Philip Greenspun’s Weblog

A friend expressed puzzlement over his former apartment-mate’s Facebook feed: “He used to be a Republican.” The feed contains, interspersed with family and gourmet food photos, links to various anti-Trump articles, e.g., coverage of a preliminary hearing in a recently filed civil lawsuit alleging that, back in 1994, Donald Trump had sex with a 13-year-old girl (“Any woman who wants to make money by suing a man would be well-advised to allege rape,” said one divorce litigator). Underneath the story about the now-35-year-old woman’s quest for cash through litigation is a photo of our former Republican voter shaking hands with Hillary Clinton hash-tagged #ImWithHer.

[The 35-year-old woman didn’t file a criminal complaint against The Donald, so the only remedy available to her is cash. Attorneys promise that an anonymous witness will come forward to say that she observed an anonymous 12-year-old girl being raped in 1994, said nothing, continued to work for the organizer of the rape (not Trump) for eight more years, and is just now ready to speak up, but only in the context of a cash-seeking civil suit.]

How did this former Republican turn into an apparently passionate and certainly well-connected Democrat? Subsequent to his apartment-sharing days he became a high-level executive in a Silicon Valley giant. Why would a rich person support a candidate that promises to raise taxes? “Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run” (Guardian) offers one possible explanation:

the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week’s scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.

The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.

There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words “Davos” or “Tahoe”. But it is when you search “Vineyard” on the WikiLeaks dump that you realize these people truly inhabit a different world from the rest of us. By “vineyard”, of course, they mean Martha’s Vineyard, the ritzy vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts where presidents Clinton and Obama spent most of their summer vacations. The Vineyard is a place for the very, very rich to unwind, yes, but as we learn from these emails, it is also a place of high idealism; a land of enlightened liberal commitment far beyond anything ordinary citizens can ever achieve.

Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.

Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the “Global CEO Advisory Firm” that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.

But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out.

So there you have it! If he wants his kids to get a job ten years from now at a Manhattan-based non-profit, he needs to be at a Hillary fundraiser today.

Full post, including comments

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (Harari) has a great of putting the conquest of Earth by Homo sapiens into context:

The most important thing to know about prehistoric humans is that they were insignificant animals with no more impact on their environment than gorillas, fireflies or jellyfish. … Our closest living relatives include chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans. The chimpanzees are the closest. Just 6 million years ago, a single female ape had two daughters. One became the ancestor of all chimpanzees, the other is our own grandmother.

The truth is that from about 2 million years ago until around 10,000 years ago, the world was home, at one and the same time, to several human species. And why not? Today there are many species of foxes, bears and pigs. The earth of a hundred millennia ago was walked by at least six different species of man. It’s our current exclusivity, not that multi-species past, that is peculiar – and perhaps incriminating. As we will shortly see, we Sapiens have good reasons to repress the memory of our siblings.

Genus Homo’s position in the food chain was, until quite recently, solidly in the middle. For millions of years, humans hunted smaller creatures and gathered what they could, all the while being hunted by larger predators. It was only 400,000 years ago that several species of man began to hunt large game on a regular basis, and only in the last 100,000 years – with the rise of Homo sapiens – that man jumped to the top of the food chain.

humankind ascended to the top so quickly that the ecosystem was not given time to adjust. Moreover, humans themselves failed to adjust. Most top predators of the planet are majestic creatures. Millions of years of dominion have filled them with self-confidence. Sapiens by contrast is more like a banana republic dictator. Having so recently been one of the underdogs of the savannah, we are full of fears and anxieties over our position, which makes us doubly cruel and dangerous. Many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes, have resulted from this over-hasty jump.

most scientists agree that by 150,000 years ago, East Africa was populated by Sapiens that looked just like us.

What if we hadn’t wiped out our genetic cousins?

Whichever way it happened, the Neanderthals (and the other human species) pose one of history’s great what ifs. Imagine how things might have turned out had the Neanderthals or Denisovans survived alongside Homo sapiens. What kind of cultures, societies and political structures would have emerged in a world where several different human species coexisted? How, for example, would religious faiths have unfolded? Would the book of Genesis have declared that Neanderthals descend from Adam and Eve, would Jesus have died for the sins of the Denisovans, and would the Qur’an have reserved seats in heaven for all righteous humans, whatever their species? Would Neanderthals have been able to serve in the Roman legions, or in the sprawling bureaucracy of imperial China? Would the American Declaration of Independence hold as a self-evident truth that all members of the genus Homo are created equal? Would Karl Marx have urged workers of all species to unite?

Over the past 10,000 years, Homo sapiens has grown so accustomed to being the only human species that it’s hard for us to conceive of any other possibility. Our lack of brothers and sisters makes it easier to imagine that we are the epitome of creation, and that a chasm separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. When Charles Darwin indicated that Homo sapiens was just another kind of animal, people were outraged. Even today many refuse to believe it. Had the Neanderthals survived, would we still imagine ourselves to be a creature apart? Perhaps this is exactly why our ancestors wiped out the Neanderthals. They were too familiar to ignore, but too different to tolerate.

Our success is making us progressively dumber:

Sapiens did not forage only for food and materials. They foraged for knowledge as well. To survive, they needed a detailed mental map of their territory. To maximise the efficiency of their daily search for food, they required information about the growth patterns of each plant and the habits of each animal. They needed to know which foods were nourishing, which made you sick, and how to use others as cures. They needed to know the progress of the seasons and what warning signs preceded a thunderstorm or a dry spell. They studied every stream, every walnut tree, every bear cave, and every flint-stone deposit in their vicinity. Each individual had to understand how to make a stone knife, how to mend a torn cloak, how to lay a rabbit trap, and how to face avalanches, snakebites or hungry lions. Mastery of each of these many skills required years of apprenticeship and practice. The average ancient forager could turn a flint stone into a spear point within minutes. When we try to imitate this feat, we usually fail miserably. Most of us lack expert knowledge of the flaking properties of flint and basalt and the fine motor skills needed to work them precisely. In other words, the average forager had wider, deeper and more varied knowledge of her immediate surroundings than most of her modern descendants. Today, most people in industrial societies don’t need to know much about the natural world in order to survive. What do you really need to know in order to get by as a computer engineer, an insurance agent, a history teacher or a factory worker? You need to know a lot about your own tiny field of expertise, but for the vast majority of life’s necessities you rely blindly on the help of other experts, whose own knowledge is also limited to a tiny field of expertise. The human collective knows far more today than did the ancient bands. But at the individual level, ancient foragers were the most knowledgeable and skilful people in history. There is some evidence that the size of the average Sapiens brain has actually decreased since the age of foraging. Survival in that era required superb mental abilities from everyone. When agriculture and industry came along people could increasingly rely on the skills of others for survival, and new ‘niches for imbeciles’ were opened up. You could survive and pass your unremarkable genes to the next generation by working as a water carrier or an assembly-line worker.

The book inadvertently shows the bounds of acceptable discourse in modern academia. The author is a professor of history in Israel. The book contains one example after another of genetics determining behavior, sometimes to the point that an entire species went extinct due to uncompetitive abilities. Yet there is one outcome that the author says cannot possibly be influenced by genes:

But the hierarchy of rich and poor – which mandates that rich people live in separate and more luxurious neighbourhoods, study in separate and more prestigious schools, and receive medical treatment in separate and better-equipped facilities – seems perfectly sensible to many Americans and Europeans. Yet it’s a proven fact that most rich people are rich for the simple reason that they were born into a rich family, while most poor people will remain poor throughout their lives simply because they were born into a poor family. … Unjust discrimination often gets worse, not better, with time. Money comes to money, and poverty to poverty. Education comes to education, and ignorance to ignorance. … And those whom history has privileged are more likely to be privileged again.

The work of Gregory Clark, ultimately published as The Son Also Rises, which suggests that there is a genetic component to success, is not referenced. Nor is the fact that intelligence is as heritable as any other characteristic and our modern economy values intelligent workers. Essentially an author who had fully accepted the dogma of modern genetics subscribes to Lamarckism when it is time to explain why some of us are more financially successful than others. (The economist Clark, in The Son Also Rises shows that it can’t be as simple as “rich people inherited money from their parents” because the generation-to-generation correlation isn’t strongly affected by the number of children (i.e., the number of ways in which an inheritance must be divided).)

More: Read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.

Full post, including comments

Due to the fact that my vote in Massachusetts doesn’t count and due to having predicted Hillary’s victory back in April 2015, I haven’t been paying too much attention to election news. Has anyone bothered to sift through the clutter to figure out what the practical policy differences might be between the two main candidates? Let me try to make an outline and then readers can fill in details.

Sources: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/and https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Taxes

Trump wants to cut rates, bringing them down closer to Singapore’s, Ireland’s, etc. Hillary wants to raise tax rates, bringing them closer to what France charges.

(Federal Reserve shows that actual collections as a percentage of GDP haven’t varied much since the mid-1950s, despite wildly different headline rates, which suggests that the only way for the government to get more money is via Americans becoming wealthier (per-capita GDP growth) or by expanding population (more people to tax).)

Immigration

Trump wants to cut back on illegal immigration and redesign legal immigration to favor those who are likely to earn a lot and therefore pay a lot in taxes? Hillary wants to continue the expansion of immigration, especially from non-Western countries, that began under JFK. Essentially everyone who is currently in the U.S. illegally will be able to become a citizen, perhaps without paying a fee? (“Hillary will work to expand fee waivers to alleviate naturalization costs”)

Foreign Policy

Trump wants to stop poking Russia with a stick. Hillary thinks that we are clever enough to use our military and economic power to bend foreigners to our will.

Nation of Victims

Hillary promises to assist Americans with disabilities (but we’re already the world leaders in collecting disability benefits).

Hillary promises to assist Americans who are victimized by their self-identification as “women”: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/ says women will get paid more when they work, will get paid when they don’t work, and won’t have to divert any of this increased pay to contraceptives or abortions (which will be subsidized by taxpayers? But aren’t about half of them women?). [If identifying as a “woman” triggers the requirement for so much government assistance, wouldn’t an intelligent citizen simply identify as a “man”? Hillary promises to make changing your gender easier.]

Trump makes no corresponding promises.

Getting Taxpayers to Fund Your Kids

Trump says that anyone who can create or obtain custody of an additional child will pay less in taxes (see also Donald Trump’s child care tax deduction idea). He also promises some Federal money so that poor families can enjoy “school choice” (private schools, charter schools, magnet schools).

Hillary promises to pay parents for not working and the money will come from “making the wealthy pay their fair share–not by increasing taxes on working families.” (so a wealthy person can escape the higher taxes by having a W-2 job and being in a multi-person household? Or is that still not a “working family”?) Hillary promises free daycare (“preschool”) for all American kids starting at age 4. Child care will be limited to less than “10 percent of [family] income” (so a family with zero income can have 8 kids and park them in daycare 24/7 at taxpayer expense?)

Hillary leads with “no child should ever have to grow up in poverty” and then provides details. If we take her at her word, anyone can escape poverty by having a child since (a) the government doesn’t want to take kids away from parents, or at least not the mother, and (b) the child cannot be lifted out of poverty without giving the parent(s) an above-poverty-line lifestyle. Another implication of this philosophy is that people without jobs can have an unlimited number of children, assured that taxpayers will take care of these kids through adulthood (and beyond?).

Summary: Trump wants people with jobs to have more kids; Hillary wants people without jobs to have more kids.

Related: The Son Also Rises: economics history with everyday applications (successful people tend to have successful children, but not because of inherited wealth)

Appointing Judges

Hillary will find liberal judges to bless everything that the Great Mother in Washington does for her children? Trump will let his sister (a Federal appeals court judge) pick boring, but competent, people?

Gun Nuts (subsection of “Appointing Judges”?)

Hillary promises to torture gun nuts with paperwork and regulation. Men who’ve been defendants in custody or child support lawsuits won’t be able to own guns because it is conventional for female plaintiffs to accuse them of domestic violence and Hillary says she will “stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns.”

Trump says that he will appoint Supreme Court justices who will continue with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment (i.e., that ordinary citizens can have guns).

Health

Hillary will cure Alzheimer’s, Autism, and HIV/AIDS (see the top-level issues page), but mental health problems are too tough to be erased with Federal dollars? And cancer has already been beaten by Obama’s “moonshot”? (Not to be confused with Nixon’s “War on Cancer”)

Trump doesn’t promise any advances in medicine or science.

Business and Trade

Hillary will make it illegal for an American to get a job paying less than $15/hour (Labor). She will “say no to trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership…” Hillary will help small businesses (but not if they want to hire anyone at less than $15/hour) and radically change the American legal system for handling contract disputes, at least when it is a big company and a small company fighting (her plan). [Hillary doesn’t explain why a big company wouldn’t then just try to avoid contracting with small companies. Or perhaps have an overseas division contract with a small company overseas rather than subjecting themselves to the new tilted playing field.]

Trump also will bail out on “the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been ratified.” (Trade) He promises to harass China and Mexico (but not Canada?). He complains about Mexico having a value-added tax (but the U.S. will need one soon too given how we spend!).

Is that it?

Readers: Are the above the main substantive differences between what the candidates propose to do? If not, please add some more sections via comments below.

[Note that I’m specifically ignoring statements about K-12 education because there isn’t much that a federal politician can do about state-run schools. I’m also ignoring the questions about personal character that have been raised, e.g., Trump’s comments about what American women will do for guys who are rich and/or famous and the Clinton dynasty’s billion-dollar revenue stream from selling access and influence. The question is what these two would do as part of the job of President assuming that (a) one of them wins, and (b) whoever wins delivers on promises made to voters.]

Full post, including comments

The local (suburban Boston) McDonald’s restaurants are begging for job applicants with prominent signs promising $12/hour in starting pay. As this is substantially above both the state ($9/hour) and Federal ($7.25) minimum wages it would appear that at least Eastern Massachusetts is effectively operating without a statutory minimum wage (like a bunch of countries). Yet people here are passionate supporters of anything proposed by Hillary Clinton, including a $12/hour minimum wage (this politician seems to have flip-flopped on the exact amount that central planners in D.C. would impose via regulation). Why the passion for a minimum wage that would have no effect here? I’m wondering if the answer is competitive advantage. New England has suffered a lot of job losses from factories moving to lower-wage union-rejecting areas in the Carolinas. If we can get central planners in Washington to make it more expensive to do business in the South and in rural parts of the U.S., won’t that boost the economy here in a crowded urban area?

Full post, including comments

Massachusetts has a handful of charter schools, but most poor people have to send their kids to whatever school the local government chooses to supply them. Rich people here get to choose a school, of course. A ballot question would gradually raise the cap on charter schools, enabling some additional poor families to behave like the rich.

If you haven’t seen a unionized schoolteacher working past 2:50 pm you haven’t been to Massachusetts lately. Public school teachers, whose total compensation is at least double the market-clearing wage (as demonstrated by what private and charter schools pay), turn out to various evening events educating citizens regarding the damage that will be inflicted on their children if more charter schools are allowed. See saveourpublicschoolsma.com:

In 2017, charter schools will siphon off more than $450 million in funds that would otherwise stay in public schools. if Question 2 passes, that amount can increase by $100 million a year.

[the site notes that “Save Our Public Schools is a grassroots organization of families, parents, educators and students” but I have never seen anyone other that a union schoolteacher working at one of the events]

Most voters send their children to government-run schools. Most voters live in towns where government-run schools are, in fact, the only option for families that can’t afford, or don’t want to afford, a private school. The unionized teachers fighting this measure stick to one message: when a child switches to a charter school, the local public school will receive less funding and this lack of funding will result in a lower quality education for your children. The evening events explain the complex way in which even a district with no charter schools available might receive less money from the state.

I’ll be interested to see what happens, but if this works I think it will be the blueprint for the rest of the country. As long as the majority of kids are in public school, unionized teachers need only say “public school kids will do worse due to having less funding” and any initiative relating to charter schools will die.

From my (rich and charter school-free) suburb’s mailing list:

The Happy Valley Committee has weighed in with a clear and convincing argument for why we should vote “No on Question 2”. I will certainly follow their lead- voting no on 2!

———————————————

I am no fan of the “Common Core” Curriculum, and feel that we have yet to develop adequate reforms to ensure our schools remain competitive and beneficial, especially for students who are less privileged (by virtue of economics, race, native language, etc).

That being said, I agree with the School Committee: Question #2, if passed, would pull money away from our public schools and there would be a worrisome lack of accountability for the use of that money. This is deeply concerning.

As I see it; Question #2, even though well-intended, is not a recipe for reform but an abandonment of our responsibility to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity for a good education.

So, I will be voting “No” on Question #2.

[In other words, the “reform” process started 50+ years ago needs a little more time. Maybe we will catch up to the world leaders if we save the budget from predation by charter schools, except that our suburb has never had one!]

——————————

I too am voting no. I understand and agree that children need the best possible education. I am a former teacher.

If #2 had come with funding it would be a different story. But I cannot vote for charter schools that decrease the overall budget for inner city public schools (schools that already are suffering from inadequate budgets) in order to allow for more charter schools.

I volunteer in a class in a public school in Roxbury that has awesome teachers and interested students and definitely needs more resources.

[She’s writing about the Boston Public Schools, which the U.S. Census Bureau says has the highest per-pupil spending of any large school district in the U.S. (and therefore perhaps the highest in the world?). Note that the headline $20,502/student number for 2013 doesn’t include capital expenses such as actually building schools.]

---

The [officials who run a high school jointly with another town] Committee also voted unanimously in early October to oppose question 2 after a long, good discussion about equity and finances.

The Committee concluded that while the concept of Charters was not necessarily at issue, the funding, fundamental lack of local control over the governance of MA Charters, selective nature for admission and retention of students, and impact of outside (out-of-state) corporate interests in this campaign were all of great concern.

[Charter schools in Massachusetts are regulated by the state, apparently, so a local committee like this would lose influence.]

---

Voting “no” on that question would leave the funding with the public schools, for newer equipment, more supplies, and fewer children per classroom. Opportunity to provide more attention to a struggling or special needs child, as well as to provide supplemental and thought provoking materials for the curious child. Let’s work to improve the neighborhood schools so every child can receive a good education, with the proper $$ and materials available to the teachers.

[I.e., if we work together we can reverse the 50-year process that left us where we are today.]

I do have to admire the optimism of the Millionaires for Obama regarding this issue. If the world’s most lavishly funded government hasn’t accomplished something after 50 or 100 years then surely it hasn’t been given a fair chance.

Full post, including comments

A virtuous Hillary-supporting friend on Facebook posted a link about helping out at a Black Girls Code event. This generated a huge number of “likes” of course. I’m wondering why this works out as virtuous, though. I’m a volunteer tutor for children in our small suburb (currently working on 8th grade math and so far I’ve learned that nobody of average intelligence could possibly stay awake and motivated through public school 8th grade math). If I posted on the town email list “I am happy to tutor, but only if the child is of Race X and Gender Identification Y” (and if they change gender ID halfway through the school year, or through a tutoring session, what then?), I have a feeling that this would not put me into the virtue category. If it doesn’t work in the 1:1 context, why does it work to create an organization that sorts out and excludes children by race/gender?

Full post, including comments

From my inbox… November is Transgender Awareness Month.

Full post, including comments

In a world with more government regulation and government consuming a larger percentage of GDP, you’d think that it become increasingly sensible for an individual to work for the government or a big company that can lobby the government. Starting your own company would go from dumb to dumber. Inc. magazine gives us some numbers:

49.7 percent of World War II vets went on to own or operate a business, according to Syracuse University’s Institute for Veterans and Military Families. Some 40 percent of Korean War veterans did the same–creating millions of jobs along the way. … only 4.5 percent of the more than 3.6 million people who have served in the U.S. military since September 11, 2001, have launched a company, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The government sorting potential contractors by race and sex may distort the statistics:

Government contracting preferences have recently made it more attractive for a company to be woman-owned, so some of the numbers may reflect paperwork changes (such as dropping a husband from a co-owner title) rather than broad-based demographic shifts.

But it is tough to see how this can explain a drop from 50 percent down to less than 5 percent.

Related:

• Bloomberg article showing shift since 1988 of workers from small enterprises to larger ones

Full post, including comments

During America’s period of highest per capita GDP growth, recreational drugs were entirely legal. On the other hand the government wouldn’t give you a free house, free health care, free food, and a free smartphone. My entire lifetime has coincided with a War on Drugs and also a War on Poverty that has made being a jobless drug addict more comfortable. While the War on Poverty continues unabated (and Hillary proposes to expand it substantially; see Book Review: The Redistribution Recession for the effects of the Obama Administration expansion of this war), there are some ballot questions in various states this year proposing to end at least the state-run war on marijuana. There haven’t been any explicit arguments against marijuana legalization in the New York Times, but I’m wondering if “Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market” is an implicit argument against ending the war. The Times editorial says, essentially, that Americans are too busy taking prescription opioids to be bothered with a job. If this is indeed the source of the U.S.’s shrinking labor force participation rate compared to, e.g., Singapore, then wouldn’t legal and readily available marijuana further shrink the number of Americans who want to work?

One good thing about the proposed Massachusetts law is that citizens can “grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences”. A citizen who has been blessed with free public housing can thus sit on the sofa playing Xbox while taxpayers pay for the electricity supply to the grow lamps.

Milton Friedman said that we couldn’t have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. I’m wondering if he were alive whether he would say that we couldn’t have, simultaneously, (1) a welfare state, (2) legal recreational drugs, and (3) a high rate of labor force participation.

[Note that, other than paying taxes to support prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and the prison industry, I don’t have a personal dog in this fight. See my 2011 post regarding random drug testing for pilots.]

Full post, including comments

The Cirrus Jet is certified as of today and will be delivered in December. I think this qualifies as the first legitimate personal/family turbojet-powered aircraft. One-engine-plus-parachute and a service ceiling of FL280 (about 28,000′) are not so exciting if you have a two-pilot crew who fly a couple of times per week. But what about the regular private pilot who wants to take the family to the beach? The pilot who doesn’t want to spend two weeks every year maintaining proficiency at managing various emergencies, especially the failure of one engine while in instrument conditions? The Cirrus Jet is the first turbojet that could be as simple as a four-seat piston-powered plane. (The rest of the very light jets are about as difficult to operate as larger jets and therefore haven’t caught on as expected; if you’re going to do all of that training why not tow 8 seats behind the pilots instead of 4?.

Anyway, I’m grateful to Cirrus for bringing this to market and especially grateful to the Chinese owners of Cirrus who were willing to fund it!

[Oh yes, and what about the price? I think the paperwork says $2 million but, as is typical in aviation, that might be in 1946 dollars that have to be adjusted for inflation. Then there are mandatory options. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual wire transfer is about $3 million, which is one reason people will be saying “I can get a used twin-engine plane that goes to FL410 for half that.”]

Related:

• “Pipistrel Plans 19-Seat Hydrogen Hybrid”: Slovenia-based Pipistrel has signed a $550 million deal with Sino GA Group Co. of China to build its Alpha Electro electric trainer and hybrid-powered Pantera high-performance aircraft in China. And while that’s significant in itself, it’s Pipistrel’s plans for the money it will earn in the project that is bound to raise eyebrows. “Pipistrel will use a part of the mentioned amount also for the development of a new, very innovative zero emission 19-seat aircraft, powered by hybrid electric technology and hydrogen low temperature PEM fuel cells…

Full post, including comments