How can Government create work given the budget deficit?

There is a discussion running on a green party e-list about the Green Wage Subsidy - a plan to stimulate work in the green sector of the economy in order to tackle unemployment directly.

One disputant argues that it is not cost-free
My answer: GWS permits the claimant to take her benefit money into green work.
The money would be paid in any case, but on condition that the recipient /does no work/ (beyone the 16 hours allowed under Earnings Disregard).
Therefore there is no extra cost to the Benefits Agency.
I will repeat that, for avoidance of doubt:
The money would be paid in any case. there is no extra cost to the Benefits Agency in the short term.

In fact, in that the recipient will not be taking the time of the benefits agency employees in filling forms, having interviews and making futile applications for non-existent jobs, there would be a saving, but this would be offset by the cost of the tribunals. Depending on how these costs balance out, there might be a small net cost at this stage.

However, this net cost would be offset by the advantages to the economy from the GWS:

1. Increased tax revenue from the green operations that are benefiting
from GWS.
2. Increased money in the local economy resulting from extra spending
power of those provided with a job by GWS.
3. Increased money in the local economy resulting from extra spending
power families lifted out of fuel poverty by insulation projects
4. Balance of payments improvements arising from less imports of carbon
energy sources
5. Qualitative improvements in health and social well-being arising
from GWS - not least in improved visual amenity from community
tidy-ups, litter picking and street furniture decoration.

The truly significant cost of GWS would come at the end of the recession, when it would be expected that the dole queues would start to shrink and social security payments to fall.
At that point, conventional economists would argue for GWS to be withdrawn.
The Green Party on the other hand would argue for retention and extension of the scheme, since that is what Citizen's Income is. We would be arguing for retention of a scheme that is already in place (pole position in other words) and one that moreover is well regarded by citizens who have benefited directly and indirectly from GWS.

I am genuinely puzzled at the opposition from within the Green Party against a scheme that:

1. Saves people from the unpleasantness and poverty implicit in
unemployment
2. Provides a cost-free stimulus to drag people out of poverty
3. Stimulates the green sector of the economy
4. saves energy and CO2 emissions
5. prepares the ground for the introduction of a full CI
6. Gives our speakers a specific and uniquely green party policy to
introduce into the national debate, a policy that helps people and
directly addresses inequality, poverty, recession, and the #Occupy
movement's concern with the totally unacceptable levels of youth
unemployment.
7. Generates a feel-good feeling in our natural allies in the green
sector of the economy.

If anyone can clear up my puzzlement, I would be very grateful.

If you are reading this, and find yourself in agreement, please respond even if only to say "I agree", since these e-list discussions often give a platform to people who oppose specific proposals, while those who may be in agreement often say nowt.

Car air filters used to monitor Fukushima pollution

Review of radioactive pollution from Fukushima Daichi.
This is pasted in from an email that drifted into my inbox this morning.
Here's the source

http://www.fairewinds.com/
http://vimeo.com/31370998
Scientist Marco Kaltofen Presents Data Confirming Fukushima Hot Particles in the USA
by Fairewinds Associates

From Arnie Gundersen from Fairewinds.

It is October 31st, 2011. This is a video that contains scientific information that we have been wanting to share with you for a long time. Today, in Washington D.C. at 8:30 in the morning, scientist Marco Kaltofen gave a presentation to some doctors who are part of the American Public Health Association. The paper is now on our website, next to this video.

To summarize the paper, citizens, some doctors and scientists, some bloggers, some farmers, around the world provided samples to Mr. Kaltofen who analyzed them for Fukushima radiation. An example of what he found is a slide that contains air filters from cars in Japan and in the United States. Cars in the United States hardly have any radiation in their air filters. Cars in Tokyo had quite a lot, way too much. Cars in Fukushima Prefecture were incredibly radioactive.

Now I think it is important because the nuclear industry will say, well everything is radioactive and therefore we should not worry. Well, the Seattle data shows that not everything is radioactive. And it shows that the people in Japan received enormous exposures of particles into their lungs and into their digestive systems, during the course of the accident.

Another piece of information is that Fairewinds viewers were able to send in children’s shoes from Japan. Mr. Kaltofen has data that clearly show that the concentration of cesium on the kid’s shoelaces was astronomically high, around 80 disintegrations per second. What does that mean? Kids tie their shoes, their hands get radioactive and it goes into their G.I. tract. If it is on the ground, it is in the dust in the playground and it is in their lungs. I think that between the two, the air filters and the children’s shoes, it shows that there is a severe personal health problem in Japan that will manifest itself in cancers over the next 10 or 20 years.

Now Mr. Kaltofen did not just look at Japan. He set up monitoring stations in the United States as well. Two of the three monitoring stations in the United States did show hot particles in the air in April. Since then, there have not been any hot particles. But in April, it is clear that, at the worst of the accident, hot particles were wafted across the Pacific and deposited in Seattle and in Boston at least. There is also data that indicates contamination on the ground in the Cascades, which are a mountain range right up against the Pacific Ocean.

So I think we have two problems here. In Japan, there is a personal health issue and what that means is that individuals have received enough radiation that there is going to be a statistically meaningful increase in cancers in Tokyo and especially in Fukushima Prefecture.

In the United States, it is a different story. It is a public health issue and not a personal health issue. What that means is that we will never know who is the individual who got cancer from Fukushima. But we can be sure that the radiation did reach here and that there will be an increase in cancers, especially on the West Coast where the Rocky Mountains stopped most of the radiation and deposited it on the ground.

So, this paper was given to the American Public Health Association. And here it is a public health issue. We cannot run and we cannot hide. But the radiation is up and down the West Coast and then also scattered about the rest of the United States.

In Japan, it is a different story. They need to aggressively go after the contamination that has been discovered. It is so obvious on these air filters and on children’s shoes. It takes a concerted national effort, not a haphazard effort of chasing hot spots, in order to reduce the amount of radioactivity that is on the soil and in the air in Japan right now.

And the last thing the paper shows is that it is wrong to have a 10 mile evacuation planning zone. Clearly, the damage can extend out as far as Tokyo. We need to look at emergency planning and evacuations well beyond the 10 miles that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses here and the 12 miles that the Japanese used during the accident. You may recall that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that Americans needed to evacuate 50 miles from Fukushima at the peak of the accident. Well, if it is good enough for Americans living in Japan, that same criteria should be good enough for Americans living in the United States.

The data in Mr. Kaltofen’s paper came from citizens. It came from farmers. It came from scientists. It came from bloggers. It was an effort by individuals and not government. I think if we had relied on the government to get us this information, we never would have gotten it. So it is an important achievement for all of us, to recognize that together, using the internet, we can all provide information for scientists to use, to come to rational decisions on public policy.

#Occupy and the Banksters: Abolition or Modification?

"Apologies for Inconvenience" - @occupyLSX

There is a nice balance between abolition and modification that applies to both the Occupy camps and to their target, the City of London.

Generic "anti-capitalists" might demand the abolition of the whole bang shoot of the City and the money markets.  This  absolutist solution would be resisted absolutely by the plutocrats, and they would use their superior force (the met Police) to clear the camps and repress dissent. Result: much unpleasantness that could lead to violent demonstrations further down the road, which could even, in the worst case, result in a right wing coup.

The alternative is to modify the City and the money markets through a series of reforms designed to address the deficit by closing tax loopholes and havens globally. It would start by removing the special privileges of the City by making them just another local authority through a simple amendment to the Local Government Act 1972.

The same choice applies to the camps. The authorities can try to abolish the camps through violent policing, causing anger, resentment, and social disorder. (see above).

Alternatively, they could tolerate the camps, and set up continuous round-table talks between representatives of Parliament and representatives of the people. These speakers could be chosen by ballot or even by sortition, and could feed back to the people. Maybe we need to set up a People's Parliament to collect and prioritise the feelings and ideas of the people. The talks would be long-term and continuous, and entirely equal. No more the talking down from "experts" through the media. Recent history has shown the human failings of MPs, newspapers and bankers. It is clear that the authorities do not have a solution to what is going on in the world, and that their claim to "authority" is severely compromised. They actually need help from the people, who after all are the ultimate authority in a democracy.

So we have a clear choice: either both sides take an absolutist approach, which leads to violence and disaster, or a relativist approach, which leads to dialogue, reform and a peaceful solution.

It is clear which approach sensible people would prefer.