Observe:
I have to say that I did not expect a Reagan analogy, and neither did Ben Smith at Politico, when I stole this. But it makes sense.
Obama has going for him not so much being the man of change, but the unwavering optimist. For those on the right, he is the Democrat that probably scares them the least - Edwards is the class warfare guy, and Hillary's attempt at government-controlled healthcare still frightens those who fear death while waiting in line. Of course, he still believes government is the solution rather than the problem, but hey, he has a positive outlook.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Social Security
Well, it turns out that Bush was right that this was a problem, but it still hasn't been fixed. Barack Obama had the following to say:
But the doughnut hole is basically a very open invitation for not just company cars, but company-provided housing, helicopters, etc. Sound silly? Well come on - this is the stuff tax accountants dream of.
Any other ideas?
Privatizing Social Security is something that the US simply cannot do because it was put off far too long. To pull it off, it needs a more comfortable position, and the only way to get there is to raise the retirement age at an astounding rate.
Most importantly, the Minimum retirement age, which Bill Bradley has pointed out before, should be raised. Getting that up to 65 in the next decade and 70 by 2030 is not an unreasonable goal with the full retirement age rising along with it up to 70 and ultimately 75. After all, the program was created when the retirement age was 3 years in excess of life expectancy; it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that if the retirement age slips to more than 10 years below life expectancy, then you have a problem. If you get the retirement age back up to life expectancy minus 3, you're in excellent shape.
At that point, Social Security stops being a source of income for a generation of people living off that and their savings for 20 years. Then you can talk privitization, because you'll reduce the impact it has on people's lives. Getting there would be harder, but it's a good start.
Uh huh, uh huh. WHAT?!! Now raising the cap on social security taxes makes sense, as Social Security would be better as a flat tax than a regressive tax as it currently is. What I want to know is when will Social Security honestly be declared not to be a pension system, but rather, just "welfare for old people?" Because that's what it is."I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.
"That is the option that I will be pushing forward." Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. That cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.
Obama's proposal could include a gap or "doughnut hole" to shield middle-income earners from higher payroll taxes, he said.
But the doughnut hole is basically a very open invitation for not just company cars, but company-provided housing, helicopters, etc. Sound silly? Well come on - this is the stuff tax accountants dream of.
Any other ideas?
On the Republican side, candidate Fred Thompson last week unveiled a Social Security proposal that calls for reducing benefits to future retirees and creating a system of voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan is similar to one put forth by President Bush that ultimately stalled in Congress.Gee, why does that sound familiar? Maybe Because George Bush already tried it and fell flat on his face. The government doesn't need to get involved with private accounts - because they're private. Private accounts already exist. This is as mind-boggling as the need to hire a scout to find out if Greg Maddux can pitch.
Privatizing Social Security is something that the US simply cannot do because it was put off far too long. To pull it off, it needs a more comfortable position, and the only way to get there is to raise the retirement age at an astounding rate.
Most importantly, the Minimum retirement age, which Bill Bradley has pointed out before, should be raised. Getting that up to 65 in the next decade and 70 by 2030 is not an unreasonable goal with the full retirement age rising along with it up to 70 and ultimately 75. After all, the program was created when the retirement age was 3 years in excess of life expectancy; it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that if the retirement age slips to more than 10 years below life expectancy, then you have a problem. If you get the retirement age back up to life expectancy minus 3, you're in excellent shape.
At that point, Social Security stops being a source of income for a generation of people living off that and their savings for 20 years. Then you can talk privitization, because you'll reduce the impact it has on people's lives. Getting there would be harder, but it's a good start.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Chinese Crackdown
After a few Chinese sources delivered unsafe products, the Chinese government has decided to take action, by saying that American products are bad.
From the Washington Post:
Of course, because the Chinese government has not altogether abolished communism in China, it makes sense that the government would concern itself with PR. But yeah, that's the setup. Then there's this paragraph right after it:
But look at this. The Chinese government is trying to argue that their products are safe because the US makes stuff that gets rejected too. The question of safety, though, is not which ones are rejected, but rather which accepted products cause harm, if one is concerning themself with product safety. Here, it seems that China is stating that they are better at regulating imports than the US, although I don't think they're offering to scrutinize their own exports further.
Then a professor said this later on in the article:
Yes, that is correct that what the Chinese government did does not address the initial problem. I'm glad that Ariana Eunjang Cha was able to get an expert to state the painfully obvious.
Right after, there was this bit:
Senator Schumer, your advocacy for punitive trade legislation against China proves that you don't understand the real problem. That would make Chinese products more expensive for consumers, so to compete, they'd have to get cheaper and take more shortcuts. And to be technical, that doesn't prove that China doesn't understand the problem, only that China is not interested in solving the real problem. And that the communist method of dealing with problems - killing people - is stupid.
But I'm going with the Chinese government being stupid, especially after reading this gem.
Yes, an accident where someone died in an explosion makes someone like Bin Laden, but firing squad, that's just how you take care of business. But if you want to know how bad the Chinese government is at defending themselves in an argument, this one guy states, perhaps rightly, that this is an improvement.
Heh. They're trying to distract people, but at least they aren't completely denying problems, and they don't have to fix anything. An improvement, but barely.
From the Washington Post:
Investigative reports in the state-run media delve into the case of an exploding cellphone purportedly made by U.S.-based Motorola that allegedly killed a young man. They warn consumers not to use contact-lens solution produced by U.S.-based Advanced Medical Optics, which has been linked to rare cases of blindness. And they play up recalls of U.S. beef.
Faced with mounting international concern over the safety of some of the products it exports, the Chinese government -- often perceived as defensive and clumsy in how it handles public relations -- is firing back.
In Washington, China has put together a team of lobbyists who have been practically living on Capitol Hill for the past few weeks. In Beijing, the government has taken the unusual step of seeking advice from outsiders, including public relations powerhouses Ogilvy and Edelman, about how to get positive messages out to Chinese and American consumers.
Of course, because the Chinese government has not altogether abolished communism in China, it makes sense that the government would concern itself with PR. But yeah, that's the setup. Then there's this paragraph right after it:
The result has been an aggressive campaign to save the "Made in China" label by presenting an alternate view on consumer safety and globalization. The message is that China isn't the only country that has had problems with the products it exports. China, as government officials have been pointing out in recent days, rejects U.S. imports at a rate that is just a little less than the 1 percent of Chinese products rejected by the United States.
But look at this. The Chinese government is trying to argue that their products are safe because the US makes stuff that gets rejected too. The question of safety, though, is not which ones are rejected, but rather which accepted products cause harm, if one is concerning themself with product safety. Here, it seems that China is stating that they are better at regulating imports than the US, although I don't think they're offering to scrutinize their own exports further.
Then a professor said this later on in the article:
On the other hand, Shi Anbin, an associate professor of media and cultural studies at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said that trying to turn the tables and focus attention on problems with U.S. products is "not a wise strategy."
"We need to face our own problems rather than pointing an accusing finger at a scapegoat," Shi said. "I believe Chinese officials still need to learn some PR and communication skills."
Yes, that is correct that what the Chinese government did does not address the initial problem. I'm glad that Ariana Eunjang Cha was able to get an expert to state the painfully obvious.
Right after, there was this bit:
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, which has been pushing for punitive trade legislation against China, described the execution of the former head of the Chinese food and drug administration and the country's new ban of a chemical that was mixed in toothpaste as "surreal actions."
These "prove that China just doesn't understand the real problems," the New York Democrat said
Senator Schumer, your advocacy for punitive trade legislation against China proves that you don't understand the real problem. That would make Chinese products more expensive for consumers, so to compete, they'd have to get cheaper and take more shortcuts. And to be technical, that doesn't prove that China doesn't understand the problem, only that China is not interested in solving the real problem. And that the communist method of dealing with problems - killing people - is stupid.
But I'm going with the Chinese government being stupid, especially after reading this gem.
Nevertheless, the incident has brought out hostility in some Chinese consumers. The headline on one online bulletin board posting blares, "America's Motorola is following Bin Laden's example, killing Chinese with explosion." It quotes from the official New China News Agency in giving examples of past quality problems, though its main purpose seems to be complaining about Motorola's after-sales service.
Yes, an accident where someone died in an explosion makes someone like Bin Laden, but firing squad, that's just how you take care of business. But if you want to know how bad the Chinese government is at defending themselves in an argument, this one guy states, perhaps rightly, that this is an improvement.
Dan Harris, a U.S.-based attorney who runs a popular China law blog and represents small to mid-sized companies doing business with China, said the shift in the government's public relations strategy "is definitely smart on their part. They are not going to convince Americans that everything is okay just by denials."
Heh. They're trying to distract people, but at least they aren't completely denying problems, and they don't have to fix anything. An improvement, but barely.
Yay, Failure
The surcharges did not receive much attention when lawmakers approved them Feb. 24., but the reaction has been overwhelmingly negative since Virginia residents learned about the fees this month.
At first glance, you think, aha, the legislature enacts this law under cover of darkness. Doesn't it also come to mind, Why the hell didn't anyone report on the damn fees until when they went into effect? It does for me.
But seriously, it is absolutely criminal the disregard the Virginia legislature shows for the Constitution of the United States, by enacting what is clearly a violation of the 14th amendment, as it does not grant equal protection under the law.
Virginia Republicans and Democrats demonstrated in the spirit of bipartisanship how opposing factions can agree on something and both be wrong. Boo.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Really Sick
Ok, the TB guy is either evil or demented. He had TB, then left on a flight overseas from Atlanta, then came back to the US to get treated. Now, why would he put others in harm's way, traveling with a communicable bacterial infection in an enclosed space?
What if he had more dire predictions of the severity of his own tuberculosis? What if he figured he was doomed to die, and he wanted his wedding, his wedding night, etc before everything was over? I'm inclined not to buy this fellow's account, and no way in hell he didn't think that TB was such a big deal given what he knew about. And while I don't see any point in prosecuting him if he's going to die anyway, clearly you've got to make some sort of policy considerations here. At the very least, release his name and the flights he took so that the other passengers can sue this obviously very wealthy man who put their lives in danger.
The man, however, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that doctors didn't order him not to fly and only suggested he put off his long-planned wedding in Greece. He knew he had a form of tuberculosis and that it was resistant to first-line drugs, but he didn't realize it could be so dangerous, he said.Basically, he would put his bride-to-be in danger. Sure he's on drugs, but it's tuberculosis! Wouldn't it be more sensible to put off the wedding for a bit if you come down with some sort of disease like this if it's treatable?
What if he had more dire predictions of the severity of his own tuberculosis? What if he figured he was doomed to die, and he wanted his wedding, his wedding night, etc before everything was over? I'm inclined not to buy this fellow's account, and no way in hell he didn't think that TB was such a big deal given what he knew about. And while I don't see any point in prosecuting him if he's going to die anyway, clearly you've got to make some sort of policy considerations here. At the very least, release his name and the flights he took so that the other passengers can sue this obviously very wealthy man who put their lives in danger.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
A bit on gas prices
The House of Representatives voted a few days ago to blame someone else for their idiocy by passing a bill to stop "price gouging."
Boehner also stated the immigration bill proposed was a piece of shit. No really, he said that. Boehner also knows what the hell he's talking about, and hell, he's almost making me feel good about the Republican party. But perhaps it's worth examining why gas prices might go up.
The stupidest explanation is greed. Look, people are greedy, all the freaking time. That's normal. You're greedy for wanting that gas to cost as little as it can, for wanting everything on the internet to be free, for wanting there to never be any traffic congestion on the highway, for wanting to have your cake, eat it too, but not have to deal with the caloric intatke (not to mention the carbs). If greed raises prices, then what the hell causes them to fall? When gas gets down to $2 a gallon, does that mean the oil execs feel guilty or something? Maybe they're less greedy? If you actually believe that, I'm frightened you are reading this. Anyone that stupid shouldn't be given anything as powerful as a computer, or for that matter, a spoon.
But seriously, what harm could an anti-gouging bill do? Well, if there are shocks to the supply or the demand for oil, the market could not respond as it normally would, so it would force oil companies and gas station owners to either lose money or not sell, and guess which one they'll pick. This is called a price cap, and it creates shortages. Look at the 1970s - people cyphened gas from other people's cars, and they made locking gas tank caps. I mean, you thought Monica Lewinsky had low standards for what she put in her mouth! The president will wear sweaters and tell us we shouldn't have Christmas because of all the lights - Jimmy Carter actually did that. I mean, doesn't this strike you as a little silly?
But what else could cause high gas prices, if not for some conspiracy? Well there's the cost of crude oil itself, then it has to be refined, then it has to be delivered, then the gas station sells it, and the gas station owner and the oil companies have to make a profit, or else they wouldn't be in the oil business. Now, what happened in the last couple years to cause gas prices to rise? Let me think . . . Here's a key reminder of why ethanol is expensive:
Yeah, that alone is going to make gas a lot more expensive. And keep in mind that Ethanol doesn't have nearly the pipeline network available for gasoline (in fact, the oil companies are trying to lobby Congress for it). So really, these ethanol additives are not a good idea right now; maybe a few years down the road if you're gonna complain about gas prices to consumers.
Another idea: just stop all the bullshit around ethanol that makes it so expensive. You've got a lot of regulation in the economy regarding how much corn people can grow, etc, as well as tariffs on foreign goods to raise the prices of domestic goods. You've gotta be kidding me if you think we need the government to tell farmers how much they can grow, etc. Ignore the caps, and people will grow more corn, partly for ethanol, partly for food, whatever will make money. People make good decisions when it's their own money in business, generally. Further, you can get sugar ethanol to do the job cheaper, or at the very least you could allow regular sugar to replace high fructose corn syrup. The tariffs on foreign sugar are the culprit here, believe it or not, and if you reduce or eliminate that, you'll see a reduce in demand at home, lowering the price, and more corn will be exported for those of you who think the trade deficit matters.
"This is a first step in addressing the outrageous prices we are seeing at the gas pump," said bill sponsor Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrat. Prices in recent years have peaked at about the Memorial Day start of the summer driving season, but they could climb higher this year if hurricanes or conflicts in the Middle East or Nigeria disrupt supplies.
"This bill is all bark and no bite, and will do nothing to lower gas prices," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "No American likes paying high prices at the pump. ... This bill could make the pain felt by consumers at the pump considerably worse."
Boehner also stated the immigration bill proposed was a piece of shit. No really, he said that. Boehner also knows what the hell he's talking about, and hell, he's almost making me feel good about the Republican party. But perhaps it's worth examining why gas prices might go up.
The stupidest explanation is greed. Look, people are greedy, all the freaking time. That's normal. You're greedy for wanting that gas to cost as little as it can, for wanting everything on the internet to be free, for wanting there to never be any traffic congestion on the highway, for wanting to have your cake, eat it too, but not have to deal with the caloric intatke (not to mention the carbs). If greed raises prices, then what the hell causes them to fall? When gas gets down to $2 a gallon, does that mean the oil execs feel guilty or something? Maybe they're less greedy? If you actually believe that, I'm frightened you are reading this. Anyone that stupid shouldn't be given anything as powerful as a computer, or for that matter, a spoon.
But seriously, what harm could an anti-gouging bill do? Well, if there are shocks to the supply or the demand for oil, the market could not respond as it normally would, so it would force oil companies and gas station owners to either lose money or not sell, and guess which one they'll pick. This is called a price cap, and it creates shortages. Look at the 1970s - people cyphened gas from other people's cars, and they made locking gas tank caps. I mean, you thought Monica Lewinsky had low standards for what she put in her mouth! The president will wear sweaters and tell us we shouldn't have Christmas because of all the lights - Jimmy Carter actually did that. I mean, doesn't this strike you as a little silly?
But what else could cause high gas prices, if not for some conspiracy? Well there's the cost of crude oil itself, then it has to be refined, then it has to be delivered, then the gas station sells it, and the gas station owner and the oil companies have to make a profit, or else they wouldn't be in the oil business. Now, what happened in the last couple years to cause gas prices to rise? Let me think . . . Here's a key reminder of why ethanol is expensive:
Ethanol is a solvent that picks up any gunk in tanks and readily blends with water.
Those properties could ruin a 9,000-gallon tank of gasoline at a huge cost to a retailer.
It costs up to $1,500 to clean tanks, said Kevin S. Kan, president and chief executive officer of American Auto Wash Inc. in Malvern, which operates 18 stations in the region, including 13 BPs that have converted to the ethanol blend.
Ethanol is logistically more complicated than the petrochemical it replaced - MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether. Refiners could blend MTBE into gasoline at the refinery and send the finished gasoline through pipelines to terminals.
But ethanol must be blended into gasoline at the terminal because it would mix with water if it were sent through pipelines, ruining the fuel. So, fuel terminals have to go through a similar process of cleaning tanks to store ethanol before it is blended.
They must also install blending equipment.
Yeah, that alone is going to make gas a lot more expensive. And keep in mind that Ethanol doesn't have nearly the pipeline network available for gasoline (in fact, the oil companies are trying to lobby Congress for it). So really, these ethanol additives are not a good idea right now; maybe a few years down the road if you're gonna complain about gas prices to consumers.
Another idea: just stop all the bullshit around ethanol that makes it so expensive. You've got a lot of regulation in the economy regarding how much corn people can grow, etc, as well as tariffs on foreign goods to raise the prices of domestic goods. You've gotta be kidding me if you think we need the government to tell farmers how much they can grow, etc. Ignore the caps, and people will grow more corn, partly for ethanol, partly for food, whatever will make money. People make good decisions when it's their own money in business, generally. Further, you can get sugar ethanol to do the job cheaper, or at the very least you could allow regular sugar to replace high fructose corn syrup. The tariffs on foreign sugar are the culprit here, believe it or not, and if you reduce or eliminate that, you'll see a reduce in demand at home, lowering the price, and more corn will be exported for those of you who think the trade deficit matters.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Fat Sweedish Kids
A study on obesity in Sweeden concluded the following:
The last sentence makes sense for parents who don't have the spines to be the ones deciding their kids' lunches instead of their own kids. For most people though, that sentence points out the futility of the regulation argument. Kids can certainly still get sweets, etc at home and elsewhere away from school, and at that age, it's entirely a function of parental controls.
As far as food that is provided by the school, it should absolutely be designed to be healthy, and good too. Kids who buy lunch at school should get something reasonably healthy, and there's not really a good argument for selling soft drinks in elementary schools. But if parents are going to decide what to give their kids, then why mess with that? I can see justification in saying no sodas for the young kids, but banning buns? One has to draw the line at some point.
Stockholm schools that banned sweets, buns and soft drinks saw the number of overweight children drop by six percentage points in four years, a Karolinska Institute study published on Monday showed.A bit more in this brief regurgitated press release, I mean article, about the study:
The number of overweight or obese six-to-10-year-olds dropped from 22 to 16 percent in the 10 Stockholm schools that participated in the study by banning sweets and introducing healthier lunches, the Swedish research institute said in a statement.
A control group of schools that did not introduce specific food regulations saw the number of overweight or obese children rise from 18 to 21 percent.
The results of the project were to be presented on Monday in Budapest at an international conference on obesity.
So the number of fat kids decreased in the schools in the study. But you, the reader will think, aha, those kids must have slimmed down. But remember that the first paragraph told us that the number dropped after 4 years, considering a group of 6-10 year olds. Basically, this is an almost entirely different group of young people, but the impression is given that this is a matched pairs experiment. These kids don't necessarily have to be from the same families after four years.
The last sentence makes sense for parents who don't have the spines to be the ones deciding their kids' lunches instead of their own kids. For most people though, that sentence points out the futility of the regulation argument. Kids can certainly still get sweets, etc at home and elsewhere away from school, and at that age, it's entirely a function of parental controls.
As far as food that is provided by the school, it should absolutely be designed to be healthy, and good too. Kids who buy lunch at school should get something reasonably healthy, and there's not really a good argument for selling soft drinks in elementary schools. But if parents are going to decide what to give their kids, then why mess with that? I can see justification in saying no sodas for the young kids, but banning buns? One has to draw the line at some point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)