I was reading a newspaper article about performance scores in local schools. There were a number of times while reading the text I went back to an included table of information to confirm statements.
It dawned on me that if I had been getting this information over the broadcast (mostly TV) media it would have been almost impossible to check or recheck a statement. The broadcast visual is in the background and then, poof, it’s gone. The same for the pundit or talking head who presented the audio.
The internet may be more flexible to read and double check than broadcast media, but only if the information is available.
Weekly and monthly magazines offer a much more permanent file of information than does even the internet. It’s not difficult to browse through an old magazine (especially in the barbershop or doctor’s office) and re-evaluate an old story. Try doing this on the broadcast media or internet, it’s not something you’re likely to do, or be able to do.
But back to my base thought. Will the gradual demise of the print media result in our looking at information a different way? Will today’s broadcast always supplant yesterday’s information? Will we become more susceptible to propaganda?
We can always find appropriate information on the internet, but can we find the most important information? The paradox is that information which is most available to us is the information we have the least ability to act on.
Riots in France? What are you going to do about it? The same for Pakistan’s internal strife, corruption in Afghanistan, England reducing it’s budget. Plenty of internet coverage, but mostly a rehash of the print reporting.
But, what about what’s happening in your home town? Does the internet have coverage of your city council or school board meetings? Even if the internet were to report on these, it would only be a rerun of the local paper’s print reporting.
But strangely enough, that’s the news you can most easily act on. Not just the official government actions but the high school sports schedules and scores and local events. Can you get movie listings and times without resorting to print media? Without the internet getting it from print media?
Once you don’t know what’s happening around you locally you’re on the way to ignorance of what most directly effects your day to day life. It’s only a small step to then not paying that much attention to what else is happening in the world.
We’ve come to accept punditry as information when it’s just opinion. We’re being fed propaganda as information. I recently came across the term “management by propaganda”. I think we’re much closer to accepting propaganda as news or information than we think.
I haven’t come to any conclusion but speculate we will become much more shallowly informed and more easily mislead. If the last several years of spin and propaganda haven’t made you feel manipulated then you’re already accepting that as real information.
God help the country.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Paradox in solving economic situation
Reading letters to the editor recently, I see the impossibility of anyone coming up with a publicly acceptable solution. The suggestions are either mutually exclusive or contain contradicting recommendations. An obvious solution to government debt is to reduce government expenditures. Whether it’s by reducing programs or reducing personnel, it ends up with the same amount of money circulating in the economy.
Every program eliminated results in less money going to someone. These some ones then lose a paying job. This in turn increases unemployment and reduces the money available to various families to spend in the economy.
Technically, the money not spent by the government will remain in taxpayers pockets. These taxpayers will then spend it on some service or product that will require an employer to hire the out of work former government employee.
On the other hand, people could spend less money, saving for a rainy day, which in turn would put some worker out of a job because his employer doesn’t need as many workers.
Those who want to shrink government forget this means less of something. Are we willing to reduce the numbers of government meat inspectors or turn the air traffic control system to the private sector?
It’s all a closed system where everything affects everything else. Most people can find some one thing they see no need for to cut out and, once they’ve done that, presume the problem would be solved as soon as the dummies in charge realize where the money is being wasted.
No one seems to think someone else want’s to cut out things we think are important. Here’s where the art of politics comes in. By knowing what their constituents think is important and what isn’t they can bargain together, each taking a negative reaction and each taking a little credit
My villain for all this is our, and the world’s, living beyond our means. As long as property values and incomes were going up we could cover our debts. But, once some sector (housing)turned down our house of cards collapsed. When this is all over we will be a more frugal society. The impact won’t be anything like that which followed the great depression but will a smaller version.
Every program eliminated results in less money going to someone. These some ones then lose a paying job. This in turn increases unemployment and reduces the money available to various families to spend in the economy.
Technically, the money not spent by the government will remain in taxpayers pockets. These taxpayers will then spend it on some service or product that will require an employer to hire the out of work former government employee.
On the other hand, people could spend less money, saving for a rainy day, which in turn would put some worker out of a job because his employer doesn’t need as many workers.
Those who want to shrink government forget this means less of something. Are we willing to reduce the numbers of government meat inspectors or turn the air traffic control system to the private sector?
It’s all a closed system where everything affects everything else. Most people can find some one thing they see no need for to cut out and, once they’ve done that, presume the problem would be solved as soon as the dummies in charge realize where the money is being wasted.
No one seems to think someone else want’s to cut out things we think are important. Here’s where the art of politics comes in. By knowing what their constituents think is important and what isn’t they can bargain together, each taking a negative reaction and each taking a little credit
My villain for all this is our, and the world’s, living beyond our means. As long as property values and incomes were going up we could cover our debts. But, once some sector (housing)turned down our house of cards collapsed. When this is all over we will be a more frugal society. The impact won’t be anything like that which followed the great depression but will a smaller version.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Small solutions to energy problem
Small solutions to the energy problem
I was watching a panel discussion on the energy problem and how it might be resolved. This panel had big (i.e. important) people on it, (including an Assist Secretary of Energy), and was discussing big solutions that would cost big money and require big legislative approvals.
Let me diverge here for an anecdote.
If you were to have a traffic congestion problem, the recommended action would be determined by the kind of expert you hired to develop a solution. A Highway Engineer would recommend additional lanes. A Transportation Planner would suggest mass transit. A Sociologist would point to developing car pools. And a Land Use Planner would recommend locating housing close to the jobs.
Each would be right as viewed from the expertise of his profession, but you could have any of four different solutions depending on who you selected. Remember, it’s important to understand an expert’s bias or focus before selecting him.
In the instance of the energy panel above, all the participants represented important (big picture) players in energy industries, (including alternative and renewable sources) and government. It might be expected that they would all suggest large scale solutions. And, they did.
But imagine what a different panel might recommend. A panel of knowledgeable amateurs might have recommended residential rooftop units tied into individual property generation alternatives.
Sounds good but it might be more difficult to implement than building a single, big one mega generator. Or would it?
Let’s go back to our hypothetical traffic congestion problem.
A constant frustration among transportation experts is the waste involved in people purchasing 4000 pound vehicles to transport one to five (usually no more than two) people around. These vehicles clog up our roads, burn more fuel per passenger mile than buses or trains, require 300+ square feet of valuable parking space per trip and, in general are inefficient in many ways compared to public transit.
BUT, who’s footing the bill for transit? Mostly John Q. Public as all mass transit has to be subsidized by some form of taxpayer funding. This means a big legislative decision and public approval is required to develop a transit system, especially an effective one.
The auto on the other hand is purchased, maintained and driven by individuals. No legislation is required for him to get funding. No public process is needed for approval of the trip routing. Fuel, maintenance and the vehicle operator are provided by the owner at no cost to the public. No Environmental Impact Report is required for the above.
In a nutshell, while it might be economically inefficient for the individual owner, the public doesn’t shoulder any direct cost for an auto based system. Fuel taxes paid by the vehicle owner pay for road construction and maintenance of the roadway.
However it’s added up, no one has been able to find an acceptable alternative for the auto.
Oops, back to energy.
My case is that in might be better to have an energy policy focusing on individual or small unit power generation (the single auto) than centralized power generation (a rail transit system). A thousand one kilowatt generators might cost more for the same total power than a one megawatt plant, BUT, it might be a quicker solution to the overall problem in the long run.
If the owner pays for it, who, other than himself, cares? Perhaps the best solution might just be for government to encourage individual action and get out of the way.
I was watching a panel discussion on the energy problem and how it might be resolved. This panel had big (i.e. important) people on it, (including an Assist Secretary of Energy), and was discussing big solutions that would cost big money and require big legislative approvals.
Let me diverge here for an anecdote.
If you were to have a traffic congestion problem, the recommended action would be determined by the kind of expert you hired to develop a solution. A Highway Engineer would recommend additional lanes. A Transportation Planner would suggest mass transit. A Sociologist would point to developing car pools. And a Land Use Planner would recommend locating housing close to the jobs.
Each would be right as viewed from the expertise of his profession, but you could have any of four different solutions depending on who you selected. Remember, it’s important to understand an expert’s bias or focus before selecting him.
In the instance of the energy panel above, all the participants represented important (big picture) players in energy industries, (including alternative and renewable sources) and government. It might be expected that they would all suggest large scale solutions. And, they did.
But imagine what a different panel might recommend. A panel of knowledgeable amateurs might have recommended residential rooftop units tied into individual property generation alternatives.
Sounds good but it might be more difficult to implement than building a single, big one mega generator. Or would it?
Let’s go back to our hypothetical traffic congestion problem.
A constant frustration among transportation experts is the waste involved in people purchasing 4000 pound vehicles to transport one to five (usually no more than two) people around. These vehicles clog up our roads, burn more fuel per passenger mile than buses or trains, require 300+ square feet of valuable parking space per trip and, in general are inefficient in many ways compared to public transit.
BUT, who’s footing the bill for transit? Mostly John Q. Public as all mass transit has to be subsidized by some form of taxpayer funding. This means a big legislative decision and public approval is required to develop a transit system, especially an effective one.
The auto on the other hand is purchased, maintained and driven by individuals. No legislation is required for him to get funding. No public process is needed for approval of the trip routing. Fuel, maintenance and the vehicle operator are provided by the owner at no cost to the public. No Environmental Impact Report is required for the above.
In a nutshell, while it might be economically inefficient for the individual owner, the public doesn’t shoulder any direct cost for an auto based system. Fuel taxes paid by the vehicle owner pay for road construction and maintenance of the roadway.
However it’s added up, no one has been able to find an acceptable alternative for the auto.
Oops, back to energy.
My case is that in might be better to have an energy policy focusing on individual or small unit power generation (the single auto) than centralized power generation (a rail transit system). A thousand one kilowatt generators might cost more for the same total power than a one megawatt plant, BUT, it might be a quicker solution to the overall problem in the long run.
If the owner pays for it, who, other than himself, cares? Perhaps the best solution might just be for government to encourage individual action and get out of the way.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The current fiscal crisi9s
I don’t understand how the U.S. will ever get out of this fiscal crisis and back to normal levels of business responding to supply and demand.
Businesses will have to re-employ people to provide the goods or services their businesses produce. But they can’t re-employ people until someone starts buying their goods or services at previous rates. And no one will buy their goods and services until there are jobs.
But there will be no jobs until businesses need more employees to produce those goods and services.
Consumers will start buying again once they have jobs and feel there is a stability in the jobs market.
So, we go round and round – getting a job creates the ability to purchase items. Purchase of goods allows employers to hire people and create jobs. This in turn creates consumers for businesses.
Employers can create jobs after people start buying again but people can’t buy until after they have a job.
No matter how I say it, this is a self canceling process. Something outside the process has to break the cycle.
After the Great Depression, it took WWII to break this cycle. I wouldn’t want to wish anything like that on us to break this cycle. But what is there??
I have no idea.
My nearest thoughts only starts after the cycle is broken. I think we’ll go back to becoming a more thrifty society. People will save more resulting in lower levels of spending.
This, in turn, will result in only moderate business growth, leading to tighter jobs markets and probably lower pay levels.
The long term future as I see it is one of a more moderate quality of life for the middle class and a reduction from tolerable to a desperate quality of life for those in the bottom layers of society.
This confusion I’m feeling may be what the country is feeling. We all know something needs to be done but no one knows what that is.
Think about that.
Businesses will have to re-employ people to provide the goods or services their businesses produce. But they can’t re-employ people until someone starts buying their goods or services at previous rates. And no one will buy their goods and services until there are jobs.
But there will be no jobs until businesses need more employees to produce those goods and services.
Consumers will start buying again once they have jobs and feel there is a stability in the jobs market.
So, we go round and round – getting a job creates the ability to purchase items. Purchase of goods allows employers to hire people and create jobs. This in turn creates consumers for businesses.
Employers can create jobs after people start buying again but people can’t buy until after they have a job.
No matter how I say it, this is a self canceling process. Something outside the process has to break the cycle.
After the Great Depression, it took WWII to break this cycle. I wouldn’t want to wish anything like that on us to break this cycle. But what is there??
I have no idea.
My nearest thoughts only starts after the cycle is broken. I think we’ll go back to becoming a more thrifty society. People will save more resulting in lower levels of spending.
This, in turn, will result in only moderate business growth, leading to tighter jobs markets and probably lower pay levels.
The long term future as I see it is one of a more moderate quality of life for the middle class and a reduction from tolerable to a desperate quality of life for those in the bottom layers of society.
This confusion I’m feeling may be what the country is feeling. We all know something needs to be done but no one knows what that is.
Think about that.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Selective stupidity
Ignorance is bliss. “Once you know things you start seeing problems everywhere, and once you see problems you feel like you ought to try to fix them, and fixing problems always seems to require change, and change means doing things that aren't fun. But if you're willfully stupid, you don't know any better, so you can keep doing whatever you like. The secret to happiness is short-term, stupid self-interest.” - Calvin & Hobbes
It’s not likely that many people deliberately say to themselves, “ I think I’ll stay ignorant about _________.” More likely, they find themselves too busy to be bothered with some subject or other. Or, knowing little about a subject, they don’t see how it can either help or hurt them. They don’t take the time to find out any more about it.
It's frightening how much this could rationally explain why people seem to limit their knowledge and/or awareness of things that don't directly effect them in the here and now frame of reference. Not that it isn’t a very sensible approach to take. There are literally millions of things a person could be interested in. Tens of thousands of which might reasonably impact on a person’s life. And, many hundreds of which will directly affect each of us.
There would be no time to eat, sleep or work if we tried to learn as much as we could about everything that might remotely affect us. So, without even knowing we’re doing it, we use a very sophisticated method to determine what is really important. We rely on other people to determine what is important. Except in singularly personal matters, this works well.
The importance of a subject or issue depends on the combination of two factors, how many people seem to care and how much they care. It’s the combination of the quantity (how many) and the quality (how much) that determines how important we decide the subject will be to us. Depending on the subject, other factors such as our age, sex, occupation, economic status, tax bracket, geographical location, etc. will be part of our decision on whether or not we will personally get involved.
As we have seen in many cases, a few people who are passionate about an issue can prevail over a multitude who don’t seem to care. While this might not fit the definition of democracy that is the law of the land (one man, one vote), it is probably a more reasonable practical application that takes into account both numbers and intensity of interest in a topic. After all, if most of us aren’t interested in say, field hockey, why should that keep the few who are from having a place to play their sport?
Which brings us back to the subject, selective stupidity. It is a very good way to minimize the stresses in our lives. It does however have unintended consequences. Those who are most interested in more things tend, in the long run, to get more things their way. The price they pay is more temporary stress and personal time commitment.
On the other hand, those who minimize their stress and involvement, are often upset or angry when it seems that things in general aren’t going the way they would wish. This is the price they pay for letting others be the involved people.
There is no right or wrong answer to this natural tendency of human nature. Some people will always see a cause in the smallest happening and take steps to insure that something does or doesn’t happen. Others will go through life either blissfully ignorant of near disasters or the surprised victims of the random acts of others.
Perhaps this explains why so many can be governed by so few.
It’s not likely that many people deliberately say to themselves, “ I think I’ll stay ignorant about _________.” More likely, they find themselves too busy to be bothered with some subject or other. Or, knowing little about a subject, they don’t see how it can either help or hurt them. They don’t take the time to find out any more about it.
It's frightening how much this could rationally explain why people seem to limit their knowledge and/or awareness of things that don't directly effect them in the here and now frame of reference. Not that it isn’t a very sensible approach to take. There are literally millions of things a person could be interested in. Tens of thousands of which might reasonably impact on a person’s life. And, many hundreds of which will directly affect each of us.
There would be no time to eat, sleep or work if we tried to learn as much as we could about everything that might remotely affect us. So, without even knowing we’re doing it, we use a very sophisticated method to determine what is really important. We rely on other people to determine what is important. Except in singularly personal matters, this works well.
The importance of a subject or issue depends on the combination of two factors, how many people seem to care and how much they care. It’s the combination of the quantity (how many) and the quality (how much) that determines how important we decide the subject will be to us. Depending on the subject, other factors such as our age, sex, occupation, economic status, tax bracket, geographical location, etc. will be part of our decision on whether or not we will personally get involved.
As we have seen in many cases, a few people who are passionate about an issue can prevail over a multitude who don’t seem to care. While this might not fit the definition of democracy that is the law of the land (one man, one vote), it is probably a more reasonable practical application that takes into account both numbers and intensity of interest in a topic. After all, if most of us aren’t interested in say, field hockey, why should that keep the few who are from having a place to play their sport?
Which brings us back to the subject, selective stupidity. It is a very good way to minimize the stresses in our lives. It does however have unintended consequences. Those who are most interested in more things tend, in the long run, to get more things their way. The price they pay is more temporary stress and personal time commitment.
On the other hand, those who minimize their stress and involvement, are often upset or angry when it seems that things in general aren’t going the way they would wish. This is the price they pay for letting others be the involved people.
There is no right or wrong answer to this natural tendency of human nature. Some people will always see a cause in the smallest happening and take steps to insure that something does or doesn’t happen. Others will go through life either blissfully ignorant of near disasters or the surprised victims of the random acts of others.
Perhaps this explains why so many can be governed by so few.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Invisible government
The invisible government
By Jack Balshaw
The thought of an invisible government conjures up visions of dark and sinister activities. Yet most people want the government to be invisible. At least invisible in the sense they aren’t aware it’s there. And in most cases, government has succeeded in providing the public with just what they want. You could almost say that when we are aware of government, it is because it has failed in some manner.
At the local level, probably 98% of what government does is just keep things working. In 42 years in my town there hasn’t been a single time I haven’t been able to turn on the water or flush the toilet. Neither the utility nor the phone comapnies have been able to accomplish that run of uninterrupted service.
Yet we never say, “WOW, what a great operation this is!” We never think to give credit to anyone when nothing goes wrong. It almost takes a disaster and the recovery from that disaster before we begin to thank and honor the “heroes” who saved us. It never occurs to us that those same “heroes” have been taking steps for years to head off many other disasters or at least unpleasant experiences. All the rest of the time it was, “just their job”.
We don’t usually appreciate even the police and firemen until they have done something that calls attention to the fact that they were there to perform some positive task. We never think to appreciate the many times that Planning and Engineering have caused poor designs of proposed developments to be modified so that we wouldn’t suffer from traffic or other problems.
For every stupid, rigid, insensitive or thoughtless action, there are dozens, hundreds and even thousands of governmental decisions and actions that are proper and correct. All this doesn’t mean that we should never criticize government operations. Just that, when we do criticize, we should also remember how many times things are done right.
Jumping to the other end of the government scale, the federal level, a similar case can be made. We’re all much more pumped up about the intrusion of the Federal Government into our lives because of the multitude of stories told of government arrogance, ignorance or laziness by those who want the federal government to either do or not do something.
We accept these tales as personal affronts even though they don’t directly affect us. That is, until the Federal Government doesn’t do something we think it should. Then it’s a different story. The arrogance of the Federal Government interfering with private sector operations quickly changes to government being too lenient with the private sector right after we hear of an avoidable aircraft accident. And the criticism of excessive federal employees becomes a demand for more inspectors right after the news of unhealthy food products causing illness or death.
Try to think of anything socially acceptable you wanted to do in the last year that you were prevented from doing by a governmental regulation. It’s much more likely that you had to do somethings you would rather not have done ( get your car smogged, pay your taxes, put your tray table and seat back in the upright position, etc.).
I do tend to view government in a more favorable light than most. I worked in government as both an employee and as an elected official. The people I worked and served with were no different than any cross section of the population. “We” are the government. If you don’t believe it, think about the people in town who hated government and its representatives last year and now are looking forward to government bringing about what they wanted to happen now that “their people” are government. All of a sudden, “government is good”.
I was thinking of calling this “Government Appreciation Day” but thought that would be expecting too much of the reader.
By Jack Balshaw
The thought of an invisible government conjures up visions of dark and sinister activities. Yet most people want the government to be invisible. At least invisible in the sense they aren’t aware it’s there. And in most cases, government has succeeded in providing the public with just what they want. You could almost say that when we are aware of government, it is because it has failed in some manner.
At the local level, probably 98% of what government does is just keep things working. In 42 years in my town there hasn’t been a single time I haven’t been able to turn on the water or flush the toilet. Neither the utility nor the phone comapnies have been able to accomplish that run of uninterrupted service.
Yet we never say, “WOW, what a great operation this is!” We never think to give credit to anyone when nothing goes wrong. It almost takes a disaster and the recovery from that disaster before we begin to thank and honor the “heroes” who saved us. It never occurs to us that those same “heroes” have been taking steps for years to head off many other disasters or at least unpleasant experiences. All the rest of the time it was, “just their job”.
We don’t usually appreciate even the police and firemen until they have done something that calls attention to the fact that they were there to perform some positive task. We never think to appreciate the many times that Planning and Engineering have caused poor designs of proposed developments to be modified so that we wouldn’t suffer from traffic or other problems.
For every stupid, rigid, insensitive or thoughtless action, there are dozens, hundreds and even thousands of governmental decisions and actions that are proper and correct. All this doesn’t mean that we should never criticize government operations. Just that, when we do criticize, we should also remember how many times things are done right.
Jumping to the other end of the government scale, the federal level, a similar case can be made. We’re all much more pumped up about the intrusion of the Federal Government into our lives because of the multitude of stories told of government arrogance, ignorance or laziness by those who want the federal government to either do or not do something.
We accept these tales as personal affronts even though they don’t directly affect us. That is, until the Federal Government doesn’t do something we think it should. Then it’s a different story. The arrogance of the Federal Government interfering with private sector operations quickly changes to government being too lenient with the private sector right after we hear of an avoidable aircraft accident. And the criticism of excessive federal employees becomes a demand for more inspectors right after the news of unhealthy food products causing illness or death.
Try to think of anything socially acceptable you wanted to do in the last year that you were prevented from doing by a governmental regulation. It’s much more likely that you had to do somethings you would rather not have done ( get your car smogged, pay your taxes, put your tray table and seat back in the upright position, etc.).
I do tend to view government in a more favorable light than most. I worked in government as both an employee and as an elected official. The people I worked and served with were no different than any cross section of the population. “We” are the government. If you don’t believe it, think about the people in town who hated government and its representatives last year and now are looking forward to government bringing about what they wanted to happen now that “their people” are government. All of a sudden, “government is good”.
I was thinking of calling this “Government Appreciation Day” but thought that would be expecting too much of the reader.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Afghanistan and Iraq are no win situations
Here we go again! America is running true to form, fixing some other country’s business for them just as we always do. We mean well, but will wind up in the wrong as usual. Will Rogers, June 22, 1931.
Will Rogers was the 1920’s and 1930’s equivalent of Jay Leno.
The situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is set up to become a lose, lose result for the U.S.. We just can’t imagine that everyone on earth won’t see our standards and values as being the best way to live and govern.
We don’t understand the tribal nature of some societies because we’re not tribal and, “ look at how good it has worked out for us.” Although the differences between conservatives and progressives sure looks like a tribal fight sometimes.
We will stay in these two countries until someone decides it’s time for us to go. Then, after we leave the tribal and religious conflicts will flare up and for one group in the U.S. that will be interpreted as “We lost” because we left without a resolution of the problem.
We’ll stay there too long because leaving will look like running away and when the decision is finally made to leave we’ll do it so quickly it’ll look like confirmation of our running away.
This situation is a no win situation for whoever is in charge of our government.
The liberal position is that everyone will eventually accept “our” way of doing things because it makes so much sense.
The conservative stand is that if they won’t do as we want, we’ll keep hurting them until they agree to accept our values.
Neither will work in a situation where people are willing to sacrifice themselves to ensure their tribal or religious values will prevail.
We consider this a backward way of looking at life. Is it any more backward the our rigid belief that only we know the right way? That our culture is the only way?
Taking a neutral position (if that’s possible) do our talking head pundits seem any more reasoned and rational than the tribal and religious spokesmen of Iraq and Afghanistan? Are their diatribes not just a non physical extension of what we see in the middle east?
There’s no wrap up on this only that whoever is in charge when the house of cards comes tumbling down will be seen as the loser.
Will Rogers was the 1920’s and 1930’s equivalent of Jay Leno.
The situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is set up to become a lose, lose result for the U.S.. We just can’t imagine that everyone on earth won’t see our standards and values as being the best way to live and govern.
We don’t understand the tribal nature of some societies because we’re not tribal and, “ look at how good it has worked out for us.” Although the differences between conservatives and progressives sure looks like a tribal fight sometimes.
We will stay in these two countries until someone decides it’s time for us to go. Then, after we leave the tribal and religious conflicts will flare up and for one group in the U.S. that will be interpreted as “We lost” because we left without a resolution of the problem.
We’ll stay there too long because leaving will look like running away and when the decision is finally made to leave we’ll do it so quickly it’ll look like confirmation of our running away.
This situation is a no win situation for whoever is in charge of our government.
The liberal position is that everyone will eventually accept “our” way of doing things because it makes so much sense.
The conservative stand is that if they won’t do as we want, we’ll keep hurting them until they agree to accept our values.
Neither will work in a situation where people are willing to sacrifice themselves to ensure their tribal or religious values will prevail.
We consider this a backward way of looking at life. Is it any more backward the our rigid belief that only we know the right way? That our culture is the only way?
Taking a neutral position (if that’s possible) do our talking head pundits seem any more reasoned and rational than the tribal and religious spokesmen of Iraq and Afghanistan? Are their diatribes not just a non physical extension of what we see in the middle east?
There’s no wrap up on this only that whoever is in charge when the house of cards comes tumbling down will be seen as the loser.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Small solutions to the energy problem
I was watching a panel presentation on the energy problem and how it might be resolved. This panel had big (i.e. important) people on it, (including an Assist Secretary of Energy), and was discussing big solutions that would cost big money and require big legislative approvals.
Let me diverge here for an anecdote.
If you were to have a traffic congestion (people moving) problem, the recommended action would be determined by the kind of expert you hired to develop a solution. A Highway Engineer would recommend additional lanes. A Transportation Planner would suggest mass transit. A Sociologist would point to developing car pools. And a Land Use Planner would recommend locating housing close to the jobs.
Each would be right as viewed from the expertise of his profession, but you could have any of four different solutions depending on who you selected. Remember, it’s important to understand an expert’s bias or focus before selecting him.
In the instance of the energy panel above, all the participants represented important players in energy industries, (including alternative and renewable sources) and government. It might be expected that they would all suggest large scale solutions.
But imagine what a different panel might recommend. A panel of knowledgeable amateurs might have recommended residential rooftop units tied into individual property generation alternatives.
Sounds good but it might be more difficult to implement than building a single, big one megawatt generator. Or would it?
Let’s go back to our hypothetical traffic congestion problem.
A constant frustration among transportation experts is the waste involved in people purchasing 4000 pound vehicles to transport one to five (usually no more than two) people around. These vehicles clog up our roads, burn more fuel per passenger mile than buses or trains, require 300+ square feet of valuable parking space per trip and, in general are inefficient in many ways compared to public transit.
BUT, who’s footing the bill for transit? Mostly John Q. Public as all mass transit has to be subsidized by some form of taxpayer funding. This means a big legislative decision and public approval is required to develop a transit system, especially an effective one.
The auto is purchased, maintained and driven by individuals. No legislation is required for him to get funding. No public process is needed for approval of the trip routing. Fuel and maintenance and the vehicle operator are provided by the owner at no cost to the public. No Environmental Impact Report is required for the above.
In a nutshell, while it might be economically inefficient for the individual owner, the public doesn’t shoulder any direct cost for an auto based system. Fuel taxes paid by the vehicle owner pay for road construction and maintenance of the roadway.
However it’s added up, no one has been able to find an acceptable alternative for the auto.
Oops, back to energy.
My case is that in might be better to have an energy policy focusing on individual power generation (the single auto) than centralized power generation (a rail transit system). A thousand one kilowatt generators might cost more for the same total power than from a one megawatt plant, BUT, it might be a quicker solution to the overall problem in the long run.
If the owner pays for it, who, other than himself, cares?
Let me diverge here for an anecdote.
If you were to have a traffic congestion (people moving) problem, the recommended action would be determined by the kind of expert you hired to develop a solution. A Highway Engineer would recommend additional lanes. A Transportation Planner would suggest mass transit. A Sociologist would point to developing car pools. And a Land Use Planner would recommend locating housing close to the jobs.
Each would be right as viewed from the expertise of his profession, but you could have any of four different solutions depending on who you selected. Remember, it’s important to understand an expert’s bias or focus before selecting him.
In the instance of the energy panel above, all the participants represented important players in energy industries, (including alternative and renewable sources) and government. It might be expected that they would all suggest large scale solutions.
But imagine what a different panel might recommend. A panel of knowledgeable amateurs might have recommended residential rooftop units tied into individual property generation alternatives.
Sounds good but it might be more difficult to implement than building a single, big one megawatt generator. Or would it?
Let’s go back to our hypothetical traffic congestion problem.
A constant frustration among transportation experts is the waste involved in people purchasing 4000 pound vehicles to transport one to five (usually no more than two) people around. These vehicles clog up our roads, burn more fuel per passenger mile than buses or trains, require 300+ square feet of valuable parking space per trip and, in general are inefficient in many ways compared to public transit.
BUT, who’s footing the bill for transit? Mostly John Q. Public as all mass transit has to be subsidized by some form of taxpayer funding. This means a big legislative decision and public approval is required to develop a transit system, especially an effective one.
The auto is purchased, maintained and driven by individuals. No legislation is required for him to get funding. No public process is needed for approval of the trip routing. Fuel and maintenance and the vehicle operator are provided by the owner at no cost to the public. No Environmental Impact Report is required for the above.
In a nutshell, while it might be economically inefficient for the individual owner, the public doesn’t shoulder any direct cost for an auto based system. Fuel taxes paid by the vehicle owner pay for road construction and maintenance of the roadway.
However it’s added up, no one has been able to find an acceptable alternative for the auto.
Oops, back to energy.
My case is that in might be better to have an energy policy focusing on individual power generation (the single auto) than centralized power generation (a rail transit system). A thousand one kilowatt generators might cost more for the same total power than from a one megawatt plant, BUT, it might be a quicker solution to the overall problem in the long run.
If the owner pays for it, who, other than himself, cares?
Friday, March 5, 2010
Taxing savings
The importance of savings in a personal financial package seems to vary with whose interest it’s in to encourage personal savings.
Several years ago, the media was bemoaning the fact that private individuals were not saving. Now, after the economic meltdown, the same media are lamenting that individuals are saving too much.
What happened?
Several years ago, the financial institutions (mainly banks) wanted people to put more money into savings because this would provide them with funds to lend out at a profit. Now, the thought is that any money put into savings would be better used to strengthen our financial system by being used to purchase goods.
A complete U-turn with little or no notice from anyone.
You might note that a major purpose of taxes is to encourage or discourage certain activities by the general population. Why wasn’t a tax policy in place several years ago when the lack of savings was seen to be a problem with economic development? We’ve never had a government policy to encourage and reward savings by exempting interest payments from taxation.
Conversely, capital gains, losses and stock dividends are granted tax adjustments to encourage financial investing.
There’s no where to go with this as there is no lobby or interest to look out for the average citizen except when it will directly benefit some other prime special interest.
Let’s just keep in mind that most legislators aren’t looking out for us.
Several years ago, the media was bemoaning the fact that private individuals were not saving. Now, after the economic meltdown, the same media are lamenting that individuals are saving too much.
What happened?
Several years ago, the financial institutions (mainly banks) wanted people to put more money into savings because this would provide them with funds to lend out at a profit. Now, the thought is that any money put into savings would be better used to strengthen our financial system by being used to purchase goods.
A complete U-turn with little or no notice from anyone.
You might note that a major purpose of taxes is to encourage or discourage certain activities by the general population. Why wasn’t a tax policy in place several years ago when the lack of savings was seen to be a problem with economic development? We’ve never had a government policy to encourage and reward savings by exempting interest payments from taxation.
Conversely, capital gains, losses and stock dividends are granted tax adjustments to encourage financial investing.
There’s no where to go with this as there is no lobby or interest to look out for the average citizen except when it will directly benefit some other prime special interest.
Let’s just keep in mind that most legislators aren’t looking out for us.
Monday, February 22, 2010
What does emergency care really cost?
We all have seen the reports of how much it cost to have uninsured people using emergency rooms for general medical problems. But what are these costs really in the sense of the hospital actually losing money?
First off, we’re all aware of the inflated charges assessed individuals using medical facilities. These charges can be as much as ten times what health insurance companies are charged for the same medical procedures. At the very least, for costing statistics, uninsured patients shouldn’t have more than the insurance company rates charged against them as losses to the hospital.
Secondly, for tax purposes, do hospitals use these inflated individual charges for the purpose of tax deductions? Couldn’t in fact the deductions for loss be equal or greater than what the insurance companies would have reimbursed the hospital?
For example – an uncollectable $1000 charge billed against an uninsured patient that would have been billed against an insurance company at $400 could generate a tax deduction for the hospital (a loss to the federal government) of almost that whole $400 at the highest corporate tax rate?
Thirdly, unless the volume of uninsured patients using emergency room services caused more hospital employees to be placed on duty, there are no extra costs for the payroll of regular staff. That money would have been paid to staff even if there were no patients to see.
Are we being misled about the scope of this problem or is it just we don’t care?
First off, we’re all aware of the inflated charges assessed individuals using medical facilities. These charges can be as much as ten times what health insurance companies are charged for the same medical procedures. At the very least, for costing statistics, uninsured patients shouldn’t have more than the insurance company rates charged against them as losses to the hospital.
Secondly, for tax purposes, do hospitals use these inflated individual charges for the purpose of tax deductions? Couldn’t in fact the deductions for loss be equal or greater than what the insurance companies would have reimbursed the hospital?
For example – an uncollectable $1000 charge billed against an uninsured patient that would have been billed against an insurance company at $400 could generate a tax deduction for the hospital (a loss to the federal government) of almost that whole $400 at the highest corporate tax rate?
Thirdly, unless the volume of uninsured patients using emergency room services caused more hospital employees to be placed on duty, there are no extra costs for the payroll of regular staff. That money would have been paid to staff even if there were no patients to see.
Are we being misled about the scope of this problem or is it just we don’t care?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The people with the answers
Following the health insurance debates, it has occurred to me that everyone had been missing the mechanism that could provide a satisfactory resolution of this problem.
Those who criticize the health insurance proposal being offered have the answer in their own criticism and yet no one appears to have considered listening to them.
Many of the criticisms are merely there to present stumbling blocks to implementation of any alternative, others (probably most) are general broad brush statements focusing on policy level objections without any detailed specific suggestions for implementation. BUT, a significant number might pass muster in combining an objective criticism with an alternative worked out in a level of detail that could be a valid stepping stone to an objective solution.
It was the same in 1993 with the Clinton proposal. Everyone spent their time defending against the criticisms instead of objectively examining the criticism as an opportunity for improving the project.
I’ve found it amazing how many feel comfortable in criticzing without offering a solution. I’m even more amazed in how passive proponents of health insurance reform have been in not demanding problem solution details from the critics.
The Democrats seem to have either no spine to push back or so little confidence in their proposals they are unwilling to even consider critics’ objections and proposed solutions.
Let’s be willing to compromise and highlight who isn’t.
Those who criticize the health insurance proposal being offered have the answer in their own criticism and yet no one appears to have considered listening to them.
Many of the criticisms are merely there to present stumbling blocks to implementation of any alternative, others (probably most) are general broad brush statements focusing on policy level objections without any detailed specific suggestions for implementation. BUT, a significant number might pass muster in combining an objective criticism with an alternative worked out in a level of detail that could be a valid stepping stone to an objective solution.
It was the same in 1993 with the Clinton proposal. Everyone spent their time defending against the criticisms instead of objectively examining the criticism as an opportunity for improving the project.
I’ve found it amazing how many feel comfortable in criticzing without offering a solution. I’m even more amazed in how passive proponents of health insurance reform have been in not demanding problem solution details from the critics.
The Democrats seem to have either no spine to push back or so little confidence in their proposals they are unwilling to even consider critics’ objections and proposed solutions.
Let’s be willing to compromise and highlight who isn’t.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Numbers are funny things
Now that we’re in the midst of the torrent of numbers justifying or repudiating the proposed health insurance reform, it may be time to give numbers a thought. And not only for this instance but for every instance where numbers are used to support or oppose some proposal. Their format and context is meaningful.
Numbers as absolute value or as percentages can easily misinform or deceive people into accepting or rejecting a fact for what it seems mean. Here are several examples:
If there was one murder in town last year and two this year it can be reported as either a 100% increase in murders or “only two” murders this year. Which one leaves you feeling most unsettled?
If I were lobbying for an increase in the Police Department budget, I’d use the 100% increase. If I were a beleaguered politician under attack for being soft on crime, I’d use the “only two” line.
In another example, voter turnout in an area with a growing population could be reported as the highest turnout (number of voters) ever or possibly as, “ the smallest percentage since …”. One way makes you feel good about the high turnout and the other makes you feel disappointed at the lower percentage turnout. Yet, in both cases, more people voted.
Another example. If there are 9 men in a bar, each making $10,000 and one man who makes one million dollars walks in, the average income in the bar goes from $ 10,000 to $100,000. Does that make those earning $10,000 any richer? Averages are tricky things, especially as to how they’re presented.
In our current discussion about health insurance (not health care), the large number of people without it 37,000,000 seems overwhelming. But the fact that’s only 10% of the population gives a different perspective. One in ten doesn’t seem to be as much as 37 million. And even here there’s a little bias. 37 million doesn’t seem as much to me as 37,000,000.
Know what numbers mean before you use them to make a decision. Think about it a little bit.
Numbers as absolute value or as percentages can easily misinform or deceive people into accepting or rejecting a fact for what it seems mean. Here are several examples:
If there was one murder in town last year and two this year it can be reported as either a 100% increase in murders or “only two” murders this year. Which one leaves you feeling most unsettled?
If I were lobbying for an increase in the Police Department budget, I’d use the 100% increase. If I were a beleaguered politician under attack for being soft on crime, I’d use the “only two” line.
In another example, voter turnout in an area with a growing population could be reported as the highest turnout (number of voters) ever or possibly as, “ the smallest percentage since …”. One way makes you feel good about the high turnout and the other makes you feel disappointed at the lower percentage turnout. Yet, in both cases, more people voted.
Another example. If there are 9 men in a bar, each making $10,000 and one man who makes one million dollars walks in, the average income in the bar goes from $ 10,000 to $100,000. Does that make those earning $10,000 any richer? Averages are tricky things, especially as to how they’re presented.
In our current discussion about health insurance (not health care), the large number of people without it 37,000,000 seems overwhelming. But the fact that’s only 10% of the population gives a different perspective. One in ten doesn’t seem to be as much as 37 million. And even here there’s a little bias. 37 million doesn’t seem as much to me as 37,000,000.
Know what numbers mean before you use them to make a decision. Think about it a little bit.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Expecting perfection
We’re perfect, at least I am, and expect everyone else to be perfect too. Whenever there’s an incident like the recent Christmas attempt to bomb a plane, we immediately begin looking for who’s at fault. And being at fault usually means not being perfect.
A person can be imperfect in hindsight – he should have thought of that possibility before the incident. Or a person can be imperfect in performance – he didn’t interpret the rules properly. And it’s true that if everyone had been perfect the incident could have been avoided. Perhaps if the evil doer had been perfect the incident would never have been considered in the first place..
But, we’re not all or even near all perfect. As a matter of fact, we’re mostly average with all the imperfection that entails.
There’s a measurement device called the bell curve. It distributes various arrays of data (competence, cost, energy, profits, etc.). The low end of the curve shows the probability of the least desirable results. The high end shows the probability of the most desirable results, perfection. The high point near the middle shows what most probably will happen. The high and low probabilities are much less frequent than the probability of getting average results as the central portion of the curve would show.
This average result is somewhere in the middle and is where most people would fit. Plotted out, this data curve approximates the shape a bell.
Given the ways of human nature and probability, rules, procedures and regulations are not created by the incompetents at one end of the curve, nor by the super competent at the other end. If that were so, the super competent would be doing all the work and the rest of us taking it easy.
So what we end up in the airline safety realm are sets of procedures developed by average people that will work most of the time under the “most of the time” conditions if carried out by people of average skill. That’s reality.
Given the forecasting and organizational ability of the average person, the 9/11 attack would not have been prevented. But also, given the learning process of the average person, steps have been taken to insure there will never be an aircraft attack like 9/11. This is reinforced by every pilot knowing that letting his plane be taken over would be fatal to himself.
The same could be said about the USS Cole bombing. I’m sure the navy has done just what the average person insuring against another 9/11 has done. It will never happen that way again.
Between the cable networks interest in keeping any crisis type situations going and the encouragement that gives the average person to keep complaining, crisis and incidents will always be blown out of proportion to their real importance.
I try to keep in mind the saying, “You can make things fool proof but not damn fool proof”, whenever this craziness erupts. Let’s keep in mind that no system is damn fool proof.
A person can be imperfect in hindsight – he should have thought of that possibility before the incident. Or a person can be imperfect in performance – he didn’t interpret the rules properly. And it’s true that if everyone had been perfect the incident could have been avoided. Perhaps if the evil doer had been perfect the incident would never have been considered in the first place..
But, we’re not all or even near all perfect. As a matter of fact, we’re mostly average with all the imperfection that entails.
There’s a measurement device called the bell curve. It distributes various arrays of data (competence, cost, energy, profits, etc.). The low end of the curve shows the probability of the least desirable results. The high end shows the probability of the most desirable results, perfection. The high point near the middle shows what most probably will happen. The high and low probabilities are much less frequent than the probability of getting average results as the central portion of the curve would show.
This average result is somewhere in the middle and is where most people would fit. Plotted out, this data curve approximates the shape a bell.
Given the ways of human nature and probability, rules, procedures and regulations are not created by the incompetents at one end of the curve, nor by the super competent at the other end. If that were so, the super competent would be doing all the work and the rest of us taking it easy.
So what we end up in the airline safety realm are sets of procedures developed by average people that will work most of the time under the “most of the time” conditions if carried out by people of average skill. That’s reality.
Given the forecasting and organizational ability of the average person, the 9/11 attack would not have been prevented. But also, given the learning process of the average person, steps have been taken to insure there will never be an aircraft attack like 9/11. This is reinforced by every pilot knowing that letting his plane be taken over would be fatal to himself.
The same could be said about the USS Cole bombing. I’m sure the navy has done just what the average person insuring against another 9/11 has done. It will never happen that way again.
Between the cable networks interest in keeping any crisis type situations going and the encouragement that gives the average person to keep complaining, crisis and incidents will always be blown out of proportion to their real importance.
I try to keep in mind the saying, “You can make things fool proof but not damn fool proof”, whenever this craziness erupts. Let’s keep in mind that no system is damn fool proof.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Energy policy and solutions
I was just watching a panel presentation on the energy problem and how it might be resolved. This panel had big people on it, (including an Assist Secretery of Energy), and was discussing big solutions that would cost big money and require big legislative approvals.
Let me diverge here for an anecdote.
If you were to have a traffic congestion problem, (people moving), the solution would be determined by what kind of expert you hired to suggest a solution. A Highway Engineer would recommend additional lanes. A Transportation Planner would suggest mass transit. A Sociologist would point to developing car pools. And a Land Use Planner would recommend locating housing close to the jobs.
In the instance of the energy panel above, all the participants represented important players in energy industries, (including alternative and renewable sources) and government. It might be expected that they would all suggest large scale solutions.
But imagine what a different panel might recommend. Residential rooftop units tied into individual property generation alternatives. Might not millions of private rooftop units work better than hundreds of megawatt power plants?
Sounds good but it would be more difficult to implement than one mega generator. Or would it?
My case is that it might be better to have an energy policy focusing on individual power generation than centralized power generation. Power from one thousand one kilowatt generators might cost more for the same power than from a one megawatt plant, BUT, it might be a quicker solution to the overall problem in the long run.
We’ve all heard of the efficiency of mass transit and how it should replace autos for a cost effective solution for the daily commute. We also understand how it is totally dependent on taxpayer subsidies to keep fairs acceptable.
On the other hand, we’ve all heard about the inefficiency of using a personal auto for the commute trip. But it’s totally funded by user fees, vehicle taxes and fuel taxes. Not only that but all labor and maintenance costs are taken care of by each individual vehicle owner at no cost to the public.
And the auto is the choice of three quarters of all commuters, urban and rural.
Imagine an electrical generation system provided by the multitude of users (like the commute auto). I’m convinced that in only a few years, individual solar energy units will replace all use of central energy generation during the hours of sunlight. And the development of means of storing electrical energy for autos might lead to a way to provide power to residences during the non sunlight hours.
It would take a book to discuss all the pro and cons. Let me leave you with just the thought – small might do the job better than big.
Let me diverge here for an anecdote.
If you were to have a traffic congestion problem, (people moving), the solution would be determined by what kind of expert you hired to suggest a solution. A Highway Engineer would recommend additional lanes. A Transportation Planner would suggest mass transit. A Sociologist would point to developing car pools. And a Land Use Planner would recommend locating housing close to the jobs.
In the instance of the energy panel above, all the participants represented important players in energy industries, (including alternative and renewable sources) and government. It might be expected that they would all suggest large scale solutions.
But imagine what a different panel might recommend. Residential rooftop units tied into individual property generation alternatives. Might not millions of private rooftop units work better than hundreds of megawatt power plants?
Sounds good but it would be more difficult to implement than one mega generator. Or would it?
My case is that it might be better to have an energy policy focusing on individual power generation than centralized power generation. Power from one thousand one kilowatt generators might cost more for the same power than from a one megawatt plant, BUT, it might be a quicker solution to the overall problem in the long run.
We’ve all heard of the efficiency of mass transit and how it should replace autos for a cost effective solution for the daily commute. We also understand how it is totally dependent on taxpayer subsidies to keep fairs acceptable.
On the other hand, we’ve all heard about the inefficiency of using a personal auto for the commute trip. But it’s totally funded by user fees, vehicle taxes and fuel taxes. Not only that but all labor and maintenance costs are taken care of by each individual vehicle owner at no cost to the public.
And the auto is the choice of three quarters of all commuters, urban and rural.
Imagine an electrical generation system provided by the multitude of users (like the commute auto). I’m convinced that in only a few years, individual solar energy units will replace all use of central energy generation during the hours of sunlight. And the development of means of storing electrical energy for autos might lead to a way to provide power to residences during the non sunlight hours.
It would take a book to discuss all the pro and cons. Let me leave you with just the thought – small might do the job better than big.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Afghanistan, why are we there?
We’re at a critical decision point regarding our continued presence in Afghanistan. Other than trying to make it up to the Afghan people for abandoning them after the Russians pulled out in 1989 or 90, I see no reason to stay. It’s basically a civil war situation and the most powerful force (the Taliban), which we don’t like, will most likely prevail if we leave.
We use whatever temporary logic prevails to justify doing whatever we want to do. In this instance, the military can’t accept “losing” by leaving and letting the internal interests in Afghanistan fight it out for control of the country. The political cover for this is to proclaim we can’t leave Afghanistan as a base the jihadists can use for training for another attack on America.
But, look at the record. We’ve been there for at least 8 years and the Afghan government hasn’t been able to field a credible army of its own. How many years do we have to wait before we can decide they’ll either make it on their own or they won’t?
Our prime political rational for staying is also that we can’t give al Queda a base in which it can train fighters for another 9/11 type operation. This is whooey. According to most published reports, al Queda has moved most of its operations to Pakistan anyway.
Did the 9/11 hijackers actually train in Afghanistan? Was that the best place to offer such specialized training? Was this the only country that would have permitted it? Will the next attack (if it ever comes) require training somewhere similar to Afghanistan in 2001?
I can see the need to save pride as a nation keeping us from pulling out. But, unfortunately, I see a much more direct reason for staying in that many providers of services and products are making a lot of money from the continuation of this operation. Cynical, you bet! Other than national pride and the reputation of major political figures, I only see the continued spending of vast sums on this operation as benefiting some in the private sector financially.
How much of a tax increase would YOU be willing to pay to continue this so called war? Perhaps that question should have been the lead sentence of this piece.
We use whatever temporary logic prevails to justify doing whatever we want to do. In this instance, the military can’t accept “losing” by leaving and letting the internal interests in Afghanistan fight it out for control of the country. The political cover for this is to proclaim we can’t leave Afghanistan as a base the jihadists can use for training for another attack on America.
But, look at the record. We’ve been there for at least 8 years and the Afghan government hasn’t been able to field a credible army of its own. How many years do we have to wait before we can decide they’ll either make it on their own or they won’t?
Our prime political rational for staying is also that we can’t give al Queda a base in which it can train fighters for another 9/11 type operation. This is whooey. According to most published reports, al Queda has moved most of its operations to Pakistan anyway.
Did the 9/11 hijackers actually train in Afghanistan? Was that the best place to offer such specialized training? Was this the only country that would have permitted it? Will the next attack (if it ever comes) require training somewhere similar to Afghanistan in 2001?
I can see the need to save pride as a nation keeping us from pulling out. But, unfortunately, I see a much more direct reason for staying in that many providers of services and products are making a lot of money from the continuation of this operation. Cynical, you bet! Other than national pride and the reputation of major political figures, I only see the continued spending of vast sums on this operation as benefiting some in the private sector financially.
How much of a tax increase would YOU be willing to pay to continue this so called war? Perhaps that question should have been the lead sentence of this piece.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
A commute solution
Many of the things we do for the environment come from making many small adjustments over long periods of time. The introduction of more fuel efficient vehicles and the retirement of older gas guzzlers eventually results, over time, in the use of much much less fuel and the associated reduction in pollution. Similarly, recycling of waste materials further reduces the energy use that would be required to produce new items from raw materials. Over time, this also has great impact on the environment.
I think something similar can be done to minimize commute traffic. Telecommuting has the result of instant reductions in traffic but probably only in a limited amount due to the current nature of face to face employer/employee relationships.
My thought, in a nut shell, is for businesses to hire the prospective employee who lives closest to the business doing the hiring.
In any job being filled, (assuming an adequate supply of applicants), there will be little job related difference between the top contenders. Hiring will more relate to the decision being made by the person doing the hiring than to absolute job capabilities. And, most of this will be subjective.
Why not instead simply hire the person from the top tier of candidates who lives closest to the job?
Over time, this would result in large portions of the work force having shorter commutes and thereby reducing long distance commutes. This in turn, would lessen the number of employees, commuters, clogging up the roads during the commute period. It will also provide more likelihood that transit will be used by short distance commuters further reducing traffic.
We mostly have a picture of employees commuting from the suburbs to central city jobs. This isn’t necessarily correct. In major metropolitan areas as much as 75% of the home to work trips aren’t to the central city but between suburbs. This offers the opportunity for more reduction in long distance commutes with the additional reduction in traffic and fuel consumption.
Think about this and how, over time, everyone would save time, money and the frustration with traffic. Only new hires would be affected and only a policy decision to hire the closest applicant would be required.
Business doesn’t usually feel responsible for paying for off site programs. Here’s a program that’s centered on their work locations, that can benefit everyone at no additional cost.
I think something similar can be done to minimize commute traffic. Telecommuting has the result of instant reductions in traffic but probably only in a limited amount due to the current nature of face to face employer/employee relationships.
My thought, in a nut shell, is for businesses to hire the prospective employee who lives closest to the business doing the hiring.
In any job being filled, (assuming an adequate supply of applicants), there will be little job related difference between the top contenders. Hiring will more relate to the decision being made by the person doing the hiring than to absolute job capabilities. And, most of this will be subjective.
Why not instead simply hire the person from the top tier of candidates who lives closest to the job?
Over time, this would result in large portions of the work force having shorter commutes and thereby reducing long distance commutes. This in turn, would lessen the number of employees, commuters, clogging up the roads during the commute period. It will also provide more likelihood that transit will be used by short distance commuters further reducing traffic.
We mostly have a picture of employees commuting from the suburbs to central city jobs. This isn’t necessarily correct. In major metropolitan areas as much as 75% of the home to work trips aren’t to the central city but between suburbs. This offers the opportunity for more reduction in long distance commutes with the additional reduction in traffic and fuel consumption.
Think about this and how, over time, everyone would save time, money and the frustration with traffic. Only new hires would be affected and only a policy decision to hire the closest applicant would be required.
Business doesn’t usually feel responsible for paying for off site programs. Here’s a program that’s centered on their work locations, that can benefit everyone at no additional cost.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Can we be satisfied with enough?
Sometimes I think many of the problems of our society revolve around our not taking the time to think about what constitutes “enough”. “Enough” is defined as - sufficient to meet a need or satisfy a desire; adequate.
Most people seem to always want more; more money, more and better clothes, a newer car, a bigger house, etc. The past several decades have made wanting to have it all and have it all NOW not only seem to be an acceptable goal but positively normal.
The 80’s were the “Me” decade where conspicuous consumption was the norm and the 90’s the “Sky’s the limit” decade of ever increasing expectations for the economy. Everyone who could get stock options wanted them and expected to eventually be rich. Everyone who couldn’t was envious. The 2000’s may be a time to rethink having it all.
Television advertising, all advertising, continues to show us what we DON’T have and causes us to want more. There is nothing in our culture to promote, to cause us to think about, what is “enough”. After all, if you had enough you wouldn’t purchase the new products being advertised.
If you had enough, you wouldn’t have to work longer or harder or have two incomes in the family to buy more things. What you would have is more time for yourself and your family, less stress in your life because you wouldn’t be chasing more income to buy more things, and the satisfaction that you, and not the advertising world, were running your life.
This is a good season to think about what constitutes enough in our life. It’s the season when there is the most advertising to tempt us to buy things. It’s the season when we receive things others think we will like. And we do like many of those things. But, how many do we need?
Perhaps people have to be mature, to have wanted, acquired and used up many things before they can think in terms of “enough”. It may take the experience of time and of living to sort out what really matters in our life.
It may be that those who could benefit most by thinking about what is enough don’t have the time to think such thoughts. They’re working so hard to get what they think they need that the idea of enough isn’t even a thought they’d have.
Has such thinking become a luxury?
Can we be satisfied with
Most people seem to always want more; more money, more and better clothes, a newer car, a bigger house, etc. The past several decades have made wanting to have it all and have it all NOW not only seem to be an acceptable goal but positively normal.
The 80’s were the “Me” decade where conspicuous consumption was the norm and the 90’s the “Sky’s the limit” decade of ever increasing expectations for the economy. Everyone who could get stock options wanted them and expected to eventually be rich. Everyone who couldn’t was envious. The 2000’s may be a time to rethink having it all.
Television advertising, all advertising, continues to show us what we DON’T have and causes us to want more. There is nothing in our culture to promote, to cause us to think about, what is “enough”. After all, if you had enough you wouldn’t purchase the new products being advertised.
If you had enough, you wouldn’t have to work longer or harder or have two incomes in the family to buy more things. What you would have is more time for yourself and your family, less stress in your life because you wouldn’t be chasing more income to buy more things, and the satisfaction that you, and not the advertising world, were running your life.
This is a good season to think about what constitutes enough in our life. It’s the season when there is the most advertising to tempt us to buy things. It’s the season when we receive things others think we will like. And we do like many of those things. But, how many do we need?
Perhaps people have to be mature, to have wanted, acquired and used up many things before they can think in terms of “enough”. It may take the experience of time and of living to sort out what really matters in our life.
It may be that those who could benefit most by thinking about what is enough don’t have the time to think such thoughts. They’re working so hard to get what they think they need that the idea of enough isn’t even a thought they’d have.
Has such thinking become a luxury?
Can we be satisfied with
Monday, October 12, 2009
We're a capitalistic country
Let’s accept it, we’re a capitalistic country. That’s not good and that’s not bad, it’s just the choice of social and financial systems we’ve accepted as our model. But, along with that we must accept the type of society capitalism creates.
Capitalism focuses on money. Money focuses on personal financial gain. Personal gain emphasizes the “Me”, and not the, “Us” point of view.
I consider the majority of Americans (myself included) as capitalists regardless of their income. There are those who have interests in a more communal society but, even the majority of these, are financially secure outside of their pursuit of these broader interests.
To be even more blunt, we’re self centered and selfish. Only as our personal financial and other needs are satisfied do we become more aware/concerned/interested in others. It’s most direct to consider we’re interested in money and list the exceptions. The list of exceptions is much shorter. This isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just capitalism.
We’re currently in the midst of a national debate about restructuring our health insurance system and the prime position of most seems to be “I’ve got mine and I don’t want to lose it”. The “devil we know” argument. Of course, those with no insurance have no devil to know.
Health insurance is about having the resources to obtain health care. Health care is medical intervention in our personal health problems. Insurance, not care is what we’re talking about. Let’s not confuse or equate them.
Insurance is also about individual security within a group effort to spread the risk. That’s an “Us” game and not a “Me” game. Perhaps that’s why in this current discussion of health insurance, the 85% of us who already have insurance are reluctant to change the game.
Jumping to health care, that’s a very personal factor. Here, we can rightly be expected to look at what is best for “Me”. The mix of group insurance VS individual care may be what makes it so difficult to mingle the two.
I’m thinking that, in the end, the health insurance debate will be answered by the perceived benefit to the individual capitalist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While lamentable that 15% of our citizens don’t have health insurance, the flip side is that 85% do. These 85% see themselves as possibly having to give up or pay more for something they already have to insure that those without health insurance are somehow protected.
Where is the fairness of it all? The problem I see is that the administration seems to be failing to address the concerns of the 85%.
Along this line, why does the administration as well as the media refuse to discuss how the major developed countries have handled the problem. Do you really think the well organized Germans adopted some funky system that is costly and ineffective? Do you think the French (One for all and all for one) have a system their countrymen don’t like?
Why, in the midst of this major debate don’t we at least check out how the competition has handled the problem.
Capitalism focuses on money. Money focuses on personal financial gain. Personal gain emphasizes the “Me”, and not the, “Us” point of view.
I consider the majority of Americans (myself included) as capitalists regardless of their income. There are those who have interests in a more communal society but, even the majority of these, are financially secure outside of their pursuit of these broader interests.
To be even more blunt, we’re self centered and selfish. Only as our personal financial and other needs are satisfied do we become more aware/concerned/interested in others. It’s most direct to consider we’re interested in money and list the exceptions. The list of exceptions is much shorter. This isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just capitalism.
We’re currently in the midst of a national debate about restructuring our health insurance system and the prime position of most seems to be “I’ve got mine and I don’t want to lose it”. The “devil we know” argument. Of course, those with no insurance have no devil to know.
Health insurance is about having the resources to obtain health care. Health care is medical intervention in our personal health problems. Insurance, not care is what we’re talking about. Let’s not confuse or equate them.
Insurance is also about individual security within a group effort to spread the risk. That’s an “Us” game and not a “Me” game. Perhaps that’s why in this current discussion of health insurance, the 85% of us who already have insurance are reluctant to change the game.
Jumping to health care, that’s a very personal factor. Here, we can rightly be expected to look at what is best for “Me”. The mix of group insurance VS individual care may be what makes it so difficult to mingle the two.
I’m thinking that, in the end, the health insurance debate will be answered by the perceived benefit to the individual capitalist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While lamentable that 15% of our citizens don’t have health insurance, the flip side is that 85% do. These 85% see themselves as possibly having to give up or pay more for something they already have to insure that those without health insurance are somehow protected.
Where is the fairness of it all? The problem I see is that the administration seems to be failing to address the concerns of the 85%.
Along this line, why does the administration as well as the media refuse to discuss how the major developed countries have handled the problem. Do you really think the well organized Germans adopted some funky system that is costly and ineffective? Do you think the French (One for all and all for one) have a system their countrymen don’t like?
Why, in the midst of this major debate don’t we at least check out how the competition has handled the problem.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Immigrants and taxes
One of the complaints I hear is that illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes. This may sound probable in that many are paid under the table but it doesn’t mean they’re getting around paying taxes. If their kids go to school that’s paid for from property taxes collected by a local body. Many local services are paid for from sales taxes paid by the retailers who collect it from the customer. And any income immigrants receive is what’s left after their employer deducts income taxes.
When was the last time YOU paid taxes? Taxes paid directly to the taxing body that is.
We’ll all mention state and federal income taxes due that were not deducted from our wages. Some will list property taxes. But that’s about the whole list.
We DON’T pay taxes directly to the taxing body. Someone else does.
Our employer pays (or is supposed to pay) all due income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. Retailers are supposed to pass on to the state the sales tax we paid. The oil companies pay government the various taxes on gasoline. Our landlord pays the property tax and includes it in our monthly rent bill. We, individually, don’t usually pay any regular taxes directly.
So, what’s the problem? The problem is that the businesses that are required by law to collect and forward taxes to the appropriate body aren’t paying or forwarding those tax payments. And the immigrant workers are being blamed for not paying their taxes.
How come there’s no shouting and table pounding about the business owners stealing from the government by not paying these taxes? If immigrants can be thought to be escaping from paying their taxes it’s only because we never think that we don’t pay taxes directly either. Those who are supposed to collect and forward taxes to the appropriate government body are keeping the taxes for themselves.
For a year or two a few years back very prominent people who were being considered for high government appointments were withdrawing their names because they hadn’t paid the taxes on their privately hired household help. No outrage there.
We should check the condition of our glass house before we start throwing stones at our neighbors.
When was the last time YOU paid taxes? Taxes paid directly to the taxing body that is.
We’ll all mention state and federal income taxes due that were not deducted from our wages. Some will list property taxes. But that’s about the whole list.
We DON’T pay taxes directly to the taxing body. Someone else does.
Our employer pays (or is supposed to pay) all due income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. Retailers are supposed to pass on to the state the sales tax we paid. The oil companies pay government the various taxes on gasoline. Our landlord pays the property tax and includes it in our monthly rent bill. We, individually, don’t usually pay any regular taxes directly.
So, what’s the problem? The problem is that the businesses that are required by law to collect and forward taxes to the appropriate body aren’t paying or forwarding those tax payments. And the immigrant workers are being blamed for not paying their taxes.
How come there’s no shouting and table pounding about the business owners stealing from the government by not paying these taxes? If immigrants can be thought to be escaping from paying their taxes it’s only because we never think that we don’t pay taxes directly either. Those who are supposed to collect and forward taxes to the appropriate government body are keeping the taxes for themselves.
For a year or two a few years back very prominent people who were being considered for high government appointments were withdrawing their names because they hadn’t paid the taxes on their privately hired household help. No outrage there.
We should check the condition of our glass house before we start throwing stones at our neighbors.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Afghanistan and reality
How come we can take an 18 year old American, induct him into the army, train him for 12 to 24 months and consider him ready to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, but we can’t take an Afghan or Iraqi, who live in a culture of violence (note all the civilians with AK 47’s) and do the same?
We’ve been fighting in these two countries for 8 years and yet they don’t seem able to recruit enough of their own citizens to create an military to defend themselves.
If a key policy point for us is not to leave a government until it is able to defend itself, the fact that they haven’t accomplished this in 8 years leads to the conclusion that we’re never going to leave or that we’ll unilaterally pull out and watch all our efforts to create a stable government collapse.
The other impact of this is that recent discussions in Washington D.C. indicate the option of leaving Afghanistan precipitously is on the table, is that the Afghan civilians have no incentive to choose sides in their situation. If we leave they’ll be at the mercy of the Taliban. And, that’s not much mercy.
You can argue about all the training the Afghans need, everything from flying helicopters to maintaining a supply system, but that washes out when you see in both Iraq and Afghanistan their opponents don’t have these skills either. It’s an even match except that the insurgents may care more about winning than the government troops might.
It’s time to cut our losses and leave. It will be humiliating and another example of how we don’t stand behind out allies, but the same results will be experienced if we do it a number of years from now.
We’ve been fighting in these two countries for 8 years and yet they don’t seem able to recruit enough of their own citizens to create an military to defend themselves.
If a key policy point for us is not to leave a government until it is able to defend itself, the fact that they haven’t accomplished this in 8 years leads to the conclusion that we’re never going to leave or that we’ll unilaterally pull out and watch all our efforts to create a stable government collapse.
The other impact of this is that recent discussions in Washington D.C. indicate the option of leaving Afghanistan precipitously is on the table, is that the Afghan civilians have no incentive to choose sides in their situation. If we leave they’ll be at the mercy of the Taliban. And, that’s not much mercy.
You can argue about all the training the Afghans need, everything from flying helicopters to maintaining a supply system, but that washes out when you see in both Iraq and Afghanistan their opponents don’t have these skills either. It’s an even match except that the insurgents may care more about winning than the government troops might.
It’s time to cut our losses and leave. It will be humiliating and another example of how we don’t stand behind out allies, but the same results will be experienced if we do it a number of years from now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
