I'll address the topic of blog length in a future post. Right now though, here are some fun things that are happening right now. I'm not going to put any explanatory text in simply because common sense should tell you why these things are are really, really ridiculous.
1: Arguing/voting to ban abortion but NOT arguing/voting to increase funding for adoption, counseling, and family services.
2: Voting for spending increases but not voting to increase revenues (i.e. taxes), including for social programs ("liberal") and for military programs ("conservative").
3: Spending a career railing against drug abusers and demanding increased punishments but avoiding punishment and making excuses for your own drug abuse.
4: Claiming we need energy independence and reduced budget deficits due to oil while protecting and adding to the benefits derived by the oil/gas industries.
5: Demanding answers from Vietnam vets about their service (a la John Kerry) while not asking the same questions or requiring the same detailed answers from your own candidate (a la Bush II).
6: Arguing that global warming and climate science require more research to make the claims they are making and then not funding that research.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
It's all about the Benjamins
In the last two days I've seen several (that's approximately more than a few but less than a bunch) news articles promulgating one of the great American myths: everything (should) boil down to money and economics. As only two examples, I perused an article detailing how some cities are on the verge of dismantling their recycling programs because they are losing money and an article discussing how people should stop buying organic foods in order to save money.
That last article is just stupid. Aside from the fact that many "organic" foods are not, in fact, organic, encouraging people to continue using a system of agriculture that is known to be unhealthy and unsustainable is just ridiculous. Why not spend more money on food with a modicum of propriety in its creation and reduce expenses elsewhere such as using less gas or watching fewer bad movies at the theater? Why must we save money by cutting out those things that are often most beneficial? Sometimes doing the right thing costs more. We have to get over this idea that cheapest is best, easiest, and most correct.
We can't let hard economic times push us back into doing ridiculous things like not recycling. The problem is seeing recycling in dollar terms and not accounting for all the stuff that we don't put in dollar terms (i.e. positive externalities). Think of it this way: recycling stretches our resources further, it reduces expenditures of energy and time to dig up new resources, it prevents environmental problems from resource extraction, and when environments aren't mined, logged, or farmed for resources nature is allowed to do the things it does for us for free. That last point is VERY important. Think of all the things nature does FOR us that we currently don't pay for. Wetlands help clean our water. Forests and ocean algae provide oxygen. Forests and grasslands help retain soil fertility while reducing erosion. Aquifers store and clean water. River floods (think Nile or Mississippi) increase land fertility by depositing nutrient-rich silt created from rocks further upstream. The list goes on and on and on. If we keep leveling mountains, draining wetlands, and turning forest into corn and beef we will have to pay for the things that nature does for free (and usually does better). The small amount of money it costs to keep recycling programs running is chump change compared to the cost for us to extract all the resources, fight wars to grab more resources, and then replace nature's work with our machines.
We need to go beyond the monetary sphere. Some things are more important than money. If we reduce everything to monetary terms, we lose a lot of our humanity because we see only our own gain and our own rewards rather than our impact on other people and on our planet. The pursuit of money often means individual needs and wants triumph over what is good for the group. These are not mutually exclusive ideas but we often act as if they are. Everyone is so worried about "losing" something (think taxes) that they forget that money, like all things on this planet, does much more good when shared with the group than when horded by individuals. We need to find a better balance between the two concepts of money and humanity because community and group cohesiveness is necessary for our well being as individuals and as a species.
(As an addendum, I am not against capitalism. I believe that hard work and taking risk should be rewarded. The pursuit of money or success is not bad in and of itself. It's the larger cultural idea of "mine" that is the problem. We have the idea of capitalism so ingrained in us from day one that we forget it's only an economic philosophy. It says nothing about how to create socially, ethically, and environmentally responsible people. We must make these social concepts part of the economic philosophy. As long as they are separate, they will continue to be seen as opposing each other rather than as tools we can integrate to make the system and community stronger.)
That last article is just stupid. Aside from the fact that many "organic" foods are not, in fact, organic, encouraging people to continue using a system of agriculture that is known to be unhealthy and unsustainable is just ridiculous. Why not spend more money on food with a modicum of propriety in its creation and reduce expenses elsewhere such as using less gas or watching fewer bad movies at the theater? Why must we save money by cutting out those things that are often most beneficial? Sometimes doing the right thing costs more. We have to get over this idea that cheapest is best, easiest, and most correct.
We can't let hard economic times push us back into doing ridiculous things like not recycling. The problem is seeing recycling in dollar terms and not accounting for all the stuff that we don't put in dollar terms (i.e. positive externalities). Think of it this way: recycling stretches our resources further, it reduces expenditures of energy and time to dig up new resources, it prevents environmental problems from resource extraction, and when environments aren't mined, logged, or farmed for resources nature is allowed to do the things it does for us for free. That last point is VERY important. Think of all the things nature does FOR us that we currently don't pay for. Wetlands help clean our water. Forests and ocean algae provide oxygen. Forests and grasslands help retain soil fertility while reducing erosion. Aquifers store and clean water. River floods (think Nile or Mississippi) increase land fertility by depositing nutrient-rich silt created from rocks further upstream. The list goes on and on and on. If we keep leveling mountains, draining wetlands, and turning forest into corn and beef we will have to pay for the things that nature does for free (and usually does better). The small amount of money it costs to keep recycling programs running is chump change compared to the cost for us to extract all the resources, fight wars to grab more resources, and then replace nature's work with our machines.
We need to go beyond the monetary sphere. Some things are more important than money. If we reduce everything to monetary terms, we lose a lot of our humanity because we see only our own gain and our own rewards rather than our impact on other people and on our planet. The pursuit of money often means individual needs and wants triumph over what is good for the group. These are not mutually exclusive ideas but we often act as if they are. Everyone is so worried about "losing" something (think taxes) that they forget that money, like all things on this planet, does much more good when shared with the group than when horded by individuals. We need to find a better balance between the two concepts of money and humanity because community and group cohesiveness is necessary for our well being as individuals and as a species.
(As an addendum, I am not against capitalism. I believe that hard work and taking risk should be rewarded. The pursuit of money or success is not bad in and of itself. It's the larger cultural idea of "mine" that is the problem. We have the idea of capitalism so ingrained in us from day one that we forget it's only an economic philosophy. It says nothing about how to create socially, ethically, and environmentally responsible people. We must make these social concepts part of the economic philosophy. As long as they are separate, they will continue to be seen as opposing each other rather than as tools we can integrate to make the system and community stronger.)
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
I know I sound like a broken record...
but you can't, and I don't know how to stress this enough, do something but act outraged when someone else does the same thing.
I know...we all do it. I'm as guilty as the next guy. I've done stupid things and then yelled at people for doing exactly the same thing. There's a difference between people though- if you do something stupid and learn a lesson and feel bad and won't repeat yourself, it's an honest mistake. If you're continually a douche bag, then that just makes you a stupid douche bag.
Back to the point- the next conservative person I meet that uses the phrase "class warfare" to describe Barack's proposed tax plan might just end up getting kicked in the throat. Allow me to explain.
For the past 28 years (barring a few years near the end of the Clinton administration) the tax burden has been increasing, in real and nominal terms, for the middle class and the poor. Meanwhile, it has declined for the upper classes (those making $250k or more). So for roughly 28 years conservative financial pundits, politicians, and high income households have been happily getting their way. Systematically favoring one class over another is class warfare. And favoring the rich in tax legislation over other classes fits that bill. So we've had 28 years of class warfare favoring the upper crust. Now, Obama plans to increase the amount payed by the rich and reduce the burden (hopefully in real terms) payed by the middle and lower classes. And now the conservatives are screaming "class warfare" so hard they might just push their little pooty-puckers out.
Wait a minute. Did I miss something? Twenty-eight years of reduced tax burdens (in real dollar terms) for upper class incomes doesn't count as class warfare but reversing that trend does? How asinine can you be?
There are pretty sound macroeconomic arguments for how tax policies and changes affect national incomes and there are lots of good reasons to question tax policy changes. Class warfare is a bullshit straw-man argument put up to hit people's emotional buttons and keep them from behaving rationally. Whether or not it's desirable or right to reverse the current tax trends rather than changing the system to a more fair one is a lively debate. But no matter what happens, you can't wage class warfare and then cry foul when the pendulum swings back. You can't always be on the winning team.
As for a solution, the way out of this mess is elegantly simple. It's way past time to implement a flat percentage tax. Everyone, excepting people already living in poverty that can't afford food let alone taxes, should be required to hand over some percentage of their income as taxes. Corporations should have to hand over a flat percentage of profits. These should be percentage based and not flat numbers since 10% of a rich person's money is the same punch to the wallet as 10% of a middle class income. It's the same reduction in purchasing power. A flat amount can never be fair. $1,000 is a drop in the bucket for someone making $250k a year but is significantly more damaging for a person making $35,000. Those taxes should go for things that individuals won't provide on their own such as highways, defense, research, environmental protection, and education. Things that benefit everyone. This system has no class warfare and everyone participates and owns an equal share of public works. Of course, this won't happen because the rich like their money and don't want a system that evens out the tax burden. Instead they'll keep calling shenanigans and class warfare and the middle and lower classes will continue to shoulder the financing of public goods.
No matter what happens, the bottom line is that waging class warfare but not calling it that (usually it's referred to as "allowing the markets to work" or "letting people keep more of what they earned") is just stupid. It's no different than being outraged by terrorists torturing captives yet engaging in torture or declaring other people must adopt democracy when there are known flaws in our own implementation. Being hypocritical is a poor example to set, especially if you want to be seen as a leader.
I know...we all do it. I'm as guilty as the next guy. I've done stupid things and then yelled at people for doing exactly the same thing. There's a difference between people though- if you do something stupid and learn a lesson and feel bad and won't repeat yourself, it's an honest mistake. If you're continually a douche bag, then that just makes you a stupid douche bag.
Back to the point- the next conservative person I meet that uses the phrase "class warfare" to describe Barack's proposed tax plan might just end up getting kicked in the throat. Allow me to explain.
For the past 28 years (barring a few years near the end of the Clinton administration) the tax burden has been increasing, in real and nominal terms, for the middle class and the poor. Meanwhile, it has declined for the upper classes (those making $250k or more). So for roughly 28 years conservative financial pundits, politicians, and high income households have been happily getting their way. Systematically favoring one class over another is class warfare. And favoring the rich in tax legislation over other classes fits that bill. So we've had 28 years of class warfare favoring the upper crust. Now, Obama plans to increase the amount payed by the rich and reduce the burden (hopefully in real terms) payed by the middle and lower classes. And now the conservatives are screaming "class warfare" so hard they might just push their little pooty-puckers out.
Wait a minute. Did I miss something? Twenty-eight years of reduced tax burdens (in real dollar terms) for upper class incomes doesn't count as class warfare but reversing that trend does? How asinine can you be?
There are pretty sound macroeconomic arguments for how tax policies and changes affect national incomes and there are lots of good reasons to question tax policy changes. Class warfare is a bullshit straw-man argument put up to hit people's emotional buttons and keep them from behaving rationally. Whether or not it's desirable or right to reverse the current tax trends rather than changing the system to a more fair one is a lively debate. But no matter what happens, you can't wage class warfare and then cry foul when the pendulum swings back. You can't always be on the winning team.
As for a solution, the way out of this mess is elegantly simple. It's way past time to implement a flat percentage tax. Everyone, excepting people already living in poverty that can't afford food let alone taxes, should be required to hand over some percentage of their income as taxes. Corporations should have to hand over a flat percentage of profits. These should be percentage based and not flat numbers since 10% of a rich person's money is the same punch to the wallet as 10% of a middle class income. It's the same reduction in purchasing power. A flat amount can never be fair. $1,000 is a drop in the bucket for someone making $250k a year but is significantly more damaging for a person making $35,000. Those taxes should go for things that individuals won't provide on their own such as highways, defense, research, environmental protection, and education. Things that benefit everyone. This system has no class warfare and everyone participates and owns an equal share of public works. Of course, this won't happen because the rich like their money and don't want a system that evens out the tax burden. Instead they'll keep calling shenanigans and class warfare and the middle and lower classes will continue to shoulder the financing of public goods.
No matter what happens, the bottom line is that waging class warfare but not calling it that (usually it's referred to as "allowing the markets to work" or "letting people keep more of what they earned") is just stupid. It's no different than being outraged by terrorists torturing captives yet engaging in torture or declaring other people must adopt democracy when there are known flaws in our own implementation. Being hypocritical is a poor example to set, especially if you want to be seen as a leader.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Thank you Monsanto
Today I'd like to give a big shout out to all those companies, corporations, executives, and fraudsters that have decided to enrich themselves and their shareholders at the expense of common sense, humanity, social responsibility, dignity, and existence. I'm referring to the marketing of products under the general label "green" although this also applies to things labeled "eco-friendly" and "environmentally sound".
When it was first thought up, the green label was supposed to represent something. It was supposed to represent products that used natural, renewable, non-toxic, and biodegradable ingredients rather than non-renewable petroleum based chemicals with unknown side-effects, high toxicity, and thousands of years of existence in our landfills, water supplies, and soil. What we have now in the market place it a travesty and a tragedy.
Take a good look at most "green" products and you'll find names synonymous with corporate excess, massive environmental damage, refusal to clean up their messes, and a general lack of good social and environmental stewardship. Look at the ingredient list and you'll find things that are most certainly not natural, renewable, or biodegradable. And every day it gets worse as corporate lobbyists and political fools gut legislation intended to clarify what can and can't be sold under green labels. By gut, I mean allow things to be sold as green that aren't green at all.
It's no different than what happened to the organic movement. Look at your organic foods. You'll find a vast majority of "organic" and "natural" foods still contain garbage (high fructose corn syrup, preservatives, artificial flavors, etc). Organic meats are not organic at all. Remember- chicken can be marketed as "free range" as long as it has ACCESS to a pasture. By access, these farmers provide one small door (often smaller than a chicken) and they provide it late in life when the chickens are already accustomed to roost life and will never leave the door (because they are chickens and they are stupid).
So once again greed triumphs over good. The organic movement was about healthy eating and being aware of where you food comes from and making it as healthy and chemical free as possible. The green movement was about making products less resource intensive, less chemically harmful, and less prone to remaining in our water. Instead, these have become marketing buzzwords, advertising fodder, and a sop to people that still want to consume but want to feel less guilty about consumption's harmful side effects.
To be fair, there are a large number of products that ARE green and a large number of companies and people working hard to make sure their products do as little damage as possible while still making a profit. Using lemon juice and baking soda instead of bleaches, ethers, and alcohols is great. Removing pesticides from food and allowing cattle to eat grass (which they evolved to eat) rather than corn (which they did not) is wonderful. And using fewer resources to make the same product is commendable (though not necessarily deserving of a "green" label). The problem is that green is green is green to the average fool shopping for a product. Most people don't have the capability to know which products are actually more environmentally friendly than others. But I think we can all agree that marketing things as green because you removed 2 ingredients while leaving the other 12 is lying. Selling "green" window cleaners that still contain man-made chemicals with long lifetimes and toxic breakdown products is unethical. And using your market position and money to make environmental protection rules laxer and the punishments more lenient is just messed up.
The greenest, most environmentally conscious thing you can do is NOT BUY THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Buy less and we'll use less resources. Buy less and we'll have fewer chemicals ending up in our water and soil. Buy less and our landfills will stop filling up so fast. For those of you that can't have a conversation without worrying about terrorists, then buy less so that less money goes over seas to fund terrorist activities (surprise!- it's not just oil money that funds terrorism even if that's what the news told you).
Long term vision and common sense people. Lets get some.
When it was first thought up, the green label was supposed to represent something. It was supposed to represent products that used natural, renewable, non-toxic, and biodegradable ingredients rather than non-renewable petroleum based chemicals with unknown side-effects, high toxicity, and thousands of years of existence in our landfills, water supplies, and soil. What we have now in the market place it a travesty and a tragedy.
Take a good look at most "green" products and you'll find names synonymous with corporate excess, massive environmental damage, refusal to clean up their messes, and a general lack of good social and environmental stewardship. Look at the ingredient list and you'll find things that are most certainly not natural, renewable, or biodegradable. And every day it gets worse as corporate lobbyists and political fools gut legislation intended to clarify what can and can't be sold under green labels. By gut, I mean allow things to be sold as green that aren't green at all.
It's no different than what happened to the organic movement. Look at your organic foods. You'll find a vast majority of "organic" and "natural" foods still contain garbage (high fructose corn syrup, preservatives, artificial flavors, etc). Organic meats are not organic at all. Remember- chicken can be marketed as "free range" as long as it has ACCESS to a pasture. By access, these farmers provide one small door (often smaller than a chicken) and they provide it late in life when the chickens are already accustomed to roost life and will never leave the door (because they are chickens and they are stupid).
So once again greed triumphs over good. The organic movement was about healthy eating and being aware of where you food comes from and making it as healthy and chemical free as possible. The green movement was about making products less resource intensive, less chemically harmful, and less prone to remaining in our water. Instead, these have become marketing buzzwords, advertising fodder, and a sop to people that still want to consume but want to feel less guilty about consumption's harmful side effects.
To be fair, there are a large number of products that ARE green and a large number of companies and people working hard to make sure their products do as little damage as possible while still making a profit. Using lemon juice and baking soda instead of bleaches, ethers, and alcohols is great. Removing pesticides from food and allowing cattle to eat grass (which they evolved to eat) rather than corn (which they did not) is wonderful. And using fewer resources to make the same product is commendable (though not necessarily deserving of a "green" label). The problem is that green is green is green to the average fool shopping for a product. Most people don't have the capability to know which products are actually more environmentally friendly than others. But I think we can all agree that marketing things as green because you removed 2 ingredients while leaving the other 12 is lying. Selling "green" window cleaners that still contain man-made chemicals with long lifetimes and toxic breakdown products is unethical. And using your market position and money to make environmental protection rules laxer and the punishments more lenient is just messed up.
The greenest, most environmentally conscious thing you can do is NOT BUY THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Buy less and we'll use less resources. Buy less and we'll have fewer chemicals ending up in our water and soil. Buy less and our landfills will stop filling up so fast. For those of you that can't have a conversation without worrying about terrorists, then buy less so that less money goes over seas to fund terrorist activities (surprise!- it's not just oil money that funds terrorism even if that's what the news told you).
Long term vision and common sense people. Lets get some.
Monday, December 22, 2008
When things accuse other things of doing the same thing
The White House wrote a response to a New York Times article that accuses Bush and his governance for the mortgage meltdown. Now, Bush is NOT responsible for the mortgage and credit problem per se. He didn't make the bad loans. But the NYT article is correct in asserting that the Bush philosophy is part of the reason for the current debacle. He IS responsible for agreeing to remove much of the oversight that was meant to prevent gross abuses like this (along with the Republican controlled Congress from 2000-2006). He IS responsible for ignoring all the warning signs early on and sitting on his thumbs. He IS responsible for increasing national debt loads to the point where even U.S. debt spending will not have its usual anti-recession influence. But no one can or should blame him for actually making the bad loans. He helped make the situation easier to fall into. He didn't actually dig the entire hole.
The best part of the White House response was, and I quote, "The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view." Now, if you can't figure out why this is just the most horrific statement ever released by the current administration, then I can't help you. But I will make it easier- Iraq. The administration had plans in place to invade Iraq before the 9/11 incident. They've never made any bones about it. They ignored the evidence pointing to no WMDs. They ignored the people on the ground who best knew the situation. They ignored the domestic voices that questioned the policy and the data it was based on. They ignored the people that stood up and declared this to be a bad war on policy and humanitarian grounds. So the White House can just kiss the fattest part of my ass and I'm glad they will go down in history as one of the worst examples of American 'leadership'.
They've spent the last 8 years ignoring evidence and reaching conclusions they wanted. They've ignored privacy issues, energy issues, climate issues. They've ignored genocide. They've ignored the 70+ percent of Americans that have stood up and declared our national direction and foreign policy is wrong. So I don't want to hear a peep out of them declaring someone else is doing the same thing. Until you get your own house in order, you have no right, no basis, and no ethical ground to make these kind of accusations against someone else. Absolutely disgusting.
The best part of the White House response was, and I quote, "The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view." Now, if you can't figure out why this is just the most horrific statement ever released by the current administration, then I can't help you. But I will make it easier- Iraq. The administration had plans in place to invade Iraq before the 9/11 incident. They've never made any bones about it. They ignored the evidence pointing to no WMDs. They ignored the people on the ground who best knew the situation. They ignored the domestic voices that questioned the policy and the data it was based on. They ignored the people that stood up and declared this to be a bad war on policy and humanitarian grounds. So the White House can just kiss the fattest part of my ass and I'm glad they will go down in history as one of the worst examples of American 'leadership'.
They've spent the last 8 years ignoring evidence and reaching conclusions they wanted. They've ignored privacy issues, energy issues, climate issues. They've ignored genocide. They've ignored the 70+ percent of Americans that have stood up and declared our national direction and foreign policy is wrong. So I don't want to hear a peep out of them declaring someone else is doing the same thing. Until you get your own house in order, you have no right, no basis, and no ethical ground to make these kind of accusations against someone else. Absolutely disgusting.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Wow...just wow
I want to get away from politics, but it keeps dragging me back. I saw this headline and almost had to change my underwear (not in a good way): Confiscating toy guns part of US mission in Iraq.
Let's make this quick or I might suffer death by idiocy.
1) We'll take away toy guns from children in other countries but raise ours to believe guns are the answer to problems - witness laxer rules about guns in national parks, war as a solution to political problems, and unflinching adherence to poor readings of the 2nd amendment, protections for gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and allow concealed weapons (possibly on college campuses soon).
2) We fought an entire revolutionary war because of rules handed down by external authorities abridging personal freedoms- now we are telling Iraqis what their kids can and can't play with. Next comes a sugar tax.
3) We are, ostensibly, aiming to make Iraq a less violent place by reaching out to the kids - at home sell all manner of guns aimed at children: cap guns, air rifles, compressed air guns, BB guns, and paintball guns.
One of the more violent nations (and the nation with the highest per capita rate of privately owned gun deaths) telling another nation not to let their kids play with guns is the epitome of hypocrisy. When people ask why the rest of the world doesn't like us, remember stuff like this. Also remember that the U.S. was one of only two countries that refused to sign the ban on cluster bombs and munitions this past month. Hooray for violence!
Let's make this quick or I might suffer death by idiocy.
1) We'll take away toy guns from children in other countries but raise ours to believe guns are the answer to problems - witness laxer rules about guns in national parks, war as a solution to political problems, and unflinching adherence to poor readings of the 2nd amendment, protections for gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and allow concealed weapons (possibly on college campuses soon).
2) We fought an entire revolutionary war because of rules handed down by external authorities abridging personal freedoms- now we are telling Iraqis what their kids can and can't play with. Next comes a sugar tax.
3) We are, ostensibly, aiming to make Iraq a less violent place by reaching out to the kids - at home sell all manner of guns aimed at children: cap guns, air rifles, compressed air guns, BB guns, and paintball guns.
One of the more violent nations (and the nation with the highest per capita rate of privately owned gun deaths) telling another nation not to let their kids play with guns is the epitome of hypocrisy. When people ask why the rest of the world doesn't like us, remember stuff like this. Also remember that the U.S. was one of only two countries that refused to sign the ban on cluster bombs and munitions this past month. Hooray for violence!
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Panned for common sense
As a follow-up to my last post, during a radio address, Barack announced a major plan to use public works projects as a stimulus boost to get the economy rolling again. He never once used the word spend. Instead, he referred to the works and money as "investments". He was panned by the media for not saying "spend". To be fair, the truth is that money will be spent. Therefore, it is correct to call this spending. BUT, and this is a big but, these are exactly the kinds of spending projects that need to occur. Why?
1) Governments should spend money and lower taxes DURING RECESSIONS while NOT SPENDING and raising taxes during boom times. It's basic economic theory and good practice. Government spending helps jolt the economy during times when consumers are not consuming and pays for those projects via higher taxes when salaries, income, and spending are up.
2) The things bought with that money will provide services for the U.S. for the next 50 years. We are still using the original interstate system (albeit with normal maintenance and repairs) and much of the original electric grid. Now is the time to spend on getting those systems up to date while also supplying a broadband system (since we are in the information age and economy), better educational facilities, and improve alternative energy resources.
3) Invest is the correct word. Spending now in order to reap the economic benefits when the world economy picks up again is, by definition, investing. Investing in improved infrastructure is a good start. We also must invest in our human capital and resources- education and health care being the two biggest areas ripe for improvement.
4) At the end, when the spending is done, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO SHOW FOR THE EFFORT. We will have roads, bridges, hospitals, solar energy stations, fiber-optic connections, and schools. These are things that make life better for everyone now AND in the future. For comparison- nearly $1 trillion will ultimately (estimated as of today) be given to the financial sector. What will this bailout give? Tangibly...very little. The money being pumped in HAS NOT improved capital flows to the people that need it. If it had, Ford and GM would not be banging their tin cups on the Capitol steps. Maybe, eventually, at some unspecified time, the money will flow. But remember...hundreds of billions of that WILL NEVER BE SEEN BY US because it was used to pay off the people that lost the money. We subsidized their losses so they would have lower losses. We didn't subsidize our losses. That was left up to banks, mortgage holders, and insurance companies.
5) Public works projects provide employment. Giving money to Wall Street does not. At least, not in a direct proportion. These projects keep companies in business and keep people employed.
6) The subsidies already given to energy companies, telecoms, tobacco growers, farmers, and big business (typically in the form of tax breaks, but often via direct cash injections) are worth HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS over the life of the subsidies. Therefore, the government is already handing out this kind of money. Why not let some of that flow to the people at the bottom that are the people that will be employed on these projects? You can't give money to certain people and then tell others that giving them money would be socialism.
So yes, it's spending. Ultimately, it's good spending. Compared to 8 years of bad spending, this seems downright reasonable.
1) Governments should spend money and lower taxes DURING RECESSIONS while NOT SPENDING and raising taxes during boom times. It's basic economic theory and good practice. Government spending helps jolt the economy during times when consumers are not consuming and pays for those projects via higher taxes when salaries, income, and spending are up.
2) The things bought with that money will provide services for the U.S. for the next 50 years. We are still using the original interstate system (albeit with normal maintenance and repairs) and much of the original electric grid. Now is the time to spend on getting those systems up to date while also supplying a broadband system (since we are in the information age and economy), better educational facilities, and improve alternative energy resources.
3) Invest is the correct word. Spending now in order to reap the economic benefits when the world economy picks up again is, by definition, investing. Investing in improved infrastructure is a good start. We also must invest in our human capital and resources- education and health care being the two biggest areas ripe for improvement.
4) At the end, when the spending is done, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO SHOW FOR THE EFFORT. We will have roads, bridges, hospitals, solar energy stations, fiber-optic connections, and schools. These are things that make life better for everyone now AND in the future. For comparison- nearly $1 trillion will ultimately (estimated as of today) be given to the financial sector. What will this bailout give? Tangibly...very little. The money being pumped in HAS NOT improved capital flows to the people that need it. If it had, Ford and GM would not be banging their tin cups on the Capitol steps. Maybe, eventually, at some unspecified time, the money will flow. But remember...hundreds of billions of that WILL NEVER BE SEEN BY US because it was used to pay off the people that lost the money. We subsidized their losses so they would have lower losses. We didn't subsidize our losses. That was left up to banks, mortgage holders, and insurance companies.
5) Public works projects provide employment. Giving money to Wall Street does not. At least, not in a direct proportion. These projects keep companies in business and keep people employed.
6) The subsidies already given to energy companies, telecoms, tobacco growers, farmers, and big business (typically in the form of tax breaks, but often via direct cash injections) are worth HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS over the life of the subsidies. Therefore, the government is already handing out this kind of money. Why not let some of that flow to the people at the bottom that are the people that will be employed on these projects? You can't give money to certain people and then tell others that giving them money would be socialism.
So yes, it's spending. Ultimately, it's good spending. Compared to 8 years of bad spending, this seems downright reasonable.
Monday, November 24, 2008
A mark of humanity - planning for the future
Just one quick news item: Bush, Mr. America, Mr. If-you're-not-with-us-you're-pro-terrorism, handed down a pardon today to Leslie Owen Collier for VIOLATING THE BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT. To be fair, I'm sure it was warranted, but how do you stand for all that is symbolically American while allowing people to use pesticides banned for their effect on bald eagles? Seems stupid to me. He's done worse. I just thought this was funny.
I hate Kornheiser from MNF. He got slapped down by Jaworski near the end of the game for saying stupid shit like "what do people think of the decision to let Favre go now?". Jaws made a great point after listening to this dribble, one I'm sure most of America missed. Jaws said that the decision to let Favre go was made in the LONG TERM INTEREST of the packers.
This is one of the beauties of being human- the ability to plan for the future. Humans have the unique ability to plan long term projects, set goals that will not be completed for months, and invest in ideas that may not pay off for a decade. But, historically speaking, particularly under capitalist doctrine, it's all about the short term. It's the 'what have you done for me lately' syndrome. Not turning a profit this quarter? Fire the exec and bring in someone else. Fire the lowest ranks and dump more work on fewer people. (Note: this is called "enhancing productivity"). Rather than improving the business or attracting new customers that will provide long-term profit and stability, we focus on the next financial report. We don't care about the health of the company so long as they pay their dividends on time.
Now, to be fair, there have been extraordinary periods (think FDR public works or Eisenhower's interstate freeway system) when we HAVE invested in things for the future at the expense of some current consumption. The building of the hydroelectric dams provided the energy needed to power the industrialism of the twentieth century (and was responsible for us winning WWII). The freeway system allowed awesome transportation of goods and services. The national power grid (when it was first put together) was over-built in order for later expansion. All of these things helped make America the great place that it is.
But now we're not doing that. We're not investing in the future. We're haggling over a few billion dollars that could be used to build state-of-the-art water treatment facilities, schools, universities, parks, museums, and roadways. We're spending trillions (TRILLIONS!!!) on wars, missiles, and nukes. We've reset our priorities and they seem to be narrowly focused and have no provisions for what will happen, planned or unplanned, in the next two, three, five, or ten years.
This mentality can be shown no clearer than by GM, Ford, and Chrysler showing up in D.C. begging for money. For 20 years they've been outsold and out managed. They've continued building trucks and SUVs when the market was CLEARLY shifting to smaller cars, higher quality cars, and better warranties. Rather than making the necessary business changes they chose to keep following the path of short term profits (a la high-priced SUVs) at the expense of long-term liquidity, long term market position, and long term survival. Now they expect the taxpayer to cover their complete ineptitude and allow them a few more years of life to play catch-up using our dollars instead of their own.
I hear people cry that now is not the time to invest in new mass transportation infrastructure, not the time to pay down the national debt, not the time to invest in human capital (education, job training, etc). When, exactly, IS the right time? Obviously the last 20 years weren't right since we are still lacking those things. But the situation is worse because we have no plans and the system that WAS put in place (with great foresight I might add) is aging and dying or becoming irrelevant in our changing social and economic landscape. The few things we've managed to invest in are great, but are still totally inadequate for what's coming even 10 years down the line. Adding three buses a year does almost nothing to alleviate our transportation problem or our addiction to oil. Also, has the price of this stuff EVER gone down? Are we waiting for liquidation sales for this stuff or what?
Bottom line: we are NOT preparing our children for the high-tech jobs of the information age, we are NOT prepared for the strain of additional people on our power grids or transportation networks, and we are NOT prepared for the changes that are needed in our energy usage and fossil fuel dependency. We are not using our ability to plan for the future to actually do that. This lack of action and investment will only hurt us in both the short term and the long term. Thank you, Jaws, for making the point. It's just as important in football as it is in the real world. And we are failing miserably.
I hate Kornheiser from MNF. He got slapped down by Jaworski near the end of the game for saying stupid shit like "what do people think of the decision to let Favre go now?". Jaws made a great point after listening to this dribble, one I'm sure most of America missed. Jaws said that the decision to let Favre go was made in the LONG TERM INTEREST of the packers.
This is one of the beauties of being human- the ability to plan for the future. Humans have the unique ability to plan long term projects, set goals that will not be completed for months, and invest in ideas that may not pay off for a decade. But, historically speaking, particularly under capitalist doctrine, it's all about the short term. It's the 'what have you done for me lately' syndrome. Not turning a profit this quarter? Fire the exec and bring in someone else. Fire the lowest ranks and dump more work on fewer people. (Note: this is called "enhancing productivity"). Rather than improving the business or attracting new customers that will provide long-term profit and stability, we focus on the next financial report. We don't care about the health of the company so long as they pay their dividends on time.
Now, to be fair, there have been extraordinary periods (think FDR public works or Eisenhower's interstate freeway system) when we HAVE invested in things for the future at the expense of some current consumption. The building of the hydroelectric dams provided the energy needed to power the industrialism of the twentieth century (and was responsible for us winning WWII). The freeway system allowed awesome transportation of goods and services. The national power grid (when it was first put together) was over-built in order for later expansion. All of these things helped make America the great place that it is.
But now we're not doing that. We're not investing in the future. We're haggling over a few billion dollars that could be used to build state-of-the-art water treatment facilities, schools, universities, parks, museums, and roadways. We're spending trillions (TRILLIONS!!!) on wars, missiles, and nukes. We've reset our priorities and they seem to be narrowly focused and have no provisions for what will happen, planned or unplanned, in the next two, three, five, or ten years.
This mentality can be shown no clearer than by GM, Ford, and Chrysler showing up in D.C. begging for money. For 20 years they've been outsold and out managed. They've continued building trucks and SUVs when the market was CLEARLY shifting to smaller cars, higher quality cars, and better warranties. Rather than making the necessary business changes they chose to keep following the path of short term profits (a la high-priced SUVs) at the expense of long-term liquidity, long term market position, and long term survival. Now they expect the taxpayer to cover their complete ineptitude and allow them a few more years of life to play catch-up using our dollars instead of their own.
I hear people cry that now is not the time to invest in new mass transportation infrastructure, not the time to pay down the national debt, not the time to invest in human capital (education, job training, etc). When, exactly, IS the right time? Obviously the last 20 years weren't right since we are still lacking those things. But the situation is worse because we have no plans and the system that WAS put in place (with great foresight I might add) is aging and dying or becoming irrelevant in our changing social and economic landscape. The few things we've managed to invest in are great, but are still totally inadequate for what's coming even 10 years down the line. Adding three buses a year does almost nothing to alleviate our transportation problem or our addiction to oil. Also, has the price of this stuff EVER gone down? Are we waiting for liquidation sales for this stuff or what?
Bottom line: we are NOT preparing our children for the high-tech jobs of the information age, we are NOT prepared for the strain of additional people on our power grids or transportation networks, and we are NOT prepared for the changes that are needed in our energy usage and fossil fuel dependency. We are not using our ability to plan for the future to actually do that. This lack of action and investment will only hurt us in both the short term and the long term. Thank you, Jaws, for making the point. It's just as important in football as it is in the real world. And we are failing miserably.
Friday, November 7, 2008
How stupid can you possibly be?
I couldn't pass this up. The headline: Fears of Democrat crackdown lead to gun sales boom. The gist of gun owners and sellers: Obama will make it difficult or impossible to buy assault weapons and/or will take away your right to own guns.
Fact: Obama has supported curbs on gun purchases, including for automatic weapons and assault rifles. This in no way takes away your right to own a gun.
Fact: Obama would like to implement increased responsibility for gun owners and sellers and has voted to allow gun manufacturers to remain open to lawsuits. (Which is only fair- cigarette companies are responsible for deaths caused by their products, car makers are responsible for their safety systems and crash tests, food companies are responsible for illnesses cause by their food, so why should gun manufacturers get some kind of special free pass?)
Where, exactly, did Obama ever say, act, or think to take away people's "2nd amendment rights"? I put that in quotes because, like much of the Constitution, it's debatable how it has been applied in practice. If you think Obama is going to roll into the White House and start smacking down gun ownership laws, I think you're too stupid to own a gun. If you think Obama is going to "take away your rights" you're also stupid. Let me explain.
Over the past 6 years, Americans have lost or had reduced more rights than you can shake a stick at. Just to name a few- you can now be spied on via wiretaps on your phones with no probable cause, your right of habeus corpus can be suspended because the government says so in any case they claim is "terror related", the right to a free press has been infringed by the subpoena of confidential sources and subsequent jailing of reporters for not divulging them, your rights to privacy with companies you do business with have been trampled because of data retention policies that increase data storage and force businesses to turn over that data to the government with no questions asked and no recourse to discuss the matter (via National Security Letters- look it up), your rights of privacy and travel have been severely restricted via random checkpoints set up in border zones that can check documentation and personal items such as laptops without reasonable cause (not just border crossing points- actual checkpoints within the country that are slowly moving further inland and require you to show citizenship status), and your right to information about government actions and policies has been trampled via denials of reasonable Freedom of Information requests.
Someone explain to me why fools are screaming about gun rights that HAVE NOT been infringed upon in any way yet, but are absolutely silent about these other horrific abuses and proscriptions on basic rights. If you think Obama will take away your rights but Bush somehow preserved them, you're living in fantasy land. All we've done over the past 6 years is quietly lose rights or have those rights severely reduced. There are a few groups fighting (the EFF, the ACLU, etc), but so few people paid any attention and willingly went along with these horrific policies in the name of "security". Just so we're clear- trading your rights for ANYTHING only delivers that much more control to the people that provide what you traded for. Personally, I'll live in a world with an incomprehensibly small chance of being the victim of a terror attack and keep my rights to privacy and a free press. People died to give us those rights in the first place. Now we're tossing them aside to feel safe and turning them over to a group of people that, while duly elected, do not necessarily have the best interests of the general populace at heart.
So gun people, shut the hell up and stop saying stupid shit. No one is taking your precious guns away. Obama is not going to somehow repeal the second amendment. If you want rights, march your asses to D.C. and demand back the rights that have already been taken, not the ones you imagine might be in the future. Let's get back to where we started and then worry about what may or may not happen.
Fact: Obama has supported curbs on gun purchases, including for automatic weapons and assault rifles. This in no way takes away your right to own a gun.
Fact: Obama would like to implement increased responsibility for gun owners and sellers and has voted to allow gun manufacturers to remain open to lawsuits. (Which is only fair- cigarette companies are responsible for deaths caused by their products, car makers are responsible for their safety systems and crash tests, food companies are responsible for illnesses cause by their food, so why should gun manufacturers get some kind of special free pass?)
Where, exactly, did Obama ever say, act, or think to take away people's "2nd amendment rights"? I put that in quotes because, like much of the Constitution, it's debatable how it has been applied in practice. If you think Obama is going to roll into the White House and start smacking down gun ownership laws, I think you're too stupid to own a gun. If you think Obama is going to "take away your rights" you're also stupid. Let me explain.
Over the past 6 years, Americans have lost or had reduced more rights than you can shake a stick at. Just to name a few- you can now be spied on via wiretaps on your phones with no probable cause, your right of habeus corpus can be suspended because the government says so in any case they claim is "terror related", the right to a free press has been infringed by the subpoena of confidential sources and subsequent jailing of reporters for not divulging them, your rights to privacy with companies you do business with have been trampled because of data retention policies that increase data storage and force businesses to turn over that data to the government with no questions asked and no recourse to discuss the matter (via National Security Letters- look it up), your rights of privacy and travel have been severely restricted via random checkpoints set up in border zones that can check documentation and personal items such as laptops without reasonable cause (not just border crossing points- actual checkpoints within the country that are slowly moving further inland and require you to show citizenship status), and your right to information about government actions and policies has been trampled via denials of reasonable Freedom of Information requests.
Someone explain to me why fools are screaming about gun rights that HAVE NOT been infringed upon in any way yet, but are absolutely silent about these other horrific abuses and proscriptions on basic rights. If you think Obama will take away your rights but Bush somehow preserved them, you're living in fantasy land. All we've done over the past 6 years is quietly lose rights or have those rights severely reduced. There are a few groups fighting (the EFF, the ACLU, etc), but so few people paid any attention and willingly went along with these horrific policies in the name of "security". Just so we're clear- trading your rights for ANYTHING only delivers that much more control to the people that provide what you traded for. Personally, I'll live in a world with an incomprehensibly small chance of being the victim of a terror attack and keep my rights to privacy and a free press. People died to give us those rights in the first place. Now we're tossing them aside to feel safe and turning them over to a group of people that, while duly elected, do not necessarily have the best interests of the general populace at heart.
So gun people, shut the hell up and stop saying stupid shit. No one is taking your precious guns away. Obama is not going to somehow repeal the second amendment. If you want rights, march your asses to D.C. and demand back the rights that have already been taken, not the ones you imagine might be in the future. Let's get back to where we started and then worry about what may or may not happen.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A good point
My good friend Geoff made a great point. Let me set the scene.
Today Bush signed the PRO-IP Act into law. You can look it up. And in case you were wondering, IP is short for intellectual property (anything from works of art to the design of computer chips or the formula for boner drugs). Suffice it to say the bill gives sweeping additional powers to U.S. IP holders, provides disproportionate punishments for IP infringement (even unintentional), creates a tax-payer funded "piracy czar" that will 'implement strategic plans to reduce IP infringement' (whatever that means), and allows IP holders to continue decimating consumers by bypassing rights of resell, 'leasing' software or music even though you bought the medium, preventing you from making backups of purchased products, and continuing to use shotgun lawsuits and non-disclosure agreements as enforcement mechanisms.
I quite disparagingly mentioned that Bush signed this act into law and Geoff rightly smacked my face and pointed out that it takes two to tango. Congress passed the legislation in the first place (unanimously in the Senate I might add), so they are equally to blame. So I will amend my statement and say that it was Bush AND all the fools in the House and Senate that have once again busted the balls of consumers everywhere.
Folks, Congress is not, nor should it be, a rubber stamp for the wishes of the executive. And the executive should never be a rubber stamp for Congress. If one of them won't stand up to bad legislation or ideas, the other should. If they don't, then both branches have failed the public. Here we see an EPIC FAIL. But here they are, for the last 8 years, loving cupping each others balls and just passing bill after bill that does this kind of stuff. Need I remind anyone of the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind? Obviously, these were not consumer oriented, but one legalized privacy invasion, domestic spying, and suspension of habeas corpus while the other punished struggling schools and students by taking away their funding. Bush has, to the best of my knowledge and research abilities, only vetoed TWO bills (only one spending bill) in his years in office. Congress has tabled lots of little stuff, but has continuously passed legislation deemed important by Bush (except his Swiss cheese energy bill, which they rightly smacked down hard and publicly). So here we have a big circle-jerk of people that are supposed to be checking and balancing each other. Now, because they like the stroking better than fighting the deep pockets and election-oiling money of the IP lobby, it's up to the over-burdened courts to be the last line of defense. This is a TWO BRANCH EPIC FAIL.
For the record, I'm all for IP protection, but within reason. No one should have 99 year monopolies on things like business organization ideas or video game joysticks (both of which exist, by the way). The IP lobby has successfully given themselves vast monopoly powers in a country that pretends to abhor the principle of monopoly. IP has become a way to stifle competition and bar entrance to lucrative markets. People that develop IP (including artists, software engineers, hardware designers, etc) should be and, I think, are justified in making a profit on their inventions and ideas. But creating a situation in which the consumers of those creations are punished for selling used items, are required to buy all new media every time a new technology wanders into the world, and are subject to monopoly prices because of IP laws is inexcusable. We should make all the little Congressmen and Congresswomen go back to the table and demand legislation that 1) protects the rights of consumers to reasonably use and protect their purchases (with backups and resell rights as a minimum), 2) makes the IP industry fund its own police work and policies (just like independent, non-corporate IP holders are forced to), and 3) creates a consistent system of copyright and patents for IP that gives reasonable time to people to make use and profit from their IP before that knowledge becomes public and available for others to use (rather than offering lifetime monopolies). The consumers got jacked, the IP lobby got a major windfall, and two of three branches of government set consumer rights back almost 50 years (back to the day of "copiers should be illegal because no one will buy books if they can copy them).
Congress and Bushy should stop wearing their ass as a hat.
Today Bush signed the PRO-IP Act into law. You can look it up. And in case you were wondering, IP is short for intellectual property (anything from works of art to the design of computer chips or the formula for boner drugs). Suffice it to say the bill gives sweeping additional powers to U.S. IP holders, provides disproportionate punishments for IP infringement (even unintentional), creates a tax-payer funded "piracy czar" that will 'implement strategic plans to reduce IP infringement' (whatever that means), and allows IP holders to continue decimating consumers by bypassing rights of resell, 'leasing' software or music even though you bought the medium, preventing you from making backups of purchased products, and continuing to use shotgun lawsuits and non-disclosure agreements as enforcement mechanisms.
I quite disparagingly mentioned that Bush signed this act into law and Geoff rightly smacked my face and pointed out that it takes two to tango. Congress passed the legislation in the first place (unanimously in the Senate I might add), so they are equally to blame. So I will amend my statement and say that it was Bush AND all the fools in the House and Senate that have once again busted the balls of consumers everywhere.
Folks, Congress is not, nor should it be, a rubber stamp for the wishes of the executive. And the executive should never be a rubber stamp for Congress. If one of them won't stand up to bad legislation or ideas, the other should. If they don't, then both branches have failed the public. Here we see an EPIC FAIL. But here they are, for the last 8 years, loving cupping each others balls and just passing bill after bill that does this kind of stuff. Need I remind anyone of the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind? Obviously, these were not consumer oriented, but one legalized privacy invasion, domestic spying, and suspension of habeas corpus while the other punished struggling schools and students by taking away their funding. Bush has, to the best of my knowledge and research abilities, only vetoed TWO bills (only one spending bill) in his years in office. Congress has tabled lots of little stuff, but has continuously passed legislation deemed important by Bush (except his Swiss cheese energy bill, which they rightly smacked down hard and publicly). So here we have a big circle-jerk of people that are supposed to be checking and balancing each other. Now, because they like the stroking better than fighting the deep pockets and election-oiling money of the IP lobby, it's up to the over-burdened courts to be the last line of defense. This is a TWO BRANCH EPIC FAIL.
For the record, I'm all for IP protection, but within reason. No one should have 99 year monopolies on things like business organization ideas or video game joysticks (both of which exist, by the way). The IP lobby has successfully given themselves vast monopoly powers in a country that pretends to abhor the principle of monopoly. IP has become a way to stifle competition and bar entrance to lucrative markets. People that develop IP (including artists, software engineers, hardware designers, etc) should be and, I think, are justified in making a profit on their inventions and ideas. But creating a situation in which the consumers of those creations are punished for selling used items, are required to buy all new media every time a new technology wanders into the world, and are subject to monopoly prices because of IP laws is inexcusable. We should make all the little Congressmen and Congresswomen go back to the table and demand legislation that 1) protects the rights of consumers to reasonably use and protect their purchases (with backups and resell rights as a minimum), 2) makes the IP industry fund its own police work and policies (just like independent, non-corporate IP holders are forced to), and 3) creates a consistent system of copyright and patents for IP that gives reasonable time to people to make use and profit from their IP before that knowledge becomes public and available for others to use (rather than offering lifetime monopolies). The consumers got jacked, the IP lobby got a major windfall, and two of three branches of government set consumer rights back almost 50 years (back to the day of "copiers should be illegal because no one will buy books if they can copy them).
Congress and Bushy should stop wearing their ass as a hat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)