I'm not sure why Ezra seems to want to say that Obama accomplished all those things but that there is no way that more could have been realistically done, but if he--or anyone--believes that all those things are Obama's accomplishments then he--or anyone--must think that the president has some power to persuade. If that is the case, then doesn't it follow that, whatever persuasive method the president has, it has been completely absent in the debt ceiling/deficit reduction/destroy the economy debate? If, nothing more could be done because of politics then shouldn't the president been spending a lot of time telling people the truth: that present deficits and "uncertainty" has shit-all to do with our current economic problems?
The deficit reduction debacle was a horrendous wrong turn that the president is largely responsible for inflating. It sucked up so much political energy and did nothing to help our economy. Not now, not in the future. Nothing. Even if the politics prevented more being done with policy, Obama falling into the confidence fairy/deficits matter bullshit that the GOP egged on hurt him politically.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Uncontacted Tribes
After reading about these troubles in the Amazon, I remembered reading some time ago a back-and-forth on whether uncontacted tribes should remain so and why it is good that they exist.
My take is that, in general, tribes/groups that are uncontacted are worse off than those that are not. No medicine, no refrigeration, no distribution network and, despite some people's bizarre notions to the contrary, not really any less violence.
But we seem to have a romantic attachment to isolated, primitive tribes. Part of it is a desire for simplicity that ignores the difficulties of their lives compared to ours. I also think that part of it is the wonder and mystery that it provides us. We know a lot about the world around us. We have mapped the surface of Mars, and yet, there are tribes of people that still exist on this planet that we don't know about. People who have never seen a car or a television still exist. That there are still people on this planet that we don't know about, who don't know about us, gives us a bit of pause to think about how much we don't know.
Scientists in particular but I think all people have a fascination with discovery. Finding something new, seeing it for the first time, being the first to understand how it works are exciting things. When we "discover" a new tribe of people we get a bit of that, but we also get to wonder a bit about what it would be like for them. Their "discovery" of our modern society would be much like our finding or being found by an advanced alien race.
So I like that there are uncontacted/unknown peoples in the world. I just don't think they are living lives that are as good as mine by a long shot.
My take is that, in general, tribes/groups that are uncontacted are worse off than those that are not. No medicine, no refrigeration, no distribution network and, despite some people's bizarre notions to the contrary, not really any less violence.
But we seem to have a romantic attachment to isolated, primitive tribes. Part of it is a desire for simplicity that ignores the difficulties of their lives compared to ours. I also think that part of it is the wonder and mystery that it provides us. We know a lot about the world around us. We have mapped the surface of Mars, and yet, there are tribes of people that still exist on this planet that we don't know about. People who have never seen a car or a television still exist. That there are still people on this planet that we don't know about, who don't know about us, gives us a bit of pause to think about how much we don't know.
Scientists in particular but I think all people have a fascination with discovery. Finding something new, seeing it for the first time, being the first to understand how it works are exciting things. When we "discover" a new tribe of people we get a bit of that, but we also get to wonder a bit about what it would be like for them. Their "discovery" of our modern society would be much like our finding or being found by an advanced alien race.
So I like that there are uncontacted/unknown peoples in the world. I just don't think they are living lives that are as good as mine by a long shot.
Monday, August 08, 2011
S&P - Idiots
My favorite post so far: this one. Mostly because it directly tackles the "but our government is really dysfunctional" argument head on.
If S&P's redo argument was the real reason for the downgrade, then we should have been downgraded in November 2010 just after it was clear the GOP had taken the House...or in mid 2009 when it was clear that lunacy ruled when a 60-40 Senate Democratic majority could only manage to pass bills that were Republican-policy...or back in 2000 when the result of the presidential election was not decided by the voters but by the Supreme Court ruling that votes shouldn't be counted. Srsly.
If S&P's redo argument was the real reason for the downgrade, then we should have been downgraded in November 2010 just after it was clear the GOP had taken the House...or in mid 2009 when it was clear that lunacy ruled when a 60-40 Senate Democratic majority could only manage to pass bills that were Republican-policy...or back in 2000 when the result of the presidential election was not decided by the voters but by the Supreme Court ruling that votes shouldn't be counted. Srsly.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Junk Email from White House
So the White House has an infographic on the Debt "compromise" and below it some "Myths" and "Facts" about the deal. It's rather pathetic.
The first "Myth" can only be classified as a myth if either a. Obama is a Republican or b. Obama is from Bizarro world. The mere fact that there is no revenue in the deal means Obama caved. No need to go further.
The second "Myth" is a myth on technicalities only. There is a Democrat in the White House (nominally) and the Senate is under Democratic control. The debt deal had zero Democratic components. Zero. The fact that it didn't dismantle Medicare is hardly a loss for Republicans. They control one of the legislative bodies and got a bill that is completely in their favor. It is a huge Republican win.
I wasn't aware that the third "Myth" was even a myth.
The fourth "Myth" only works by relying on the word "entirely" and the second you have to use an all or nothing descriptive word, you're in bad shape.
The fifth "Myth" is at best a crap shoot. Most likely the result will be either poop sandwich or dung sandwich, with a fair chance of shit sandwich. The probability of getting a decent deficit reduction bill is so vanishingly small it may as well be zero.
The last "Myth" is another technicality that is disproved only if you have been paying no attention to the way the Obama administration functions. Obama is so adamant about not raising taxes on the middle class that he has essentially conceded the game to Republicans. If he can't credibly state that he is perfectly willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire en total, then he has no ground to stand on. Maybe Democrats in the Senate can manage to show enough spine to stop the full fledged conversion of the US to plutocracy but I'm not holding my breath.
The first "Myth" can only be classified as a myth if either a. Obama is a Republican or b. Obama is from Bizarro world. The mere fact that there is no revenue in the deal means Obama caved. No need to go further.
The second "Myth" is a myth on technicalities only. There is a Democrat in the White House (nominally) and the Senate is under Democratic control. The debt deal had zero Democratic components. Zero. The fact that it didn't dismantle Medicare is hardly a loss for Republicans. They control one of the legislative bodies and got a bill that is completely in their favor. It is a huge Republican win.
I wasn't aware that the third "Myth" was even a myth.
The fourth "Myth" only works by relying on the word "entirely" and the second you have to use an all or nothing descriptive word, you're in bad shape.
The fifth "Myth" is at best a crap shoot. Most likely the result will be either poop sandwich or dung sandwich, with a fair chance of shit sandwich. The probability of getting a decent deficit reduction bill is so vanishingly small it may as well be zero.
The last "Myth" is another technicality that is disproved only if you have been paying no attention to the way the Obama administration functions. Obama is so adamant about not raising taxes on the middle class that he has essentially conceded the game to Republicans. If he can't credibly state that he is perfectly willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire en total, then he has no ground to stand on. Maybe Democrats in the Senate can manage to show enough spine to stop the full fledged conversion of the US to plutocracy but I'm not holding my breath.
Monday, August 01, 2011
Problem of Labels
I understand why polls like this can matter to politicians, but they are really, really, really bad for getting at people's actual beliefs. Republicans have been very good at associating the word "conservative" with anti tax and small government (as well as some social issues). Republicans have also been successful at having the word "liberal" associated with high tax and wasteful spending.
The fact is that if you go through policy and public preference, "liberal" kicks "conservative"'s ass. People like social security. People like medicare. People like education and student grants. People like having clean places to live: clean air to breathe and clean water to drink and for recreation. People like the idea of leaving a better world for their children.
On the pro-conservative side, people don't like taxes. People like the military.
People don't like "big government" either when that is the label, but in fact what people don't like is "bad government". Anyone who relies on self-identify polling to determine whether the public is "liberal" or "conservative" is shockingly stupid.
The fact is that if you go through policy and public preference, "liberal" kicks "conservative"'s ass. People like social security. People like medicare. People like education and student grants. People like having clean places to live: clean air to breathe and clean water to drink and for recreation. People like the idea of leaving a better world for their children.
On the pro-conservative side, people don't like taxes. People like the military.
People don't like "big government" either when that is the label, but in fact what people don't like is "bad government". Anyone who relies on self-identify polling to determine whether the public is "liberal" or "conservative" is shockingly stupid.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
My Idea Fixes This Problem
Ezra interviewed Larry Summers today. Part of their exchange:
There are two necessary things to this: 1) it has to have a time limit (~2 years), and 2) at the end of that time any remaining debt is paid off as normal.
People who would not be inclined to save will spend no matter how the money is distributed. Those who are inclined to save and who are savvy enough to game the system, will game this system as well. The difference is that people who game this system may actually spend more than those who don't because there is actually an incentive here to shift away from savings to extra debt reduction with complimentary cash for buying things (for these folks it would probably be lots of durable goods or home improvement things).
...If you want to give relief to people that maximizes their capacity to spend, give them a debit card that expires in six months.My idea is to do this in conjunction with a Fed purchase of citizen debt, specifically student loans. This circumvents some of this problem by giving an additional incentive. The amount that goes on the debit card is equal to how much people pay to their student loan. While this could have the exact same effect (people eschew other spending), the cost would be essentially zero (the Fed prints the money) and the types of people who would otherwise figure out how to save are the same ones who would be most strongly incentivized to put more into student loan debt, which would have to be spent.
EK: That seems like a good idea to me. Why didn’t we do it?
LS: When I first heard that idea, I loved it. Then I thought about it more and decided I only liked it. It occurs to you that if you give Ezra a $500 card he’ll spend that, but on things he would have bought otherwise and he can save the money he’d have otherwise used for those purchases, so there’s little net impact...
There are two necessary things to this: 1) it has to have a time limit (~2 years), and 2) at the end of that time any remaining debt is paid off as normal.
People who would not be inclined to save will spend no matter how the money is distributed. Those who are inclined to save and who are savvy enough to game the system, will game this system as well. The difference is that people who game this system may actually spend more than those who don't because there is actually an incentive here to shift away from savings to extra debt reduction with complimentary cash for buying things (for these folks it would probably be lots of durable goods or home improvement things).
Friday, July 22, 2011
Pulling Back the Curtain
I'm not exactly happy that some people seem to be waking up to the fact that Obama is more conservative (at least in reality) than Richard Nixon was, but I'm really kind of happy that people are starting to see it.
Also, too, this.
Also, too, this.
Should One Buy or Rent
Another post on the subject, because of another weird article. The post is this one which actually does a good job of countering out some of the issues in the cited article, which is another "renting-is-the-best-financial-option" article. The biggest point the post made was the the savings of renters are very likely to end up spent rather than invested, which is a very legitimate point, though it doesn't counter the math. There are some quick comments that do counter the math, however, that I think need expounding.
First: long term buyers, which--for all the noise about flippers and trading up and moving--are traditional buyers and are still (probably) the most common buyers--have much different math to look at than those who move every 8 years. The shorter the term someone looks at the more likely that buying is a bad idea, this is true even in cases/places where the monthly mortgage + interest + taxes payment is less than or equal to the rent thanks to closing costs.
Second: it is virtually impossible to get accurate equivalent rent information in an aggregate manner. Controlling for number of bed/bathrooms or square footage or style is helpful, but rarely a really good substitute. The best is to compare same house or side by side...say rental vs purchased condos in the same building/development. To the extent that such information is available, you can get a really good comparison, but that information is so limited that it can't be effectively used for broad comparisons. I know what my house purchase price was, but I only have a vague idea what it would cost to rent it. I can try and figure an equivalent rent from other places, but there is no way to effectively get at the equivalence. Specific amenities, location, and style/preference all factor in. On top of that, many people place extra value on having freedom to make changes/improvements which is rarely a possibility in a rental.
If this sounds like my trying to rationalize my purchase of a house, it is, but that is because these are rational points that were part of my purchase of a house. If 10 years down the road I sell and move for some reason, and the "investment" I made turns out to have not paid off as well as had I rented for 30% less per month today, then that'll be that. But the "investment" plan of purchasing my house was to someday own it outright and have a house that I could live in rent free. I hope that if it ever does come to pass that I need to move that I will be able to keep the house and rent it out to others in the meantime so that it will still be there as a place to retire to.
While there are certainly things that are beyond the control of an individual buyer, whether investing in a house pays off compared to renting has a lot more to do with the intents and actions of the individual buyers than it does the market as a whole.
First: long term buyers, which--for all the noise about flippers and trading up and moving--are traditional buyers and are still (probably) the most common buyers--have much different math to look at than those who move every 8 years. The shorter the term someone looks at the more likely that buying is a bad idea, this is true even in cases/places where the monthly mortgage + interest + taxes payment is less than or equal to the rent thanks to closing costs.
Second: it is virtually impossible to get accurate equivalent rent information in an aggregate manner. Controlling for number of bed/bathrooms or square footage or style is helpful, but rarely a really good substitute. The best is to compare same house or side by side...say rental vs purchased condos in the same building/development. To the extent that such information is available, you can get a really good comparison, but that information is so limited that it can't be effectively used for broad comparisons. I know what my house purchase price was, but I only have a vague idea what it would cost to rent it. I can try and figure an equivalent rent from other places, but there is no way to effectively get at the equivalence. Specific amenities, location, and style/preference all factor in. On top of that, many people place extra value on having freedom to make changes/improvements which is rarely a possibility in a rental.
If this sounds like my trying to rationalize my purchase of a house, it is, but that is because these are rational points that were part of my purchase of a house. If 10 years down the road I sell and move for some reason, and the "investment" I made turns out to have not paid off as well as had I rented for 30% less per month today, then that'll be that. But the "investment" plan of purchasing my house was to someday own it outright and have a house that I could live in rent free. I hope that if it ever does come to pass that I need to move that I will be able to keep the house and rent it out to others in the meantime so that it will still be there as a place to retire to.
While there are certainly things that are beyond the control of an individual buyer, whether investing in a house pays off compared to renting has a lot more to do with the intents and actions of the individual buyers than it does the market as a whole.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Paradox That Isn't
Ezra does some nice policy work but this post on the paradox of presidential leadership is wrong on its face and completely ignores the obvious conclusion.
That a president taking a position polarizes that position making it not likely to pass (without lots of compromising away from it) is completely sensible. So too is it completely sensible that the power of persuasion is greater for the president than it is for pretty much anyone else. These are not in conflict. In fact they point to what should be the most obvious conclusion, and one that many people have complained that Obama really doesn't seem to get: the president should argue and persuade strongly, not for a compromise position, but for a position that is furthest away from his/her opposition as possible.
When Obama was trying to get health care done he should have been selling the American public hard on single payer, medicare for everyone, not exchanges and public options. That pulls the debate back to the center and compromise becomes easier for both parties. As it was, he staked out his position as the one between single payer and being rich and so made the conservative/Republican heath care plan that we ended up with seem like a liberal/Democratic plan to the majority of the American public.
The same was true of the stimulus, the same was true with the budget, the same is true now with the debt limit/deficit reduction debacle.
If Obama had staked his position out as an actual Democratic, liberal position, then it would not be nearly as hard for a compromise bill to get through. Democrats could say they still got some extra revenue from the wealthy, Republicans could say that they saved tax cuts for the middle class and cut government spending drastically. Voters would see Obama presiding over a compromise, and his base (the people he NEEDS to turn out if he wants to win reelection) would see him fighting for strong Democratic principles. (Incedentally, the GOP base would see them fighting as well...it really would be win-win, but it requires the president to stake his position as a liberal one, not as the compromise he truly seems to seek.)
If, in that scenario, the GOP still refused to grant anything, then the perception of them as intransigent and destructive to the country would be even stronger.
That a president taking a position polarizes that position making it not likely to pass (without lots of compromising away from it) is completely sensible. So too is it completely sensible that the power of persuasion is greater for the president than it is for pretty much anyone else. These are not in conflict. In fact they point to what should be the most obvious conclusion, and one that many people have complained that Obama really doesn't seem to get: the president should argue and persuade strongly, not for a compromise position, but for a position that is furthest away from his/her opposition as possible.
When Obama was trying to get health care done he should have been selling the American public hard on single payer, medicare for everyone, not exchanges and public options. That pulls the debate back to the center and compromise becomes easier for both parties. As it was, he staked out his position as the one between single payer and being rich and so made the conservative/Republican heath care plan that we ended up with seem like a liberal/Democratic plan to the majority of the American public.
The same was true of the stimulus, the same was true with the budget, the same is true now with the debt limit/deficit reduction debacle.
If Obama had staked his position out as an actual Democratic, liberal position, then it would not be nearly as hard for a compromise bill to get through. Democrats could say they still got some extra revenue from the wealthy, Republicans could say that they saved tax cuts for the middle class and cut government spending drastically. Voters would see Obama presiding over a compromise, and his base (the people he NEEDS to turn out if he wants to win reelection) would see him fighting for strong Democratic principles. (Incedentally, the GOP base would see them fighting as well...it really would be win-win, but it requires the president to stake his position as a liberal one, not as the compromise he truly seems to seek.)
If, in that scenario, the GOP still refused to grant anything, then the perception of them as intransigent and destructive to the country would be even stronger.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Follow up...
to the "If I Made $250k" post. A couple points that I wanted conveyed but didn't actually state:
Dividing that income by 2 does not mean everything takes twice as long. It takes much longer. The reason is that all annual expenses and fun doesn't get reduced by changing that number. Take home drops from $168k to ~$90k. The after tax, after living expenses take home plummets from $127k to $50k and the after fun number drops from $108k to $30k. Now, that is still a lot of extra money, but even with $0 contribution to savings/charity/misc it takes 15 months to pay off student loans rather than the less-than-half a year from before.
But even though savings and debt elimination take much longer, actual standard of living changed by zero. All of the extra money went to future ease, but the life I outlined at $250k looks pretty much exactly like the life I have now (with a few extra perks) despite a much lower income. I realize that some people would take the extra money and buy a bigger house or more extravagant car, but why?
As one makes more money the benefits follow: first, (for some) debt relief, second are various living standard increases, third is leisure increasing, and finally excess/luxury. Well below $250k/year only the last aspect actually changes with added income (and paying off existing debt faster is an excess...it's basically money you don't have something better to do with).
Dividing that income by 2 does not mean everything takes twice as long. It takes much longer. The reason is that all annual expenses and fun doesn't get reduced by changing that number. Take home drops from $168k to ~$90k. The after tax, after living expenses take home plummets from $127k to $50k and the after fun number drops from $108k to $30k. Now, that is still a lot of extra money, but even with $0 contribution to savings/charity/misc it takes 15 months to pay off student loans rather than the less-than-half a year from before.
But even though savings and debt elimination take much longer, actual standard of living changed by zero. All of the extra money went to future ease, but the life I outlined at $250k looks pretty much exactly like the life I have now (with a few extra perks) despite a much lower income. I realize that some people would take the extra money and buy a bigger house or more extravagant car, but why?
As one makes more money the benefits follow: first, (for some) debt relief, second are various living standard increases, third is leisure increasing, and finally excess/luxury. Well below $250k/year only the last aspect actually changes with added income (and paying off existing debt faster is an excess...it's basically money you don't have something better to do with).
Friday, July 08, 2011
Why Taxes? Science and Education.
For all the complaining I do about finance and taxes and government the reason boils down to science and education. I think that education in general and science in particular are the most important things that government doesn't seem to have trouble cutting. At the state level it makes some sense that they cut education heavily when bad times hit: education is frequently the largest thing in a state's budget. The problem is federal.
We have massive entitlement programs (which I support) and an enormous military (which I think is way too pricey). Everything else is small by comparison, and yet every time that spending cuts are brought down it falls on everything else (which is actually non-defense discretionary spending). The result is that everything else actually has very little in the way of waste compared to the big ones that never get touched, which means that any cutting there really hurts.
We have massive entitlement programs (which I support) and an enormous military (which I think is way too pricey). Everything else is small by comparison, and yet every time that spending cuts are brought down it falls on everything else (which is actually non-defense discretionary spending). The result is that everything else actually has very little in the way of waste compared to the big ones that never get touched, which means that any cutting there really hurts.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
If I Made $250k...
Playing the "If I won the lottery" game is always an interesting exercise. I find that I can make use of about the first $1-2 million (lump sum) but that things get fuzzy beyond that and any money past $10 million is pretty much useless (even for investment) other than just giving it away. Altering the game to "If I made $250k/yr" is surprisingly similar...
Based on current tax law (federal, state, and local) and last year's deductions (most of which I would still be eligible for) my take home would be right around $170k, or $14,167/month. Let's make it $14k/mo and $168k/yr.
First off, are living expenses...
House - $1750/mo, $21k/yr
Utilities - $450/mo, $5400/yr (cell, tv, web, gas, electric & water)
Food - $600/mo, $7200/yr (groceries, restaurants, takeout)
Car - $2500/yr (gas, maintenance, insurance, registration)
Debt - $350/mo, $4200/yr (a bit over minimum payment)
Utilities are maybe a bit high, but not much. Food is certainly high (too many restaurants), but car is low (own outright) so that kind of cancels. That totals a bit over $40k/year or $3358/month, leaving nearly $10,640/month or $127,700/year. Time for fun...
Travel - $5000/yr
Other - $15k/yr (home improvement, clothes, entertainment, presents)
This is pretty nice living. Most of the country can't afford $5k in vacation travel per year and $15k on stuff. But even with that This still leaves nearly $108k ($9k/month), after taxes, left to spend/save. After paying taxes, covering living expenses and having plenty of fun I am left with a fair bit more than I make before taxes currently. I know pretty well what I would do with it: my student loan debt (currently ~$40k) would be gone in roughly 6 months (eliminating its inclusion above). The bulk of the rest--say $50k--would, in year 1 go to savings (house interest is low, and tax deductible) and charity. The remaining $18k I would use for various extras that I presently can't afford...hard to say exactly what, but probably some home rennovation work, some new furniture, a motorcycle, a road bicycle. Certainly it would also include some more for presents and others, but exactly how that would all get distributed is not so exact as the student loans.
But the inexactness of what to do with that money is kind of the point. After taxes, with all my living expenses covered and with lots of fun covered, and even with my student loans paid off and a large portion used for savings/charity, there is still $18k left over...in only 1 year of earning $250k.
If I were brining in this income I would own my house outright in ~5 years (just figure that $40k from the student loans going toward the house instead in years 2-5). I would be able to bank $0.5M within 10 years (at least $30k/year yrs 1-5, then $70k/yr for 6-10), which with investments and other savings/401k be around $1M in under 15 years.
This is a budget that Obama has promised not to raise taxes on (it is not over $250k/year, and deductions would bring it below even that). This is a budget that Republicans insist raising taxes on would be hurtful to the economy, a budget in which at least $70k is socked away and pretty much useless to the economy anyway.
Based on current tax law (federal, state, and local) and last year's deductions (most of which I would still be eligible for) my take home would be right around $170k, or $14,167/month. Let's make it $14k/mo and $168k/yr.
First off, are living expenses...
House - $1750/mo, $21k/yr
Utilities - $450/mo, $5400/yr (cell, tv, web, gas, electric & water)
Food - $600/mo, $7200/yr (groceries, restaurants, takeout)
Car - $2500/yr (gas, maintenance, insurance, registration)
Debt - $350/mo, $4200/yr (a bit over minimum payment)
Utilities are maybe a bit high, but not much. Food is certainly high (too many restaurants), but car is low (own outright) so that kind of cancels. That totals a bit over $40k/year or $3358/month, leaving nearly $10,640/month or $127,700/year. Time for fun...
Travel - $5000/yr
Other - $15k/yr (home improvement, clothes, entertainment, presents)
This is pretty nice living. Most of the country can't afford $5k in vacation travel per year and $15k on stuff. But even with that This still leaves nearly $108k ($9k/month), after taxes, left to spend/save. After paying taxes, covering living expenses and having plenty of fun I am left with a fair bit more than I make before taxes currently. I know pretty well what I would do with it: my student loan debt (currently ~$40k) would be gone in roughly 6 months (eliminating its inclusion above). The bulk of the rest--say $50k--would, in year 1 go to savings (house interest is low, and tax deductible) and charity. The remaining $18k I would use for various extras that I presently can't afford...hard to say exactly what, but probably some home rennovation work, some new furniture, a motorcycle, a road bicycle. Certainly it would also include some more for presents and others, but exactly how that would all get distributed is not so exact as the student loans.
But the inexactness of what to do with that money is kind of the point. After taxes, with all my living expenses covered and with lots of fun covered, and even with my student loans paid off and a large portion used for savings/charity, there is still $18k left over...in only 1 year of earning $250k.
If I were brining in this income I would own my house outright in ~5 years (just figure that $40k from the student loans going toward the house instead in years 2-5). I would be able to bank $0.5M within 10 years (at least $30k/year yrs 1-5, then $70k/yr for 6-10), which with investments and other savings/401k be around $1M in under 15 years.
This is a budget that Obama has promised not to raise taxes on (it is not over $250k/year, and deductions would bring it below even that). This is a budget that Republicans insist raising taxes on would be hurtful to the economy, a budget in which at least $70k is socked away and pretty much useless to the economy anyway.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Another Article on How $250k/Year Isn't Much
Articles like this one are beyond frustrating. Fortunately most of the commentors seem to be reasonable, but how the hell did that crap manage to get through and published? And why can't this writer and people who sympathize extrapolate back to figuring how a family of 4 making $50k/year gets by?
...Oh, and that family wouldn't see their taxes go up by a dime under Obama (which I think is the truly irresponsible thing).
...Oh, and that family wouldn't see their taxes go up by a dime under Obama (which I think is the truly irresponsible thing).
Friday, July 01, 2011
Frustrating...More so if True
I understand why [feminists] get a bit bristly about shit like this. Sexual assault and rape are pretty damned big problems. Unfortunately, many trials come down to "he said - she said" arguments with little in the way of physical evidence (that can't be discounted by that argument). This means that the credibility of the parties becomes very important. Coupling this with a historical notion that erring on the side of caution means not sending a person to jail that is only "probably" guilty, means that it is very difficult to successfully prosecute even credible accusations of sexual assault.
Reading through the reader comments, however, is depressing. There is a very obvious bias that can be boiled down to a "sluts can't get raped" mentality that makes it remarkably easy for people in power, and people with wealth to abuse those who are without. It would be a shame if she was really peddling false accusations for some profit, because by and large accusers have more to lose and less to gain by their accusations than perpetrators of rape and assault do by their actions.
Reading through the reader comments, however, is depressing. There is a very obvious bias that can be boiled down to a "sluts can't get raped" mentality that makes it remarkably easy for people in power, and people with wealth to abuse those who are without. It would be a shame if she was really peddling false accusations for some profit, because by and large accusers have more to lose and less to gain by their accusations than perpetrators of rape and assault do by their actions.
Eating Dogs
First: barring some dire need I don't see a reason to. That said, it's very odd to see how worked up people get (article: meh, comments: an insight into souls) about one kind of diet or other. It would be different if the people who are so strongly opposed to eating dogs were equally opposed to eating pigs, and some most likely are.
For anyone who really wants to try and get at a moralistic stance regarding what type of animal meat comes from there are ways to do so, and they are related to sustainability and efficiency. Unfortunately we eat too much meat in the US to deal with sustainability right now, and the one thing we should do is eat less of it. Still, there are differences between animals. In general, the higher up the food chain you go, the less efficient the meat you produce. This is why farmed salmon are bad--you have to feed them other fish--while farmed vegetarian tilapia are good.
With mammals, herbivores like cattle, sheep, goats, horses and deer do a remarkable thing for us: they convert food--greens like grass and most leaves--that we cannot digest into food--meat--that we can. Some omnivores, like pigs, can perform another complimentary task: they convert waste that we cannot extract nutrition from into meat that we can. Dogs cannot perform these functions and neither can any completely carnivorous animal (e.g. cats). Dogs essentially eat the same food we do, so raising them for meat is counter-productive.
So there is a sustainability/efficiency argument against eating dogs that will let you happily continue to gnaw the flesh off a pig's rib bone (as I, myself, am inclined to do). Of course, this is pretty much ignoring that we do not produce beef and pork in this sustainable fashion. While these animals are fed foods we cannot digest, they are also loaded up on corn that we can digest (maybe even better than cattle can). This is where I come back to saying that we eat too much meat.
For anyone who really wants to try and get at a moralistic stance regarding what type of animal meat comes from there are ways to do so, and they are related to sustainability and efficiency. Unfortunately we eat too much meat in the US to deal with sustainability right now, and the one thing we should do is eat less of it. Still, there are differences between animals. In general, the higher up the food chain you go, the less efficient the meat you produce. This is why farmed salmon are bad--you have to feed them other fish--while farmed vegetarian tilapia are good.
With mammals, herbivores like cattle, sheep, goats, horses and deer do a remarkable thing for us: they convert food--greens like grass and most leaves--that we cannot digest into food--meat--that we can. Some omnivores, like pigs, can perform another complimentary task: they convert waste that we cannot extract nutrition from into meat that we can. Dogs cannot perform these functions and neither can any completely carnivorous animal (e.g. cats). Dogs essentially eat the same food we do, so raising them for meat is counter-productive.
So there is a sustainability/efficiency argument against eating dogs that will let you happily continue to gnaw the flesh off a pig's rib bone (as I, myself, am inclined to do). Of course, this is pretty much ignoring that we do not produce beef and pork in this sustainable fashion. While these animals are fed foods we cannot digest, they are also loaded up on corn that we can digest (maybe even better than cattle can). This is where I come back to saying that we eat too much meat.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Dissapointing Obama
I don't really like David Frum, but he pretty much nails Obama in this post. We have a mild, do-little president in times that call for leaders that act, and spur on others to act.
Fat Cars Kill
I realize no one reads my blog. Hopefully enough people read this article on Slate (or even better the referred paper) to start to get this into our collective conscious:
The heavier the car, the more dangerous it is to everyone on the road that is not in that car.
If someone wants to drive around in a tank to protect themselves/their children, that should be their prerogative, but they should have to pay the cost to the rest of us for their scary vehicle. I love the idea of a tax of, say $0.25 for each pound over 2500 lbs per year as part of registration. People would think twice if it cost $1000 to register their 6500 lb. SUV every year. Even better, reverse it to credit below weight down to the cost of registration, so that if you had a 2200 lb car you could get $75 off registration every year, which would mean SUV drivers subsidizing people who they are endangering!
The heavier the car, the more dangerous it is to everyone on the road that is not in that car.
If someone wants to drive around in a tank to protect themselves/their children, that should be their prerogative, but they should have to pay the cost to the rest of us for their scary vehicle. I love the idea of a tax of, say $0.25 for each pound over 2500 lbs per year as part of registration. People would think twice if it cost $1000 to register their 6500 lb. SUV every year. Even better, reverse it to credit below weight down to the cost of registration, so that if you had a 2200 lb car you could get $75 off registration every year, which would mean SUV drivers subsidizing people who they are endangering!
Friday, June 24, 2011
Tax Repatriation Holiday Suggestion
Coming from this post...I would change it from "Holiday" to "Penalty". Basically, congress could say that firms repatriating funds pay an additional penalty of 5% (in some fashion that doesn't discourage international investment/business, maybe by having it only applied to funds in excess of their net international [sales]). Then say that the penalty will be enacted in the near future, maybe next year. Companies will be motivated to get that money back into the US (which they clearly want to do otherwise the holiday idea would be worthless) before the penalty kicks in.
The result would be a rush to get funds repatriated before the penalty kicks in and less hoarding of money abroad in the future.
The result would be a rush to get funds repatriated before the penalty kicks in and less hoarding of money abroad in the future.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Big Houses
While I generally agree with the point this writer is making here, she uses a monstrously bad example. Beach front houses like those in Hilton Head, and the Outer Banks, and a fair amount of the Jersey/Deleware/Maryland shore are designed around vacation visits. People group together, rent a massive house on the beach for a week and share the cost. Bigger houses make sense if you want to rent them out. Many of the people living in these communities actually live in much smaller houses that are usually not located on the beach but a few miles--or blocks (OBX)--away.
That said, I am a firm believer in smaller, more efficient houses. Heck, I own one, and though I would like to make quite a few changes (add a half bath, finish at least half the basement, relocate my garage, maybe expand the very small kitchen), increasing the size is extremely low on the list.
Big houses are not necessarily unsustainable, but they require enough people living in them for them to make sense. Thanks to the bad economy we are already seeing more people with roommates, and more college grads moving back in with the folks, and more people renting out rooms/apartments in their houses. If energy and, particularly, transportation costs increase this will happen more and more, and people will start moving closer and closer together, living in less square footage (per person). Big houses aren't necessarily doomed, but they could become homes for extended families or even communal living situations.
That said, I am a firm believer in smaller, more efficient houses. Heck, I own one, and though I would like to make quite a few changes (add a half bath, finish at least half the basement, relocate my garage, maybe expand the very small kitchen), increasing the size is extremely low on the list.
Big houses are not necessarily unsustainable, but they require enough people living in them for them to make sense. Thanks to the bad economy we are already seeing more people with roommates, and more college grads moving back in with the folks, and more people renting out rooms/apartments in their houses. If energy and, particularly, transportation costs increase this will happen more and more, and people will start moving closer and closer together, living in less square footage (per person). Big houses aren't necessarily doomed, but they could become homes for extended families or even communal living situations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)