Yemen uprising: Sana'a rocked by night of fierce fighting

Yemen's capital has been rocked by a night of deafening explosions and gunfire as troops loyal to the president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, battled with rebel tribesmen and defected soldiers for control of the city.

The violence was some of the fiercest in months and has prompted fears that the fate of the country's nine-month civilian uprising may be sliding into the hands of Yemen's fractious armed forces.

The fighting broke out around 11pm on Sunday with sporadic bursts of gunfire. By dawn a series of huge explosions had ripped through buildings in the north, echoing around the surrounding mountains.

Three teenage protesters were severely wounded when a hail of rockets thudded into Change Square – the tented shantytown in central Sana'a where thousands of demonstrators have been camped out since February calling for Saleh's resignation. It is the fourth time in the past month that shells have fallen on the camp.

"Their wounds are appalling," said Anas Noman, a third-year medical student volunteering in the camp's mosque, now a field hospital. "We've transferred one of them to a nearby hospital for an amputation of his leg."

Read full.

Pat Rocha (1959)

Streamline World

Remembering Mrs. Smith

Departure

Dreamer Scheamer

The Spinster

Playing For Walt

Not Easy Being Green

Do The Freddy

Pride Of Fidelity

Presence Crossing

Burden Of MemoryDance Sister Dance

Source: American gallery.

What to Do with Super-Achievers? Arnold Kling

The organizations that come into existence will reflect the opportunities provided by the institutional matrix. That is, if the institutional framework rewards piracy then piratical organizations will come into existence; and if the institutional framework rewards productive activities then organizations—firms—will come into existence to engage in productive activities.

—Douglass North, Nobel Prize Lecture, December 9, 1993.

Steven Jobs, the late co-founder of Apple Computer, and Steven Chu, the current secretary of Energy, are both examples of super-achievers. Jobs created an innovative company that is currently among the most valuable in the world as measured by stock market capitalization. Chu earned a Nobel Prize in physics and sees himself as a leader in the battle against global warming.

At this point, it seems likely that Jobs will be remembered as having contributed significantly to human progress. Chu's historical legacy is more problematic. Assuming that Chu's efforts at promoting solar power and electric automobiles are no more successful than the Carter-era effort to build a breeder reactor, they will end in dismal failure. Is there a lesson to be learned from this about where society should want its super-achievers to perform?

It is certainly not the case that Jobs was more intelligent or noble than Chu. However, they operated within different institutional frameworks. In this essay, I argue that society is better off when people with the “animal spirits” to seek to become super-achievers do their striving within the private sector rather than if they hold the levers of power in government.

I would like to see a culture where super-achievers look to the (non-banking) private sector as the arena for attempting to realize their visions. Government should be an arena for quiet competence, not for those who aspire to great achievement.

Read full.

Source: Francisco Capella.

Gas against wind. Matt Ridley

Not convinced? The gas well requires no subsidy – in fact it pays a hefty tax to the government – whereas the wind turbines each cost you a substantial add-on to your electricity bill, part of which goes to the rich landowner whose land they stand on. Wind power costs three times as much as gas-fired power. Make that nine times if the wind farm is offshore. And that’s assuming the cost of decommissioning the wind farm is left to your children – few will last 25 years.

Decided yet? I forgot to mention something. If you choose the gas well, that’s it, you can have it. If you choose the wind farm, you are going to need the gas well too. That’s because when the wind does not blow you will need a back-up power station running on something more reliable. But the bloke who builds gas turbines is not happy to build one that only operates when the wind drops, so he’s now demanding a subsidy, too.

The best thing about cheap gas is whom it annoys. The Russians and the Iranians hate it because they thought they were going to corner the gas market in the coming decades. The greens hate it because it destroys their argument that fossil fuels are going to get more and more costly till even wind and solar power are competitive. The nuclear industry ditto. The coal industry will be a big loser (incidentally, as somebody who gets some income from coal, I declare that writing this article is against my vested interest).

Little wonder a furious attempt to blacken shale gas’s reputation is under way, driven by an unlikely alliance of big green, big coal, big nuclear and conventional gas producers. The environmental objections to shale gas are almost comically fabricated or exaggerated. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking uses 99.86% water and sand, the rest being a dilute solution of a few chemicals of the kind you find beneath your kitchen sink.

Read full.

Contra los estabilizadores automáticos. Juan Ramón Rallo

Uno de los logros de los que se encuentran más orgullosos todos los keynesianos es de haber instaurado un sistema de "estabilizadores automáticos" que actúen como contrapeso contra los movimientos cíclicos de la economía. Dentro de esta categoría se incluyen los impuestos vinculados a la actividad económica, especialmente cuando son progresivos (IRPF y en menor medida Sociedades o IVA) y los subsidios de desempleo. Así las cosas, cuando la economía va bien, los ingresos fiscales aumentan y el gasto en prestaciones de paro se reducen, y cuando la economía va mal, los ingresos fiscales se hunden y el gasto asistencial aumenta. En definitiva, en tiempos de bonanza, el Estado amasa un superávit presupuestario y enfría al sector privado retirándole "poder adquisitivo", mientras que en tiempos de depresión el Estado incurre en déficit para recalentar al sector privado cobrándole menos tributos y otorgándole más subsidios de desempleo. Desde el punto de vista del gasto el asunto es muy sencillo: sube el gasto privado, el Estado lo rebaja; cae el gasto privado, el Estado lo incrementa. Asunto terminado: como el Estado contribuye a estabilizar la demanda merced a estos instrumentos no discrecionales, también contribuye a estabilizar la economía. Son, pues, estabilizadores automáticos. Sencillo, ¿no? No tanto, pues el marco keynesiano es lo que tiene: que es falso.

La solución última a dinámicas crediticias distorsionadoras no vendrá de la planificación ingenieril de expansiones o contracciones automáticas del gasto (público o privado), especialmente cuando esa planificación tiene su fundamento en una teoría económica deficiente como la keynesiana. Si queremos evitar de verdad los auges expansivos artificiales y salir lo antes posible de las depresiones, basta con que nos concentremos en que, en su origen, el crédito no se expanda desligándose del ahorro real y que, en su destino, las malas inversiones puedan reajustarse lo antes posible sin el sostenimiento artificial del crédito estatal. Los estabilizadores automáticos son más bien desestabilizadores automáticos.

Leer entrada completa.