Not because they are remotely correct, of course, but more because we are unlikely to be able to ameliorate global climate change in any way shape or form. There is just too much CO2 in the atmosphere to counter in a meaningful time frame.
Things are most likely going to get bad. 50 years from now it will be better to be on the "we wanted to do something about this but you wouldn't let us" side than it will to be on the "we got our way and the shit still hit the fan" side. Seriously. At this point it's really about who will have the better "I told you so" argument in several decades.
I'm still pro-conservation and pro-renewable energy, but those are good ideas no matter what the earth's climate does. We don't have unlimited fossil fuels, so we're best off weaning ourselves from them even though it won't actually reduce CO2 or cause global warming to be thwarted. I'm also not a big fan of waste, so reducing, reusing, and recycling play well with me. I'm also kind of cheap so a house that is more efficient to heat and cool is a winner as far as I'm concerned.
So global warming is a real and increasing threat to humanity, but since we aren't going to do anything that will substantially change that, I would at least like the opportunity to say "told ya so" within my lifetime, so fire up the burners!
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Chamber of Commerse is Full of Idiots
At least that's the rough reading of this post.
The very frustrating aspect of reading through is that he isn't entirely wrong, but he fails to address the latent bias that produces the various choices men and women make differently. It is stated as though it is just the status quo and tough shit.
First, while it is not entirely clear, it does not seem the post is talking about women choosing low paying fields (like elementary school teacher) while men choose high paying ones (like rocket scientist) which would be a really bad argument, and is the tack taken by some of the critics I read. Rather, it is alluding to women making "life choices" that reduce their pay--like fewer working hours due to children.
I'll admit I mostly agree with that sentiment, particularly as someone who has made job choices not designed to maximize my earning potential. I think that men are more fixated on making money than are women. I think that fixation (or "fetish") does lead to making more money. I also think that we live in a society that discourages women from fixating on making more money. There are a whole slew of ways to look at this and to approach it.
The Chamber Post is essentially saying that the choice is wholly owned by women and men and that if women make less it is the fault of the women. I think that the choice is foisted on women (and men) by societal norms and that women make less because our society has deemed that women shouldn't be the moneymakers.
So long as all people are happy with whatever result may be I don't see as how it matters much. But some people are really unhappy with the status quo. Others don't care so much. My problem is that it becomes extraordinarily difficult to price out the type of choice I am referring to, and, even more difficult to figure out how to price that out in such a way that we can still factor in women and men whose choices are in larger part owned by societal norms.
The closest I've seen was something I discussed a while back. The paper concluded (among other things) that the "real" pay gap was ~$0.05. That is women make $0.95 for every $1.00 men make if the playing field is completely leveled--including choices like who works more hours and first choice spouse...at least as I understand it.
So there is only one pay number that can be generated without much extra effort (the 77 cents on the dollar one) and without charging into controversy headlong. The problem is that the controversy avoided still exists and is real.
I do not believe that a woman's pay aggregate number will ever be equal to a man's for the simple reason that women and men will never have identical roles in society. I could be wrong, I would like to be, but I don't see the perception of women having a more important role in the family and household going away any time soon.
To restate: it doesn't matter if men and women have full equality, and are perceived entirely as equals in the workplace, women will not ever make as much as men if women are yet perceived as more important than men at home.
The very frustrating aspect of reading through is that he isn't entirely wrong, but he fails to address the latent bias that produces the various choices men and women make differently. It is stated as though it is just the status quo and tough shit.
First, while it is not entirely clear, it does not seem the post is talking about women choosing low paying fields (like elementary school teacher) while men choose high paying ones (like rocket scientist) which would be a really bad argument, and is the tack taken by some of the critics I read. Rather, it is alluding to women making "life choices" that reduce their pay--like fewer working hours due to children.
I'll admit I mostly agree with that sentiment, particularly as someone who has made job choices not designed to maximize my earning potential. I think that men are more fixated on making money than are women. I think that fixation (or "fetish") does lead to making more money. I also think that we live in a society that discourages women from fixating on making more money. There are a whole slew of ways to look at this and to approach it.
The Chamber Post is essentially saying that the choice is wholly owned by women and men and that if women make less it is the fault of the women. I think that the choice is foisted on women (and men) by societal norms and that women make less because our society has deemed that women shouldn't be the moneymakers.
So long as all people are happy with whatever result may be I don't see as how it matters much. But some people are really unhappy with the status quo. Others don't care so much. My problem is that it becomes extraordinarily difficult to price out the type of choice I am referring to, and, even more difficult to figure out how to price that out in such a way that we can still factor in women and men whose choices are in larger part owned by societal norms.
The closest I've seen was something I discussed a while back. The paper concluded (among other things) that the "real" pay gap was ~$0.05. That is women make $0.95 for every $1.00 men make if the playing field is completely leveled--including choices like who works more hours and first choice spouse...at least as I understand it.
So there is only one pay number that can be generated without much extra effort (the 77 cents on the dollar one) and without charging into controversy headlong. The problem is that the controversy avoided still exists and is real.
I do not believe that a woman's pay aggregate number will ever be equal to a man's for the simple reason that women and men will never have identical roles in society. I could be wrong, I would like to be, but I don't see the perception of women having a more important role in the family and household going away any time soon.
To restate: it doesn't matter if men and women have full equality, and are perceived entirely as equals in the workplace, women will not ever make as much as men if women are yet perceived as more important than men at home.
43% People are "Single"...not Single
I really don't like hairs split like this. I realize that, for purposes of taxes and some legal definition, there has to be a legal event that removes a person's single status, but, really, based on that definition the vast majority of gay people are single (all of them are by federal law...I have faith that this is not going to be the case in 2-9 years) and lots of people in long term, committed relationships are "single".
I am aware that the article later explains and even goes on to separate out the "living alone" numbers from that, but the picture and the opening line would imply that nearly half of the country is not involved in a relationship.
As an aside, the last bit--88 single men to 100 single women--is way off the actual split and would imply that the number of "singles" that are elderly is quite large. In the US M:F under 65 is close to 1:1--and actually ~1.02:1--while over 65 that ratio goes to 0.75:1. Incidentally, I do like the CIA world fact book.
I am aware that the article later explains and even goes on to separate out the "living alone" numbers from that, but the picture and the opening line would imply that nearly half of the country is not involved in a relationship.
As an aside, the last bit--88 single men to 100 single women--is way off the actual split and would imply that the number of "singles" that are elderly is quite large. In the US M:F under 65 is close to 1:1--and actually ~1.02:1--while over 65 that ratio goes to 0.75:1. Incidentally, I do like the CIA world fact book.
Friday, August 13, 2010
An Interesting Plan
Is sort of outlined late in this piece. By "Interesting" of course I mean "really fucking cynical and depressing."
It gets at a lot of the "depressed Dems" issues--which are the real reason that Republicans have a chance at taking over the House this fall--but it goes further to basically say that this is the Obama administration's plan. That they intended to have the house switch so that they could paint a better picture of Republicans as bad at governing, win big in 2012 and then have real achievements in term 2.
That would be a plan worthy of Machiavelli. I don't necessarily believe it, and I am still left overly frustrated by the behavior of Democratic politicians. (I really, really, really wish that Republicans could represent me, because they are fucking effective legislators, even as they are horrible at governance.)
It gets at a lot of the "depressed Dems" issues--which are the real reason that Republicans have a chance at taking over the House this fall--but it goes further to basically say that this is the Obama administration's plan. That they intended to have the house switch so that they could paint a better picture of Republicans as bad at governing, win big in 2012 and then have real achievements in term 2.
That would be a plan worthy of Machiavelli. I don't necessarily believe it, and I am still left overly frustrated by the behavior of Democratic politicians. (I really, really, really wish that Republicans could represent me, because they are fucking effective legislators, even as they are horrible at governance.)
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Words With Power
I think that it's pretty fucking stupid that words have such power over people that the use of some of them requires a full on apology or censorship or the like.
That said I am fully aware that words have power. Not so much the words themselves, but rather the way in which we shape and use them. Unfortunately, the N-word (which I can't use, even in this context, being white and all) is one that has spent so much time used to hurt and belittle blacks in this country, that any use is suspect and tends to demonstrate at the least racial insensitivity.
As one who appreciates words as powerful tools for conveying information and emotion, I am not exactly thrilled that some word--any word--is out of bounds. That said, about the only times I can think that use of the N-word is appropriate for conveying information or emotion pretty much isolate it from my lexicon anyway.
(If you are curious the 3 ways I can think of are: literary works--including film--conveyance of anti-black sentiment--i.e. racism--and possibly writings/communications like this one, though as most people know what "N-word" means it is actually seldom necessary even then...though I do feel silly writing "N-word.")
That said I am fully aware that words have power. Not so much the words themselves, but rather the way in which we shape and use them. Unfortunately, the N-word (which I can't use, even in this context, being white and all) is one that has spent so much time used to hurt and belittle blacks in this country, that any use is suspect and tends to demonstrate at the least racial insensitivity.
As one who appreciates words as powerful tools for conveying information and emotion, I am not exactly thrilled that some word--any word--is out of bounds. That said, about the only times I can think that use of the N-word is appropriate for conveying information or emotion pretty much isolate it from my lexicon anyway.
(If you are curious the 3 ways I can think of are: literary works--including film--conveyance of anti-black sentiment--i.e. racism--and possibly writings/communications like this one, though as most people know what "N-word" means it is actually seldom necessary even then...though I do feel silly writing "N-word.")
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Memo to Gibbs:
That really wasn't a very bright thing to say.
I'll let someone else point out why in detail, but suffice to say: the left wing in this country is not the problem, the right is (particularly the more right wing Democrats), and the failure of the White House and the President to make that painfully clear is what will hurt elective prospects this fall the most.
I'll let someone else point out why in detail, but suffice to say: the left wing in this country is not the problem, the right is (particularly the more right wing Democrats), and the failure of the White House and the President to make that painfully clear is what will hurt elective prospects this fall the most.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Just a Quick Follow Up
To the last post...
If progressives and liberals keep voting for Democrats NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO IN OFFICE, then the whole incentive for Democrats becomes: make more right-wing people happy. It is really that simple. If progressive Democrats concede that they are so afraid of Republican rule that they will vote for Democrats no matter what, they have given up any ability to dictate legislation, because Democrats already have their vote, they only need to work for more conservative voters which means their legislating will need to be more conservative.
If progressives and liberals keep voting for Democrats NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO IN OFFICE, then the whole incentive for Democrats becomes: make more right-wing people happy. It is really that simple. If progressive Democrats concede that they are so afraid of Republican rule that they will vote for Democrats no matter what, they have given up any ability to dictate legislation, because Democrats already have their vote, they only need to work for more conservative voters which means their legislating will need to be more conservative.
Tough to Figure
I enjoy skimming Daily Kos. The site is concerned with electing "more and better Democrats." There are certainly policy discussions that go on, and lots of petitioning readers to email/call/write their representatives on particular issues. The site is definitely on the progressive side of things.
The amusing/annoying thing about the site, possibly related to the primary goal, is a tendency to shout down those who get so fed up that they vent the possibility or even reality of not voting for some (often Obama) Democrat (see parts of this thread). Lots of commenters try and pass off the progressive failings of the present administration and Congress as not their fault. As though Obama's continued mediocrity could be entirely blamed on the Senate, or that the ineffectual "big legislation" that has been passed has been some praiseworthy progressive victory.
Republicans are, in my opinion, worse than Democrats. But they are more effective at getting their legislation passed. Hell, we got GOP health care without a single GOP vote (on final passage)! Now that is some impressive legislating!
By contrast what fucking good does voting for Democrats accomplish? Doubling down on Afghanistan (Way to go Bush...I mean Obama!). Continued indefinite detention at Gitmo along with no prosecution of torture (Congrats on getting your way Cheney...thanks to Obama!). More and better chasing after government whistle blowers (can't have people finding out about laws being broken or failures of the government/military now can we?). And a brand new assassination of Americans abroad program (who wouldn't be excited?!?). And those are the things that Obama is in no way shape or form constrained by Congress on, with the assassination program being a bright and shiny Obama original!
To the folks at Kos who believe that Republicans would be so much worse I say: "Yea? So?"
What I do not understand is that Democrats (including Obama), if they want to retain power and be reelected, need to be viewed as capable of doing something. Republicans may stand on a platform that I disagree with, but even I, at this point, would prefer a government that does something over nothing. Good or bad, right or wrong. I am not the arbiter of that which would be best for this nation. The GOP is at least willing to enact their agenda. The Democrats do not provide any substantial counter to that right now. To me, it seems that only Republicans are willing to try.
I'm not likely to vote for them, and I don't like their policy, but if the GOP wins back the House this fall, it will be because voters like me don't see much point in giving Democrats "power". When my option is to vote the lesser of two evils, I see nothing wrong with voting "Present." Democrats--including Obama--should be aware that they lose more than they gain by being weak and ineffectual.
The amusing/annoying thing about the site, possibly related to the primary goal, is a tendency to shout down those who get so fed up that they vent the possibility or even reality of not voting for some (often Obama) Democrat (see parts of this thread). Lots of commenters try and pass off the progressive failings of the present administration and Congress as not their fault. As though Obama's continued mediocrity could be entirely blamed on the Senate, or that the ineffectual "big legislation" that has been passed has been some praiseworthy progressive victory.
Republicans are, in my opinion, worse than Democrats. But they are more effective at getting their legislation passed. Hell, we got GOP health care without a single GOP vote (on final passage)! Now that is some impressive legislating!
By contrast what fucking good does voting for Democrats accomplish? Doubling down on Afghanistan (Way to go Bush...I mean Obama!). Continued indefinite detention at Gitmo along with no prosecution of torture (Congrats on getting your way Cheney...thanks to Obama!). More and better chasing after government whistle blowers (can't have people finding out about laws being broken or failures of the government/military now can we?). And a brand new assassination of Americans abroad program (who wouldn't be excited?!?). And those are the things that Obama is in no way shape or form constrained by Congress on, with the assassination program being a bright and shiny Obama original!
To the folks at Kos who believe that Republicans would be so much worse I say: "Yea? So?"
What I do not understand is that Democrats (including Obama), if they want to retain power and be reelected, need to be viewed as capable of doing something. Republicans may stand on a platform that I disagree with, but even I, at this point, would prefer a government that does something over nothing. Good or bad, right or wrong. I am not the arbiter of that which would be best for this nation. The GOP is at least willing to enact their agenda. The Democrats do not provide any substantial counter to that right now. To me, it seems that only Republicans are willing to try.
I'm not likely to vote for them, and I don't like their policy, but if the GOP wins back the House this fall, it will be because voters like me don't see much point in giving Democrats "power". When my option is to vote the lesser of two evils, I see nothing wrong with voting "Present." Democrats--including Obama--should be aware that they lose more than they gain by being weak and ineffectual.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Want to Reduce Spending?
I say eliminate the Senate. I know, I know, it would put 100 Senators plus the thousands of staffers out of work, but in Senate salary alone it's a savings of $20 million annually! It isn't like they are terribly useful.
Friday, July 30, 2010
How to Tax
The government needs revenue. It must acquire that somehow. That somehow is taxes. What would be the most "fair" method to tax by? I have my opinion, but here is my overview...
1. Income taxes: taxes on all income.
2. Wage taxes: taxes only on income earned by working.
3. Consumption taxes: value added taxes (VAT) and sales taxes.
4. Corporate taxes: taxing business (profit).
5. Tariffs: taxes on import/export of trade goods.
6. Property taxes: taxing ownership of somethings.
7. Estate taxes: taxing transfer by deed.
Numbers 2 and 3 are inherently regressive taxes. The rest can be progressive, flat or regressive depending on how they are set up. In many states property taxes are flat. Income taxes are generally set up to be progressive. The Estate tax is very progressive (though becomming less meaningful every alteration). It's hard to gauge the exact nature of corporate taxes and tariffs, and it isn't going to get you a good answer to ask. Still my ranking of like to dislike...
1. Estate tax. This is a great tax, that shouldn't really bug conservatives (though it does). It lets someone who has worked hard to build up a fortune keep it. But once they die their mostly good for nothing offspring (see: Walton family) have to pay a pretty hefty tax on what they are deeded. Progressive, decent revenue source, truly does not hurt anyone (the farmer issue is b.s.).
2. I like income tax. A lot. I would particularly like income tax to treat capital gains as normal income rather than in the bizarre way that it does in the US. Easy to make progressive. Generally pretty fair: everyone gets taxed according to their means (well not really, at present low to mid-income people are overtaxed, but ideally--with a good progressive tax scheme--it could be that way). Mostly it produces a lot of money in a relatively simple fashion. It's still way too damned complex, but so long as we have an elected government that won't change.
3. Corporate taxes. This is the first one that I am a bit ambivalent about. I think that it is a good way to get to a lot of revenue, some of which would otherwise be tax sheltered by people who have enough money to do that. I also think that it can stifle growth some. This is a tax I think needs lots of work to be really good, but that it can be really good. As it is too many big companies pay too little, while many smaller companies end up paying too much.
4. Consumption taxes I'm pretty ok with. I think VAT would be best, but even a simple sales tax is not a bad thing. Particularly one that does not apply to certain necessities (like non-junk food). While it does hit poor people harder, exempting food is a good way to minimize that. Specifying food that does and doesn't count, and having lots of other goods producers lobbying to be considered a necessity complicates things. VAT helps somewhat by having more tax on higher margin items...also by burying the tax to most people, it becomes easier to raise by 0.1% points every now and again. Most people wouldn't even notice. Of course, that is also a reason not to like it. Note: gas taxes are a special consumption tax.
5. Tariffs, I see, as more an international, economic negotiation tool than one for generating revenue. It could be simply because that is really how we use them. Kind of neutral except I don't think that protectionist taxes are a particularly good idea as they can (and do) end up hurting export oriented domestic business.
6. I generally don't like property taxes. Odd, as they have a possibility of being progressive to an extent nothing else on this list does (cap gains income is easier to shelter even with an ideal progressive income tax scheme). An ideal property tax system probably would be the most progressive system we could have, but I don't see it as a remotely real possibility. In the mean time, I do feel like if I purchase something, it is mine. I don't mind a small amount of property taxes to fund certain infrastructure issues (power, sewer, trash, roads), but I am strongly opposed to their, in some places dominant, use to fund schools. The quality of public schools should not be tied to the value of the neighborhoods that surround them. It's possible that I would like these better if they were state levied and redistributed according to need.
7. I detest wage taxes. Working people pay wage taxes. Rich people living off of interest and dividends and other capital gains do not pay any wage tax. Federal wage taxes are even worse since they have a dollar cut off and therefore wage earners are taxed in a regressive style. PA's state "income" tax is in fact a wage tax. As are the city taxes around here. Working people have to pay more than trust fund babies. Not fair, and morally reprehensible.
1. Income taxes: taxes on all income.
2. Wage taxes: taxes only on income earned by working.
3. Consumption taxes: value added taxes (VAT) and sales taxes.
4. Corporate taxes: taxing business (profit).
5. Tariffs: taxes on import/export of trade goods.
6. Property taxes: taxing ownership of somethings.
7. Estate taxes: taxing transfer by deed.
Numbers 2 and 3 are inherently regressive taxes. The rest can be progressive, flat or regressive depending on how they are set up. In many states property taxes are flat. Income taxes are generally set up to be progressive. The Estate tax is very progressive (though becomming less meaningful every alteration). It's hard to gauge the exact nature of corporate taxes and tariffs, and it isn't going to get you a good answer to ask. Still my ranking of like to dislike...
1. Estate tax. This is a great tax, that shouldn't really bug conservatives (though it does). It lets someone who has worked hard to build up a fortune keep it. But once they die their mostly good for nothing offspring (see: Walton family) have to pay a pretty hefty tax on what they are deeded. Progressive, decent revenue source, truly does not hurt anyone (the farmer issue is b.s.).
2. I like income tax. A lot. I would particularly like income tax to treat capital gains as normal income rather than in the bizarre way that it does in the US. Easy to make progressive. Generally pretty fair: everyone gets taxed according to their means (well not really, at present low to mid-income people are overtaxed, but ideally--with a good progressive tax scheme--it could be that way). Mostly it produces a lot of money in a relatively simple fashion. It's still way too damned complex, but so long as we have an elected government that won't change.
3. Corporate taxes. This is the first one that I am a bit ambivalent about. I think that it is a good way to get to a lot of revenue, some of which would otherwise be tax sheltered by people who have enough money to do that. I also think that it can stifle growth some. This is a tax I think needs lots of work to be really good, but that it can be really good. As it is too many big companies pay too little, while many smaller companies end up paying too much.
4. Consumption taxes I'm pretty ok with. I think VAT would be best, but even a simple sales tax is not a bad thing. Particularly one that does not apply to certain necessities (like non-junk food). While it does hit poor people harder, exempting food is a good way to minimize that. Specifying food that does and doesn't count, and having lots of other goods producers lobbying to be considered a necessity complicates things. VAT helps somewhat by having more tax on higher margin items...also by burying the tax to most people, it becomes easier to raise by 0.1% points every now and again. Most people wouldn't even notice. Of course, that is also a reason not to like it. Note: gas taxes are a special consumption tax.
5. Tariffs, I see, as more an international, economic negotiation tool than one for generating revenue. It could be simply because that is really how we use them. Kind of neutral except I don't think that protectionist taxes are a particularly good idea as they can (and do) end up hurting export oriented domestic business.
6. I generally don't like property taxes. Odd, as they have a possibility of being progressive to an extent nothing else on this list does (cap gains income is easier to shelter even with an ideal progressive income tax scheme). An ideal property tax system probably would be the most progressive system we could have, but I don't see it as a remotely real possibility. In the mean time, I do feel like if I purchase something, it is mine. I don't mind a small amount of property taxes to fund certain infrastructure issues (power, sewer, trash, roads), but I am strongly opposed to their, in some places dominant, use to fund schools. The quality of public schools should not be tied to the value of the neighborhoods that surround them. It's possible that I would like these better if they were state levied and redistributed according to need.
7. I detest wage taxes. Working people pay wage taxes. Rich people living off of interest and dividends and other capital gains do not pay any wage tax. Federal wage taxes are even worse since they have a dollar cut off and therefore wage earners are taxed in a regressive style. PA's state "income" tax is in fact a wage tax. As are the city taxes around here. Working people have to pay more than trust fund babies. Not fair, and morally reprehensible.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Conventional Idiocy
The Democrats are likely to lose seats this election. They are also likely to retain control of both houses of Congress. After the elections we will probably hear plenty (if we watch/read the news) about how Republicans have won. But Republicans are not likely to win this election. They are very likely to lose by less than they did in the past couple.
The Senate is messed up, so I'll ignore that.
The US House of Representatives completely turns over every two years. That means that the House is a good gauge of who the American people want governing them (kind of, gerrymandered districts actually mean that the US is more Democratic than the House, but eh?). If Democrats hold the House in the fall then it is the Democrats who have "won" the election. It is Democrats who have the support of the American people.
No matter how many seats the GOP picks up in November, if it is not enough to give them the majority in the House then the American people will have said: "We want Democrats in control."
It is possible the House turns over. Unfortunately, even if it doesn't we are likely to hear about what a big night it will have been for the GOP. And next to no one will admit the truth: Americans prefer to be governed by the Majority holder of the US House of Representatives.
The Senate is messed up, so I'll ignore that.
The US House of Representatives completely turns over every two years. That means that the House is a good gauge of who the American people want governing them (kind of, gerrymandered districts actually mean that the US is more Democratic than the House, but eh?). If Democrats hold the House in the fall then it is the Democrats who have "won" the election. It is Democrats who have the support of the American people.
No matter how many seats the GOP picks up in November, if it is not enough to give them the majority in the House then the American people will have said: "We want Democrats in control."
It is possible the House turns over. Unfortunately, even if it doesn't we are likely to hear about what a big night it will have been for the GOP. And next to no one will admit the truth: Americans prefer to be governed by the Majority holder of the US House of Representatives.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Curiouser and Curiouser
There seem to be some trains of thought on a collision course on the political left right now.
Train 1 left Boston about 15 years back traveling at near light speed toward the center of the country. It passed that about two years back and has slowed a bit but but really isn't looking back at the carnage left behind.
Train 2 tends to meander aimlessly at something between 20 and -40 mph. Currently it resides somewhere left of center, maybe, but probably not.
Train 1 is run by the heads of the Democratic party. Clinton, ran it for a bit. Now it is the Obama administration. Same train though. Lots of the "liberal" bloggers used to criticize this train as not being useful and causing more harm than good and not representing the people. They got tickets these past few years, however, and despite the fact that the train hasn't really changed direction or really even slowed much, they tend now to label the people who continue to criticize as not helping out.
Train 2 isn't really run by anyone, which explains why it meanders and changes velocity. This train formerly held most of the liberal/progressive blogosphere. There are still a few on board. It does have lots of independents. People who just want a government that functions (whether big or small) and for it mostly to not interfere with their personal lives. There are no tea baggers on board.
These holdover progressives and "independents" are not exactly tickled with the present administration (and those that pay attention are near apoplectic with Congress) but are largely being told that this administration is as good as we can hope for right now and so we should help out and keep working to get more (and better) Democrats elected.
But why? So that a Republican "Health Care" bill can be hailed as a progressive victory? So that we can continue to pour resources into creating death in Afghanistan? So that our (and others') civil liberties can continue to be trampled on? If this is the best that we can get with Democrats controlling everything, then what's the point in helping them?
We are living in a time that requires serious people in office. We do not have them. Even our president, who seemed as though he would be, is not. He is either weak and ineffective or he is obsessed with stupid things like the news cycle and that odd notion of perception (as opposed to reality) just like every other politician. Either way, he isn't likely to get my vote right now. Even if he ends up running against Sarah Palin (the embodiment of "moran").
I'll vote case by case and person by person. My congress critter hasn't been winning me over recently (took down his online contact page). My Senator has lost in the primary so I'll likely throw the new guy a bone there.
It isn't that I think Republicans would be better. I think they would be significantly worse. I don't think that things will get better if Democrats are taught a lesson by my not voting for them. But things are not actually getting better now. I'm just nearing the point that I'm willing to toss in the towel and let the country go to hell. I don't think I can bring myself to care enough. If the people in this country show up to vote Republicans back in power then our nation will get exactly what it deserves. It is the fault of Democrats--chiefly the current administration--if that happens.
When the hopes and dreams of the people who voted for you get tossed aside so thoughtlessly, then you don't deserve the support of those people any more. Shame on this administration and this Congress. And shame on anyone who works to defend their foolishness.
Train 1 left Boston about 15 years back traveling at near light speed toward the center of the country. It passed that about two years back and has slowed a bit but but really isn't looking back at the carnage left behind.
Train 2 tends to meander aimlessly at something between 20 and -40 mph. Currently it resides somewhere left of center, maybe, but probably not.
Train 1 is run by the heads of the Democratic party. Clinton, ran it for a bit. Now it is the Obama administration. Same train though. Lots of the "liberal" bloggers used to criticize this train as not being useful and causing more harm than good and not representing the people. They got tickets these past few years, however, and despite the fact that the train hasn't really changed direction or really even slowed much, they tend now to label the people who continue to criticize as not helping out.
Train 2 isn't really run by anyone, which explains why it meanders and changes velocity. This train formerly held most of the liberal/progressive blogosphere. There are still a few on board. It does have lots of independents. People who just want a government that functions (whether big or small) and for it mostly to not interfere with their personal lives. There are no tea baggers on board.
These holdover progressives and "independents" are not exactly tickled with the present administration (and those that pay attention are near apoplectic with Congress) but are largely being told that this administration is as good as we can hope for right now and so we should help out and keep working to get more (and better) Democrats elected.
But why? So that a Republican "Health Care" bill can be hailed as a progressive victory? So that we can continue to pour resources into creating death in Afghanistan? So that our (and others') civil liberties can continue to be trampled on? If this is the best that we can get with Democrats controlling everything, then what's the point in helping them?
We are living in a time that requires serious people in office. We do not have them. Even our president, who seemed as though he would be, is not. He is either weak and ineffective or he is obsessed with stupid things like the news cycle and that odd notion of perception (as opposed to reality) just like every other politician. Either way, he isn't likely to get my vote right now. Even if he ends up running against Sarah Palin (the embodiment of "moran").
I'll vote case by case and person by person. My congress critter hasn't been winning me over recently (took down his online contact page). My Senator has lost in the primary so I'll likely throw the new guy a bone there.
It isn't that I think Republicans would be better. I think they would be significantly worse. I don't think that things will get better if Democrats are taught a lesson by my not voting for them. But things are not actually getting better now. I'm just nearing the point that I'm willing to toss in the towel and let the country go to hell. I don't think I can bring myself to care enough. If the people in this country show up to vote Republicans back in power then our nation will get exactly what it deserves. It is the fault of Democrats--chiefly the current administration--if that happens.
When the hopes and dreams of the people who voted for you get tossed aside so thoughtlessly, then you don't deserve the support of those people any more. Shame on this administration and this Congress. And shame on anyone who works to defend their foolishness.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Depressing
UK slashing funding for science research. I wonder what all these science hating conservatives are going to do when China surpasses us in science research and development. I'm guessing start a war, but that's only because that's where the evidence points.
Ok, I want one...
Well, really I just want enough other people to want one, but I think that it will take a bit more than pure performance for any but the biggest gearheads. I think that, at some point, if they want to create mass appeal/desire, they should do this with something a bit sexier than a 1972 Datsun.
I kinda like the look, and I've always been keen on cars that don't look like much but that can blow your doors off, but I'm certainly odd in that regard. Most people want cars that look fast, even if they aren't so much.
I kinda like the look, and I've always been keen on cars that don't look like much but that can blow your doors off, but I'm certainly odd in that regard. Most people want cars that look fast, even if they aren't so much.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Frustrating...
...not surprising, but frustrating never the less. Toyota/Tesla partnership is serious because they are going to make an Electric SUV!!
The single biggest problem with transportation efficiency in this country is the size and weight of the vehicles that travel our streets. A bus or a truck that transports goods mitigates the efficiency issue with quantity (though rail is still more efficient...for both). If we could get 1700 lb cars with modern engines we could be seeing 50-70 mpg. Do the same thing with electric and you can 1) reduce the weight further, and 2) make the total efficiency equation even better.
The fact that people in this country still demand SUV's is very frustrating to me. I would love to see a vehicle weight tax. $2/lb over, say 3000 lbs. There is no good reason to have a vehicle that weighs more for 99.9% of this country. Not one.
The single biggest problem with transportation efficiency in this country is the size and weight of the vehicles that travel our streets. A bus or a truck that transports goods mitigates the efficiency issue with quantity (though rail is still more efficient...for both). If we could get 1700 lb cars with modern engines we could be seeing 50-70 mpg. Do the same thing with electric and you can 1) reduce the weight further, and 2) make the total efficiency equation even better.
The fact that people in this country still demand SUV's is very frustrating to me. I would love to see a vehicle weight tax. $2/lb over, say 3000 lbs. There is no good reason to have a vehicle that weighs more for 99.9% of this country. Not one.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
When Winners Sulk
The losers win. This piece by Digby is an astoundingly good description of the way most of us Americans perceive winning and what that means.
The Democrats won big in 2006 and bigger in 2008. Victories giving them control of both houses of congress (and super large majorities in both) as well as the presidency. Any and all failures to accomplish things are theirs. Not Republicans. No matter how much it is the truth that bizzare rules and reprehensible behavior among the opposition is, in fact, to blame for the lack of accomplishment, that is not the way we collectively perceive things.
Democrats have control of pretty much everything (and to a much greater extent than Republicans ever have) and have accomplished next to nothing. Republicans are clearly winning, and Democrats are clearly useless, and in a country that values winning over losing more than it does right over wrong, votes are likely to go to the winners, i.e. Republicans.
Along those lines, any time I read (or hear) some "liberal" pundit crow about how the health care--actually health insurance--legislation as some major accomplishment I want to claw my eyes (or ears) out. That any Democrat would want to claim that the Republican legislation which passed was a win is not just a shame, it's a concession that only Republicans can win. Even when they all oppose and fight against it, Republicans still got their legislation passed. Democrats are pathetic losers, even when they "win".
The Democrats won big in 2006 and bigger in 2008. Victories giving them control of both houses of congress (and super large majorities in both) as well as the presidency. Any and all failures to accomplish things are theirs. Not Republicans. No matter how much it is the truth that bizzare rules and reprehensible behavior among the opposition is, in fact, to blame for the lack of accomplishment, that is not the way we collectively perceive things.
Democrats have control of pretty much everything (and to a much greater extent than Republicans ever have) and have accomplished next to nothing. Republicans are clearly winning, and Democrats are clearly useless, and in a country that values winning over losing more than it does right over wrong, votes are likely to go to the winners, i.e. Republicans.
Along those lines, any time I read (or hear) some "liberal" pundit crow about how the health care--actually health insurance--legislation as some major accomplishment I want to claw my eyes (or ears) out. That any Democrat would want to claim that the Republican legislation which passed was a win is not just a shame, it's a concession that only Republicans can win. Even when they all oppose and fight against it, Republicans still got their legislation passed. Democrats are pathetic losers, even when they "win".
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Credit Unions
I like credit unions (not for profit financial institutions). They tend to have less troublesome--i.e. evil--practices. The benefits of being not for profit are: no taxes, better rates (deposit and lending).
It's pretty easy to figure. Imagine a bank and a credit union with the same depositor base. Both set a rate for a new car loan for a specific person at 6.25%. Both institutions have employees to pay, and insurance to buy, and other expenses (building, electronic transactions, etc.). To simplify let's just say that those expenses are the same for both, which is reasonable since we are trying to compare to similar sized institutions. Exactly what that will take away is hard to say, but as it doesn't really matter, let's say the leftovers on the loan is 2.5%. With a credit union all of that will go to the depositors as interest. The goal of the bank, however, is profit.
So for the bank, some of those leftovers are going to be profit. Since a bank is for profit, those profits are taxed, so those taxes also come out of that extra (technically they come out of the profits, but the profits are set greater to accommodate the tax burden). If depositors at a bank are lucky, then they get about a quarter to the dollar of a good credit union.
Now credit unions can also lower lending rates, which would reduce deposit interest, but would benefit customers in a different way. The result is the same: banks absolutely, positively, cannot compete in a rational market.
So banks try and make the market as irrational as possible. Laws are written so that credit union charters are granted very narrowly so that credit unions cannot grow or spread too much. Credit unions are made to have restrictions on who can join. Credit unions are not allowed access to the fed for their money but must often go to banks for their short term loans.
As such I love to see banks fail when going up against credit unions. More, I can't stand the dumb ass tax argument. Credit unions are tax free because of their not for profit status, not because banks have been relatively successful--to date--in pinning them to small isolated customer bases. So long as a credit union remains not for profit, they will retain their tax free status and should be allowed to grow as large as the market will bear. Right?
It's pretty easy to figure. Imagine a bank and a credit union with the same depositor base. Both set a rate for a new car loan for a specific person at 6.25%. Both institutions have employees to pay, and insurance to buy, and other expenses (building, electronic transactions, etc.). To simplify let's just say that those expenses are the same for both, which is reasonable since we are trying to compare to similar sized institutions. Exactly what that will take away is hard to say, but as it doesn't really matter, let's say the leftovers on the loan is 2.5%. With a credit union all of that will go to the depositors as interest. The goal of the bank, however, is profit.
So for the bank, some of those leftovers are going to be profit. Since a bank is for profit, those profits are taxed, so those taxes also come out of that extra (technically they come out of the profits, but the profits are set greater to accommodate the tax burden). If depositors at a bank are lucky, then they get about a quarter to the dollar of a good credit union.
Now credit unions can also lower lending rates, which would reduce deposit interest, but would benefit customers in a different way. The result is the same: banks absolutely, positively, cannot compete in a rational market.
So banks try and make the market as irrational as possible. Laws are written so that credit union charters are granted very narrowly so that credit unions cannot grow or spread too much. Credit unions are made to have restrictions on who can join. Credit unions are not allowed access to the fed for their money but must often go to banks for their short term loans.
As such I love to see banks fail when going up against credit unions. More, I can't stand the dumb ass tax argument. Credit unions are tax free because of their not for profit status, not because banks have been relatively successful--to date--in pinning them to small isolated customer bases. So long as a credit union remains not for profit, they will retain their tax free status and should be allowed to grow as large as the market will bear. Right?
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Functional Banks
Banking serves an important role in the economy: it distributes money efficiently (when it works). People who have extra money put it into a bank, and that bank loans it out to others who need money (for things like cars, houses, ginormous tv's...). People who borrow money pay interest and the people who deposit (lend) money receive some portion of that interest. The difference goes to the bank, which uses it to pay employees, maintain infrastructure, et cetera.
When working well there isn't much extra past that because if there were, then some other bank would pay better rates to depositors and depositors would take their money and put it there. Banking should not be a very profitable industry, and it isn't. That's where investment banking comes in.
Investment banking supposedly does something similar (for our economy) to what regular banks do, but borrowers (and "depositors") are bigger and sometimes so are their risks. Investment banks sell securities to investors. Those securities are essentially loans to others. Investment banks are serving as intermediaries (like regular banks) but with no risk. If a loan (security) fails to pay out or plummets in value, it is the investor that is out the money. Investment banks do not make money off interest, but rather fees.
If a loan fails, the bank is out $, which motivates it to determine that the borrower is not likely to run out and that the collateral is sound.
For an investment bank, there is no such motivation. There is, however, a duty to give accurate and complete information to their clients (investors). But the motivation is to make that information as complicated and difficult to understand as possible so that they can sell any investment (good, bad, or otherwise), and so that they can hide true costs and pocket larger fees through the sales.
Pretty much all of the failures that occurred with respect to the financial crisis are due to investment banking. It is true that conventional banks were part of that, but that was simply a function of this murky securities market, and the wall separating the two (part of Glass-Steagall) being eliminated.
Since Glass-Steagall is not being restored, I fully expect this to repeat itself.
When working well there isn't much extra past that because if there were, then some other bank would pay better rates to depositors and depositors would take their money and put it there. Banking should not be a very profitable industry, and it isn't. That's where investment banking comes in.
Investment banking supposedly does something similar (for our economy) to what regular banks do, but borrowers (and "depositors") are bigger and sometimes so are their risks. Investment banks sell securities to investors. Those securities are essentially loans to others. Investment banks are serving as intermediaries (like regular banks) but with no risk. If a loan (security) fails to pay out or plummets in value, it is the investor that is out the money. Investment banks do not make money off interest, but rather fees.
If a loan fails, the bank is out $, which motivates it to determine that the borrower is not likely to run out and that the collateral is sound.
For an investment bank, there is no such motivation. There is, however, a duty to give accurate and complete information to their clients (investors). But the motivation is to make that information as complicated and difficult to understand as possible so that they can sell any investment (good, bad, or otherwise), and so that they can hide true costs and pocket larger fees through the sales.
Pretty much all of the failures that occurred with respect to the financial crisis are due to investment banking. It is true that conventional banks were part of that, but that was simply a function of this murky securities market, and the wall separating the two (part of Glass-Steagall) being eliminated.
Since Glass-Steagall is not being restored, I fully expect this to repeat itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)