Jokes That Fell Flat

Turns out I should have written seventhirtysix.eu, although if Lisbon passes it will eventually become sevenfiftyone.eu

If Lisbon doesn't pass, it could also become sevenfortynine.eu, if my guess for Croatia's seats is right.

or something... lots of domains to register, no wonder no one is interested.

(And to explain, the referral was to fivethirtyeight.com, a website that registed millions of visits during the 2008 US Presidential elections... 538 is the number of electors in the Electoral College. The number of European Parliament seats is now 785, but that number will change, as written up above)

Lisbon could pass in the fall of 2009, when the Irish are asked again.

My prediction is that it will fail again.

Tiny Stimulus will Get Bigger

China's stimulus package represents 16% of its GPD. The Japanese stimulus unveiled today represents 6% of its GDP. It's anyone's guess what the Obama administration will propose, but it is certain that it's going to be more than 1.5% of the US GDP.

Yes, these plans are to some extent just packaging. But so are ours. These 200 billion euros were just the first step for the EU. Considering the lack of coordination and direction, maybe this way is the best.

Seven Late Seven

Does anyone remember the degree of American gloating over the delays in the Airbus 380? It is quite funny in retrospect.

Here's CNN / Fortune, for instance, in March 2007:

The delays in what industry insiders have nicknamed the "Toulouse Goose" - a nod to Howard Hughes's ill-fated "Spruce Goose" - have also enabled Boeing to overtake Airbus in total plane orders for the first time since 2000.

Nobody could've predicted that in building its first completely new plane in decades, Boeing would face problems of its own. Boeing got no 'launch aid' so it would have a bigger incentive not to screw up, and it's a company within a single country with a more business-friendly climate, American commentators seem to have dreamt. At least the supposed awfulness of all the political influence on Airbus was on full display. See for instance this piece of analysis (not opinion) in the Chicago Tribune, in December 2006:

An examination of what has gone wrong with the A380 is a much broader issue than parts that don’t fit and computer systems that can’t communicate with one another. Indeed, corporate and European politics are as much to blame for Airbus problems as the breakdown between computer-design systems in France and Germany.

Some very basic thoughts: Major industrial projects like new airplanes are tough. A corporation that has not built a new airplane in decades has its own problems with a poorly geared corporate bureacracy. The airplane market is not a normal market. It does not have any kind of functioning competition, and political influence in it is inevitable and widespread. It is hardly an overstatement to say that planes are in general sold by European Ministers of Foreign Affairs and US Secretaries of State. Trying to get politics out of the market is a futile pursuit. We should rather focus on making sure that political governance on the market is consistent and serves the right goals.

And in that sense, we have to think about restraining Airbus' power8 programme. Airbus may well have a sound reason for closing some factories, but we should limit its design for vertical disintegration and global sourcing, which is a short-term and risky strategy that does not benefit us as Europeans. The launch aid funds are in the hands of our politicians. Just saying.

Quote for the Stimulus

Under the European Union's 'stimulus' plan, Member States will decide how to arrange their spending mostly by themselves, with a little bit of common spending through the EU. Here's a thought for those at a loss as to how to spend:

Energy efficiency measures have, enabled California households to redirect their expenditures toward other goods and services, creating about 1.5 million FTE jobs with a total payroll of $45 billion, driven by well-documented household energy savings of $56 billion from 1972-2006.

As a result of energy efficiency, California reduced its energy import dependence and directed a greater percentage of its consumption to instate, employment-intensive goods and services, whose supply chains also largely reside within the state, creating a “multiplier” effect of job generation.

The economic benefits of energy efficiency innovation have a compounding effect. [...] It is reasonable to assume that the marginal efficiency gains will be more costly, but they have more intensive economic growth benefits.

From a recent CERES study (.pdf), also featured in the New York Times.