On My Mind

Friday, November 20, 2009

Chair Issue Continues

Molly really does have a thing about this damned chair. There are times that she will be sitting in the doorway to my room and when I go to enter the room she will race me to the chair, looking over her shoulder to monitor progress, and leap into the dratted chair just before I reach it.

Yesterday I was in the room doing something else and she was snoozing contentedly in the chair. I left momentarily, was gone only a matter of a few seconds, and when I returned she was just inside the door, in the process of leaving the room. As soon as she saw me coming she raced for the chair and jumped back into it, sitting down and staring at me with that inimitable feline look of disdain.

I’m not sure if she likes the chair, or if she just likes keeping me out of it.

<a href="http://www.sonora-sw.com/blog/chaircat.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:-5px 0 5px 0; width:430px; height:298px; border:1px solid #000000" src="http://www.sonora-sw.com/blog/chaircat.jpg" alt="My chair"></a>Molly really does have a thing about this damned chair. There are times that she will be sitting in the doorway to my room and when I go to enter the room she will race me to the chair, looking over her shoulder to monitor progress, and leap into the dratted chair just before I reach it. Yesterday I was in the room doing something else and she was snoozing contentedly in the chair. I left momentarily, was gone only a matter of a few seconds, and when I returned she was just inside the door, in the process of leaving the room. As soon as she saw me coming she raced for the chair and jumped back into it, sitting down and staring at me with that inimitable feline look of disdain. I’m not sure if she likes the chair, or if she just likes keeping me out of it.

Employer Tax Credits

What does an employer need in order to hire another employee, that is to “create a job”? How about more business for that employee to be doing. How about more people buying his products. A tax credit? Give me a break.

It’s clear these idiots in Congress have never owned a business. “Small businesses need this,” they say, and “small businesses need that” as if they had the slightest clue what any kind of businesses need. So they propose an employer tax credit to create new jobs. “Hire another employee,” they say, “and we’ll give you a break on that employee’s payroll taxes.”

Great. Are you going to pay his wages too, while he stands around reading comic books because I don’t have any work for him to do? The economy is crap, my business is down and shows no signs of being better, and you want me to hire new people not because I have anything for them to do but because the payroll tax on them will cost less.

That’s sort of the inverse of my grandmother’s, “These biscuits didn’t cost me anything to make because I already had all of the ingredients.”

The consumer’s equivalent is that “I’m going to buy a new car because it’s on sale. I don’t need a car and cannot afford one, and I’m taking out a loan that I can’t make the payments on and that will wreck my credit record, but the price on the car is too good to pass up.” ("Cash for clunkers.")

The kind of businessman that will create new jobs based on the tax credit is, “I can make a new hire because it’s cheaper than usual. Do I need a new hire? No. Do I have anything for the new hire to do? No. Can I afford the new hire? Well, I can borrow to pay for the new hire; the price is too good to pass up.” They will be temporary jobs, because the businesses that fall for this are run by people who are so damned stupid that they will go out of business.

What does an employer need in order to hire another employee, that is to “create a job”? How about more business for that employee to be doing. How about more people buying his products. A tax credit? Give me a break. It’s clear these idiots in Congress have never owned a business. “Small businesses need this,” they say, and “small businesses need that” as if they had the slightest clue what any kind of businesses need. So they propose an employer tax credit to create new jobs. “Hire another employee,” they say, “and we’ll give you a break on that employee’s payroll taxes.” Great. Are you going to pay his wages too, while he stands around reading comic books because I don’t have any work for him to do? The economy is crap, my business is down and shows no signs of being better, and you want me to hire new people not because I have anything for them to do but because the payroll tax on them will cost less. That’s sort of the inverse of my grandmother’s, “These biscuits didn’t cost me anything to make because I already had all of the ingredients.” The consumer’s equivalent is that “I’m going to buy a new car because it’s on sale. I don’t need a car and cannot afford one, and I’m taking out a loan that I can’t make the payments on and that will wreck my credit record, but the price on the car is too good to pass up.”   ("Cash for clunkers.") The kind of businessman that will create new jobs based on the tax credit is, “I can make a new hire because it’s cheaper than usual. Do I need a new hire? No. Do I have anything for the new hire to do? No. Can I afford the new hire? Well, I can borrow to pay for the new hire; the price is too good to pass up.” They will be temporary jobs, because the businesses that fall for this are run by people who are so damned stupid that they will go out of business.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

End Of The World

Forget about the world ending on Dec 12, 2012 because of the Mayans. Actually it ends on Dec 31, 2009 because I just checked the calendar on my wall, and that's the last day on it. Party time.

Inanity Abounds

Chris Matthews, Joan Walsh and Nora O'Donnell spent ten minutes on Hardball yesterday talking about Sarah Palin, and I swear it sounded like three people competing to see which one could more rapidly diminish the collective IQ. Certainly the apparent mentality of the group declined with increasing speed throughout the discussion.

Update: 8:50am
It has been pointed out that the collective IQ wasn't that high to start with.

Churning The Market

The numbers for housing starts in October are in, and the housing market “green shoots” seem to be suffering from a slight case of over-optimism. Expectations ranged from a high estimate of 630,000 to a low of 570,000, and the actual number was 529,000.

The government is doing everything it can to reinflate the housing bubble, lobbying itself to extend the $8000 home buyer’s tax credit, extending FHA loans with as little as 3.5% down payment and allowing the tax credit to be used as down payment, and keeping the bank lending rate at zero which keeps mortgage rates at historic low levels.

Congress is also considering extending the tax credit to buyers who are not first-time buyers, and it has recently created a $6500 tax credit for people who already own a home and are buying a different one.

The tax credit for first-time buyers can be defended, albeit questionably, as “encouraging home ownership,” but extending it to prior owners and creating a tax break for present owners to buy different homes is pure pork; tax incentives which do nothing but “churn” the housing market and stimulate sales for the purpose of creating artificial economic growth.

This is part of the mechanism whereby we see an increase in the GDP and upturns in the stock market, both of which are beneficial for Wall Street, while unemployment continues to climb and Main Street suffers.

The numbers for housing starts in October are in, and the housing market “green shoots” seem to be suffering from a slight case of over-optimism. Expectations ranged from a high estimate of 630,000 to a low of 570,000, and the <a target="_blank" href="http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/housing-starts-green-shoots-wither-on.html">actual number</a> was 529,000. The government is doing everything it can to reinflate the housing bubble, lobbying itself to extend the $8000 home buyer’s tax credit, extending FHA loans with as little as 3.5% down payment and allowing the tax credit to be used as down payment, and keeping the bank lending rate at zero which keeps mortgage rates at historic low levels. Congress is also considering extending the tax credit to buyers who are not first-time buyers, and it has recently created a $6500 tax credit for people who already own a home and are buying a different one. The tax credit for first-time buyers can be defended, albeit questionably, as “encouraging home ownership,” but extending it to prior owners and creating a tax break for present owners to buy different homes is pure pork; tax incentives which do nothing but “churn” the housing market and stimulate sales for the purpose of creating artificial economic growth. This is part of the mechanism whereby we see an increase in the GDP and upturns in the stock market, both of which are beneficial for Wall Street, while unemployment continues to climb and Main Street suffers.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

China as "Our Bank"

Amid the hyperventilating about Obama being in China as a “supplicant” this week because “China is our banker” and “China owns our debt and therefor owns us,” maybe we should step back and look at what that situation really is. I didn’t notice Obama bowing to the Chinese Premier.

China actually owns about one-fourth of our foreign debt, but not all of our debt is foreign owned. In fact, not much of it is, but of the portion that is, China does not even hold a majority of that portion.

China holds about $1.25 trillion of our current total debt of $12 trillion. Well, dog my cats, that’s a whopping 10% of our total debt. The idea of China as “our bank” just got a little less scary.

Further complicating the picture is that China is not a very big bank. The small portion of our debt that they hold is a pretty large portion of their “cash on hand,” and they are in no position to play cowboys and Indians with us by trying to sell it. The minute they sell the first part of it, the rest of it drops sharply in value and they can’t afford that.

So “our bank” may have a lien, but they sure aren’t going to foreclose.

Amid the hyperventilating about Obama being in China as a “supplicant” this week because “China is our banker” and “China owns our debt and therefor owns us,” maybe we should step back and look at what that situation really is. I didn’t notice Obama bowing to the Chinese Premier. China actually owns about one-fourth of our foreign debt, but not all of our debt is foreign owned. In fact, not much of it is, but of the portion that is, China does not even hold a majority of that portion. China holds about $1.25 trillion of our current total debt of $12 trillion. Well, dog my cats, that’s a whopping 10% of our total debt. The idea of China as “our bank” just got a little less scary. Further complicating the picture is that China is not a very big bank. The small portion of our debt that they hold is a pretty large portion of their “cash on hand,” and they are in no position to play cowboys and Indians with us by trying to sell it. The minute they sell the first part of it, the rest of it drops sharply in value and they can’t afford that. So “our bank” may have a lien, but they sure aren’t going to foreclose.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The Productivity Myth

In a speech this week, translated into English for us by Karl Denninger here, Ben Bernanke spoke of recent productivity gains as if they were somehow praiseworthy. Karl translates that into “work harder or die,” but
I have some further thoughts, of course.

Many years ago I was down in Mexico with a friend of mine who was a contractor. We had a sort of informal “guide” with us, and one day the three of us were watching a construction project. I don’t recall, after all these years, the details of the project or the conversation, but “peons” were carrying concrete in buckets up ladders, and there was no construction equipment of any description on the jobsite. There were a hell of a lot of peons. My friend asked why there was no equipment and was told that the government did not permit it; that work was required to be performed by hand. My friend was astonished and declaimed at some length how stupid that was and how he could not make a profit under those circumstances, and finally asked why the government would pass such a stupid law.

“Because,” our guide replied, “the government does not care about the profits of businesses. The government cares that all of these men have jobs and can feed their families."

Our government, obviously, cares about the profits of businesses and so considers increased productivity to be a good thing.

Bernanke said, “It may seem paradoxical that productivity growth--which in the longer term is the most important source of increases in real wages and living standards--can have adverse consequences for employment in the short term.”

He is not alone in believing that productivity leads to “increases in real wages and living standards,” and those who believe that are dead wrong. Collective bargaining leads to increased wages, and productivity growth is one of the levers that the bargainers use to secure those higher wages. Without collective bargaining, productivity growth leads to nothing but increased profit for the employer. Before the advent of collective bargaining represented by labor unions, business made every effort to obtain more production from their workers, and higher wages were never a result.

Henry Ford paying higher wages was the result of an industrial revolution, and he paid those higher wages so that the workers could buy his products. He did not raise wages simply because his workers were producing more product; he did so because he was introducing an entirely new business model. Once that model was established he didn’t raise wages until labor union collective bargaining required him to do so.

Bernanke completes his paradox about the possible adverse consequences of productivity growth, “But, when the demand for goods and services is growing slowly, that may be the case.”

Indeed. Like for the past thirty years when productivity has grown steadily and significantly and the real income of the working man and woman has declined as labor unions have lost ground and the number of workplaces subject to collective bargaining has decreased.

The other myth is that productivity in the long term leads to more jobs, and that one also is completely untrue. Productivity growth by definition leads to fewer jobs. One of the arguments used in the collective bargaining process is fewer jobs; that because there are fewer jobs the business can pay higher wages to each of those fewer jobs.

In a micro sense, a single employer may gain jobs due to productivity growth. With a more competitive product, the employer achieves a bigger market share and grows the business, hiring more workers. Those increased jobs come at the cost of jobs lost at other employers and the overall effect of that productivity growth is jobs lost.

In any case, define the "more jobs" that exist. It may be more than there were to begin, but it is fewer jobs than would exist without the productivity growth. That's not to suggest that we go back to having peons carrying concrete in buckets, but...

In praising productivity, Bernanke is not the working person’s friend.

In a speech this week, translated into English for us by <a target="_blank" href="http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1630-FedSpeak-Translation-1116.html">Karl Denninger here</a>, Ben Bernanke spoke of recent productivity gains as if they were somehow praiseworthy. Karl translates that into “work harder or die,” but I have some further thoughts, of course. Many years ago I was down in Mexico with a friend of mine who was a contractor. We had a sort of informal “guide” with us, and one day the three of us were watching a construction project. I don’t recall, after all these years, the details of the project or the conversation, but “peons” were carrying concrete in buckets up ladders, and there was no construction equipment of any description on the jobsite. There were a hell of a lot of peons. My friend asked why there was no equipment and was told that the government did not permit it; that work was required to be performed by hand. My friend was astonished and declaimed at some length how stupid that was and how he could not make a profit under those circumstances, and finally asked why the government would pass such a stupid law. “Because,” our guide replied, “the government does not care about the profits of businesses. The government cares that all of these men have jobs and can feed their families." Our government, obviously, cares about the profits of businesses and so considers increased productivity to be a good thing. Bernanke said, “It may seem paradoxical that productivity growth--which in the longer term is the most important source of increases in real wages and living standards--can have adverse consequences for employment in the short term.” He is not alone in believing that productivity leads to “increases in real wages and living standards,” and those who believe that are dead wrong. Collective bargaining leads to increased wages, and productivity growth is one of the levers that the bargainers use to secure those higher wages. Without collective bargaining, productivity growth leads to nothing but increased profit for the employer. Before the advent of collective bargaining represented by labor unions, business made every effort to obtain more production from their workers, and higher wages were never a result. Henry Ford paying higher wages was the result of an industrial revolution, and he paid those higher wages so that the workers could buy his products. He did not raise wages simply because his workers were producing more product; he did so because he was introducing an entirely new business model. Once that model was established he didn’t raise wages until labor union collective bargaining required him to do so. Bernanke completes his paradox about the possible adverse consequences of productivity growth, “But, when the demand for goods and services is growing slowly, that may be the case.” Indeed. Like for the past thirty years when productivity has grown steadily and significantly and the real income of the working man and woman has declined as labor unions have lost ground and the number of workplaces subject to collective bargaining has decreased. The other myth is that productivity in the long term leads to more jobs, and that one also is completely untrue. Productivity growth by definition leads to fewer jobs. One of the arguments used in the collective bargaining process is fewer jobs; that because there are fewer jobs the business can pay higher wages to each of those fewer jobs. In a micro sense, a single employer may gain jobs due to productivity growth. With a more competitive product, the employer achieves a bigger market share and grows the business, hiring more workers. Those increased jobs come at the cost of jobs lost at other employers and the overall effect of that productivity growth is jobs lost. In any case, define the "more jobs" that exist. It may be more than there were to begin, but it is fewer jobs than would exist without the productivity growth. That's not to suggest that we go back to having peons carrying concrete in buckets, but... In praising productivity, Bernanke is not the working person’s friend.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Mandates and Reform

Supporters of “health care reform” are outraged, simply outraged, by the suggestion that requiring employers to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a “head tax” is going to affect job creation or the reduction of unemployment. If you suggest such a thing, they say, you are a heinous person who believes that corporate profits are more important than people’s lives because people die when they don’t have insurance.

I don’t have a dog in this hunt, because I am neither an employer nor a prospective employee, but how can it be possible that adding to the cost of having employees does not adversely affect the process of increasing employment? How, in fact, can raising the cost of employment fail to reduce the number of jobs?

Let’s postulate an employer with 50 employees; not currently providing health insurance because he cannot afford to. He is breaking even and barely getting by personally on what he is making from the company. He has cut costs in every way that he can, and the market is shrinking rather than expanding. He gets told that he must pay an 8% tax on his payroll. What can he do? He really has no choice but to release four employees as a result of that 8% tax.

So 46 people get health insurance, but 4 people lose their jobs.

Is that a fair trade? I guess that can be argued, but I know that there will be four people who will say that it is not. Probably some 17.5% of the people in this nation will say that it is not; the people who are unemployed or underemployed. I don’t think you will convince them that by making it more costly to add jobs you are not reducing the pace at which jobs will be added.

Politicians talked about how auto manufacturers had to be bailed out because they had the “unfair burden” of providing health care for their employers; a burden that foreign manufacturers did not bear. They talked about the burden of high health care costs that Americans bear. And then where do they put the burden of paying for reform? They create an “individual mandate” and an “employer mandate” to pay for reform.

Supporters of “health care reform” are outraged, simply outraged, by the suggestion that requiring employers to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a “head tax” is going to affect job creation or the reduction of unemployment. If you suggest such a thing, they say, you are a heinous person who believes that corporate profits are more important than people’s lives because people die when they don’t have insurance. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, because I am neither an employer nor a prospective employee, but how can it be possible that adding to the cost of having employees does not adversely affect the process of increasing employment? How, in fact, can raising the cost of employment fail to reduce the number of jobs? Let’s postulate an employer with 50 employees; not currently providing health insurance because he cannot afford to. He is breaking even and barely getting by personally on what he is making from the company. He has cut costs in every way that he can, and the market is shrinking rather than expanding. He gets told that he must pay an 8% tax on his payroll. What can he do? He really has no choice but to release four employees as a result of that 8% tax. So 46 people get health insurance, but 4 people lose their jobs. Is that a fair trade? I guess that can be argued, but I know that there will be four people who will say that it is not. Probably some 17.5% of the people in this nation will say that it is not; the people who are unemployed or underemployed. I don’t think you will convince them that by making it more costly to add jobs you are not reducing the pace at which jobs will be added. Politicians talked about how auto manufacturers had to be bailed out because they had the “unfair burden” of providing health care for their employers; a burden that foreign manufacturers did not bear. They talked about the burden of high health care costs that Americans bear. And then where do they put the burden of paying for reform? They create an “individual mandate” and an “employer mandate” to pay for reform.

Division Leaders

Just a few weeks ago we were written off; the Chargers would be done the last week of the regular season. Now we are tied for the division lead. Next week we play our co-leaders for sole possession of the division title, and we will be favored to win.

Sure the defense gave up a lot of passing yards yesterday, but that was no bumpkin wearing a QB number; that was Donovan McNabb. We ran, we passed, we played defense. The Chargers seem to be getting it together.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Amtrak = Fail

The drive between San Diego and LA can be as little as two hours, but on holiday weekends it is not unusual for it to take four hours or more, so when I was invited to visit my nephew on Thanksgiving weekend, I had the bright idea to ride Amtrak.

It started out to be a good idea. There are twelve trains daily, the fare is quite reasonable, and the ride is about 2.5 hours station-to-station. Okay, excellent. “Hmmm, what’s this ‘Service Notice’ thing?”

The “Service Notice” turns out to be that the train is only running from Los Angeles north from now until an indefinite date in the future, and between Los Angeles and San Diego service will be provided by bus except on four days; Nov 28, Dec 5, Dec 26 and Jan 2 of next year.

So that train you see parked there? Yeah; it’s parked.

<img style="display:block; margin:-5px 0 5px 0; width:430px; height:140px; border:1px solid #000000" src="http://www.sonora-sw.com/blog/amtrack.jpg" alt="parked"> The drive between San Diego and LA can be as little as two hours, but on holiday weekends it is not unusual for it to take four hours or more, so when I was invited to visit my nephew on Thanksgiving weekend, I had the bright idea to ride Amtrak. It started out to be a good idea. There are twelve trains daily, the fare is quite reasonable, and the ride is about 2.5 hours station-to-station. Okay, excellent. “Hmmm, what’s this ‘Service Notice’ thing?” The “Service Notice” turns out to be that the train is only running from Los Angeles north from now until an indefinite date in the future, and between Los Angeles and San Diego service will be provided by bus except on four days; Nov 28, Dec 5, Dec 26 and Jan 2 of next year. So that train you see parked there? Yeah; it’s parked.

Degrees of Evil

Health insurance is in need or reform. I do not for one moment question that assertion, and I am in favor of some of the reform that is being proposed. But insurance is not the only problem in our health care delivery system, it is not the biggest problem, and in some respects it is part of the solution. Consider the following.

We paid total insurance premiums, employer and employee combined, of $7,285 this year because my wife works for a very large company and they have good purchasing power. It is an average policy, with significant deductibles and copays which are higher when we use medical providers that are not “in plan.”

Our out-of-pocket costs have been $2,870 and the insurance company has paid $4,234 on our behalf, for total medical costs incurred of $7,204 paid to medical providers.

Two things sort of leap out here. First is that the insurance company took in $3,051 more than it paid out, which is highway robbery. But that’s really none of my business. When I buy a product I decide if the price I’m willing to pay is justified by what I am receiving and, if it is, then I buy the product. How much of that selling price is profit is not relevant to its value to me. When you buy a bicycle at Sears, do you ask them how much profit they are making on that bicycle?

One also needs to consider that health insurance is a “risk pool” business. How many policies did that company issue where it paid out $3000 more than it took in?

The other thing in those numbers is that it would appear that we could have saved $81 by not having insurance and paying cash for our medical care. That appearance is deceptive. That appearance is very wrong, in fact.

The $7204 was the discounted amount billed by the providers to the insurance company. Had we been cash customers, that amount would have been $15,529 instead, more than two times as much. The insurance company saved us $5374 by demanding deep discounts from medical providers and passing that discount on to us.

Costco charges an annual membership fee to buy merchandise at a reduced cost, made possible by their enormous purchasing power of buying in very large quantity. Health insurance companies offer that same benefit to their clients, they demand deep discounts from medical providers, and they don’t pocket that discount; they pass that savings on to the people they insure. That’s really evil, isn’t it?

On the other hand, hospitals, doctors, and testing labs charge well over twice as much to cash customers as they do to insurance companies. What does present reform do to address that terrible inequity? Nothing.

These insurance premiums are made up, by the way; the medical bills are not, they are actual medical bills and they were not selected. Medical providers routinely do bill cash customers more than twice what they bill insurance, and that is an outrageous practice. I am appalled at the lack of attention that such a usurious policy is receiving.

Health insurance is in need or reform. I do not for one moment question that assertion, and I am in favor of some of the reform that is being proposed. But insurance is not the only problem in our health care delivery system, it is not the biggest problem, and in some respects it is part of the solution. Consider the following. We paid total insurance premiums, employer and employee combined, of $7,285 this year because my wife works for a very large company and they have good purchasing power. It is an average policy, with significant deductibles and copays which are higher when we use medical providers that are not “in plan.” Our out-of-pocket costs have been $2,870 and the insurance company has paid $4,234 on our behalf, for total medical costs incurred of $7,204 paid to medical providers. Two things sort of leap out here. First is that the insurance company took in $3,051 more than it paid out, which is highway robbery. But that’s really none of my business. When I buy a product I decide if the price I’m willing to pay is justified by what I am receiving and, if it is, then I buy the product. How much of that selling price is profit is not relevant to its value to me. When you buy a bicycle at Sears, do you ask them how much profit they are making on that bicycle? One also needs to consider that health insurance is a “risk pool” business. How many policies did that company issue where it paid out $3000 more than it took in? The other thing in those numbers is that it would appear that we could have saved $81 by not having insurance and paying cash for our medical care. That appearance is deceptive. That appearance is very wrong, in fact. The $7204 was the discounted amount billed by the providers to the insurance company. Had we been cash customers, that amount would have been $15,529 instead, more than two times as much. The insurance company saved us $5374 by demanding deep discounts from medical providers and passing that discount on to us. Costco charges an annual membership fee to buy merchandise at a reduced cost, made possible by their enormous purchasing power of buying in very large quantity. Health insurance companies offer that same benefit to their clients, they demand deep discounts from medical providers, and they don’t pocket that discount; they pass that savings on to the people they insure. That’s really evil, isn’t it? On the other hand, hospitals, doctors, and testing labs charge well over twice as much to cash customers as they do to insurance companies. What does present reform do to address that terrible inequity? Nothing. These insurance premiums are made up, by the way; the medical bills are not, they are actual medical bills and they were not selected. Medical providers routinely do bill cash customers more than twice what they bill insurance, and that is an outrageous practice. I am appalled at the lack of attention that such a usurious policy is receiving.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Free To Lose

Paul Krugman has an op-ed today in the New York Times in which he reverts to the form where the brilliant economist writes brilliant ideas so forcefully and with such clarity that anyone reading them who has more than, say, a grade school reading comprehension should react with the thought of, “Oh wow, we should really do that.”

They won’t of course. As with the health care issue, people will say, “Well, that may work for Europe, but we’re not Europe.”

Naturally those people will not have the slightest idea in what way we differ from Europe, or how those differences would prevent what Krugman suggests from working here. They will, however, be perfectly willing to have our unemployment remain above 10% indefinitely in order to prove exactly how “not Europe” we are. Just as they are willing to pay twice as much for health care in order to prove that single payer will not work here, by the simple expedient of not trying it.

I actually like the WPA or CCC idea, and would even be willing for them to wear brown shirts just to watch Glenn Beck foam at the mouth. I am less inclined to favor “employment tax credits” for the simple reason that we have used those in the past and results have been very much less than a success. I have no reason to believe that we would do it any better now than we did then.

I am totally in agreement with Dr. Krugman on the basic point, though, and that is that indirect action is all too prone to be limited to the initial part of the program leaving the second part, the actual goal, unrealized. The idea of “trickle down economics" was to create wealth at the top of the heap and let it trickle down to the working class, and we know how well that worked out. Creating jobs by “growing the economy” is not working, and when something isn’t working the solution may or may not be to do something else, but it sure as hell isn’t to simply do more of what you’re doing.

Paul Krugman has an <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1&hp">op-ed today</a> in the New York Times in which he reverts to the form where the brilliant economist writes brilliant ideas so forcefully and with such clarity that anyone reading them who has more than, say, a grade school reading comprehension should react with the thought of, “Oh wow, we should really do that.” They won’t of course. As with the health care issue, people will say, “Well, that may work for Europe, but we’re not Europe.” Naturally those people will not have the slightest idea in what way we differ from Europe, or how those differences would prevent what Krugman suggests from working here. They will, however, be perfectly willing to have our unemployment remain above 10% indefinitely in order to prove exactly how “not Europe” we are. Just as they are willing to pay twice as much for health care in order to prove that single payer will not work here, by the simple expedient of not trying it. I actually like the WPA or CCC idea, and would even be willing for them to wear brown shirts just to watch Glenn Beck foam at the mouth. I am less inclined to favor “employment tax credits” for the simple reason that we have used those in the past and results have been very much less than a success. I have no reason to believe that we would do it any better now than we did then. I am totally in agreement with Dr. Krugman on the basic point, though, and that is that indirect action is all too prone to be limited to the initial part of the program leaving the second part, the actual goal, unrealized. The idea of “trickle down economics" was to create wealth at the top of the heap and let it trickle down to the working class, and we know how well that worked out. Creating jobs by “growing the economy” is not working, and when something isn’t working the solution may or may not be to do something else, but it sure as hell isn’t to simply do more of what you’re doing.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Pushing for Decision

Generally speaking, the harder someone presses me to do something, the more I delay decision and, if they press hard enough long enough, I will decide against them merely because of their pressure. I am always suspicious when someone is unwilling to back off and allow me to think about a decision; to reach my own decision.

Apparently Obama has that same disposition. Quite a few people are trying to steamroll him into sending more troops into Afghanistan, and the more pressure he gets the more he seems to be "studying the alternatives."

I think that is a very good quality in a President.

Picking Your Argument

Paul Krugman despairs of the lack of “rational political discussion” in a post Tuesday, in which he refers to a statement by Dick Armey that compares the “health care reform bill” to the banking crisis.

Armey claims, “We saw what happened in housing when they ordered banks to make loans to people who weren’t qualified,” and Krugman quite properly tears his hair out about the idiocy of that argument. He points out that the vast majority of the bad lending came from places not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act, and says that the claim that government forced that bad lending is completely spurious.

Krugman’s criticism of Armey’s odious critique of the “health care reform” bill is correct as far as he goes, but what Krugman fails to acknowledge is that while the cause is bogus in Armey’s comparison, the comparison of effect is actually quite valid.

Whether the bad lending was voluntary or by fiat, it did occur; lenders adopted the position that they would make a mortgage loan to anyone who walked in the door and asked for one. They would not be selective, they would not be concerned with whether or not that loan would be profitable; they would simply grant mortgage loans indiscriminately.

Krugman doesn’t address the issue that this “health care reform bill” of which he is so strongly supportive requires that all health insurance companies adopt that same business model.

Actually, it’s an even worse model. The mortgage lender always had a chance, however poor, that the mortgage might be paid. Under this reform, if a person walks into an insurance company with a health condition that costs a million dollars per year to treat, that company must sell insurance to that person knowing that it will lose a large amount of money on the sale.

How can such a business model fail to have negative consequences?

I’m not suggesting that the health insurance industry is not in need of reform; it certainly is. It is, however, in need of sensible reform, not just unthinking reaction to consumerism.

Paul Krugman despairs of the lack of “rational political discussion” in a post <a target="_blank" href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/armey-of-ignorance/">Tuesday</a>, in which he refers to a statement by Dick Armey that compares the “health care reform bill” to the banking crisis. Armey claims, “We saw what happened in housing when they ordered banks to make loans to people who weren’t qualified,” and Krugman quite properly tears his hair out about the idiocy of that argument. He points out that the vast majority of the bad lending came from places not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act, and says that the claim that government forced that bad lending is completely spurious. Krugman’s criticism of Armey’s odious critique of the “health care reform” bill is correct as far as he goes, but what Krugman fails to acknowledge is that while the cause is bogus in Armey’s comparison, the comparison of effect is actually quite valid. Whether the bad lending was voluntary or by fiat, it did occur; lenders adopted the position that they would make a mortgage loan to anyone who walked in the door and asked for one. They would not be selective, they would not be concerned with whether or not that loan would be profitable; they would simply grant mortgage loans indiscriminately. Krugman doesn’t address the issue that this “health care reform bill” of which he is so strongly supportive requires that all health insurance companies adopt that same business model. Actually, it’s an even worse model. The mortgage lender always had a chance, however poor, that the mortgage might be paid. Under this reform, if a person walks into an insurance company with a health condition that costs a million dollars per year to treat, that company must sell insurance to that person knowing that it will lose a large amount of money on the sale. How can such a business model fail to have negative consequences? I’m not suggesting that the health insurance industry is not in need of reform; it certainly is. It is, however, in need of sensible reform, not just unthinking reaction to consumerism.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Two Presidents

I'll bet you thought Barack Obama was the President of The United States. I'll bet you thought that he was the only President of The United States. You would be wrong. According to Keith Olbermann on Countdown, we have two of them. I lost count of precisely how many times yesterday he told us what "President Clinton" was doing at the Senate, and blathered on about what "The President," referring to Clinton, had said.

I voted for Clinton, but didn't intend to elect him "President For Life."

Update: Not to mention his endless prating about how useless and stupid the Republicans are. I know he is not alone in this but he goes to really ridiculous lengths and is becoming really tiresome. Someone please tell him how tasteless it is to build one's self up by denigrating one's opposition.

I'll bet you thought Barack Obama was the President of The United States. I'll bet you thought that he was the only President of The United States. You would be wrong. According to Keith Olbermann on Countdown, we have two of them. I lost count of precisely how many times yesterday he told us what "President Clinton" was doing at the Senate, and blathered on about what "The President," referring to Clinton, had said. I voted for Clinton, but didn't intend to elect him "President For Life." Update: Not to mention his endless prating about how useless and stupid the Republicans are. I know he is not alone in this but he goes to really ridiculous lengths and is becoming really tiresome. Someone please tell him how tasteless it is to build one's self up by denigrating one's opposition.

Generational Character

In his speech at Fort Hood yesterday, President Obama said this,

But as we honor the many generations who have served, all of us — every single American — must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who’ve come before.

I cannot let that go unchallenged.

A generation does not consist of the 1% who put on the uniform and go off to war, and this war effort is the exclusive province of that one percent. The people of this nation are not even contributing the taxes to pay for this war; they are cheering from the sidelines and putting magnets on their cars.

My parents’ generation held drives to collect materials that were in short supply, they held rallies to sell war bonds, they practiced civil defense drills, they formed lines at enlistment centers and signed up faster than the services could train them. Factories that produced civilian goods were converted to making war machines, and they were staffed by the women who sent their husbands off to war. People put their cars up on blocks, took the tires off, drained the gas tanks and contributed those tires and gas to the war effort.

Not to denigrate what our soldiers do today, but to compare four hundred thousand lives lost in combat so brutal that it was carried out walking on the corpses of fallen comrades, fighting on in the face of massive fire and carrying the day, fought not for twelve-month tours but for the duration of the war, to the way combat is done today is an insult to the soldiers of my father’s generation.

And to compare the national character of then to a people today cowering in foxholes, quivering in fear of terrorists and whining for daddy government to keep them safe at any cost is simply sickening.

In his speech at Fort Hood yesterday, President Obama said this, <blockquote>But as we honor the many generations who have served, all of us — every single American — must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who’ve come before.</blockquote> I cannot let that go unchallenged. A generation does not consist of the 1% who put on the uniform and go off to war, and this war effort is the exclusive province of that one percent. The people of this nation are not even contributing the taxes to pay for this war; they are cheering from the sidelines and putting magnets on their cars. My parents’ generation held drives to collect materials that were in short supply, they held rallies to sell war bonds, they practiced civil defense drills, they formed lines at enlistment centers and signed up faster than the services could train them. Factories that produced civilian goods were converted to making war machines, and they were staffed by the women who sent their husbands off to war. People put their cars up on blocks, took the tires off, drained the gas tanks and contributed those tires and gas to the war effort. Not to denigrate what our soldiers do today, but to compare four hundred thousand lives lost in combat so brutal that it was carried out walking on the corpses of fallen comrades, fighting on in the face of massive fire and carrying the day, fought not for twelve-month tours but for the duration of the war, to the way combat is done today is an insult to the soldiers of my father’s generation. And to compare the national character of then to a people today cowering in foxholes, quivering in fear of terrorists and whining for daddy government to keep them safe at any cost is simply sickening.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Mayo Clinic Again

My neurologist decided he wanted to see an old MRI and asked me if I could get the Mayo Clinic to send it to him on CD, so I went to their website and found the number for medical records. I called and got a very nice lady who told me I just needed to fax them a form and directed me to where I could download the form. I told her it might be back in 2004 or so and asked if that would be a problem and she very pleasantly said it would not. Her tone of voice was sort of, "Why would you think that's a problem? Have you never heard of computers?" My doctor got the CD in a few days, and there was no charge for the service.

I don't think any of this is actually all that remarkable; I am familiar with computers. I just think it's rather pleasant. I have a nephew who works at Mayo and says he likes it, and I keep seeing examples of why he does.

Arugula is Thriving

Paul Krugman has been touting the recovering economy for some time, easy to do when you see only numbers and are unaware of, you know, people. So he has decided to walk around the neighborhoods for his blog post today, but apparently his purpose was not to actually see any people because he chose to walk around Princeton and New York City so that he could observe the "home remodeling, tear-downs replacing old houses" that also spells recovery to him in an upscale area that even he admits, "are likely beneficiaries of the return of big Wall Street bonuses, making them unrepresentative." Which doesn't keep him from waxing optimistic.

So he concludes, "walking around, things look better than I expected."

Fatuous commentary like that gives real credence to the supposition that this nation is governed by a wealthy, isolated elite that is unaware of and uncaring about the underclass that they "rule."

Paul Krugman has been touting the recovering economy for some time, easy to do when you see only numbers and are unaware of, you know, people. So he has decided to walk around the neighborhoods for his <a target="_blank" href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/the-plural-of-anecdote-is-data/">blog post today</a>, but apparently his purpose was not to actually see any people because he chose to walk around Princeton and New York City so that he could observe the "home remodeling, tear-downs replacing old houses" that also spells recovery to him in an upscale area that even he admits, "are likely beneficiaries of the return of big Wall Street bonuses, making them unrepresentative." Which doesn't keep him from waxing optimistic. So he concludes, "walking around, things look better than I expected." Fatuous commentary like that gives real credence to the supposition that this nation is governed by a wealthy, isolated elite that is unaware of and uncaring about the underclass that they "rule."

Meanwhile, In South America

The United States recently completed an agreement with Columbia for the use of military bases in the nation; and agreement which includes diplomatic immunity for all civilian and military personnel while anywhere in Columbia. The news item doesn’t say so, but this sounds like one of our typical “status of forces agreements” to me.

Otherwise known as a military occupation, which is what the Colombian people seem to think it is. They were not advised, apparently, that the deal was pending and didn’t know about it until it was a done deal. They were somewhat less than thrilled.

The purpose, according to a US spokesman quoted by Bloomberg, was to “strengthen and increase ties with countries in the region.”

That doesn’t seem to be working out very well. Venezuela, it turns out, is preparing for war based on the conclusion that having the United States occupying military bases in the neighboring country is not a good sign.

This is, of course, Hugo Chavez, so his view of our intentions needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe an entire pannikin of salt.

Still, it seems odd to feel that we can “strengthen and increase ties” by placing military forces in the immediate vicinity of the area with which we are trying to improve relations. I would think that diplomatic means would be a bit more effective for that purpose, and that adding military forces would have something of the opposite effect.

I guess that’s why I’m not running our government.

The United States recently completed an agreement with Columbia for the use of military bases in the nation; and agreement which includes diplomatic immunity for all civilian and military personnel while anywhere in Columbia. The news item doesn’t say so, but this sounds like one of our typical “status of forces agreements” to me. Otherwise known as a military occupation, which is what the Colombian people seem to think it is. They were not advised, apparently, that the deal was pending and didn’t know about it until it was a done deal. They were somewhat less than thrilled. The purpose, according to a US spokesman <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aZuAU4StKAQY">quoted by Bloomberg</a>, was to “strengthen and increase ties with countries in the region.” That doesn’t seem to be working out very well. Venezuela, it turns out, is preparing for war based on the conclusion that having the United States occupying military bases in the neighboring country is not a good sign. This is, of course, Hugo Chavez, so his view of our intentions needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe an entire pannikin of salt. Still, it seems odd to feel that we can “strengthen and increase ties” by placing military forces in the immediate vicinity of the area with which we are trying to improve relations. I would think that diplomatic means would be a bit more effective for that purpose, and that adding military forces would have something of the opposite effect. I guess that’s why I’m not running our government.

Monday, November 09, 2009

No More Deep Pockets

San Diego faces a $179 million shortfall in the coming fiscal year. That's against a budget of $736 million, so that is not a trivial problem. I make that something like a 24% shortfall.

Will privatization solve that problem; or even help? Notwithstanding my snark at our City Council last week, I doubt it. I don’t really favor privatization, and was merely being critical of the City Council’s spurious arguments against it. In reality, it has not worked out very well here.

After the fires of 2007 the City hired private contractors to clean up the debris from some of the homes that were burned in Rancho Bernardo. Not only did cleanup by the private contractors cost up to five times what cleanup by city contractors cost, the private contractors made no serious effort to conceal the fraud that they were engaging in to run up the costs.

The NIMBY’ism that San Diego people are indulging in is certainly not going to solve the problem. Teachers are holding marches to protest larger class sizes, students are holding rallies to protest reductions in student programs and fewer classes, government employees are holding marches to protest layoffs… Everyone has the same viewpoint, “Yes, cut spending, but don’t cut my program. Cut something else.”

Reality bites, people. When funds are reduced by one-fourth, everything has to be cut. The entire population of this city, like every city in this country has to suck it up together and work as one people to get through this. There is no more letting somebody else pay the price; the price has risen too far for that.

No more deep pockets; they are all the same depth now.

San Diego faces a $179 million shortfall in the coming fiscal year. That's against a budget of $736 million, so that is not a trivial problem. I make that something like a 24% shortfall. Will privatization solve that problem; or even help? Notwithstanding my snark at our City Council last week, I doubt it. I don’t really favor privatization, and was merely being critical of the City Council’s spurious arguments against it. In reality, it has not worked out very well here. After the fires of 2007 the City hired private contractors to clean up the debris from some of the homes that were burned in Rancho Bernardo. Not only did cleanup by the private contractors cost up to five times what cleanup by city contractors cost, the private contractors made no serious effort to conceal the fraud that they were engaging in to run up the costs. The NIMBY’ism that San Diego people are indulging in is certainly not going to solve the problem. Teachers are holding marches to protest larger class sizes, students are holding rallies to protest reductions in student programs and fewer classes, government employees are holding marches to protest layoffs… Everyone has the same viewpoint, “Yes, cut spending, but don’t cut my program. Cut something else.” Reality bites, people. When funds are reduced by one-fourth, everything has to be cut. The entire population of this city, like every city in this country has to suck it up together and work as one people to get through this. There is no more letting somebody else pay the price; the price has risen too far for that. No more deep pockets; they are all the same depth now.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

How Sweet It Is

The only thing better than beating Eli Manning the Giants is doing so by means of a Philip Rivers touchdown pass with twenty seconds left in the game. When the Giants settled for a field goal to take a six-point lead I knew we had the game won. Actually I was all but certain of a Chargers victory when the penalty made it first and goal at the Chargers' fourteen
yard line instead of the four.

Note to Keith Olbermann: "fill" is what one does with a garbage truck.
Our quarterback's name is Philip Rivers, you fathead.

Saturday, November 07, 2009

College Football Today

From a comment at Balloon Juice

Geaux Tigers!

Oh, man. It was too good not to post it.
Update: The Tigers didn't "geaux." Or, where they went wasn't geaud.

Sunday: Chargers/Giants today. Giants are coming off of three straight losses, Chargers off of two wins. So either we are facing a crappy team, or a good team that is going to be really pissed after three losses. We probably think the former, they probably think the latter. I think, um...

Hyperventilation

Remember the Bush years of hyperventilation about “weapons of mass destruction” that weren’t there, and waiting for the dreaded "mushroom cloud" to show up? And when it didn't we started a war nonetheless. Remember all of the dastardly terrorist plots that were averted just one moment short of Armageddon? Like the guys in Florida who were holding close order drill and requesting combat boots in preparation for blowing up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Or the guy who was going to blow up the Mackinac Bridge with all the cell phones he had, but it turned out he was merely bootlegging cell phones.

Well either we have Bush leftovers or Obama is into the same thing.

First we have the two, apparently unrelated, terrorists who are mouthing off in bars about wanting to blow things up until the FBI hears about them and sells them some play-do, teaches them how to wire it up with a cell phone, and then sits back and watches them dial the number. So they saved us from two play-do bombers in one day.

Then we have a guy who aspires to be the next Osama so he goes to Pakistan for training, but they send him back home because he’s as dumb as a sack of hammers. The FBI follows him around and watches him buying hair care products until they suddenly realize he’s flying back and forth between New York and Denver and, apparently, buying hair care products both places. So they bag him and stand at a podium prating about having stopped the “biggest thing since 9/11.”

The only problem is, we can’t find any bombs. Turns out he hadn’t actually learned how to make any and, while hair care products do contain some of the ingredients used for making bombs, you can’t really make bombs out of hair care products. Which shouldn’t really surprise anybody, but somehow manages to surprise the FBI.

All of which would be fine, if they just bagged these guys and had a trial to put them out of business. All of us would just say, “Okay, good job.”
The problem is all of the ballyhoo and hot air about what they think they stopped. “The biggest thing since 9/11?” It was a wingnut trying to make a bomb from retail purchases of hair dye!

Finally, we have the astonishing and terrifying discovery of an Iranian nuclear facility, one which “appears too small to fuel a nuclear power station but enough to yield fissile material for one or two nuclear warheads a year.”

This means war! No more diplomacy with these, these….

Oh, actually, there’s no “there” there. Iran tells the nuclear oversight committee they can come look at the new site and they report, "The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things," ElBaradei said, “It’s a hole in the mountain.”

This is your Bush Obama government protecting you.

Remember the Bush years of hyperventilation about “weapons of mass destruction” that weren’t there, and waiting for the dreaded "mushroom cloud" to show up? And when it didn't we started a war nonetheless. Remember all of the dastardly terrorist plots that were averted just one moment short of Armageddon? Like the guys in Florida who were holding close order drill and requesting combat boots in preparation for blowing up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Or the guy who was going to blow up the Mackinac Bridge with all the cell phones he had, but it turned out he was merely bootlegging cell phones. Well either we have Bush leftovers or Obama is into the same thing. First we have the two, apparently unrelated, terrorists who are mouthing off in bars about wanting to blow things up until the FBI hears about them and sells them some play-do, teaches them how to wire it up with a cell phone, and then sits back and watches them dial the number. So they saved us from two play-do bombers in one day. Then we have a guy who aspires to be the next Osama so he goes to Pakistan for training, but they send him back home because he’s as dumb as a sack of hammers. The FBI follows him around and watches him buying hair care products until they suddenly realize he’s flying back and forth between New York and Denver and, apparently, buying hair care products both places. So they bag him and stand at a podium prating about having stopped the “biggest thing since 9/11.” The only problem is, we can’t find any bombs. Turns out he hadn’t actually learned how to make any and, while hair care products do contain some of the ingredients used for making bombs, you can’t really make bombs out of hair care products. Which shouldn’t really surprise anybody, but somehow manages to surprise the FBI. All of which would be fine, if they just bagged these guys and had a trial to put them out of business. All of us would just say, “Okay, good job.” The problem is all of the ballyhoo and hot air about what they think they stopped. “The biggest thing since 9/11?” It was a wingnut trying to make a bomb from retail purchases of hair dye! Finally, we have the astonishing and terrifying discovery of an Iranian nuclear facility, one which “appears too small to fuel a nuclear power station but enough to yield fissile material for one or two nuclear warheads a year.” This means war! No more diplomacy with these, these…. Oh, actually, there’s no “there” there. Iran tells the nuclear oversight committee they can come look at the new site and they report, "The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things," ElBaradei said, “It’s a hole in the mountain.” This is your Bush Obama government protecting you.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Starting the Car

Earlier today I decided to start my car and lower the driver's window at the same time. Instead of releasing the starter and holding the window button, I released the window button and held the starter. Let's see; how can I best put this to you? Don't do that.

Update: Saturday morning
Yes, the car is fine. It just made a seriously disturbing nouse.

Humble Foreign Policy

"This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation. I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past..."

He doesn’t mention, glosses right past the fact, that “this event” was one part of a revolution against tyrannical government resulting from the violent overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government by the United States and the installation of a dictatorial Shah put into office and maintained there by American support.

That is parallel to two neighbors feuding. I throw paint bombs on my neighbor’s house, and he responds by egging my car. I attempt to resolve to feud by saying that I will quit calling him names and will forgive him for egging my car, so let’s just move past all of this. We will just omit any mention of my paint bombing his house; that never happened.

So much for “a less arrogant foreign policy.”

I am a supporter of Barack Obama, and I do not go out of my way to seek opportunities to be critical of his words or actions. I think he is a good man with good intentions, but sometimes his words just land in my head with something like an explosion that makes me wonder what kind of country I live in, whose leader can speak with such incredible arrogance. In speaking today of the anniversary of the seizing of the embassy in Iran, and the taking hostage of the American staff of that embassy, President Obama included this statement, <blockquote>"This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation. I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past..."</blockquote> He doesn’t mention, glosses right past the fact, that “this event” was one part of a revolution against tyrannical government resulting from the violent overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government by the United States and the installation of a dictatorial Shah put into office and maintained there by American support. That is parallel to two neighbors feuding. I throw paint bombs on my neighbor’s house, and he responds by egging my car. I attempt to resolve to feud by saying that I will quit calling him names and will forgive him for egging my car, so let’s just move past all of this. We will just omit any mention of my paint bombing his house; that never happened. So much for “a less arrogant foreign policy.”

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Check This Out

The thing isn't being released for almost two more weeks, and it's already down to $9.00, with free shipping. Oh, crap, I'm advertising her book.

Judging Others By Ourselves

America is “The United States of America,” meaning that as a Californian I am first an American. We have this neat flag, with red, white and blue colors; everybody stands up and gets all emotional when it is waved or goes by in a parade. We have this neat anthem that nobody can sing; but everyone stands before the football game while someone tries to sing it, and fails miserably but still draws thunderous applause, presumably for having the courage to try singing it. A whopping 1% of our youth sign up for our armed forces to “defend our nation” from some vaguely defined enemies.

But suppose that were not the case; suppose we didn’t have that neat flag and unsingable national anthem. Suppose that the only thing that I cared about was my state of California.

If you invaded California, I would take up arms and fight like a demon to drive you out, but if you invaded, say, Missouri my reaction would be complete indifference. “I could care less about Missouri,” I would say, “Missouri is Missouri’s problem.”

We would be Afghanistan.

Suppose, in that scenario, a foreign force occupied all of our states and tried to drum up support to turn us into a nation called “The United States” that none of us cared about. They wanted all young Californians to join an armed force that would bear arms in defense of that “United States” and told us that those troops, once enlisted, might be going to Missouri and maybe New York to defend Missourians and New Yorkers.

What or whom we would be defending those Missourians and New Yorkers against is a little bit unclear, actually; something or someone that the invading force is very fearful of, but which is not really potentially harmful to us and which we don't actually dislike all that much, even if they were in California, let alone Missouri or New York.

I think our young Californians would sign up for that armed force, get the weapons and training and then, instead of going to Missouri to defend Missourians from God-knows-what, would defect and use the weapons and training to try to drive the foreigners the hell out of California.

Which is what's happening in Afghanistan.

We think that because we place nation over locale that all peoples do the same. Many do, but not all, and Afghans don’t. Afghans’ first loyalty is to their tribe and village. Afghanistan is a vast and very poor country; they barely know that their national government exists and, to the extent that they are aware of it, they don’t trust it to serve their interest.

Not that we should trust our government to serve our interest, but…

The point is that we keep basing our strategy on judging peoples as if they were precisely like us, as if they have the same priorities and same ambitions as us. What creates the problem is that peoples react not just to what we do, but in terms of how their culture leads them to interpret what we do, and when we act without attempting to understand their cultures we do not serve our own best interest.

America is “The United States of America,” meaning that as a Californian I am first an American. We have this neat flag, with red, white and blue colors; everybody stands up and gets all emotional when it is waved or goes by in a parade. We have this neat anthem that nobody can sing; but everyone stands before the football game while someone tries to sing it, and fails miserably but still draws thunderous applause, presumably for having the courage to try singing it. A whopping 1% of our youth sign up for our armed forces to “defend our nation” from some vaguely defined enemies. But suppose that were not the case; suppose we didn’t have that neat flag and unsingable national anthem. Suppose that the only thing that I cared about was my state of California. If you invaded California, I would take up arms and fight like a demon to drive you out, but if you invaded, say, Missouri my reaction would be complete indifference. “I could care less about Missouri,” I would say, “Missouri is Missouri’s problem.” We would be Afghanistan. Suppose, in that scenario, a foreign force occupied all of our states and tried to drum up support to turn us into a nation called “The United States” that none of us cared about. They wanted all young Californians to join an armed force that would bear arms in defense of that “United States” and told us that those troops, once enlisted, might be going to Missouri and maybe New York to defend Missourians and New Yorkers. What or whom we would be defending those Missourians and New Yorkers against is a little bit unclear, actually; something or someone that the invading force is very fearful of, but which is not really potentially harmful to us and which we don't actually dislike all that much, even if they were in California, let alone Missouri or New York. I think our young Californians would sign up for that armed force, get the weapons and training and then, instead of going to Missouri to defend Missourians from God-knows-what, would defect and use the weapons and training to try to drive the foreigners the hell out of California. Which is what's happening in Afghanistan. We think that because we place nation over locale that all peoples do the same. Many do, but not all, and Afghans don’t. Afghans’ first loyalty is to their tribe and village. Afghanistan is a vast and very poor country; they barely know that their national government exists and, to the extent that they are aware of it, they don’t trust it to serve their interest. Not that we should trust our government to serve our interest, but… The point is that we keep basing our strategy on judging peoples as if they were precisely like us, as if they have the same priorities and same ambitions as us. What creates the problem is that peoples react not just to what we do, but in terms of how their culture leads them to interpret what we do, and when we act without attempting to understand their cultures we do not serve our own best interest.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

San Diego: Political Nuthouse

San Diego voters passed a measure two years ago that required the city to examine outsourcing all city services except police and fire protection. The measure has a clause that existing city departments should be allowed to bid against private contractors, and that the private contract should not be awarded unless their bid was at least 10% below the city workers' bid.

The mayor has been pursuing that effort but has been blocked by the City Council. All but one City Council members are heavily financed by, wait for it, public workers' unions. I'm sure that comes as a big surprise to you.

Now the City Council has come up with a new reason for blocking private companies from bidding. They say it would be unfair because the private companies do not have to pay union wages and are not subject to the high pension contributions that the city is required to make for its workers. So private companies should not bid because, wait for it, they cost less.

Voting Problem

There is a serious problem with our two-party system. It is becoming more and more apparent that neither party is able, or willing, to govern in the best interests of the people it represents. Every time we throw one party out, the other party acts very much like the party we just evicted.

The solution is to throw out everybody; mount a "dump the incumbent" movement and just vote against the person in office, regardless of party affiliation. That would, maybe, send a message that the voters are reasserting their control of government.

My problem is that all of my elected representative are Democrats. Doing any kind of write-in is a farce, and the idea of voting for a Republican just fills me with revulsion. What to do?

More of a Better Thing

Paul Krugman’s column in Sunday’s New York Times opines that the stimulus bill is working and that the only problem is that it was “too little of a good thing.” While I am normally a supporter of a balanced budget, I am certainly on board with him that now is not the time for that, and I would agree that more stimulus on the jobs front would be good for the nation. I do have a few reservations regarding the “ivory tower” flavor of his column.

First he talks about the purpose of the stimulus, in rather vague terms, being to break the “free fall” of the economic downturn. Then he says, rather optimistically, “The stimulus didn’t completely eliminate these effects, but it was enough to break the vicious circle of economic decline.” And, “And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent.”

"The free fall has ended." Well, not quite; the free fall in employment has not ended. During the quarter in which he celebrates the rising G.D.P. job losses once again actually took another upward turn, and the forecast is that they will continue to climb again this month. Both Obama and Krugman hailed the stimulus as a job creator, and here they are singing of its success in terms of G.D.P. growth while joblessness continues to climb.

Then he does an analysis of long term jobs recovery which concludes that, “…at current growth rates we’d be lucky to see the unemployment rate fall by half a percentage point per year, meaning that it would take a decade to return to something like full employment.”

Spoiling that premise is that “at current growth rate” unemployment is not falling at all, it is still rising, so the jobs recovery has not yet even started. Krugman is projecting the rate at which something will happen; something which has not yet begun and we do not know when, or even if, it will.

Finally is a point which Krugman does not include, which is that the “current growth rate” itself may be an illusion because of the nature of the stimulus which was passed. A significant portion of that “current growth rate” was the “Cash For Clunkers” program, a one-month program which will not exist in subsequent reporting periods. Too much of the stimulus was short term, temporary spending.

Spending not only needs to be long term, it needs to be now, not ten years from now. For all of the criticism it received, the high speed rail project was the kind of spending we need except that it is too far in the future, with jobs that will not be created for at least five years or more. This country has a crumbling infrastructure, much of which needs to be replaced. The USCE knows what those projects are and could have them underweigh in months once funding was provided.

The stimulus was not merely, as Paul Krugman suggests, too small; it was filled with too many short term projects designed to stimulate consumer spending on credit, and too many very long range projects which constitute social policy rather than stimulus. We can’t just be throwing money into the economy for the sake of throwing money into the economy, we need expenditure which specifically and promptly produces long term real jobs.

Cheerleading Obama
In his blog today Krugman responds to a question from a reader about when he is going to “blow his top” over a statement by Barack Obama that now is the time to “get serious” about reducing debt. His response is that he is not concerned, that he knows Obama is merely saying that to appease “centrists” in his party and does not really mean it; that Obama has no intention of actually doing anything silly like that.

So in Paul Krugman’s opinion it’s okay for the President who promised to “change the way things are done in Washington,” the President who promised a new level of “honesty and transparency” in government, to say what people want to hear rather than to promise what he actually intends?
It is perfectly okay for the President to describe his policy with every intention of doing nothing of the sort.

I think Paul Krugman is becoming the Bill Kristol of the left.

Paul Krugman’s <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1">column in Sunday</a>’s New York Times opines that the stimulus bill is working and that the only problem is that it was “too little of a good thing.” While I am normally a supporter of a balanced budget, I am certainly on board with him that now is not the time for that, and I would agree that more stimulus on the jobs front would be good for the nation. I do have a few reservations regarding the “ivory tower” flavor of his column. First he talks about the purpose of the stimulus, in rather vague terms, being to break the “free fall” of the economic downturn. Then he says, rather optimistically, “The stimulus didn’t completely eliminate these effects, but it was enough to break the vicious circle of economic decline.” And, “And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent.” "The free fall has ended." Well, not quite; the free fall in employment has not ended. During the quarter in which he celebrates the rising G.D.P. job losses once again actually took another upward turn, and the forecast is that they will continue to climb again this month. Both Obama and Krugman hailed the stimulus as a job creator, and here they are singing of its success in terms of G.D.P. growth while joblessness continues to climb. Then he does an analysis of long term jobs recovery which concludes that, “…at current growth rates we’d be lucky to see the unemployment rate fall by half a percentage point per year, meaning that it would take a decade to return to something like full employment.” Spoiling that premise is that “at current growth rate” unemployment is not falling at all, it is still rising, so the jobs recovery has not yet even started. Krugman is projecting the rate at which something will happen; something which has not yet begun and we do not know when, or even if, it will. Finally is a point which Krugman does not include, which is that the “current growth rate” itself may be an illusion because of the nature of the stimulus which was passed. A significant portion of that “current growth rate” was the “Cash For Clunkers” program, a one-month program which will not exist in subsequent reporting periods. Too much of the stimulus was short term, temporary spending. Spending not only needs to be long term, it needs to be now, not ten years from now. For all of the criticism it received, the high speed rail project was the kind of spending we need except that it is too far in the future, with jobs that will not be created for at least five years or more. This country has a crumbling infrastructure, much of which needs to be replaced. The USCE knows what those projects are and could have them underweigh in months once funding was provided. The stimulus was not merely, as Paul Krugman suggests, too small; it was filled with too many short term projects designed to stimulate consumer spending on credit, and too many very long range projects which constitute social policy rather than stimulus. We can’t just be throwing money into the economy for the sake of throwing money into the economy, we need expenditure which specifically and promptly produces long term real jobs. Cheerleading Obama In his <a target="_blank" href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/obama-and-the-conventional-wisdom/">blog today</a> Krugman responds to a question from a reader about when he is going to “blow his top” over a statement by Barack Obama that now is the time to “get serious” about reducing debt. His response is that he is not concerned, that he knows Obama is merely saying that to appease “centrists” in his party and does not really mean it; that Obama has no intention of actually doing anything silly like that. So in Paul Krugman’s opinion it’s okay for the President who promised to “change the way things are done in Washington,” the President who promised a new level of “honesty and transparency” in government, to say what people want to hear rather than to promise what he actually intends? It is perfectly okay for the President to describe his policy with every intention of doing nothing of the sort. I think Paul Krugman is becoming the Bill Kristol of the left.

Monday, November 02, 2009

Football Wrap

Okay, finally Florida looked like a #1 team; what they did to Georgia should be kept private, not shown on national television. Sympathy to all of my friends in Atlanta.

The sports headline in San Diego today was "Sweat 'N' Swagger." Oh, really? Over an 8-point win against an 2-6 opponent? Our four wins have come against Miami, Oakland x 2, and Kansas City. I think "swaggering" needs to wait until we beat a team which has a winning record.

Whose Foreign Policy?

I have, to this point, been impressed with and supportive of Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State. This past week she has said a number of things that have given me rather serious pause.

I was not taken with her aggressive rhetoric in Pakistan. It reminded me far too much of the “for us or against us” attitude of the Bush years. I voted for Obama in no small part because I wanted this nation to move away from that kind of foreign policy, and I have been very happy with our progress in doing so. Clinton has been part of that to now, and I take a dim view of her embracing this kind of attitude now.

I especially disliked her response to the question from a journalist about whether the use of missiles from unmanned drones in noncombat areas was terrorism. Her response was a terse and unamplified, “No, I do not.”

I would not go so far as to call that practice terrorism, but I am appreciative of the Pakistani attitude toward our attacks within their borders, and I think the question deserved a more diplomatic response. To me her answer showed a lack of sensitivity that did not serve our nation well.

Then she has been trying to put a favorable spin on the Afghan election mess. After being informed that Abdullah was likely to withdraw from the runoff election, which he has since done, she said that such an event would not affect the legitimacy of the election. "We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward. I don't think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election."

Yes, we have elections in this country where one candidate runs unopposed, but they do not occur as the result of open and unabashed fraud, and they most certainly do not happen for the nation's highest office. For Clinton to compare the two in an effort to justify our occupation of that benighted nation is disgusting. I was hoping that kind of self-serving transparent dishonesty had gone out with the Bush gang of thugs.

Finally, after Obama called for a freeze on Isreali settlement building in the occupied territories of Palestine and had that rejected by Israel, Clinton is calling for a resumption of peace talks and sanctioning, even praising, the continuance of building in violation of international sanction at “a reduced pace.” The Arab world, not without rather good reason, is taking her words as a signal that America remains an unapologetic supporter of Israel and is no friend of the Muslim peoples.

Bucking what seems to be the prevailing American sentiment, I would like for the world to see us as a responsible member of the community of nations and not as a military bully imposing its footprint on civilization. I thought we had been making progress in that direction, but either I have been mistaking Obama’s intentions, or Hillary Clinton has embarked on her own agenda.

I have, to this point, been impressed with and supportive of Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State. This past week she has said a number of things that have given me rather serious pause. I was not taken with her aggressive rhetoric in Pakistan. It reminded me far too much of the “for us or against us” attitude of the Bush years. I voted for Obama in no small part because I wanted this nation to move away from that kind of foreign policy, and I have been very happy with our progress in doing so. Clinton has been part of that to now, and I take a dim view of her embracing this kind of attitude now. I especially disliked her response to the question from a journalist about whether the use of missiles from unmanned drones in noncombat areas was terrorism. Her response was a terse and unamplified, “No, I do not.” I would not go so far as to call that practice terrorism, but I am appreciative of the Pakistani attitude toward our attacks within their borders, and I think the question deserved a more diplomatic response. To me her answer showed a lack of sensitivity that did not serve our nation well. Then she has been trying to put a favorable spin on the Afghan election mess. After being informed that Abdullah was likely to withdraw from the runoff election, which he has since done, she said that such an event would not affect the legitimacy of the election. "We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward. I don't think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election." Yes, we have elections in this country where one candidate runs unopposed, but they do not occur as the result of open and unabashed fraud, and they most certainly do not happen for the nation's highest office. For Clinton to compare the two in an effort to justify our occupation of that benighted nation is disgusting. I was hoping that kind of self-serving transparent dishonesty had gone out with the Bush gang of thugs. Finally, after Obama called for a freeze on Isreali settlement building in the occupied territories of Palestine and had that rejected by Israel, Clinton is calling for a resumption of peace talks and sanctioning, even praising, the continuance of building in violation of international sanction at “a reduced pace.” The Arab world, not without rather good reason, is taking her words as a signal that America remains an unapologetic supporter of Israel and is no friend of the Muslim peoples. Bucking what seems to be the prevailing American sentiment, I would like for the world to see us as a responsible member of the community of nations and not as a military bully imposing its footprint on civilization. I thought we had been making progress in that direction, but either I have been mistaking Obama’s intentions, or Hillary Clinton has embarked on her own agenda.

Sunday, November 01, 2009

In the "Yeah, Right" Department

I was at one time a big fan of stock car racing. I probably would be if they still raced stock cars, meaning a car bought from a dealer's stock, rather than these blobs with a huge wing on the back and decals on them to identify the supposed manufacturer. They are so aerodynamically fragile that they cannot pass each other, so it's hard to call what they do "racing."

They are having their high speed parade at Talledega this week, which used to be one of my very favorite tracks. Bill Elliott set a stock car speed record there that still stands, and Dale Earnhardt used to keep appearing at the front of the pack sort of by magic. It was at Talledega that Dale's car got completely sideways without wrecking at more than 200 mph and, when asked on the radio if he was okay, he replied that he was okay but that the car was "a little loose."

Then drivers started "bump drafting," a form of cheating where one car, a teammate or driver with similar interest, physically pushes another for faster speed. Unfortunately, while it does make cars go faster, it is awesomely dangerous. The rear car often slams into the front car hard enough to wreck him, particularly when the rear car is stupid enough to do it in the turns. Usually a dozen or more cars pile into the wreck, and more often than not the pusher comes out unscathed. Needless to say, the other dozen or so drivers, whose cars are rubble, are a little pissed off.

NASCAR keeps saying they are going to penalize drivers who "overdo" the bump drafting, and this year they have said that they are really going to clamp down and disallow it altogether. Yeah, right. If they really wanted to prevent it, they could reduce the reinforcement allowed in the noses of the cars so that anyone pushing on the car in front of them would get the front of their own car smashed in.

The other maneuver is "blocking," where if someone behind you is coming up and tries to pass, you swerve in front of him to prevent him from passing. It sounds stupid and dangerous, doesn't it? Especially at 210 miles per hour in a car that you cannot see out of and have to have somebody up in the grandstand describing to you the positions of other nearby race cars, which are also doing 210 mph?

Think about it; swerving at 200+ mph in front of an oncoming car that you cannot see, hoping that a guy half a mile away looking through binoculars is giving you the "swerve now" signal at precisely the right moment.

That's why other forms of racing ban the practice and impose penalties on drivers who violate the rule. Not NASCAR, whose drivers not only okay it, they regard it as exemplary behavior. When a massive wreck results, the blocking driver merely blames the driver who was trying to pass him and claims that blocking is his prerogative to protect his win. Except that he didn't win, of course, both he and the guy who was trying to pass him for the win wrecked and somebody else won. That seems to escape these geniuses. Everything is somebody else's fault.

All of which is why I barely pay any attention these days.

I was at one time a big fan of stock car racing. I probably would be if they still raced stock cars, meaning a car bought from a dealer's stock, rather than these blobs with a huge wing on the back and decals on them to identify the supposed manufacturer. They are so aerodynamically fragile that they cannot pass each other, so it's hard to call what they do "racing." They are having their high speed parade at Talledega this week, which used to be one of my very favorite tracks. Bill Elliott set a stock car speed record there that still stands, and Dale Earnhardt used to keep appearing at the front of the pack sort of by magic. It was at Talledega that Dale's car got completely sideways without wrecking at more than 200 mph and, when asked on the radio if he was okay, he replied that he was okay but that the car was "a little loose." Then drivers started "bump drafting," a form of cheating where one car, a teammate or driver with similar interest, physically pushes another for faster speed. Unfortunately, while it does make cars go faster, it is awesomely dangerous. The rear car often slams into the front car hard enough to wreck him, particularly when the rear car is stupid enough to do it in the turns. Usually a dozen or more cars pile into the wreck, and more often than not the pusher comes out unscathed. Needless to say, the other dozen or so drivers, whose cars are rubble, are a little pissed off. NASCAR keeps saying they are going to penalize drivers who "overdo" the bump drafting, and this year they have said that they are really going to clamp down and disallow it altogether. Yeah, right. If they really wanted to prevent it, they could reduce the reinforcement allowed in the noses of the cars so that anyone pushing on the car in front of them would get the front of their own car smashed in. The other maneuver is "blocking," where if someone behind you is coming up and tries to pass, you swerve in front of him to prevent him from passing. It sounds stupid and dangerous, doesn't it? Especially at 210 miles per hour in a car that you cannot see out of and have to have somebody up in the grandstand describing to you the positions of other nearby race cars, which are also doing 210 mph? Think about it; swerving at 200+ mph in front of an oncoming car that you cannot see, hoping that a guy half a mile away looking through binoculars is giving you the "swerve now" signal at precisely the right moment. That's why other forms of racing ban the practice and impose penalties on drivers who violate the rule. Not NASCAR, whose drivers not only okay it, they regard it as exemplary behavior. When a massive wreck results, the blocking driver merely blames the driver who was trying to pass him and claims that blocking is his prerogative to protect his win. Except that he didn't win, of course, both he and the guy who was trying to pass him for the win wrecked and somebody else won. That seems to escape these geniuses. Everything is somebody else's fault. All of which is why I barely pay any attention these days.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Costly Public Option

It’s rude to say “I told you so,” but a CBO study has now said that the “public option” will not only not “hold insurance companies accountable” and drive down rates, but will actually charge higher premiums than private insurance. Digby at Hullabaloo says that the CBO “won’t tell you why” and accuses the CBO of “baking” the numbers, but they actually do say why, just as they do with all of the studies they release.

And guess what: it’s in no small part the very same reason that I predicted in “Magic and the Public Option” back on the 20th.

The "public option" is not only being touted as lower cost, but it is now being claimed that it will pay for all of the things that private insurance is refusing to pay for. That being the case, how is it going to charge lower premiums?

And from Ezra Klein in the Washington Post,

"…because the public option is, well, public, it won't want to do the unpopular things that insurers do to save money, like manage care or aggressively review treatments. It also, presumably, won't try to drive out the sick or the unhealthy. That means the public option will spend more, and could, over time, develop a reputation as a good home for bad health risks, which would mean its average premium will increase because its average member will cost more."

So, sorry but, “I told you so.”

Lawrence O’Donnell had two guests on Countdown last night who tried to say that the problem was that Congress was structuring the “public option” such that HHS would negotiate the rates that it would pay to providers and that it would be too small to have adequate negotiating power. There may be some truth in that, but it doesn’t overcome the issue that the CBO described as driving the rates up.

And, of course, no one is talking about the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Those “cost control measures” that the public option won’t be doing? Well, the reform is making many of them illegal for private insurers to do as well, and no one is concerned that without those controls the premiums for health insurance of all types will absolutely have to increase.

The problem is not in the details, here, the problem is fundamental. Congress is trying to reform health care delivery by tinkering around with health insurance regulations and not addressing the health care delivery system itself. There are no details which can make that approach work; whatever they do and however many pages they write trying to do it, it simply is not going to succeed.

It's like trying to make a worn out clunker car with 300,000 miles on it function better by giving it a new paint job. It looks good, but has no practical effect.

It’s rude to say “I told you so,” but a CBO study has now said that the “public option” will not only not “hold insurance companies accountable” and drive down rates, but will actually charge higher premiums than private insurance. Digby at <a target="_blank" href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/they-really-do-think-were-stupid-by.html">Hullabaloo</a> says that the CBO “won’t tell you why” and accuses the CBO of “baking” the numbers, but they actually do say why, just as they do with all of the studies they release. And guess what: it’s in no small part the very same reason that I predicted in “<a target="_blank" href="http://billsandiego.blogspot.com/2009/10/magic-and-public-option.html">Magic and the Public Option</a>” back on the 20th. <blockquote>The "public option" is not only being touted as lower cost, but it is now being claimed that it will pay for all of the things that private insurance is refusing to pay for. That being the case, how is it going to charge lower premiums?</blockquote> And from Ezra Klein in the <a target="_blank" href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/wil_lthe_public_plan_have_high.html?hpid=topnews">Washington Post</a>, <blockquote>"…because the public option is, well, public, it won't want to do the unpopular things that insurers do to save money, like manage care or aggressively review treatments. It also, presumably, won't try to drive out the sick or the unhealthy. That means the public option will spend more, and could, over time, develop a reputation as a good home for bad health risks, which would mean its average premium will increase because its average member will cost more." </blockquote> So, sorry but, “I told you so.” Lawrence O’Donnell had two guests on Countdown last night who tried to say that the problem was that Congress was structuring the “public option” such that HHS would negotiate the rates that it would pay to providers and that it would be too small to have adequate negotiating power. There may be some truth in that, but it doesn’t overcome the issue that the CBO described as driving the rates up. And, of course, no one is talking about the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Those “cost control measures” that the public option won’t be doing? Well, the reform is making many of them illegal for private insurers to do as well, and no one is concerned that without those controls the premiums for health insurance of all types will absolutely have to increase. The problem is not in the details, here, the problem is fundamental. Congress is trying to reform health care delivery by tinkering around with health insurance regulations and not addressing the health care delivery system itself. There are no details which can make that approach work; whatever they do and however many pages they write trying to do it, it simply is not going to succeed. It's like trying to make a worn out clunker car with 300,000 miles on it function better by giving it a new paint job. It looks good, but has no practical effect.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Omigod, They Overcounted

I, personally, am astounded that "stimulus jobs" were over-reported. Counters were probably overstimulated by the prostitutes that ACORN set up in business. Or maybe intimidated by ACORN pimps. Maybe it was just ACORN nuts doing the counting.

Excellent Image (with update)

President Obama will soon make a decision regarding additional troops for Afghanistan. I probably will not agree with that decision, but seeing this image will certainly contribute to my respect for that decision.

Update: Saturday, 8:00am
President Obama is certainly not averse to photo ops and, indeed, this may have been one. I suspect, however, that it was not, since photo ops usually involve more than one camera and that camera person usually knows in advance that the President will be there.

The film of which that photo is a screenshot is the only film that is available of the event, and it was scheduled with permission of the family before it was known that the President was going to be coming. That would make it more of a photo coincidence than a photo operation.

<img style="display:block; margin:-5px 0 5px 0; width:430px; height:288px; border:1px solid #000000" src="http://www.sonora-sw.com/blog/Dover.jpg" alt="Honoring the Fallen">President Obama will soon make a decision regarding additional troops for Afghanistan. I probably will not agree with that decision, but seeing this image will certainly contribute to my respect for that decision. Update: Saturday, 8:00am President Obama is certainly not averse to photo ops and, indeed, this may have been one. I suspect, however, that it was not, since photo ops usually involve more than one camera and that camera person usually knows in advance that the President will be there. The film of which that photo is a screenshot is the only film that is available of the event, and it was scheduled with permission of the family before it was known that the President was going to be coming. That would make it more of a photo coincidence than a photo operation.

Cheerleading Health Care

Paul Krugman has lost his mind. His cheerleading for this tinkering on the edges of our health care delivery system that poses as “health care reform” has reached the point that he now refers to it in his latest column as,

Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have — guaranteed access to essential care — have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.

(emphasis mine) News flash, Paul, this "reform" mandates that all persons must purchase health insurance, and there will still be copays and deductibles; with limits on them, but not one person has claimed that they will be eliminated altogether. That's not what "every other advanced nation already ha[s]" Professor.

To my sure and certain knowledge, in England and in France someone in need of care walks into a health care facility, is treated without any questions of a financial nature and walks out without a bill. Does this piece of legislation give that to Americans, Professor Krugman? Does it give it to all Americans? Even Nancy Pelosi only has the temerity to claim that this 1990-page monstrosity of a bill will cover only 96% of the citizens of this nation, and it covers them by mandating that they purchase insurance.

Please tell me, oh genius with the Nobel prize, how making a deal with drug companies to preserve their prices and profits, making a deal with hospitals to preserve their prices and profits, and then mounting a campaign against insurance companies constitutes any kind of major reform of our health care delivery system.

Regardless of the amount, people in this nation will still have to take money from their food and housing allowance to provide for the purchase of what other developed nations provide at no direct cost, health care. This tinkering that we call reform will still allow people to go bankrupt and lose their homes as a result of illness or accident; something that happens in no other developed nation in the world.

How do 26 million unemployed purchase health insurance, Professor Krugman? All of the tax credits in the world are useless when you have no income to pay income tax on and therefor no income tax to offset the credit against. So how, precisely, do we "guarantee essential care" to those 26 million unemployed and their families, Professor Nobel Prize Winner?

I do not for one minute believe that a bill this massive, 1990 pages, can ever effectively be implemented, let alone enforced. Just the administrative cost of having the people who are affected by this monster read the damned thing will cost more than it could possibly ever save.

Pass the bill if this is the best we can do; it’s pathetic, but it’s better than nothing. But only an idiot would make the claim that this bill puts us on a par with any civilized nation when it comes to health care.

Update: Friday, 12:30pm
You inferred correctly. I do not consider America civilized when it comes to health care. Large corporations profiting from human suffering is barbaric.

Paul Krugman has lost his mind. His cheerleading for this tinkering on the edges of our health care delivery system that poses as “health care reform” has reached the point that he now refers to it in his <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&hp">latest column</a> as, <blockquote>Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have — guaranteed access to essential care — have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.</blockquote> (emphasis mine) News flash, Paul, this "reform" mandates that all persons must purchase health insurance, and there will still be copays and deductibles; with limits on them, but not one person has claimed that they will be eliminated altogether. That's not what "every other advanced nation already ha[s]" Professor. To my sure and certain knowledge, in England and in France someone in need of care walks into a health care facility, is treated without any questions of a financial nature and walks out without a bill. Does this piece of legislation give that to Americans, Professor Krugman? Does it give it to all Americans? Even Nancy Pelosi only has the temerity to claim that this 1990-page monstrosity of a bill will cover only 96% of the citizens of this nation, and it covers them by mandating that they purchase insurance. Please tell me, oh genius with the Nobel prize, how making a deal with drug companies to preserve their prices and profits, making a deal with hospitals to preserve their prices and profits, and then mounting a campaign against insurance companies constitutes any kind of major reform of our health care delivery system. Regardless of the amount, people in this nation will still have to take money from their food and housing allowance to provide for the purchase of what other developed nations provide at no direct cost, health care. This tinkering that we call reform will still allow people to go bankrupt and lose their homes as a result of illness or accident; something that happens in no other developed nation in the world. How do 26 million unemployed purchase health insurance, Professor Krugman? All of the tax credits in the world are useless when you have no income to pay income tax on and therefor no income tax to offset the credit against. So how, precisely, do we "guarantee essential care" to those 26 million unemployed and their families, Professor Nobel Prize Winner? I do not for one minute believe that a bill this massive, 1990 pages, can ever effectively be implemented, let alone enforced. Just the administrative cost of having the people who are affected by this monster read the damned thing will cost more than it could possibly ever save. Pass the bill if this is the best we can do; it’s pathetic, but it’s better than nothing. But only an idiot would make the claim that this bill puts us on a par with any civilized nation when it comes to health care. Update: Friday, 12:30pm You inferred correctly. I do not consider America civilized when it comes to health care. Large corporations profiting from human suffering is barbaric.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Economic Cheerleading

Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly has a post today about how “The Economy Is Coming Back To Life,” cheerleading about the one-quarter increase of a government-created number called the “Gross Domestic Product.” In fairness to Steve, who I read regularly and thoroughly respect, he is not alone is grasping at this straw.

Tell all of that good news about the “economy coming back to life” to the 530,000 people who filed new jobless claims last week, or to the 18.8% of the work force that is unemployed. Tell that to the people who are included in the record number of people whose homes were foreclosed in the same quarter that we're celebrating about. Tell that to the people whose interest rates on credit card balances which were current and being promptly paid was just raised to 30% and more. Tell that to working men and women whose hours and wages are still being reduced. Tell that to holiday retailers who are not hiring seasonal workers this year because the holiday sales forecast is, at best, “flat.”

Pulling future auto sales forward into a single month by means of a one-month subsidy and creating a down-the-road sales slump does not constitute economic growth. Creating a spike in home sales by means of a short term tax credit and low interest rates to artificially drive up prices, using the same methods that created the housing bubble in the first place, does not constitute economic growth. More than 100 banks failed so far this year and many more on the brink is not economic growth.

When I see employment rising significantly and indebtedness decreasing and a major portion of the bad debt written off; when no small banks are failing then I will believe that the economy is improving.

Yes, I know about the “jobs is a trailing indicator” thing. Jobs may be a trailing indicator when unemployment is not improving, but mostly that is a slogan trotted out by politicians to pacify the mob. Even if true, steady state unemployment is not the case here; jobs are still declining, meaning that buying power is declining, home foreclosures are still increasing, and all parts of the real economy are still in a slide.

No, I don’t think the stimulus was a failure, I think it was too small and spent on too many nickel-dime projects. The Great Depression was defeated with things like the Hoover Dam, not with trivia like one-month programs persuading people to buy cars. We are trying to solve big problems with small answers. We have 535 legislators, each of whom wants his own program to get reelected on, so we get 535 trivial projects which create small, temporary local jobs. Even major bills in Congress are nothing more than an amalgamation of small ideas.

We need big thinking, but that requires big people and all of the big people are in history, not in today’s government.

Steve Benen at the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020682.php">Washington Monthly</a> has a post today about how “The Economy Is Coming Back To Life,” cheerleading about the one-quarter increase of a government-created number called the “Gross Domestic Product.” In fairness to Steve, who I read regularly and thoroughly respect, he is not alone is grasping at this straw. Tell all of that good news about the “economy coming back to life” to the 530,000 people who filed new jobless claims last week, or to the 18.8% of the work force that is unemployed. Tell that to the people who are included in the record number of people whose homes were foreclosed in the same quarter that we're celebrating about. Tell that to the people whose interest rates on credit card balances which were current and being promptly paid was just raised to 30% and more. Tell that to working men and women whose hours and wages are still being reduced. Tell that to holiday retailers who are not hiring seasonal workers this year because the holiday sales forecast is, at best, “flat.” Pulling future auto sales forward into a single month by means of a one-month subsidy and creating a down-the-road sales slump does not constitute economic growth. Creating a spike in home sales by means of a short term tax credit and low interest rates to artificially drive up prices, using the same methods that created the housing bubble in the first place, does not constitute economic growth. More than 100 banks failed so far this year and many more on the brink is not economic growth. When I see employment rising significantly and indebtedness decreasing and a major portion of the bad debt written off; when no small banks are failing then I will believe that the economy is improving. Yes, I know about the “jobs is a trailing indicator” thing. Jobs may be a trailing indicator when unemployment is not improving, but mostly that is a slogan trotted out by politicians to pacify the mob. Even if true, steady state unemployment is not the case here; jobs are still declining, meaning that buying power is declining, home foreclosures are still increasing, and all parts of the real economy are still in a slide. No, I don’t think the stimulus was a failure, I think it was too small and spent on too many nickel-dime projects. The Great Depression was defeated with things like the Hoover Dam, not with trivia like one-month programs persuading people to buy cars. We are trying to solve big problems with small answers. We have 535 legislators, each of whom wants his own program to get reelected on, so we get 535 trivial projects which create small, temporary local jobs. Even major bills in Congress are nothing more than an amalgamation of small ideas. We need big thinking, but that requires big people and all of the big people are in history, not in today’s government.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Olbermann Hyperbolizes

To proclaim that Keith Olbermann engaged in hyperbole on his show last night would seem to be a bit inane, wouldn’t it. There are those who might say that I regularly engage in inanity on this blog, but we will disregard them as a mean-spirited minority and move on.

Olbermann went to new heights of hyperbole in last night's segment on “health care reform” when he a) ranted about Obama claiming that “eliminating waste and inefficiency in the health care system could pay for most of the health care package,” b) mentioned critics who claimed that there could not be that much waste and c) declaimed that Obama vastly underestimated how much “could be paid for” by eliminating waste, based on a report from Thompson Reuters.

It’s hard to know where to start dismantling a rant that was so utterly and completely divorced from reality. Not that Olbermann is ever in particularly close contact with reality.

Let’s start with Obama’s claim, which was that eliminating waste and fraud from Medicare would pay for about half of the health care reform package. Medicare. Not from the “health care system,” Keith, from Medicare, which doesn’t even spend $800 billion per year, let alone waste that much.

Next let’s look at where the savings would occur. Since we are talking about the health care reform package spending federal tax dollars, and are talking about the federal budget and the federal deficit, it would seem logical that the savings would have to be in federal spending. Not to our boy Keith Olbermann; any old savings will do.

The report that Olbermann is citing says nothing whatever about Medicare or the federal government, and none of the waste that Olbermann is hooting about is government waste. So how exactly does he think that savings in the private economy is going to pay the cost of a federal program or balance the federal budget? That, it seems, is a trivial detail that Olbermann does not want us to bother with.

Basically Olbermann is talking about this country spending twice as much on health care as any other nation in the developed world, mentioning a health care reform proposal, and then saying, “Oh, look, something shiny.”

Then he brings on a woman from the California Nurses Association to polish up his shiny distraction. She immediately launches a lengthy screed about insurance companies not paying claims, which has nothing to do with the current topic of waste in the health care system but nonetheless draws rave reviews from Olbermann, who loves demonizing insurance companies whatever the current topic may be.

In case you think the CNA is a group of those wonderful caring people beside your bed, think again. It is one of the most powerful labor unions in the state, exceeded only by the California Highway Patrol, which manages to get actual crimes by its members covered up; the prison guards union, which owns the governor and the legislature; and the public workers unions, which not only have pensions higher than their salaries after twenty years, but have wages 40% higher than those in comparable private jobs.

The CNA is a professional and very active political group, campaigning in causes having no bearing on the interests of the workers they represent; for example campaigning actively in favor of the infamous Proposition 8.

Olbermann brings up a Thompson Reuters item that 37% of the waste consists of unneeded treatment, in part to avoid malpractice risk. He goes on to describe his conversations with doctors who said that they were using unneeded treatment basically as a means of pumping up their income, and the CNA representative immediately segues that into a discussion of insurance fraud which Olbermann gleefully joins.

On the Countdown website they have a “Keith bobblehead doll” for sale. Really; I'm not making that up. You can buy one of those on Countdown's website. Or you can watch one every weeknight on MSNBC.

To proclaim that Keith Olbermann engaged in hyperbole on his show last night would seem to be a bit inane, wouldn’t it. There are those who might say that I regularly engage in inanity on this blog, but we will disregard them as a mean-spirited minority and move on. Olbermann went to new heights of hyperbole in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33500400">last night's segment</a> on “health care reform” when he a) ranted about Obama claiming that “eliminating waste and inefficiency in the health care system could pay for most of the health care package,” b) mentioned critics who claimed that there could not be that much waste and c) declaimed that Obama vastly underestimated how much “could be paid for” by eliminating waste, based on a report from Thompson Reuters. It’s hard to know where to start dismantling a rant that was so utterly and completely divorced from reality. Not that Olbermann is ever in particularly close contact with reality. Let’s start with Obama’s claim, which was that eliminating waste and fraud from Medicare would pay for about half of the health care reform package. Medicare. Not from the “health care system,” Keith, from Medicare, which doesn’t even spend $800 billion per year, let alone waste that much. Next let’s look at where the savings would occur. Since we are talking about the health care reform package spending federal tax dollars, and are talking about the federal budget and the federal deficit, it would seem logical that the savings would have to be in federal spending. Not to our boy Keith Olbermann; any old savings will do. The report that Olbermann is citing says nothing whatever about Medicare or the federal government, and none of the waste that Olbermann is hooting about is government waste. So how exactly does he think that savings in the private economy is going to pay the cost of a federal program or balance the federal budget? That, it seems, is a trivial detail that Olbermann does not want us to bother with. Basically Olbermann is talking about this country spending twice as much on health care as any other nation in the developed world, mentioning a health care reform proposal, and then saying, “Oh, look, something shiny.” Then he brings on a woman from the California Nurses Association to polish up his shiny distraction. She immediately launches a lengthy screed about insurance companies not paying claims, which has nothing to do with the current topic of waste in the health care system but nonetheless draws rave reviews from Olbermann, who loves demonizing insurance companies whatever the current topic may be. In case you think the CNA is a group of those wonderful caring people beside your bed, think again. It is one of the most powerful labor unions in the state, exceeded only by the California Highway Patrol, which manages to get actual crimes by its members covered up; the prison guards union, which owns the governor and the legislature; and the public workers unions, which not only have pensions higher than their salaries after twenty years, but have wages 40% higher than those in comparable private jobs. The CNA is a professional and very active political group, campaigning in causes having no bearing on the interests of the workers they represent; for example campaigning actively in favor of the infamous Proposition 8. Olbermann brings up a Thompson Reuters item that 37% of the waste consists of unneeded treatment, in part to avoid malpractice risk. He goes on to describe his conversations with doctors who said that they were using unneeded treatment basically as a means of pumping up their income, and the CNA representative immediately segues that into a discussion of insurance fraud which Olbermann gleefully joins. On the Countdown website they have a “Keith bobblehead doll” for sale. Really; I'm not making that up. You can buy one of those on Countdown's website. Or you can watch one every weeknight on MSNBC.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Deadlines

One of the blessings of being an old guy and retired is not having to face deadlines any more; not having clients bugging you with things like, "When are you going to have that done?"

Oops, guess who isn't fully retired.

To keep you amused until I retire again, this could be hard on your tires.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Forseeable Consequences

Part of the problem in the “health care” debate is that so many of the people debating, and offering solutions, know so little about the subject. Case in point is a comment made in response to an article in the Salt Lake City Tribune. The article was about the role of companies which self insure instead of buying health insurance for its employees, and the commenter responded,

The solution to the health care problems (and there are many), in my opinion, would be to relax restrictions that only allow a select number of companies to offer insurance in each state - open the industry up to competition.

The article is worth reading. Many people think their problem is with a health insurance company when it is actually with their own employer, and employers are fighting to keep themselves exempt from the changes in the pending reform.

At any rate, there are no restrictions of the nature that the commenter suggests; they would be an interference of interstate commerce, and would be unconstitutional. What states do is create a set of requirements that insurance companies must meet to do business in their state, and they do that for the purpose of consumer protection, not to restrict competition. Designing policies to meet those policies and becoming certified in a state is an expensive process, so only a few companies decide to do so.

States have done the same thing for auto insurance, and with precisely the same results; auto policies are less flexible and more expensive than need be. Oddly, I don’t hear any major outcry to force auto insurance companies to cease denial of claims, or to quit underpaying claims by using “fair market value” of damaged autos, or to issue insurance at the same costs regardless of prior record, or to remove caps on insurance. Nor do I see demands that we be allowed to “buy auto insurance across state lines.”

Limited availability is the result of something that people asked for. With their constituents clamoring to be protected against substandard and/or deceptive insurance policies, legislators passed legislation that protected consumers but which also reduced availability and made insurance more expensive; a perhaps unintended, but entirely foreseeable result.

I have no doubt that when regulations were first being proposed on car and health insurance there were realists who were saying that such regulation would result in higher prices and reduced availability. They were certainly impugned as being anti-progressive and accused of being on the side of the evil insurance companies.

Those people probably tried to say that they favored regulation but that, in imposing any regulation, we should consider all of the effects of that action and not merely the intended favorable effects, and be guided accordingly. And they were, of course, shouted down because they “were on the side of evil” and were merely trying to prevent the reform from being enacted.

We are proposing regulations now with the best of intention, and are not listening to anyone who suggests that there might be some negative consequences if those regulations are not crafted more carefully. Déjà vu
all over again.

Part of the problem in the “health care” debate is that so many of the people debating, and offering solutions, know so little about the subject. Case in point is a comment made in response to an article in the Salt Lake City Tribune. The article was about the role of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sltrib.com/Business/ci_13619293">companies which self insure</a> instead of buying health insurance for its employees, and the commenter responded, <blockquote>The solution to the health care problems (and there are many), in my opinion, would be to relax restrictions that only allow a select number of companies to offer insurance in each state - open the industry up to competition.</blockquote> The article is worth reading. Many people think their problem is with a health insurance company when it is actually with their own employer, and employers are fighting to keep themselves exempt from the changes in the pending reform. At any rate, there are no restrictions of the nature that the commenter suggests; they would be an interference of interstate commerce, and would be unconstitutional. What states do is create a set of requirements that insurance companies must meet to do business in their state, and they do that for the purpose of consumer protection, not to restrict competition. Designing policies to meet those policies and becoming certified in a state is an expensive process, so only a few companies decide to do so. States have done the same thing for auto insurance, and with precisely the same results; auto policies are less flexible and more expensive than need be. Oddly, I don’t hear any major outcry to force auto insurance companies to cease denial of claims, or to quit underpaying claims by using “fair market value” of damaged autos, or to issue insurance at the same costs regardless of prior record, or to remove caps on insurance. Nor do I see demands that we be allowed to “buy auto insurance across state lines.” Limited availability is the result of something that people asked for. With their constituents clamoring to be protected against substandard and/or deceptive insurance policies, legislators passed legislation that protected consumers but which also reduced availability and made insurance more expensive; a perhaps unintended, but entirely foreseeable result. I have no doubt that when regulations were first being proposed on car and health insurance there were realists who were saying that such regulation would result in higher prices and reduced availability. They were certainly impugned as being anti-progressive and accused of being on the side of the evil insurance companies. Those people probably tried to say that they favored regulation but that, in imposing any regulation, we should consider all of the effects of that action and not merely the intended favorable effects, and be guided accordingly. And they were, of course, shouted down because they “were on the side of evil” and were merely trying to prevent the reform from being enacted. We are proposing regulations now with the best of intention, and are not listening to anyone who suggests that there might be some negative consequences if those regulations are not crafted more carefully. Déjà vu all over again.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Unintended Consequences

Congress just passed a law regulating credit card fees and rates and, on the face of it at least, protecting consumers. Much of the law goes into effect in February of next year, but part of it becomes effective in the next few weeks. One of the notable changes is that credit card companies may not raise the interest rate on an existing balance.

Citibank just issued notices, as far as anyone can determine it was to all of its card holders, that its interest rate is being raised to 29.99% on existing balances. That’s on all balances, not just ones that are delinquent. Actually, it’s Prime Rate plus 26.74%, which adds to a current rate of 29.99%. If the prime rate changes…

That's why "on the face of it" as to consumer protection. The law doesn't preclude 30% interest rates, doesn't preclude deceptively adjustable rates tied to prime, and didn't preclude massive rate increases to anticipate inception of the law's few restrictions.

Some financial writers are attaching all sorts of dire implications to Citi's move, but I’m siding with those who merely say that it is their decision to beat the new law; to get the higher rate imposed before the law prevents them from doing so. In addition to the consequences for cardholders, there are some unfortunate implications for the overall economy in that move.

Citibank has 92 million cards with $102 billion outstanding balance. The average interest rate charged was 12% on that balance, and raising it increases the monthly payments that cardholders are required to make, increases the interest they owe, and increases their overall debt. My financial calculation is a bit iffy, but I make that an increase in consumer debt, or payment toward debt, of $1.5 billion per month. That is just one credit card company, and not even the largest one.

That means sucking another $1.5 billion per month out of the consumer economy into the financial economy. Another $1.5 billion per month out of Main Street into Wall Street.

How is that going to affect consumer spending and economic recovery?

Congress just passed a law regulating credit card fees and rates and, on the face of it at least, protecting consumers. Much of the law goes into effect in February of next year, but part of it becomes effective in the next few weeks. One of the notable changes is that credit card companies may not raise the interest rate on an existing balance. Citibank just issued notices, as far as anyone can determine it was to all of its card holders, that its interest rate is being raised to 29.99% on existing balances. That’s on all balances, not just ones that are delinquent. Actually, it’s Prime Rate plus 26.74%, which adds to a current rate of 29.99%. If the prime rate changes… That's why "on the face of it" as to consumer protection. The law doesn't preclude 30% interest rates, doesn't preclude deceptively adjustable rates tied to prime, and didn't preclude massive rate increases to anticipate inception of the law's few restrictions. Some financial writers are attaching all sorts of dire implications to Citi's move, but I’m siding with those who merely say that it is their decision to beat the new law; to get the higher rate imposed before the law prevents them from doing so. In addition to the consequences for cardholders, there are some unfortunate implications for the overall economy in that move. Citibank has 92 million cards with $102 billion outstanding balance. The average interest rate charged was 12% on that balance, and raising it increases the monthly payments that cardholders are required to make, increases the interest they owe, and increases their overall debt. My financial calculation is a bit iffy, but I make that an increase in consumer debt, or payment toward debt, of $1.5 billion per month. That is just one credit card company, and not even the largest one. That means sucking another $1.5 billion per month out of the consumer economy into the financial economy. Another $1.5 billion per month out of Main Street into Wall Street. How is that going to affect consumer spending and economic recovery?

No Longer About Health Care

The debate was about health care, then it was about health insurance, then it was about health care again. Now it's about none of those things. Now it's just about "The Public Option." Nobody is actually sure what that is, but we need it because it will solve everything including, apparently, the civil war and piracy in Somalia.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Mind Boggling

Nicholas Kristof begins an op-ed column in the New York Times on last Wednesday with this mind-blowing statement,

The United States was born of our ancestors’ nationalistic resentment of a foreign power whose troops we saw as occupiers, not protectors. The British never fathomed our basic grievance — this was our land, not theirs! — so the more they cracked down, the more they empowered the American insurgency.

This is absurd in more than one dimension.

He obviously has not spent much time hanging out, as I have, with people of the Navaho or Hopi nations.

"...our basic grievance — this was our land, not theirs!" Say what?

In any case, does Kristoff understand that we were a colony, and what a colony is? Foreign power?! It actually was their land. The English took it away from the Indians and, in the Revolution, we took it away from the English who, at the time, owned it.

Nicholas Kristof begins an <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/opinion/22kristof.html?_r=1&em">op-ed column</a> in the New York Times on last Wednesday with this mind-blowing statement, <blockquote>The United States was born of our ancestors’ nationalistic resentment of a foreign power whose troops we saw as occupiers, not protectors. The British never fathomed our basic grievance — this was our land, not theirs! — so the more they cracked down, the more they empowered the American insurgency.</blockquote> This is absurd in more than one dimension. He obviously has not spent much time hanging out, as I have, with people of the Navaho or Hopi nations. "...our basic grievance — this was our land, not theirs!"   Say what? In any case, does Kristoff understand that we were a colony, and what a colony is? Foreign power?!  It actually was their land. The English took it away from the Indians and, in the Revolution, we took it away from the English who, at the time, owned it.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

This is probably a dumb question, and I’m sure Paul Krugman could answer it in seconds, but he probably would just blow it off as not worth answering.

The financial crisis was caused by a collapse the home mortgage market, right? By the discovery that lenders were making home loans to people who could not pay them? Everything went bad when people started defaulting on mortgages and all of the paper that was based on those mortgages was discovered to be worthless.

Home foreclosures hit a new record high in the third quarter of 2009, and the stock market increased 50% to hit 10,000.

So how does an economy that seriously collapsed as a result of bad home mortgages make such an astonishing recovery while home mortgage foreclosures continue to get worse?

Questioned answered: Friday, 11:00am
Actually, foreclosures did not hit a record; they actually declined this year. "Notices of default" were at an all time high and, it turns out, banks are not even issuing those until payments are five months in arrears. They are then holding on to the properties and not foreclosing, creating what is called a "shadow inventory" of bank-owned properties.

Why? Well, if they foreclose they can no longer show the mortgage as an asset. So the answer to my question is that the improvement is because banks are now simply ignoring homeowners' non-payment of mortgages.

This is probably a dumb question, and I’m sure Paul Krugman could answer it in seconds, but he probably would just blow it off as not worth answering. The financial crisis was caused by a collapse the home mortgage market, right? By the discovery that lenders were making home loans to people who could not pay them? Everything went bad when people started defaulting on mortgages and all of the paper that was based on those mortgages was discovered to be worthless. Home foreclosures hit a new record high in the third quarter of 2009, and the stock market increased 50% to hit 10,000. So how does an economy that seriously collapsed as a result of bad home mortgages make such an astonishing recovery while home mortgage foreclosures continue to get worse? Questioned answered: Friday, 11:00am Actually, foreclosures did not hit a record; they actually declined this year. "Notices of default" were at an all time high and, it turns out, banks are not even issuing those until payments are five months in arrears. They are then holding on to the properties and not foreclosing, creating what is called a "shadow inventory" of bank-owned properties. Why? Well, if they foreclose they can no longer show the mortgage as an asset. So the answer to my question is that the improvement is because banks are now simply ignoring homeowners' non-payment of mortgages.

Winning Wars

“…despite seven years of joint military missions and American development projects, much of the island outside main towns like Lamitan remains unsafe. Abu Sayyaf members, sheltered by sympathetic residents, continue to operate in the interior’s dense forests, even as the United States recently extended the deployment of troops in the southern Philippines.”

Nick Turse writes in some detail at Tom Dispatch about the American military’s track record at winning wars since World War II, and it is not pretty. He points out that our record is essentially zero since then, achieving at best stalemate and at worst outright defeat every time we engage in full scale armed combat. He disregards Panama and Grenada which, I would concur, do not count as “wars.”

"…50 years later, the U.S. still garrisons the southern part of the Korean peninsula as a result of a stalemate war and a peace as yet unmade. More recently, the American experience has included outright defeat in Vietnam, failures in Laos and Cambodia; debacles in Lebanon and Somalia; a never-ending four-president-long war in Iraq; and almost a decade of wheel-spinning in Afghanistan without any sign of success, no less victory. What could make the limits of American power any clearer?"

This should not be construed to condemn American fighting forces, which are well trained, well equipped and among the very best in the world. Rather it should serve to condemn the misuse and misapplication of the power that is represented by those fighting forces; to say that we are simply trying to use our power in a manner that is not well suited to the application of that particular instrument. We are using a hammer on that which is not a nail.

The discussion omits one war that we did win, and won very convincingly; the Cold War, a war we won by not fighting it. The best use of military power is to have it and not use it. We won the Cold War with the best military slogan ever coined, the one emblazoned on the B-52’s of Strategic Air Command, United States Air Force, “Peace Is Our Profession.”

I suspect that very few Americans know that our military forces are currently fighting an insurgency in The Philippine Islands. Although no longer allowed to participate in actual combat, and reduced from the original 1300 landed in 2002, we still have 600 soldiers there for “training and support” in an active counterinsurgency war with no end in sight. From the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/asia/26phils.html?hp">New York Times</a> of Sept 25, 2009, <blockquote>“…despite seven years of joint military missions and American development projects, much of the island outside main towns like Lamitan remains unsafe. Abu Sayyaf members, sheltered by sympathetic residents, continue to operate in the interior’s dense forests, even as the United States recently extended the deployment of troops in the southern Philippines.”</blockquote> Nick Turse writes in some detail at <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175130/nick_turse_what_the_u_s_military_can_t_do">Tom Dispatch</a> about the American military’s track record at winning wars since World War II, and it is not pretty. He points out that our record is essentially zero since then, achieving at best stalemate and at worst outright defeat every time we engage in full scale armed combat. He disregards Panama and Grenada which, I would concur, do not count as “wars.” <blockquote>"…50 years later, the U.S. still garrisons the southern part of the Korean peninsula as a result of a stalemate war and a peace as yet unmade. More recently, the American experience has included outright defeat in Vietnam, failures in Laos and Cambodia; debacles in Lebanon and Somalia; a never-ending four-president-long war in Iraq; and almost a decade of wheel-spinning in Afghanistan without any sign of success, no less victory. What could make the limits of American power any clearer?"</blockquote> This should not be construed to condemn American fighting forces, which are well trained, well equipped and among the very best in the world. Rather it should serve to condemn the misuse and misapplication of the power that is represented by those fighting forces; to say that we are simply trying to use our power in a manner that is not well suited to the application of that particular instrument. We are using a hammer on that which is not a nail. The discussion omits one war that we did win, and won very convincingly; the Cold War, a war we won by not fighting it. The best use of military power is to have it and not use it. We won the Cold War with the best military slogan ever coined, the one emblazoned on the B-52’s of Strategic Air Command, United States Air Force, “Peace Is Our Profession.”

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Messages

Dick Cheney says that President Obama is endangering our troops with all of this indecision on Afghanistan; that he should quit wavering and decide now to send more troops into that war to protect America. I have a message for Dick. The printable version of that message is, "Shut up and go back to your undisclosed location."

I have a message for President Obama too; a totally gratuitous and unnecessary one, but it makes me feel better to express it. "Ignore Dick."

Who's Running America?

In an economy where “too big to fail” has become an epithet, the government nonetheless not only permits, but seems to encourage large firms to swallow smaller firms, creating more “too big to fail” entities in the process and facilitating the reduction of workforces while passing “stimulus” bills to create jobs.

My wife is bemused by my ongoing expectation of logic in government.

Oracle, the world’s largest database software maker, some months ago announced the purchase of Sun Microsystems, which owns MySQL database software. I won’t bore you with the details, but users of the latter database are less than ecstatic about that news, and consider the purchase to be anti-competitive. The US government has no such fears and promptly approved the merger. The European Union, being much less of a corporatist state than the US, said “not so fast” and has put the merger on hold while it studies the issue.

You may recall the EU has also been a bit noncompliant with marching orders issued by Microsoft. It seems the EU has a somewhat different definition of “monopoly” than the US does, and the difference might have to do with bribes campaign contributions. American firms cannot give bribes campaign contributions to European politicians, but they can, and do, to American politicians.

You may also recall that when a European airplane maker won a contract to provide tankers for the Air Force, Congress overturned the award. Seems European firms cannot give bribes campaign contributions to American politicians either, but American firms can and, of course, do.

Now that we have that all straightened out, Sun Microsystems is anticipating that the American government will prevail over the European Union, or they are assuming that Oracle is more powerful than the American government and the European Union combined, which may be the operative assumption. In any case, they have announced the layoff of 3000 workers, who will not be needed once Oracle takes them over.

Congress is considering a bill to extend unemployment benefits again.

Update:9:30am
Forbes, "September Leading Indicators Up 1.0% Vs 0.8% Expected"

Headline at CNNMoney, "Jobless claims dent recovery hopes"

In an economy where “too big to fail” has become an epithet, the government nonetheless not only permits, but seems to encourage large firms to swallow smaller firms, creating more “too big to fail” entities in the process and facilitating the reduction of workforces while passing “stimulus” bills to create jobs. My wife is bemused by my ongoing expectation of logic in government. Oracle, the world’s largest database software maker, some months ago announced the purchase of Sun Microsystems, which owns MySQL database software. I won’t bore you with the details, but users of the latter database are less than ecstatic about that news, and consider the purchase to be anti-competitive. The US government has no such fears and promptly approved the merger. The European Union, being much less of a corporatist state than the US, said “not so fast” and has put the merger on hold while it studies the issue. You may recall the EU has also been a bit noncompliant with marching orders issued by Microsoft. It seems the EU has a somewhat different definition of “monopoly” than the US does, and the difference might have to do with bribes campaign contributions. American firms cannot give bribes campaign contributions to European politicians, but they can, and do, to American politicians. You may also recall that when a European airplane maker won a contract to provide tankers for the Air Force, Congress overturned the award. Seems European firms cannot give bribes campaign contributions to American politicians either, but American firms can and, of course, do. Now that we have that all straightened out, Sun Microsystems is anticipating that the American government will prevail over the European Union, or they are assuming that Oracle is more powerful than the American government and the European Union combined, which may be the operative assumption. In any case, they have announced the layoff of 3000 workers, who will not be needed once Oracle takes them over. Congress is considering a bill to extend unemployment benefits again. Update:9:30am <a target="_blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/10/22/afx7031632.html">Forbes</a>, "September Leading Indicators Up 1.0% Vs 0.8% Expected" Headline at <a target="_blank" href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/22/news/economy/initial_claims_jobless/?postversion=2009102209">CNNMoney</a>, "Jobless claims dent recovery hopes"

The New Salon

Salon.Com has unveiled its new look. I would comment on it, but I'm waiting for the website to load. It must be quite some "look."

Update
Ah, finally loaded. Meh. Its advertising is still fairly obnoxious, but doesn't put it into the "not worth the effort" category; it's very much worthwhile. I hope they didn't spend a lot of money for the mediocre upgrade, and I hope they find a way to make it load faster.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Are We Full Yet?

There was a brief article in yesterday’s Health Section that people who eat rapidly until they are full are three times more likely to be overweight than those who eat slowly. That actually did not come as news to me, and I happen to know the reason for it, which I’m going to share with you whether you want to know it or not.

Most people think that all messages are carried throughout your body by nerves, but that is not the case. The message that your stomach sends to your brain to tell it that you are full is a chemical message. The chemical is formed in the abdomen, enters the bloodstream and is carried to the brain, where it tells the brain that you should stop eating. If you are eating rapidly, you will have ingested quite a bit of food while the message is in transit.

Eat slowly, with a couple of minutes between bites. You will savor the taste of the food with greater pleasure, and you will gain less weight.

Chris Matthews is an Idiot

Chris Matthews has been fulminating about how worried he is about the situation in Afghanistan. He’s expressed concern about the Taliban overwhelming the Army of Pakistan, taking control of the country and the world facing the problem of having “crazies with nuclear weapons.” He’s “worried about” that happening.

For the past two days he has been dithering about McChrystal’s plan to put small contingents of “our kids” (I assume he means our soldiers and Marines, many of whom are in their forties and fifties) in small outposts out in the boondocks of Afghanistan where the Taliban can pick them off. That would indeed be worrisome if McChrystal were actually planning on doing that. Apparently Matthews can’t read, or he doesn’t know what the term “defending population centers” means.

Yesterday he had Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, on to expound on the situation in Afghanistan, deferring to his expertise since Reed is a former serviceman. Reed kept referring to what the “Afghanis” need to do in the way of elections and self defense and such, and talking about the “Afghani Army.” He also talked about protecting the “Afghanis” from the Taliban. I assume he was talking about the people of Afghanistan, who are “Afghans,” and not the unit of currency of that nation, which is the “Afghani.” If one is going to pose as an expert on something, one should at least learn the terminology. Chris Matthews, of course, failed to notice that his guest was talking about money rather than people.

Chris Matthews has been fulminating about how worried he is about the situation in Afghanistan. He’s expressed concern about the Taliban overwhelming the Army of Pakistan, taking control of the country and the world facing the problem of having “crazies with nuclear weapons.” He’s “worried about” that happening. For the past two days he has been dithering about McChrystal’s plan to put small contingents of “our kids” (I assume he means our soldiers and Marines, many of whom are in their forties and fifties) in small outposts out in the boondocks of Afghanistan where the Taliban can pick them off. That would indeed be worrisome if McChrystal were actually planning on doing that. Apparently Matthews can’t read, or he doesn’t know what the term “defending population centers” means. Yesterday he had Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, on to expound on the situation in Afghanistan, deferring to his expertise since Reed is a former serviceman. Reed kept referring to what the “Afghanis” need to do in the way of elections and self defense and such, and talking about the “Afghani Army.” He also talked about protecting the “Afghanis” from the Taliban. I assume he was talking about the people of Afghanistan, who are “Afghans,” and not the unit of currency of that nation, which is the “Afghani.” If one is going to pose as an expert on something, one should at least learn the terminology. Chris Matthews, of course, failed to notice that his guest was talking about money rather than people.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Sensible Fire Insurance

Relevant to my last post. If your house burns down and you don’t like the way your insurance company pays off, you should be able to dump them and sign up with a new company. That new company should charge you a lower premium and pay off your losses on the previous fire in a higher amount than the insurance company you just dumped.

That makes sense, right, Senator Wyden?

Magic and the Public Option

I cannot help but feel that I am being sold a bill of goods with this “public option” thing as being a magic bullet to solve the ills that affect our health care system. I’m by no means opposed to a government-run health care plan; the government does many things very well, Medicare among them, so the “public option” doesn’t press any of my buttons on that issue.

I can’t figure out, for one thing, how it is going to get doctors, hospitals and drug companies to charge lower prices, which is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve reform’s stated goal of reducing health care costs. No, wait; that is not the goal of reform. The goal is to “slow the growth of costs,” which is sort of like a football team saying it doesn’t want to do anything but kick field goals. Sounds like the San Diego Chargers.

Negotiation might be a powerful tool but for two problems. First is that the “public option” will initially be too small to wield much in the way of negotiating power. The bigger problem is that the Obama Administration has already cut deals with hospital and pharmaceutical associations that no such negotiations will be included in reform.

The “public option” will be non-profit, which gets rid of an average of 5% of the premium costs. Not bad, but rather less than stunning. Supposedly it won’t need to advertise, but given the amount of advertising the US Postal Service does, I find that questionable. If it doesn’t advertise, how will people know what it is, what plan it offers, or even how to find it? But okay, it won’t advertise.

The "public option" is not only being touted as lower cost, but it is now being claimed that it will pay for all of the things that private insurance is refusing to pay for. That being the case, how is it going to charge lower premiums? Sen. Ron Wyden was on Countdown last night and said that if you are in an employer-provided plan and it refuses to pay for medical care you need, you should be able to drop that plan and enroll in a “public option” that will pay for the things that your employer’s plan is refusing to pay for.

How can the “public option” do that and charge lower premiums?

Insurance companies do not refuse payment for reasons having to do with evil-mindedness; for the reason that they just want you to get sicker and die for the sake of having you get sicker and die because they enjoy people dying. The reasons are economic; the more they pay out, the higher are the premiums they must charge, and the fewer policies they will sell.

So Olbermann and Senator Wyden want me to believe that the “public option” will never refuse payment, will pay all of the bills that private insurance refuses, and will charge lower premiums. I’m not an idiot, and I don’t believe that.

The “public option” is going to eschew cost control methods and maintain lower premiums. And magic ponies will keep everyone in good health.

As I’ve said before, the longer this “debate” goes on, the more it gets dumbed down. We now have boiled it down to two sides screaming meaningless catch phrases at each other; with one side yelling about “death panels” and the other about the “public option.”

I cannot help but feel that I am being sold a bill of goods with this “public option” thing as being a magic bullet to solve the ills that affect our health care system. I’m by no means opposed to a government-run health care plan; the government does many things very well, Medicare among them, so the “public option” doesn’t press any of my buttons on that issue. I can’t figure out, for one thing, how it is going to get doctors, hospitals and drug companies to charge lower prices, which is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve reform’s stated goal of reducing health care costs. No, wait; that is not the goal of reform. The goal is to “slow the growth of costs,” which is sort of like a football team saying it doesn’t want to do anything but kick field goals. Sounds like the San Diego Chargers. Negotiation might be a powerful tool but for two problems. First is that the “public option” will initially be too small to wield much in the way of negotiating power. The bigger problem is that the Obama Administration has already cut deals with hospital and pharmaceutical associations that no such negotiations will be included in reform. The “public option” will be non-profit, which gets rid of an average of 5% of the premium costs. Not bad, but rather less than stunning. Supposedly it won’t need to advertise, but given the amount of advertising the US Postal Service does, I find that questionable. If it doesn’t advertise, how will people know what it is, what plan it offers, or even how to find it? But okay, it won’t advertise. The "public option" is not only being touted as lower cost, but it is now being claimed that it will pay for all of the things that private insurance is refusing to pay for. That being the case, how is it going to charge lower premiums? Sen. Ron Wyden was on Countdown last night and said that if you are in an employer-provided plan and it refuses to pay for medical care you need, you should be able to drop that plan and enroll in a “public option” that will pay for the things that your employer’s plan is refusing to pay for. How can the “public option” do that and charge lower premiums? Insurance companies do not refuse payment for reasons having to do with evil-mindedness; for the reason that they just want you to get sicker and die for the sake of having you get sicker and die because they enjoy people dying. The reasons are economic; the more they pay out, the higher are the premiums they must charge, and the fewer policies they will sell. So Olbermann and Senator Wyden want me to believe that the “public option” will never refuse payment, will pay all of the bills that private insurance refuses, and will charge lower premiums. I’m not an idiot, and I don’t believe that. The “public option” is going to eschew cost control methods and maintain lower premiums. And magic ponies will keep everyone in good health. As I’ve said before, the longer this “debate” goes on, the more it gets dumbed down. We now have boiled it down to two sides screaming meaningless catch phrases at each other; with one side yelling about “death panels” and the other about the “public option.”

Monday, October 19, 2009

Power, PR and Football (updated)

Blogging is certainly difficult when you have no electric power all day, news is limited, and you miss some good football games. Eli Manning got humiliated, and I missed it.

Woke up Sunday morning with no power, and it didn't come back on until 6:30pm. No, it was not related to any weather event; we don't have weather in San Diego. Our weather forecasters go crazy trying to make our weather exciting, but the only imponderable is what time the "marine layer" will burn off and the sun will come out.

I will say this for SDG&E; they handle the public quite well. When I called the service line a recorded voice connected my phone number to my service address and asked if I was calling with respect to that address. When I affirmed that I was another recording informed me that they were aware of the outage, described the nature of the outage, and then said what time power was expected to be restored. When that time came and went with no power I called again and got an update on the time, and at no time did they provide a time which had already passed. After power was restored a live person called to verify that power had come back on. I'm not sure how they could have handled it any better.

Fortunately, the Chargers game is not until tonight. Well, it remains to be seen how fortunate that is; I may wind up wishing it had been played while my power was out.

Meanwhile, Florida is ranked first in the BCS, which shows how bogus the BCS is. Florida barely squeaked past Arkansas Saturday, while The Crimson Tide romped against a stronger opponent. I watched the Florida game, and Florida is not number one.

I did see the end of the Chicago/Atlanta game, and it once more proved to me that the "Cover 2" defense is a mistake anywhere on the field and that using it in the shadow of your own goal is just plain stupid.

Did the Raiders really beat Philadelphia? Really; that's not a misprint?

Update: Tuesday, 8:30am
Um, yes, it would have been better for my power to be out.

Blogging is certainly difficult when you have no electric power all day, news is limited, and you miss some good football games. Eli Manning got humiliated, and I missed it. Woke up Sunday morning with no power, and it didn't come back on until 6:30pm. No, it was not related to any weather event; we don't have weather in San Diego. Our weather forecasters go crazy trying to make our weather exciting, but the only imponderable is what time the "marine layer" will burn off and the sun will come out. I will say this for SDG&E; they handle the public quite well. When I called the service line a recorded voice connected my phone number to my service address and asked if I was calling with respect to that address. When I affirmed that I was another recording informed me that they were aware of the outage, described the nature of the outage, and then said what time power was expected to be restored. When that time came and went with no power I called again and got an update on the time, and at no time did they provide a time which had already passed. After power was restored a live person called to verify that power had come back on. I'm not sure how they could have handled it any better. Fortunately, the Chargers game is not until tonight. Well, it remains to be seen how fortunate that is; I may wind up wishing it had been played while my power was out. Meanwhile, Florida is ranked first in the BCS, which shows how bogus the BCS is. Florida barely squeaked past Arkansas Saturday, while The Crimson Tide romped against a stronger opponent. I watched the Florida game, and Florida is not number one. I did see the end of the Chicago/Atlanta game, and it once more proved to me that the "Cover 2" defense is a mistake anywhere on the field and that using it in the shadow of your own goal is just plain stupid. Did the Raiders really beat Philadelphia? Really; that's not a misprint? Update: Tuesday, 8:30am Um, yes, it would have been better for my power to be out.