss”. If someone disses Palin that certainly doesn’t lower my respect for the quality of his mind; it may even tend to enhance it. On the other hand when someone disses a Nobel Laureate or even late lamented Pat Moynihan I would want to take a close look at the quality of their mind.
Tax cuts and particularly capital gains tax cuts tend to shift final income to the rich. But the rich tend to be savers so that the income not taxed is not spent to stimulate the economy but saved to add to the wealth of the rich. That is why it is the GOP’s darling as a solution to problems. It increases wealth inequality and does little for the economy as a whole. Proper stimulus would put a lot more money into the hands of those who really need it to live and who would spend it promptly;
http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2009/11/20/climategate
What is being ignored in the Japanese case is the aging population of Japan the average age being 42.9 years versus 36.7 in the Us with 20% of Japanese over 65 versus 12.8 in the US. Many have remarked how the greying of a country will result in slower or no growth, as people move from the saving age to the spending age. I have not seen an analysis of what effect this aging has on the lost almost 2 decades in Japan, but it is interesting that this started about the time the population started to age significantly. Note that China is about 30-40 years behind Japan with the same sort of age profile. Predictions are by 2050 India will have more people than China due to this. In discussing the economy of various countries the fundamental demographic drivers should not be ignored as they do reflect into economics.
The birth dirth in Japan has proved resistant to various government hand out programs to try to reverse it. If you think about it as the percentage over 65 grows about the only growth area is health care and nursing homes.
Dan, a couple of comments re: the Salon article.
1) The title: “Climate-gate!
Climate skeptics claim hacked e-mails prove, once and for all, that global warming is a hoax” Off hand I know of no reputable and knowledgeable skeptic who has made such a claim. I have seen it in,now two headlines.
2) I found this phrasing to be hilarious: “RealClimate, a blog maintained by real climate scientists, is busy doing damage control.” (my bolding)
Why hilarious? Real Climate is actually run by those very same scientists implicated by those emails. Of course they are spinning, just as all the articles have done, but they have a much more serious reason to deflate this issue, quickly. Jail, law suits, professional embarrassment (oops too late), and early forced retirement can be disheartening.
Salon brings nothing new to the discussion and the comments are from the normal Pro/Con-bots.
@Chris:
If you were counseling Nazi soldiers during WWII and they were telling you about war crimes that they and other were committing, and you informed your superiors, and they did nothing, and you took matters into your own hands and killed a bunch of soldiers, would you be a terrorist?
For anyone interested in the actual letters, they and a search engine can be found here. Email-Gate Letters
What’s happening on the internet is that some are using the search engine for specific words/topics and then citing the interesting letters.
Some of it is very damning.
Interesting discussions of the Japan debt issue.
Couple of observations:
The debt is mainly held by Japanese, high percent savers.
The growing population of aging Japanese do not have social security and will not have the government cashing special trust bonds for them, they will cash their own.
The reason Japan finances current government fiscal needs with debt is to absorb excess savings in a safe place better than US dollars.
I don’t think debt held by nationals is a big issue for Japan since their nationals are quite apt to put Japan ahead of themselves….
ilsm
Chris, your comments demonstrate little knowledge of what is unfolding on the global economic front. I doubt that you read OECD or IMF reports on a regular basis. For you to pretend that Japan and Italy are doing fine demonstrates your level of economic ignorance.
vtcodger,
You are apparently unaware that Japan’s total savings rate is projected to collapse to 0.2 percent by 2024. As an example, household savings rates in Japan have been collapsing for some time.
Gray Menace
July 24, 2009
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/24/japans_coming_crisis_of_age
Japan’s Household Savings Ratio
Katsuhiko Masubuchi
Senior Research Fellow
ESRI, Cabinet Office
September 14, 2006
http://www.esri.go.jp/en/workshop/060914/masubuchi.pdf
Why Does Japan’s Saving Rate Decline So Rapidly?
Kentaro Katayama
Visiting Scholar
Policy Research Institute, Ministry of
Finance, Japan
December 2006
http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/soken/kenkyu/ron164.pdf
2slugbaits,
I know very well what Krugman has been saying. I’m not convinced thus far that another stimulus bill will do the job. We have two stimulus bills in the hopper. The second one has 75 percent remaining and 2010 carries most of that package. As for supposed job creation, some of those numbers are questionable as evidenced in state level analyses.
Meanwhile, the IMF has provided this country level debt forecast:
The State of Public Finances Cross-Country
Fiscal Monitor: November 2009
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2009/spn0925.pdf
General Government Debt (Gross)
In percent of GDP
Country 2007 2009 2010 2014
Argentina 67.9 60.5 58.1 46.4
Australia 9.8 16.9 22.7 27.8
Brazil 66.8 68.5 65.9 58.8
Canada 64.2 78.2 79.3 68.9
China 20.2 20.2 22.2 20.0
France 63.8 78.0 85.4 96.3
Germany 63.4 78.7 84.5 89.3
India 80.5 84.7 85.9 78.6
Indonesia 35.1 31.5 31.2 27.1
Italy 103.5 115.8 120.1 128.5
Japan 187.7 218.6 227.0 245.6
Korea 29.6 34.9 39.4 35.4
Mexico 38.2 47.8 47.9 44.3
Russia 7.4 7.2 7.7 7.2
Saudi Arabia 18.5 14.5 12.5 9.3
South Africa 28.5 30.8 33.5 34.8
Turkey 39.4 48.1 49.6 52.8
United Kingdom 44.1 68.7 81.7 98.3
United States 61.9 84.8 93.6 108.2
.
CRU email disclosures:
Comment 405 at RC covers a lot of ground.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-9/#comment-142647
Blurtman: what is your question supposed to prove? Would I be a US interrogator conselling Nazi war prisoners or a Nazi doing that? I don’t know what you mean by “terrorist”. The term is recent and, in my view, an euphemism for a Muslin anti-colonial warrior. If you would clarify your question, I could attempt to answer it. Don’t use the term “terrorist” that doesn’t describe a person, but perhaps a method of warfare.
MG: all the projections re debt are just that: projections not certainties. Italy has had a national debt higher than most nations for quite some time; ditto Japan. I don’t see that it has affected their standards of living. You think I am “ignorant” because I don’t read all your links, or because to my knowledge most nations around the world are suffering from the recent downturn. I don’t believe Italy and Japan are worse off than say, Russia or Guatemala. I didn’t say they were “doing fine” and neither are the UK or the USA or most of Europe. You seem to think that only Italy and Japan are not doing well. Not true.
2slugs, I missed you earlier reference to Joe Romm’s site. To be clear, I do not go to nor link to any of his articles. I do not believe anything said on that site, nor do I want any unsuspecting novice going there to be abused.
Mg, some pretty damning commentary in those emails.
I suspect most folks do not realize that these emails confirm nearly everything the skeptical community has been claiming for these many years.
I am especially concerned over the abuse of the “Peer Review” process. Skeptical scientist have claimed their papers were being blocked and/or inappropriately reviewed.
Yup! Sure have been.
MG: I can’t find any relationship between GDP decline and national debt level on the web that indicates the more debt the more decline. In fact the GDP decline in some cases is higher in nations with lower debt levels. Since you have all the info at your finger tips, please indicate to me statistics that clearly show that GDP decline has been greater the larger the nation’s debt level.
I know very well what Krugman has been saying. I’m not convinced thus far that another stimulus bill will do the job.
That I doubt, MG. Are you saying that stimulus spending doesn’t do anything? Or that it has not been sufficient so far to do as much as we would like (the argument of Krugman and Stiglitz)? Or that there is no relationship between stimulus spending and unemployment? The mere fact that you don’t “agree” with Krugman is meaningless.
Slugs,
I’ve never been happy with the allocation of the stimulus. Too much on tax cuts, which have a much weaker effect on aggregate demand. That’s not an opinion, it’s a result of some fairly straightforward math.
Your model is flawed since it can’t take into account the quality of what the government spends the money on. For instance, it shows the same benefit if the government has people dig holes and then fill them up right afterwards as with the private sector producing things that people actually want. When you do a tax cut you don’t have to try to manage this because what people value is reflected in their private purchases. There are many flaws in simple multipliers based on structural equations but the biggest ones is there is no accounting of the quality in what the government spends its money on.
Try Solow’s growth model and start with a steady state and then have the government start making consumption bigger and bigger and see what happens to the capital stock.
Also, we have 10.2 percent unemployment. How about showing how the positive government spending multiplier accounts for that. Remember, you’re quoting mathematical equations so platitudes won’t do here. My Keynesian model has employment growing with economic output. But again, reality is thumbing it’s nose at the Keynesian model — as it did in the late 30’s before FDR’s creating military industrial complex bailed out his presidency.
CoRev,
“2slugs, I missed you earlier reference to Joe Romm’s site.”
I only posted the link because it had an image from one of Murdoch’s papers with big END OF THE WORLD size type blathering on about the CRU hacking. I could have posted a link to one of his Australian papers that really went overboard…especially on the FOI stuff.
MG,
“I’m not convinced thus far that another stimulus bill will do the job.”
Another stimulus might not do the job, but we know for sure that doing nothing won’t do the job.
“We have two stimulus bills in the hopper. The second one has 75 percent remaining and 2010 carries most of that package.”
Not sure of your arithmetic here. The total ARRA ws $787B and as of the end of September $194.5B had gone out as tax cuts or outlays and another $146B had been obligated (i.e., just waiting for someone to present the bill for expenses incurred). That means there’s only 57% left and we’re only two months into FY2010.
“As for supposed job creation, some of those numbers are questionable as evidenced in state level analyses.”
Sounds like an argument for a bigger stimulus package.
Let me explain the importance of Climategate and what it has revealed. For the past decade plus you have not been seeing a complete picture. Science that did not agree with the “Team’s” view of Global Temperatures ere suppressed. Moreover, when they did get out there the scientists were ridiculed, with some pressure put on their contemporaries to get them to agree with “Team” views.
Vehicles used were often time captive reporters BBC, NYT, ABC Australia, etc. Real Climate, the blog run by the “Team” members was a key player in ridiculing competitive papers and enhancing, byond their natural value, “Team” papers. Other Blogs, climate Progress, Deotoid, DeSmog Blog (a blog run by a PR firm), and several more were counterparts to Real Climate.
The end result: 1) you have been lied to:
2) you have seen only part of the actual science,
3) the AGW issue has been thoroughly propagandized with dissension beaten back.
You have formed opinions on this limited scientifically weak information. The release of these emails has finally shown the extent of actions and verified that it was ongoing.
The general population has obviously had some discomfort with the current science as the polls have shown dramatic slippage in support for action on AGW.
“Your model is flawed since it can’t take into account the quality of what the government spends the money on.”
Didn’t they teach you the difference between aggregate demand and aggregate supply curves? The problem is weak aggregate demand. It would be great if we used the stimulus dollars on projects that would yield a social return long after the recession fades away, but your GOP politicians balked and wanted to piss the money away.
“When you do a tax cut you don’t have to try to manage this because what people value is reflected in their private purchases.”
The problem is that this is the ONLY stimulative effect that you get. With government spending you get the first order effect (i.e., the direct spending) as well as the second order effects (i.e., the multipliers). I thought they taught you that in school.
“Try Solow’s growth model and start with a steady state and then have the government start making consumption bigger and bigger and see what happens to the capital stock.”
Start with a steady state??? Excuse me, but the economy is in a liquidity trap right now. There is no crowding out of private investment right now. None. Zilch. Nada. If we had private capital spending then we wouldn’t be in a recession! You’re point is ridiculous because you begin by assuming away the problem and then wonder why we need a stimlulus.
Your last paragraph is so confused that I hardly know where to begin. Employment always lags output coming out of a recession. This is not a surprise. In fact, it would be a surprise if employment did bounce back that quickly. The rest of your post seems to be an appeal to magical thinking. You don’t need no stink’n math or models…you just take it as an article of faith that more tax cuts will end the recession, wipe out the deficit, and cure cancer to boot.
CoRev,
“The end result: 1) you have been lied to:
2) you have seen only part of the actual science,
3) the AGW issue has been thoroughly propagandized with dissension beaten back.”
So….this weekend you’re telling us that the globe is not getting warmer??? It’s so hard for me to keep up with each week’s new position.
Chris,
Let me recap from the beginning. You made this ridiculous statement: “The US’s total debt is not unprecedented and nations with more debt are not falling apart.”
I responded and cited OECD reports directly and as cited in a few news articles. I also cited one IMF report further down the thread in responding to 2slugbaits.
You’ve have engaged in an endless and useless rant since I first responded to your wild-eyed claim. You can ignore studies and citations from OECD and IMF, but you do so at your expense. Both organizations provide pretty good research.
The IMF report that I cited lays out the situation reasonably well. Once a person grasps that information, it would difficult to paint rosy pictures for some advanced nations. The fiscal problems by 2014 may be very serious. IMF explains why.
In summary, here’s why Japan is in trouble:
“Over the past decade, Japan’s debt-to-GDP level has jumped to more than 170%, from below 100%. And that’s not counting debts held by local governments. All in, according to IMF data, the debt-to-GDP figure breached 200% in 2008 and will top 225% in 2010.”
“In the past, Japanese savings helped keep interest charges on the debt around 1%. “As late as 1999,” Mauldin notes, “personal savings plus pensions were running at 12% and had been as high as 16%. And much of those savings went into government debt. The government kept borrowing, and rates stayed in the area of 1%. Today, a 10-year bond yields 1.3% in Japan, so they could run up a very large debt and the interest-rate cost was not a big factor in the budget.” But the landscape is changing. “Japan is a rapidly aging nation,” Mauldin explains. “The population is shrinking, and the birth rate is among the lowest in the world. And the dependency ratio is starting to rise.” There are 1.2 non-productive Japanese citizens (under 15 years old and over 64) for every productive one. The ratio will be two-to-one by 2020 and keep growing from there. With more retirees, Japanese savings are headed for negative territory. They have already dropped to 1.8%, from about 18% in 1991.”
“Raising taxes isn’t a productive option. And Japan is currently borrowing 30%–40% of its annual budget. Interest expense on the national debt sits around 18%. So far, there has been no collapse in government-bond prices or a surge in yields. But the nation will issue IOUs worth at least ¥33 trillion ($371.6 billion) this year, when national annual net savings have fallen to just ¥5 trillion ($56.3 billion). Japan now needs to compete for foreign investors in a global buyer’s market, supplied by politicians looking to finance deficit spending worth about US$5 trillion (almost 9% of world GDP last year) in 2009. And if rates rise by just 1%, Mauldin says interest alone could eat 100% of tax revenues in less than 10 years.”
Debt: It’s big in Japan
September 14, 2009
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/strategy/article.jsp?content=20090914_10012_10012
Hiroko Tabuchi also did a pretty good job with this story:
Rising Debt a Threat to Japanese Economy
October 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/business/global/21yen.html
2slugbaits – “Not sure of your arithmetic here. The total ARRA ws $787B and as of the end of September $194.5B had gone out as tax cuts or outlays and another $146B had been obligated (i.e., just waiting for someone to present the bill for expenses incurred). That means there’s only 57% left and we’re only two months into FY2010.”
We’ve already been through this drill. The schedule for the bill called for 23% payout in FY 2010. We’re slightly ahead of that amount. It doesn’t matter if 20,000 additional contracts were obligated in September because those will be paid out in FY 2011 or later. Pay out is what matters, not contract awards or multi-year performance periods. The IMF has explained and presented the information just as I did, by the way.
“Pay out is what matters, not contract awards or multi-year performance periods.”?
No. That’s what an accountant would say, not an economist. The point of the stimulus is not to pay out money, it’s to stimulate economic activity. The economic activity is what counts. Note that the CEA understands the difference, which is why they report outlays, tax cuts and obligations.
MG,
Japan is in a bad way and they have been for quite awhile. And they have a high debt/GDP ratio. But you seem to be implicitly assuming that the high debt/GDP ratio is somehow responsible for Japan’s predicament. It’s not. The reason Japan is in this mess is because they won’t commit to inflation and they won’t commit to fiscal stimulus. Japan refuses to commit to any rational response and as a result they’ve found themselves frozen in a kind of economic no man’s land for the last two decades.
Slugs,
There you go again with that liguidity trap nonesense. Interest rates are low because the fed is keeping them that way to goose the economy. Why do you think they’re rolling in dough on Wall Street? What a bizzaro world you think we’re living in. Keynes said he never saw or heard of a liquidity trap in the real world, and he was looking over his shoulder at the depression with 25 percent unemployment. Today, the banking sector who you claim can’t make a dime in profits because of your phantom liquidity trap is on schedule to make record profits and pay huge bonuses this year.
For them these banks are at the right place at the right time. The real story behind the growth in the economy is not Obama’s Potemkin stimulus but rather the action of the Fed in flooding the banking system with money which in turn is driving up the stock market which is spilling over onto the real economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/business/18wall.html
On the economic model the difference in the multiplier in the numerator with government spending having the value of 1 and the tax cuts having the marginal propensity to consume which generally is around 2/3. Of course the missing 1/3 goes to the consumer savings which build up his wealth — which is not such a bad thing given a primary driver of the recession was the consumer’s loss in wealth.
But you did dodge the issue on the quality of the government spending and also the fact that the Keynesian model that you’re using a baby version of has government spending increasing GDP and employment. Employment did not improve so the model has a flaw in it.
MG – “Pay out is what matters, not contract awards or multi-year performance periods.”
2slugbaits – “No. That’s what an accountant would say, not an economist. The point of the stimulus is not to pay out money, it’s to stimulate economic activity. The economic activity is what counts. Note that the CEA understands the difference, which is why they report outlays, tax cuts and obligations.”
As I have explained, we’ve been over this previously. At length.
You’re trying to count 21,881 contracts identified at recovery.gov that have been awarded but have not been started. You can’t count them nor the award amounts as stimulus in FY 2010 because nothing happened. Similarly, you’re attempting to count some tax credits that haven’t been paid out and won’t be until tax returns are filed in CY 2010. An analyst can’t count awards for FY 2010 that did not result in any pay out in the same fiscal year. A contract awarded in FY 2010 that doesn’t call for performance until FY 2012 does not get credited to pay out in FY 2010. It’s not more complicated.
The government’s primary web site on this issue, recovery.gov, provides the pay out totals. Funds received, as identified by the U.S. Government, represent the bottom line. Funds awarded represent a promise for payment but not until performance occurs if contracts are involved. The schedule for the bill was specific and the pay outs are in general alignment with that plan. Your approach doesn’t come close to the bill performance schedule. You’re trying to act as though 43% of the bill funding has been absorbed into the economy and that simply isn’t true.
2slugbaits – “Japan is in a bad way and they have been for quite awhile. And they have a high debt/GDP ratio. But you seem to be implicitly assuming that the high debt/GDP ratio is somehow responsible for Japan’s predicament. It’s not. The reason Japan is in this mess is because they won’t commit to inflation and they won’t commit to fiscal stimulus. Japan refuses to commit to any rational response and as a result they’ve found themselves frozen in a kind of economic no man’s land for the last two decades.”
I’ve read information about Japan’s economy and fiscal operations for thirty years. You haven’t said anything that I haven’t read or heard countless times. If you want to argue about the OECD and IMF reports on Japan, knock yourself out. Same for the news articles.
I haven’t said much about the specifics of Japan’s economic mess, other than to cite OECD and IMF reports and a few news articles. Put your argument where it belongs. If you think that you know more than the researchers at OECD and IMF about Japan’s present economic situation, present your case in far more detail.
***The reason Japan is in this mess is because they won’t commit to inflation and they won’t commit to fiscal stimulus. Japan refuses to commit to any rational response and as a result they’ve found themselves frozen in a kind of economic no man’s land for the last two decades.***
That’s not very accurate. Japan has tried very hard to kick start their economy. The high debt to GDP ratio is a result of their failed attempts at fiscal stimulus. Or maybe the attempts have been successful and they would have had massive deflation over and above the busting of their huge equity and real property bubbles in 1990 without the stimulus. No one, least of all the Japanese, really knows.
Japan’s situation is no where near as simple as you seem to think it is.
There are probably other Western economists who have useful things to say, but the guy I would recommend is Paul Krugman because he is a competent economist, writes very clearly and has written very extensively about Japan. Here’s a link that in turn links to many of his other articles and papers on Japan from the late 1990s. http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/jpage.html
I have the sense that Krugman is very concerned that the US could be headed down the path that Japan took. Here’s Krugman from March of this year.
“Well, I’m sure I’m not the only person to notice this: Japan doesn’t look so bad these days.
For one thing, the famed sluggishness of Japanese policy — the refusal to face up to banking system losses and pour in the funds needed to recapitalize the system, the refusal to let zombie banks die, the stop-go nature of fiscal policy, with concerns about rising debt warring with concerns about the economy — all of that seems entirely comprehensible now, doesn’t it? Even with the knowledge of what happened to Japan to motivate us, so far we’re following exactly the same path. …”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/japan-reconsidered/
His concern is based in the reality that economists, politicians, astrologers, right wing flakes, marxists, prhenologists, magicians … et. al. have not the slightest idea how to get Japan off the track that it is on. Their track is quite different than anything in modern Western economic experience other than possibly the great depression.
The difference is that the depression ended eventually. Japan’s lost decade just goes on and on.
Overall, Japan’s economic situation looks to be unique, troubling, mysterious, and appears to follow economic rules and principles imported from some other dimension. Fortuitously for the Japanese, they are probably better equipped to deal with the social consequences of an zero growth economy than any other large country in the world. I fear that if other large industrial countries — and particularly the US — stumble into the same situation, the outcome will be very bad.
WRT to committing to inflation, It is apparently remarkably difficult to kindle inflation in an economy where no one wants to take on debt or spend money. You can print money, but if no one will cart the stuff off even at zero interest rates, significant inflation just doesn’t seem to happen.
As noted the Japanese population has reaced an age profile that tends to un-save rather than one that saves (deficit in the 40-60 age group relative to others). I suspect that the same thing is happenig/will happen in Europe. Think about it with 20% of its population over 65 and with the high average marriage age is the rate of household formation positive or negative? If negative think of all the ways that pulls an economy down, starting with the direct housing sector. Since this population decline issue has not been seen before, its not clear that its full impact is understood by economists. But in the end to a large sense we know that demography is destiny.
“An analyst can’t count awards for FY 2010 that did not result in any pay out in the same fiscal year.”
Yes, we’ve been over this before. Unfortunately you’re still thinking like an accountant and this quote above is the smoking gun. First order economic activity is driven by the expectation of a reimbursement, not the reimbursement (or pay out) itself. Pay outs only have second order effects. That’s one reason why the fiscal multiplier for government spending is greater than it is for tax cuts. Economic activity begins when businesses start planning around a future disbursement from the Treasury. Businesses will elect to retain workers rather than lay them off if there is an expectation of new government business. Companies that have been awarded contracts will take out loans, sign agreements to rent capital equipment, attend job fairs at colleges, build up inventories, etc. All of that is economic activity that happens well in advance of any actual payout. One of the first things you should have learned in econ 101 when studying the Keynesian Cross was the difference between planned investment and actual investment and how it’s the difference between those two that affects the business cycle.
Today, 7:37:33 AM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
I haven’t said much about the specifics of Japan’s economic mess, other than to cite OECD and IMF reports and a few news articles.
Then what exactly was your point? Citing OECD and IMF reports that tell us Japan has a big debt is not telling us anything that we don’t already know. If you’ve been reading IMF reports for very long, then you should know that they always say debt is godawful. They’re bankers! The IMF has a pretty miserable record when it comes to offering economic advice…ask Joe Stiglitz. Ask Krugman. The IMF’s prescription for everything is more economic pain to purge the system of rottenness. No one doubts that big debts make it harder to do the right thing in when you’re in a liquidity trap. That’s why some of us heap so much blame on the Bushies because they heaped on debt at precisely the time they should have been running surpluses. That put a bind in our ability to manage future crises. But we are where are and so is Japan. Given that we are in a liquidity trap and there are no other options available, the question of the national debt is a bit irrelevant at the moment. Based on the historical experiences of other countries we know that we can run a debt/GDP ratio that is much higher than where we’re currently at and the sky won’t fall in. If we had other options, then I doubt that anyone would want to go this route, but we don’t. And IMF “Treasury View” prescriptions are worst of all. Their typical response is to treat countries like private debtors and send in a team to begin fiscally conservative policies, talk of “belt tightening”, and the priority of getting the debt down. My advice is to use the IMF for data, but skip reading their economic prescriptions.
ask Joe Stiglitz. Ask Krugman.
If they give another Noble Prize to a socialist economist then we’ll have the three stooges. I think Krugman make a great Moe, Stigliz can be Curley, now we need a Larry.
Oh Krugman and Stiglitz those big BAD socialist economists. Buddy, I don’t think you know what socialism is. Most of the advice they have been giving recently is about how to rescue a capitalist system that ran off the rails. As I said once before you learn a lot about people’s intelligence by noting whom they like and whom they diss.
Here’s a piece that might be of interest to MG who is so alarmed by our debt level:
http://baselinescenario.com/2009/11/20/government-debt-hysteria/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BaselineScenario+%28The+Baseline+Scenario%29
Re: “the Global Warming story of the year, and maybe the century”
Leave it to the English majors to bring their Strunk & White’s “The Elements of Style” to a statistics fight……
2slugbaits,
If you have specific complaints about the analysis provided in the IMF note (report) that I cited, then state them. I happen to agree with the general concerns outlined. Similarly, if you disagree with the OECD analysis, state that as well. And the same for the news articles other than the one you commented on upthread which was based on OECD statements.
The advanced nations are headed for a storm regarding financing of existing debt and projected debt increases. IMF staffers are of the opinion that we will start to see the fallout around 2014. I expect that they’re right.
In reading your comments, it appears that you didn’t read the IMF note that I cited. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about as a result. In other words, you’re not looking forward and addressing what is projected to unfold. Both OECD and IMF have done that.
JackNYC, the first leg of this three legged stool, now called Climategate, is the emails. The second leg looks to be the software coding used to manage/massage/manipulate/ the data or whatever scientific term with which you may be comfortable. The third will be the data.
One reviewer had this to say about a preliminary look at it: “People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing.”
Next the data, and how it has been managed/massaged/manipulated/ to show the appropriate and acceptable picture.
I suspect once the real scientists get a look at the complete picture many of the ?scientific? studies and reports produced by the Team using these data and software may be removed from the archives of the Journals in which they were printed.
I forgot the link: http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/these-will-be-artificially-adjusted/
Don’t forget to read the commentary in the S/W. Very interesting.
Corev,
After all the abuse you have taken here at AB over this topic, I applaud your efforts. You have been spot on an overwhleming amount of the time.
I doubt the people who believe in this lie religously will ever offer you what you are due, especially after this smoking gun. This story is going to be one of the biggest political scandals in history.
Great Job!
The only thing I can add, is that I knew this all along, of course rounding up evidence to prove it was always very difficult, but in the end it was common sense, and I will never understand the people who had faith with an overwhelming amount of evidence to help them “see the light.” I guess, it was something they needed to believe, or they knew it deep down inside, and were merely using the arguement to push a political agenda!
Either way, this stuff is finally coming out, and it is just the tip of the IceBerg, and not a minute to soon either!
Chris,
Seek Help! I would recommend a prescription, but never be ashamed to go talk to someone. Your clearly a little unbalanced right now, and it could be something as simple as your diet.
Good Luck!
MG,
I don’t think you understand the IMF reports. Chapter 3 of the IMF’s April 2009 outlook essentially refutes everything you thought you read. Their gist of chapter 3 is that an expansive fiscal policy is effective when an economy is in a recession due to a financial system shock. Debt is a secondary concern.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/pdf/text.pdf
Chapter 3 got a lot of buzz over the summer and there were several NBER papers that repeated the IMF’s analysis.
CoRev,
It appears that the request to delete those emails was made well after the FOI requests had been denied (15 months later). Under US law it would have been illegal to delete emails pending an FOI request, but upon resolution of the FOI request there is no legal requirement to retain documents for FOI purposes. There may be some other reason to retain those documents, but it would not be an abuse of FOI guidelines.
slugs,
If you have a bitch about how the U.S. Government has organized and reported information at the recovery.gov web site, take it up with them. I doubt that you have spoken with anyone responsible for manning that web site.
You’re pretending that 21,881 contracts that have been awarded but which have not begun should be credited to FY 2009. It’s an idiotic line of thinking. You can’t begin to prove that contractors have done a damn thing in preparation for any of those contracts for which there has been absolutely no performance whatsoever.
I am a former federal contracting officer (KO), so don’t try to play the “get ready” game with me. I know how many types of federal and state contracts work. A contract awarded in September that calls for the start of performance in the following year does not represent the same effect on the U.S. economy as one that has been initiated or completely in the fiscal year upon which it was awarded.
Similarly, you want to pretend that all tax credits have already been paid out. That is also BS.
Show me a document from CEA that disputes what the recovery.gov web site indicates. Otherwise, you’re talking through your hat.
slugs,
Stop pretending to know what the Nov 2009 IMF note states if you haven’t bothered to read it. I read it page for page. I also read the July 2009 note and the previous reports including the outlooks. I only cited the Nov 2009 note.
Don’t try to play the know-it-all game with me. Either you have read the Nov 2009 note and grasp its contents or you haven’t. You have yet to say one word that indicates that you have read and fully understood that document.
I think you’re clueless on what the Nov 2009 IMF note stated.
MG
I would suppose at some point there is a limit on how much we can borrow and how much we ought to borrow. I don’t see slugs or Krugman making a guess on what that limit is. They as liberals seem to be in the mode of grab whatever you can and put permanently in the hands of the government until people catch on. Did you see an exit strategy in Krugman’s column today. How about on some other day.
Cantab,
Paul Krugman and a few others are pushing a piece of string (a new stimulus bill). Any views or subjects raised that appear to interfere with that objective are considered the opposition.
Paul has yet to provide a thorough analysis of federal financing required going forward. I am not convinced that it is on his radar. But it is on the radar of others.
I would like to see Paul respond to this worst case analysis:
Société Générale Worst Case Debt Scenario
Released to clients in Nov 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22776263/Societe-Generale-Worst-Case-Debt-Scenario-Fourth-Quarter-Nov-2009
2slugs, I’m still convinced you just throw things against the wall to see what sticks. The theory that is best for me is: The file was actually a working file for answering one or more of the FOIAs. It was placed on a public access FTP server, and the wrong person saw and downloaded it.
The last email was from 11/12. BTW the the most recent FOIA request turn down was 11/13.
This story has legs. It will not affect the short term, but the whole alarmist storyline is bereft of substance. The HS is finally dead, and you know why that is meaningful.
I suppose that Paul Krugman missed this news:
Treasury sells $16 bln in 30-year bonds at 4.469%
Nov. 12, 2009
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/treasury-sells-16-bln-in-30-year-bonds-at-4469-2009-11-12-139230
U.S. 30-year bonds get cold shoulder, market falls
Nov 12, 2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN1032219620091112
Sorry, that was me!
MG,
I have read the Nov IMF. What it says does not support your claims. The Nov IMF (as well as the April 2009 report) says that fiscal stimulus in the advancing countries should continue to be part of the recovery. The report does recommend that advanced countries begin to think about exit strategies, but their comments make it clear that while it’s okay to plan exit strategies, it is too early to act on them. This is consistent with IMF’s April 2009 report, which says that financial led recessions take a long time to recover and MUST include strong fiscal stimulus. The IMF describes short, medium and long term strategies.
Oh…buried towards the end of the November IMF report is a little comment about expenditures of ARRA through September.
I think they’re looking for that sucker born every minute.
MG,
Go read Brad Delong’s response.
You’re argument about 2014 is irrelevant to the main thread of this discussion. No one is saying that an advanced nation can pile up huge deficits forever and ever. If that’s the point that you’re trying to make, then it’s not news. The issue is the short run, not the medium or long run. What Krugman is saying is that over the short run we should not be overly concerned about larger deficits while we’re still in a liquidity trap. Aggressive fiscal policy is the only option available. The point of running larger deficits today is not to provide excuses for running larger deficits 5 years out. The point of running larger deficits to day is so that we can get the economy growing. Once the economy gets back on its feet, then it will be time to raise taxes and cut discretionary spending. But if we don’t get the economy going by 2014, then we’ll have much bigger problems to deal with than just big debts. And the IMF paper says that aggressive fiscal policy (read big deficits) is necessary to get the advanced economies going again.
Slugs,
Again we’re not in a liquidity trap. 3.5 percent growth and record profits in the banking sector tells us we are not in a liquidity trap. How can aggressive fiscal policy be the only answer when krugman is misrepresenting what they questions are. Its time to pull the plug on the socialists. They can’t be trusted, they’re working for their agenda and don’t care at all about us in the middle class.
2slugbaits – Today, 9:09:08 PM – “You’re argument about 2014 is irrelevant to the main thread of this discussion.”
Don’t be an idiot. This is an open thread. I responded to a specific statement made by Chris and things unfolded from there.
2slugbaits – Today, 8:56:27 PM – “MG, I have read the Nov IMF. What it says does not support your claims.”
Prove it. Here are all of my statements related to the Nov 09 IMF Note and IMF reports in general.
MG to Chris – 2 days ago, 3:39:56 PM:
Chris, your comments demonstrate little knowledge of what is unfolding on the global economic front. I doubt that you read OECD or IMF reports on a regular basis. For you to pretend that Japan and Italy are doing fine demonstrates your level of economic ignorance.
MG to 2slugbaits – 2 days ago, 4:07:27 PM:
Meanwhile, the IMF has provided this country level debt forecast:
The State of Public Finances Cross-Country
Fiscal Monitor: November 2009
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2009/spn0925.pdf
General Government Debt (Gross)
In percent of GDP
Country 2007 2009 2010 2014
Argentina 67.9 60.5 58.1 46.4
Australia 9.8 16.9 22.7 27.8
Brazil 66.8 68.5 65.9 58.8
Canada 64.2 78.2 79.3 68.9
China 20.2 20.2 22.2 20.0
France 63.8 78.0 85.4 96.3
Germany 63.4 78.7 84.5 89.3
India 80.5 84.7 85.9 78.6
Indonesia 35.1 31.5 31.2 27.1
Italy 103.5 115.8 120.1 128.5
Japan 187.7 218.6 227.0 245.6
Korea 29.6 34.9 39.4 35.4
Mexico 38.2 47.8 47.9 44.3
Russia 7.4 7.2 7.7 7.2
Saudi Arabia 18.5 14.5 12.5 9.3
South Africa 28.5 30.8 33.5 34.8
Turkey 39.4 48.1 49.6 52.8
United Kingdom 44.1 68.7 81.7 98.3
United States 61.9 84.8 93.6 108.2
MG to Chris – 2 days ago, 7:49:37 PM:
Chris,
Let me recap from the beginning. You made this ridiculous statement: “The US’s total debt is not unprecedented and nations with more debt are not falling apart.”
I responded and cited OECD reports directly and as cited in a few news articles. I also cited one IMF report further down the thread in responding to 2slugbaits.
You’ve have engaged in an endless and useless rant since I first responded to your wild-eyed claim. You can ignore studies and citations from OECD and IMF, but you do so at your expense. Both organizations provide pretty good research.
The IMF report that I cited lays out the situation reasonably well. Once a person grasps that information, it would difficult to paint rosy pictures for some advanced nations. The fiscal problems by 2014 may be very serious. IMF explains why.
MG to 2slugbaits – Yesterday, 2:29:32 PM:
If you have specific complaints about the analysis provided in the IMF note (report) that I cited, then state them. I happen to agree with the general concerns outlined. Similarly, if you disagree with the OECD analysis, state that as well. And the same for the news articles other than the one you commented on upthread which was based on OECD statements.
The advanced nations are headed for a storm regarding financing of existing debt and projected debt increases. IMF staffers are of the opinion that we will start to see the fallout around 2014. I expect that they’re right.
In reading your comments, it appears that you didn’t read the IMF note that I cited. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about as a result. In other words, you’re not looking forward and addressing what is projected to unfold. Both OECD and IMF have done that.
MG to 2slugbaits – Today, 7:41:17 PM:
Stop pretending to know what the Nov 2009 IMF note states if you haven’t bothered to read it. I read it page for page. I also read the July 2009 note and the previous reports including the outlooks. I only cited the Nov 2009 note.
Don’t try to play the know-it-all game with me. Either you have read the Nov 2009 note and grasp its contents or you haven’t. You have yet to say one word that indicates that you have read and fully understood that document.
I think you’re clueless on what the Nov 2009 IMF note stated.
2slugbaits – Today, 9:50:53 PM – “Oh…buried towards the end of the November IMF report is a little comment about expenditures of ARRA through September.”
Buried towards the end of the report? The following information is stated on page 9 of 49 in the report:
Table 2. G-20 Countries: Implementation of Stimulus Packages
Implementation Status
“United States Recovery.gov reports that $86 billion worth of spending had been released by federal agencies through mid-September, while over $62 billion of tax relief had been granted. This implies that more than half of the total expected stimulus for CY 2009 has been paid out to date. A large share of the stimulus is being implemented at the state level, where tracking is more difficult.”
IMF focused on what has been paid out. Same approach that I have undertaken using goverment data at recovery.gov.
2slugbaits,
See my responses at the end of this thread. I have provided the statements that I have made on this open thread regarding the Nov 09 IMF Note. Prove that any of my statements are false.
CoRev,
Yeah, that’s probably the answer. Everything is pointing that way. It would take too many hours to hack in, locate and organize the emails/reports, delete the email addresses, sort, and pull together in one file without someone noticing what was happening. I think the file was sitting there on an accessible server…someone opened it…eyes popped…then downloaded it. Gavin has wasted his time promoting the hack line on this one. It’s reasonably clear that the 63 mb file was sitting there. An insider released it or someone spotted it.
Bottom line on CRU emails:
NOVEMBER 24, 2009
Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html
EXCERPT:
But Dr. von Storch, now at the University of Hamburg’s Meteorological Institute, said Monday that the behavior outlined in the hacked emails went too far.
East Anglia researchers “violated a fundamental principle of science,” he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. “They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable,” he added. “They play science as a power game.”
.
MG,
You’re posting numbers that are not in dispute. Hell, even Krugman posted those exact same numbers from the IMF. No one is arguing that the debt as a percent of GDP won’t end up being something like 108 percent of GDP by 2014. That is not the issue, so I don’t know why you keep reposting the same stuff. There are two issues worth discussing. The first is whether or not the world will come to an end if the US has a debt to GDP ratio of 108 percent. The historical evidence suggests that the world will go on and the US will not default. Things will be uncomfortable for taxpayers, but the burden will not be crushing. We’ve endured worse before and other countries with far less stable political systems have managed to chug along with even higher debt to GDP ratios. And they’ve done so for decades. The sky will not fall down. The second issue is whether or not we should begin cutting back on the deficit right now (in the short term) or hold off until the economy gets its feet back on the ground. The IMF report…both in Nov and April…is pretty clear. Advanced countries should put the debt issue on the backburner for now. The most that the IMF was willing to say was that countries should start to develop an exit plan for deficit spending. You seem to be arguing that we need to begin cutting back on fiscal stimulus now because things will spin out of control if we don’t act immediately. This is chicken little stuff. The day will come when we need to raise taxes and cut spending. This isn’t that day.
CoRev,
Note…the last FOI request was turned down. The last in a long line denials.
I think there are two separate issues regarding CRU’s FOI denial. If they denied access to the data for all researchers, then that’s bad. Good science requires access and verifiability. That’s one issue. But I don’t think there is or should be a requirement that data should be made available to every Tom, Dick, Harry or Steve that comes along. And that is a separate issue. The gist of some of the emails suggests that the FOI requests were denied because the requests were coming from interested laypersons without formal training in climate science rather than academic or government research scientists.
2slugbaits,
Stop faking it.
You stated this: 2slugbaits – Yesterday, 8:56:27 PM – “MG, I have read the Nov IMF. What it says does not support your claims.”
I responded with this: “Prove it. Here are all of my statements related to the Nov 09 IMF Note and IMF reports in general.”
You come back with endless chatter, but you didn’t identify any incorrect statements. None.
Your false accusations have no place on this blog.
You have no idea what I think. I presented two sides of the picture. You appear to be fully incapable of seeing anything other than through one lens. I consider that an ignorant approach to analysis.
2slugs, said the last??????? How in the world would anyone, but the last submitter or the FOI officer know what the last one was. You certainly do not.
Throw something to see if it sticks. Not very good analysis, and even worse reporting.
2lsugs,
The data supporting AGW has been revealed to be inadequate and also manipulated. I know AGW is somewhat a religion to you and it fits in with your whole central control desires. But it’s time to use your logical brain now. Heck even coberly has sense enough not to defend this.
Climatgate denialists (with only one exception) have been strangely silent on this subject. I actually expected more from the Real Climate readers here, but Climategate must have devestated even their belief structure.
The more detailed reviews of the S/W program codes used to process the raw CRU data are coming in, and the astonishing information contained in the emails are overwhelmed by the blatant data manipulation shown in these programs. Manipulation to make the proxy data match the temperture data which we already know is horrid. GIGO, and the garbage is matched against worse garbage.
Sheesh!
2slugbaits – “But I don’t think there is or should be a requirement that data should be made available to every Tom, Dick, Harry or Steve that comes along. And that is a separate issue. The gist of some of the emails suggests that the FOI requests were denied because the requests were coming from interested laypersons without formal training in climate science rather than academic or government research scientists.”
This issue isn’t wrapped around what you think. The issue is mandatory compliance with the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000. I provided government and university links for the Act on the first page of this comment thread. What part of the Act do you not understand?
The university guidance is clear:
University of East Anglia – FOIA Requests for Information
http://www.uea.ac.uk/csed/programme2/pp/foi
and
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/foi_requests
“As of 1 January 2005, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 gave everyone the right of access to information held by government, local authorities and public bodies including universities. All of UEA’s digital and printed records – whether current or archived – are now open to greater scrutiny and many UEA staff will potentially be affected.”
“Requests can come into the university at any point, from anywhere in the world, and it is vital that staff keep their records in order so we can respond to requests.”
It sounds like 2slugbaits also doesn’t agree with the U.S. FOIA requirements. Too bad… The law is what it is. Period.