I found the graph above, sampled from Justin Fox’s post at Bloomberg View, very interesting. Note solar energy’s position in the graph. It isn’t there. Mr. Fox remarks:

The chart only included the top five sources of electrical power in the U.S. Perhaps surprisingly, solar power doesn’t make the cut. Even when you include the Energy Information Administration’s estimate of the power generated by rooftop panels and other small-scale solar, it’s still in seventh place behind biomass (burning wood, mainly).

Solar is gaining fast, though, and in a few places, it has already arrived.

He goes on to note that solar is presently California’s second largest method of electrical power generation, probably an overstatement since California imports about a third of its electricity and a lot of that comes from coal.

At the present rate of increase I don’t expect solar to be a significant source of overall U. S. electrical power generation in my lifetime and I may live another couple of decades.

There are a lot of variables to consider. We’re probably past peak subsidy for solar energy. What effect will reduced subsidies have on solar energy? There’s no Moore’s Law for solar cells or batteries. A major breakthrough may be just around the corner or present efficiencies may be as good as it gets for the next century. There’s really no way to tell.

Note that this post doesn’t indicate any particular hostility to solar energy on my part. I’m just trying to put things into perspective.

In Xander Snyder’s post at Geopolitical Futures after assessing the likelihood of a recession in the U. S. he turns to considering the likely impact of an American economic downturn on our major trading partners. Here’s a sample of his remarks:

When the next recession comes – and it will – the United States should be able to weather the storm. Even if the contraction is particularly bad, say, 3 percent over the year, and is followed by a long period of deleveraging in which borrowers spend more time paying debt than investing, the country’s diverse economy and relative independence from exports will mitigate the effects of the recession. Times will be tough, but they won’t threaten Washington’s position atop the global order.

The same cannot be said for countries that need the United States to be economically healthy enough to buy their exports. One such country is Germany, which in 2016 exported 107 billion euros’ ($119 billion) worth of goods to the United States, accounting for 8.8 percent of its total exports and 3.4 percent of its gross domestic product.
Germany exports nearly as much (101.4 billion euros’ worth) to France and only a little less (86 billion euros’ worth) to the United Kingdom, two countries that have their fair share of problems too. France is struggling with stagnant growth, high unemployment and regional economic disparities. The United Kingdom’s economic future is likewise uncertain as it prepares for negotiations to leave the EU.

China depends even more heavily on the health of the U.S. economy than does Germany. Roughly 20 percent of Chinese GDP is generated by exports, nearly 22 percent of which go to the United States. In other words, 4 percent of its entire GDP rests in the hands of U.S. consumers. The government has imposed restrictions on its real estate market, which has begun to push home and development prices down. Since a large portion of the Chinese economy depends on its real estate market, Beijing must walk a fine line between growth and a real estate bubble. If its largest trading partner buys fewer goods, that line becomes even finer

I noticed that he hadn’t mentioned India, probably because its American imports and exports are relatively small, but I thought it might be worthwhile to remedy that omission. The following information was drawn from VCCircle, Trading Economics, the CIA Factbook, and Bloomberg.

Exports comprise about 19% of the Indian economy and a considerable portion of its exports are in the form of software and IT-related services and remittances and somewhat more than half of that can be attributed to the United States. All in all exports to the U. S. and remittances from the U. S. account for 5-7% of the total Indian economy.

That’s a tiny amount of the U. S. economy. In other words like Germany or China we are much more important to them than they are to us and an economic turndown here will have serious consequences for the Indian economy. What those consequences are depend on what you think would happen in the event of a recession here. If you think that our imports of services from India would decline sharply, the impact on India could be quite severe. If you that our imports of services from India would increase as corporations sought to cut costs, a recession here could help the Indian economy.

There’s some reason to believe that a recession here wouldn’t have much effect on India’s economy one way or the other. That graph at the top of the page is somewhat misleading. When you consider Indian service exports taking into account the exchange rate between the dollar and the rupee and inflation, most of the 7% year-on-year increase that India saw in 2016 vanishes and, indeed, they have been pretty flat for the last decade.

At RealClearPolicy Mark Mills explains the importance of manufacturing to the U. S. economy:

A dollar added to the GDP by a factory generates a spillover economic benefit some three-fold greater than a dollar added by a car or food service. This well-established phenomenon is what economists call a “multiplier effect.” It means that policies directed at boosting manufacturing’s 12 percent of the economy are as impactful as an equal boost to 40 percent of the rest of the economy.

Of course, none of that matters if we have, in fact, entered a post-industrial era wherein making “stuff” is yesterday’s news. The Internet and now the “gig” economy have emboldened a worldview that has been fashionable ever since 1973, when Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell published “The Coming of Post-Industrial Society.” According to the post-industrialists, the denouement has finally arrived. In response, policymakers, they argue, shouldn’t try to rescue American factories but, instead, think in hospice terms: offer those displaced by the new high-tech economy handouts, whether in the form of welfare or a guaranteed minimum income — packaged of course with counseling.

He goes on to show that properly considered manufacturing remains the largest employer in the country and should remain so.

The eloi imagine a self-congratulatory future in which manufacturing does not exist. But it continues to exist underground, maintained by the bestial Morlocks on whom the eloi depend for their very existence. Someone should write a book about that.

At RealClearPolitics former Indiana Gov. Evan Bayh calls for ending the “vicious cycle” that lead to the shootings in Alexandria yesterday:

American democracy is supposed to be a competition of ideas. Elected officials are supposed to have spirited debates. As the saying goes, “politics ain’t beanbag.” But whatever their disagreements, an indelible comity once existed across the partisan divide. Fellowship did not end at the partisan edge.

In an age of increasingly heated debate—in an era defined too often by rhetorical vitriol—the Congressional Baseball Game was one of the few remaining respites. Each spring, colleagues who might otherwise be prone to excoriate one another on the floor of the House or Senate have met for a friendly game of balls and strikes. Their disagreements were never resolved in the course of nine innings. Members were unlikely to see eye-to-eye on a big vote simply because a Democratic second baseman chatted amiably for a moment with the Republican who’d hit a double. But for the few hours when they were engaged in America’s honored pastime, the stain of partisanship was overcome with a feeling of goodwill.

Now even that is tarnished.

Here’s his prescription:

The shooting in Alexandria shouldn’t become fodder for political talking points. It’s a personal tragedy for Rep. Steve Scalise, the other victims and their families. Of course, Americans’ foremost liberty is the freedom of speech. Even the most ardently held views have a right to be expressed. But some level of civility and proportion is important. No one should shout “fire” in a crowded theater and be surprised by the ensuing chaos. No one should strike a match near dry tinder and be surprised at the ensuing flames.

We all need to redouble our efforts to find the common humanity beneath every political disagreement. In the end, no matter how wrongheaded you may believe the other side to be, we all want America to thrive. We all want a better future for our children. We’re all invested in one another’s success.

Let’s hear more reconciliation in our political debate. Let’s rethink our propensity to make every disagreement apocalyptic. Let’s resist the temptation to infer the worst motives to our adversaries. In the end, the American values that unite us are much stronger than those tearing us apart. Let’s remember that. And even amid a horrible tragedy, let’s celebrate and defend the great blessings of American democracy. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once observed: “We may have arrived on these shores in different ships, but we’re all in the same boat now.”

As Plato noted, moderation is the virtue that makes republican government possible.

And that’s why we miss moderates.

Something that needs to be understood is that Russia and China face much greater risks from Islamist terrorism than we do. Either country has more Muslims than we do, their native Muslim populations are much more conservative and radical than ours, and both countries border states in which violent radical Islamist terrorism is commonplace. Both countries have resorted to extreme measures to suppress their native Muslim populations. The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment on some of China’s latest measures:

It’s Ramadan, and Beijing is again restricting the peaceful practice of Islam in its western territory of Xinjiang. This year government employees are required to ensure that friends and family aren’t fasting or otherwise observing the Muslim holy month. Under the “Together in Five Things” campaign, cadres are even living in the homes of the Uighur minority, according to the World Uyghur Congress.

This escalation may be due to the arrival of Chen Quanguo, who took over as Xinjiang’s Communist Party secretary in August after running Tibet for five years. He has introduced the system of “grid-style social management” he pioneered in Tibet that allows the government to closely monitor households.

According to state media, Xinjiang’s security budget increased 19.3% in 2016 to more than $4.4 billion, and 30,000 new officers were hired. In February Mr. Chen described security as “grim” and urged the People’s Armed Police to “bury the corpses of terrorists and terror gangs in the vast sea of the people’s war.” So much for winning hearts and minds.

New “Regulations on Anti-Extremism” that came into effect in April outlawed veils or “abnormal” beards. Parents can’t give children “overly religious” names such as Muhammad or encourage them to follow the Muslim faith. All Xinjiang residents were forced to turn in their passports late last year and must give a DNA sample when they apply for a new one.

Other measures include antiterror drills, shows of force by the security services and the installation of satellite tracking devices in cars. Mandatory activities for students are deliberately scheduled on Fridays to prevent them from attending mosque services, and rewards are offered for reporting men who wear a beard or women who wear a veil.

Control over the Uighur population goes far beyond religion. The use of their native language is discouraged in schools, and economic opportunities are limited. The best jobs go to Han Chinese settlers, who are given incentives to move to Xinjiang. Peaceful dissent is not tolerated. The Uighurs’ most articulate spokesman, Minzu University Professor Ilham Tohti, was sentenced to life in prison in 2014 for promoting separatism.

A number of real world experiments are going on. China is testing whether levels of suppression that would be impossible and, more importantly, rejected here will be effective in eliminating whatever threat their native Muslim population poses. The Chinese authorities have the advantage that they simply don’t give a damn about anyone but the Han Chinese.

We, too, are being tested. If the reports above are correct, they are in clear contravention of international accords to which China is a signatory. In typically Chinese fashion, their willingness to enter into international accords has almost no relationship to what their conduct.

Ours is a test of values. Do we really believe in the freedoms we claim to? Or in the international order? I can make no predictions about the outcome of China’s test. I would bet a shiny new dime that we will fail our test.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post Korean history prof Andrei Lankov makes a saddening claim to the effect that nothing short of war will cause the Kim regime to give up its nuclear weapons program:

The Trump administration, which seems to rank North Korea high among its foreign policy problems, is choosing the hard line, but with a twist: Trump hopes to cajole China into joining him in a really tough sanctions regime. The issue was discussed during the Trump-Xi Jinping summit in April: The administration has apparently indicated its willingness to reconsider some of the United States’ anti-Chinese policies — including on difficult trade issues — if China “fully cooperates” in getting tough on North Korea.

The administration’s assumption is that Chinese sanctions would push North Korea to the brink of an economic disaster and thus prompt the leaders in Pyongyang to reconsider their nuclear ambitions. Given that China controls about 90 percent of North Korea’s foreign trade and also provides the country with vital aid, including shipments of subsidized fuel, the expectations seem reasonable.

The problem is, however, that Beijing has valid reasons not to be too harsh on Pyongyang. While Chinese leaders do not like North Korea’s nuclear program, they are afraid that truly comprehensive sanctions might, indeed, push North Korea to the brink of economic collapse, which would be followed by political disintegration. From their point of view, North Korea in a state of civil war would be a greater threat than the nuclear-armed but relatively stable North Korea that exists now. Even worse, a crisis in North Korea might result in a German-style reunification of the country under Seoul’s control — that is, the emergence of a united, democratic and nationalistic Korean state that would probably be an ally of the United States. This is not an outcome that would be welcomed in Beijing.

While I completely acknowledge Dr. Lankov’s authority on North Korea and even China, I think he’s got it wrong. The Chinese are making a completely rational calculation. As long as a collapse of the Kim regime would be worse for China’s ruling elite than the alternative, where the wheel meets the road they’re content to allow the regime to do whatever it cares to. They have no particular attachment to the Kims. The relationship is purely instrumental.

However, if the stakes were changed, their calculation would change, too. The problem here is us. As long as our present relationship with China such as it is is more important to us than preventing an attack on U. S. cities by North Korea or preventing North Korea becoming the nuclear weapons vendor of choice for every madman with money, the Kim regime will continue its headlong rush to develop ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads. There are any number of levers we could pull ranging from our present relatively phlegmatic stance to much more aggressive moves.

In other words while I think Dr. Lankov is correct in his conclusion I think he’s wrong about the mechanics. The question is not one for the North Koreans or Chinese. They’re responding rationally to the incentives before them. It’s up to us to change those incentives. I don’t think we will. I think we’d rather put Honolulu, San Francisco, or Seattle at risk.

In his Washington Post column Fareed Zakaria blames identity politics for the growing divide in the United States:

The dangerous aspect of this new form of politics is that identity does not lend itself easily to compromise. When the core divide was economic, you could split the difference. If one side wanted to spend $100 billion and the other wanted to spend zero, there was a number in between. The same is true with tax cuts and welfare policy. But if the core issues are about identity, culture and religion (think of abortion, gay rights, Confederate monuments, immigration, official languages), then compromise seems immoral. American politics is becoming more like Middle Eastern politics, where there is no middle ground between being Sunni or Shiite.

I think he’s got it backwards. When you choose to cast your political positions using the language of rights and morality rather than ways and means, there will be no room for compromise.

Take health care reform, for example. When your position is based on the assertion that everyone has a right to unlimited health care of his or her choosing, it’s very different than when you base your position on the idea that the United States is a wealthy country and can afford to give its citizens certain benefits. The discussion will then be about the size and nature of the benefit rather than entering into an apocalyptic battle of Good versus Evil.

That’s how Social Security and Medicare were enacted into law. Neither is a right. They are both benefits. For the last half century ensuring that the elderly are not penurized in their old age is a value shared by Democrats and Republicans. Discussions are about what that means and how to accomplish it.

Fellow Illinoisan Mike “Mish” Shedlock has written a diatribe on Illinois’s financial condition. It opens by quoting a letter the state has sent out to roadwork contractors that opens “Dear Contractor” and instructs all contractors to cease work on Illinois roads July 1 because the state can’t pay them. His post opens:

The state of Illinois has not passed a budget for close to three years.

Arguably it’s just as well because Illinois budgets for decades have been nothing but a moth-eaten collection of lies, one time deficits repeated endlessly, and financial wizardry statements designed to disguise Illinois’ real problems: failure to rein in spending coupled with a very business unfriendly environment.

As Illinois’ bond rating careens towards junk, Illinois Unpaid Bills Jumped to $14.3 Billion. Today, the state told contractors to halt roadwork other that required for safety.

He goes on to note that the bonds issued by five of Illinois state institutions of higher learning have junk ratings, that tuition at these institutions and public pensions are soaring, and that Illinois has the worst personal income growth of any of the states.

In a few weeks we’ll get our property tax bills and they are expected to jump, following a substantial jump last year. I had planned to live in my Chicago home until I died but, frankly, I know I won’t be able to afford a 10% increase in my property taxes every year. I don’t know who could but if I can’t the list of those who will be forced to leave Chicago because of its taxes will be large.

Moody’s and S&P have made their views on Illinois’s need to reform clear by downgrading Illinois’s and Chicago’s credit rating repeatedly. Unlike voters here they have the power to make their voices heard.

Somewhat to my surprise I have a patent pending. I don’t feel free to say too much about it other than it’s a new business method and it relates to warehouse management. Apparently, something I’ve come up with is worthwhile, non-obvious, and original.