A Friend, who rents 3000 Acres to his Sons that farm maybe 2000 Acres more, buys a new Combine every year with running two Combines continuously-trading Each every other year. He tells me the current Price for a Combine is $250,000, with the Cost of the Header around $50k. The interesting element is the Trade-in value of the Combine: Implement Dealers subtracting $1200 per hour of Running time (I believe these Rigs can harvest 83 acres per hour). I should remind that the new Rigs require a different Header for Corn, another for Wheat, and a third for Soybeans. Tim Haab insists that U.S. Farm policy should only correct market failures and I could agree, but here We have market failure which is overlooked.
The main element of strife is the multiplicity of Farmers, facing an oligarchy of Implement manufacturers, Financial agents, and formula Dealerships. The multitude of Farmers confront a technologically controlled Market for their Needs; be it Equipment, Seed, Fertilizer, Transportation, or Finance. Farmers have for years called for more Fuel-efficient, smaller, less-Expensive equipment suited to their actual Needs. Check the Market for how closely the incorporated Suppliers have listened to their Demands. Another Farmer Demand is for more durable equipment, but modern Machine operation reminds of the Downtime for the Abrams tank (if you don’t know about this item, think you are lucky with a full Day in the field without Maintenance).
I would, like Tim, enjoy rewriting the 2007 Farm Bill. The difference between Us resides in my concentration on the protection of Farmers from the oligarchical Corporate structure. I would inject Tax Credits for Agricultural Co-Operative Associations which purchase Equipment for joint use by their Membership including all Financial Service Costs as well as Equipment and Labor Costs. Such Associations could utilize the large-scale equipment effectively. They could also provide a united front to reduce oligarchical Pricing from Implement manufacturers, and employ their own Service personnel to work with and on the Equipment. I would also penalize Implement, Fertilizer, and Seed companies, with Withdrawal of their Research Tax Credits, if they could not prove ecological improvement in their Product–less Fuel, fewer bio-hazards, or less Soil erosion. I should also inform Tim that the Program will likely present Consumers with cheaper Food Product. lgl
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Yah--And What He Said Too!
I was all set today to comment on Alan Blinder’s column, when I ran across this Post from Tyler Cowen. I have always advocated (like in the last year!) that Financial and Stock assets should get their own special Sales tax, with a regrettable yearly re-flash for the lengthy Holders of such Paper. It is a sound Program, where immediate acquisition costs 2% tax (the loved numeral of my life), and 2% per year afterwards. There stands a gem of genius in this formula: a normal Carry load of 2% would both be an effective rate of tax, and do much to bring nominal asset value in line with real asset value. The yearly repeat of the Tax, while still low, will constitute a legitimate tax on Profits (irregardless of the value of the assets, as the Tax is implicit in the Total value of the asset found in the Market on Tax Day), without major imposition at either Time of Purchase, or Time of Sale. The later will prove to remove the majority of the drag on growth from the Taxation, while curbing excessive Expense and Stock prices.
A Secondary effect will be to realign Executive Pay Packages, as a Provision will be introduced insisting on the immediate payment of the Tax upon Purchase, and an equal payment of all residual Tax upon Sale. Stock Options, and especially Stock Grants, will not seem as attractive where there must be obvious Front money provided by the Recipient upon receipt of the actual Stock. It might even be a significant detraction from these form of Wealth acquisition that Stockholders will recover their ability to control the levels of Pay granted to their own Employees.
This type of Tax could also save rapid increases in Commodity prices which Consumers must pay, as Marginal investment by Hedge funds and equity money must run up a good 2% of Market price of the equity, before such practice becomes Profitable. Sensible Long-Term Investment, on the other hand, gains a minimal tax on the demonstrable Profitability of the Investment. The value of this Tax in all ways depends upon the tax of the total value of the assets, though low. The Rippers and Day-Traders will find themselves in actual need of Operating capital, without ability to enjoin the Market itself to front it. lgl
A Secondary effect will be to realign Executive Pay Packages, as a Provision will be introduced insisting on the immediate payment of the Tax upon Purchase, and an equal payment of all residual Tax upon Sale. Stock Options, and especially Stock Grants, will not seem as attractive where there must be obvious Front money provided by the Recipient upon receipt of the actual Stock. It might even be a significant detraction from these form of Wealth acquisition that Stockholders will recover their ability to control the levels of Pay granted to their own Employees.
This type of Tax could also save rapid increases in Commodity prices which Consumers must pay, as Marginal investment by Hedge funds and equity money must run up a good 2% of Market price of the equity, before such practice becomes Profitable. Sensible Long-Term Investment, on the other hand, gains a minimal tax on the demonstrable Profitability of the Investment. The value of this Tax in all ways depends upon the tax of the total value of the assets, though low. The Rippers and Day-Traders will find themselves in actual need of Operating capital, without ability to enjoin the Market itself to front it. lgl
Sunday, July 29, 2007
No. 829, Haw Haw!
"Stand and deliver!" shouted the highwayman."Your money or your life!" Whereupon one passenger in the coach handed his travelling companion five gold pieces. "What's this?" asked the other.The first explained, "It's the five gold pieces I borrowed from you yesterday."
Some will say that this Joke is so old, Christ heard it as the Resurrection. I thought, probably a very poor one at that, to explore the Economics behind the Joke; it does contain a smidgen of truth within it. The Individual returning the money had the least Opportunity Utility for the employment of the Coins, while the Recipient had the longer possession of the money; i.e., the greater Opportunity to draw a Profit from control of the financial reserves. The Recipient actually held Gold in question in a state without claim, having already earned the value of the Coinage; so that the validity of its Theft would not be questioned by Recovery authorities. The Individual paying back the loan not only developed a high Opportunity Profit–having the immediate ability to terminate Debt without Cost–but achieved this Repayment schedule at minimal effort and Risk.
The Reader will now immediately assume I am also attempting a poor Joke. Some I must admit! There are several elements to be explored, which offers some intelligence about the transaction. The Owner/Recipient of the Coinage was the original Owner of Record of the Gold, purportedly having earned the Value entailed, and who had already assumed a Risk position of Lender, with the expectation of restored Ownership sometime in the future with Repayment of the loan–possibly with Interest. His assumption of the Risk position already established his willingness to gamble with the Money; the potentiality of Theft only heightening the Risk. He had assumed a contractual obligation of Risk-Taker, even though it was undefined.
The Borrower had previously established a diminished capacity to earn the amount in question, through the simple practice of requesting the loan; he had not earned the money, but wanted the Opportunity utility of expenditure of the funds in a manner which would allow Repayment of the debt. Normal Debt theory would imply loss of the Coinage through Theft would eliminate the Borrower’s ability to repay the Debt; nullifying the Conditions of the original Contract. The Lender seemingly did not stipulate the Terms under which the Debt was to be returned with Security precautions, as the Borrower extended the repayment at opportune time. Responsibility, therefore, fell in total measure on the Lender; who had already extended coverage of the Risk. I personally always like to repay my debts in the midst of a Poker game, where there exists a Secondary opportunity to Profit in a manner which is legal. lgl
Some will say that this Joke is so old, Christ heard it as the Resurrection. I thought, probably a very poor one at that, to explore the Economics behind the Joke; it does contain a smidgen of truth within it. The Individual returning the money had the least Opportunity Utility for the employment of the Coins, while the Recipient had the longer possession of the money; i.e., the greater Opportunity to draw a Profit from control of the financial reserves. The Recipient actually held Gold in question in a state without claim, having already earned the value of the Coinage; so that the validity of its Theft would not be questioned by Recovery authorities. The Individual paying back the loan not only developed a high Opportunity Profit–having the immediate ability to terminate Debt without Cost–but achieved this Repayment schedule at minimal effort and Risk.
The Reader will now immediately assume I am also attempting a poor Joke. Some I must admit! There are several elements to be explored, which offers some intelligence about the transaction. The Owner/Recipient of the Coinage was the original Owner of Record of the Gold, purportedly having earned the Value entailed, and who had already assumed a Risk position of Lender, with the expectation of restored Ownership sometime in the future with Repayment of the loan–possibly with Interest. His assumption of the Risk position already established his willingness to gamble with the Money; the potentiality of Theft only heightening the Risk. He had assumed a contractual obligation of Risk-Taker, even though it was undefined.
The Borrower had previously established a diminished capacity to earn the amount in question, through the simple practice of requesting the loan; he had not earned the money, but wanted the Opportunity utility of expenditure of the funds in a manner which would allow Repayment of the debt. Normal Debt theory would imply loss of the Coinage through Theft would eliminate the Borrower’s ability to repay the Debt; nullifying the Conditions of the original Contract. The Lender seemingly did not stipulate the Terms under which the Debt was to be returned with Security precautions, as the Borrower extended the repayment at opportune time. Responsibility, therefore, fell in total measure on the Lender; who had already extended coverage of the Risk. I personally always like to repay my debts in the midst of a Poker game, where there exists a Secondary opportunity to Profit in a manner which is legal. lgl
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Trade Policy Considerations
Mark Thoma presented this NYTimes Opinion in his daily Reading list. It is something which should be read because it deals with a relevant issue in an intelligent manner. What worries me is that it presents the standard conflicted solutions; Ones which will not significantly alter the current state of affairs. It includes the first real Republican admission of the stagnation of American Wages, even though Productivity has expanded greatly. The Curatives offered, though, remain standard pap, unsuited for effective Change. I will state here for the Record that I did not want to espouse the following, as the classification will probably turn All against me.
I will first attack the Peterson Institute’s claim that Trade since WWII has added $1 trillion to the American economy, and is likely to add another $500 billion. My quizzical response is ‘in relationship to what Economy?’ The Answer will be in relation to the American economy of 1945. Here is the rub: It accepts as a Given that the American Performers in 1945 were bound to lose their Market share in the current Economy. It assumes that those Participants would not have expanded their Productive capacity to maintain Market share. It does not assess the inherent added Costs of Advertising, Marketing, and Distribution in a multiplex Product provision Market. It accepts as conclusive that American labor would have lost their Negotiation position in the current Economy anyway; i.e., that foreign Products would have flowed in to replace restriction of American Production. It contends that the current American Export levels would have disappeared entirely, if the American Import Trade had not grown. It believes that the outflow of American Capital and Technology would have occurred without restriction anyway. The basic thesis of the Peterson Growth theory is that the American economy would not have altered at all, in the face of an expanding Market and Production base, and the innovation of the American economy would not have come about without foreign intervention.
Any American economic response to the above-mentioned forces would have detracted from the Trillion Dollar gain from Trade. Proponents of Trade always mention Displaced Workers, but never put a numeral Cost to their forced extrusion from Production, or put a Cost reduction into their evaluation of Trade gain from this extraction. I would like to see an economic study which accounted the total lost Production from Trade since 1945. I would also like to witness a economic Study on the effectiveness of Advertising in a Product Market with an excess of ten Product variations; are Marketing efforts more costly and less effective? There is an economic Study needed to evaluate the added Cost of Capital equipment duplication in overall Product Price structure. Readers get some idea of the real issues involved, and Protests of Free Traders aside, an understanding of the arena where any Solutions must operate. lgl
I will first attack the Peterson Institute’s claim that Trade since WWII has added $1 trillion to the American economy, and is likely to add another $500 billion. My quizzical response is ‘in relationship to what Economy?’ The Answer will be in relation to the American economy of 1945. Here is the rub: It accepts as a Given that the American Performers in 1945 were bound to lose their Market share in the current Economy. It assumes that those Participants would not have expanded their Productive capacity to maintain Market share. It does not assess the inherent added Costs of Advertising, Marketing, and Distribution in a multiplex Product provision Market. It accepts as conclusive that American labor would have lost their Negotiation position in the current Economy anyway; i.e., that foreign Products would have flowed in to replace restriction of American Production. It contends that the current American Export levels would have disappeared entirely, if the American Import Trade had not grown. It believes that the outflow of American Capital and Technology would have occurred without restriction anyway. The basic thesis of the Peterson Growth theory is that the American economy would not have altered at all, in the face of an expanding Market and Production base, and the innovation of the American economy would not have come about without foreign intervention.
Any American economic response to the above-mentioned forces would have detracted from the Trillion Dollar gain from Trade. Proponents of Trade always mention Displaced Workers, but never put a numeral Cost to their forced extrusion from Production, or put a Cost reduction into their evaluation of Trade gain from this extraction. I would like to see an economic study which accounted the total lost Production from Trade since 1945. I would also like to witness a economic Study on the effectiveness of Advertising in a Product Market with an excess of ten Product variations; are Marketing efforts more costly and less effective? There is an economic Study needed to evaluate the added Cost of Capital equipment duplication in overall Product Price structure. Readers get some idea of the real issues involved, and Protests of Free Traders aside, an understanding of the arena where any Solutions must operate. lgl
Friday, July 27, 2007
A Pesky Idea
The Tax Foundation posted a Piece which again started my Mind wandering in strange places. William Randolph suggested in a Working Paper for the CBO that 70% of the burden of Corporate taxes fell on Workers, and 30% fell on Stockholders. The Tax Foundation found that a Cut in Corporate Taxes would benefit low-Income Households more than would a Cut in Income Taxes. I believe innately in the construct of their analysis, but doubt the economic value of their Solution. This led me to consider a Counter-Solution to the exhibit fact.
My flexible Reasoning said the Solution lay in Transparency. It is quite easy to require with little Accounting effort that Corporations visually list the Dollar Cost going to Corporate taxes of the Cost of their Products, reduction of Wage levels to Employees, and reduction of Dividends to Stockholders to pay for Corporate taxes. Consumers suddenly find the Government Cost of their acquisition of Consumer Products, Employees suddenly understand how much the damned Government costs them personally, and Stockholders can curse the Government.
A magnificent Plan emerges with this simple devise: Consumers attain the right to Vote through the allocation of their Consumption Dollars, Employees can protest an overgenerous Tax assessment on themselves with a Wage negotiation instrument, and Stockholders can curse the Government as they potentially pay their correct Impost as defined by the original Intent of the Corporate Tax. Understand that this form of Taxation desires a Charge upon successful (and only successful) achievement of Business endeavor. It is an outrageous, but not unethical, demand that the Successful in Society pay an additional Impost simply because they enjoy the amenities of a Culture. lgl
My flexible Reasoning said the Solution lay in Transparency. It is quite easy to require with little Accounting effort that Corporations visually list the Dollar Cost going to Corporate taxes of the Cost of their Products, reduction of Wage levels to Employees, and reduction of Dividends to Stockholders to pay for Corporate taxes. Consumers suddenly find the Government Cost of their acquisition of Consumer Products, Employees suddenly understand how much the damned Government costs them personally, and Stockholders can curse the Government.
A magnificent Plan emerges with this simple devise: Consumers attain the right to Vote through the allocation of their Consumption Dollars, Employees can protest an overgenerous Tax assessment on themselves with a Wage negotiation instrument, and Stockholders can curse the Government as they potentially pay their correct Impost as defined by the original Intent of the Corporate Tax. Understand that this form of Taxation desires a Charge upon successful (and only successful) achievement of Business endeavor. It is an outrageous, but not unethical, demand that the Successful in Society pay an additional Impost simply because they enjoy the amenities of a Culture. lgl
Brooks' Crystal Ball
Greg Mankiw thoughtfully presented Us with a major Quotation from David Brooks’ column. The Devil is making me to do it, but I feel I must comment on Brooks on a Point by Point basis. David's first Point is that real average wages rose by 2% in 2006; indeed it did, but what does this say about the disappearance of medium-Wage jobs with the decline of Labor Participation rates? The bottom fifth of Income Earners did indeed find their earnings increasing by 80% between 1991 and 2005; might he have forgot what this increase level was in 2001? He mentioned about a 20% increase in the three middle segments; yet he does not mention the increase for these groups for the interval of 1991-2001, or the potential decrease for the interval 2001-2005. He contends that Income volatility is probably not trending upward; still he fails to detail the direction of that Income volatility–are Incomes going up or going down?
Brooks makes the contention that Education finds greater Compensation these Days, and that a major element of increasing inequality is performance pay. The first can be easily subtracted by finding the number of Speciality Graduates finding Employment in their chosen field, a rising curve would justify Brooks’ thesis, a dropping curve would nullify the claim. The impact of performance pay can be examined by creating a graph of Percentage increase of Wages per year of Seniority in position for 1980 and 2005. The Year 1980 is used because it can be seen as the last year before Reagan conservatism, and 2005 can be seen as the Year of prime Bush conservatism. I have not done such a Study, but imagine there was a much greater spread of performance pay across a wider segment of more equally-paid labor in 1980.
Brooks’ Sixth contention states that higher Income Employees work more hours and longer. I might state that Those engaged in hard physical labor require greater length Rest periods. I could a number of other things, but it might suffice to say I drank Coffee with a Friend for Two hours, when he was hard at Work because he was "On Call". I once had association with a major national Corporation, but quit because of the lengthy Conferences; which had a tendency to resemble Hour-long Coffee breaks conducted sometimes four times a Day.
I am getting tired of Trivial Pursuit, so I will simply state I have known a number of major CEOs, both socially and in Operating mode, and cannot see the great talent unmatched by literally thousands of wannabees. I cannot see the great boost to American Household Income coming from Globalization, especially if We had the Labor Participation rates consistent with the Clinton administration’s later years. Finally, Brooks claims that the Deficit is down to 1.5% of GDP, a historic low. I simply wonder what Percentage of GDP the Deficit would represent, if the Stock and Financial Markets were subtracted; might it not be around 12% of GDP? A reasonably strong Recession could wipe out half of the nominal assets of these Markets. lgl
Brooks makes the contention that Education finds greater Compensation these Days, and that a major element of increasing inequality is performance pay. The first can be easily subtracted by finding the number of Speciality Graduates finding Employment in their chosen field, a rising curve would justify Brooks’ thesis, a dropping curve would nullify the claim. The impact of performance pay can be examined by creating a graph of Percentage increase of Wages per year of Seniority in position for 1980 and 2005. The Year 1980 is used because it can be seen as the last year before Reagan conservatism, and 2005 can be seen as the Year of prime Bush conservatism. I have not done such a Study, but imagine there was a much greater spread of performance pay across a wider segment of more equally-paid labor in 1980.
Brooks’ Sixth contention states that higher Income Employees work more hours and longer. I might state that Those engaged in hard physical labor require greater length Rest periods. I could a number of other things, but it might suffice to say I drank Coffee with a Friend for Two hours, when he was hard at Work because he was "On Call". I once had association with a major national Corporation, but quit because of the lengthy Conferences; which had a tendency to resemble Hour-long Coffee breaks conducted sometimes four times a Day.
I am getting tired of Trivial Pursuit, so I will simply state I have known a number of major CEOs, both socially and in Operating mode, and cannot see the great talent unmatched by literally thousands of wannabees. I cannot see the great boost to American Household Income coming from Globalization, especially if We had the Labor Participation rates consistent with the Clinton administration’s later years. Finally, Brooks claims that the Deficit is down to 1.5% of GDP, a historic low. I simply wonder what Percentage of GDP the Deficit would represent, if the Stock and Financial Markets were subtracted; might it not be around 12% of GDP? A reasonably strong Recession could wipe out half of the nominal assets of these Markets. lgl
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Shakey Stock Market
This AP article establishes the impact of Hedge Fund speculation on the Oil Pricing system. Light, Sweet Crude is up $1.03 per barrel, though Refining capacity has increased, and Crude Oil importation has remained relatively Constant. The 1.4 million barrel Crude Oil decline at Cushing means relatively nothing; with no Change in importation levels, replacement Crude is already in the Delivery pipeline to Cushing. Where is the reduction coming from? Higher production of Gasoline (up 800,000 barrels) and Distillates refining on Schedule (1.5 million barrels rather than the expected 730,000 barrels). Yet Heating Oil, Gasoline, and Natural Gas futures are all up; it seems Consumers are expected to pay for peak Refining performance.
The Dow Jones Industrials dropped 1.77% in morning trading, S&P 500 lost 2.09%, and the Nasdaq Composite Index went down 1.88%. The Russell 2000 Index lost 2.61%. What is behind this major loss of Stockholder Confidence? Pundits are blaming the dropping Housing Market, and the dropping Durable Goods production when excluding Big-Ticket transportation sales. This Answer is too simple.
The Riddle is solved by the mixed Profits Reports being handed out. The Companies which are showing Profits are exactly Those who have begun to modify their Executive Compensation packages. Those who have not started to modify these Packages are not showing Profit ranges now at current Stock levels, and are intent on saturating the Market with new Stock Grants and Options. The real Problem with this Picture is that Those companies showing a relative sane Profits scene plan aggressive Acquisition growth programs; by virtue of Stock awards. Future Profits seem threatened by Corporate leadership’s greed and Power hunger. lgl
The Dow Jones Industrials dropped 1.77% in morning trading, S&P 500 lost 2.09%, and the Nasdaq Composite Index went down 1.88%. The Russell 2000 Index lost 2.61%. What is behind this major loss of Stockholder Confidence? Pundits are blaming the dropping Housing Market, and the dropping Durable Goods production when excluding Big-Ticket transportation sales. This Answer is too simple.
The Riddle is solved by the mixed Profits Reports being handed out. The Companies which are showing Profits are exactly Those who have begun to modify their Executive Compensation packages. Those who have not started to modify these Packages are not showing Profit ranges now at current Stock levels, and are intent on saturating the Market with new Stock Grants and Options. The real Problem with this Picture is that Those companies showing a relative sane Profits scene plan aggressive Acquisition growth programs; by virtue of Stock awards. Future Profits seem threatened by Corporate leadership’s greed and Power hunger. lgl
Citations
Edward Lopez discusses the new Policy for Submissions at Economic Inquiry under the editorship R. Preston McAfee; or at least, lets McAfee announce himself. The real germ of his presentation comes in this Quote:
Journal time to publication lags have become embarrassing. Many authors have 5 year submission-to-print stories. More insidious, in my view, is the gradual morphing of the referees from evaluators to anonymous co-authors. Referees request increasingly extensive rev! isions. Usually these represent improvements, but the process takes a lot of time and effort, and the end result is often worse owing to its committee-design. Authors, knowing referees will make them rewrite the paper, are sometimes sloppy with the submission. This feedback loop - submitting a sloppy paper since referees will require rewriting combined with a need to fix all the sloppiness - has led to our current misery. Moreover, the expectation that referees will rewrite papers, combined with sloppy submissions, makes refereeing extraordinarily unpleasant. We - the efficiency-obsessed academic discipline - have the least efficient publication process.
Dani Rodrik cites a Paper by Glenn Ellison expressing the decreasing Submissions to academic Journals, Rodrik himself being an editor of The Review of Economics and Statistics. It is fair indication that the Journal reviewing process has become too difficult, defeating the desires of Authors with limited Time. It is made even worse by the fact that Journal referees co-opt in the limited Time allowance. This is one real Side of the Problem.
The other Side of the Problem lay in the fact that Journals have a decreased Readership, due to the relevance that almost any Kind of data is more accessible online. The element of trouble existent with the online access to Information is the lack of Vetting of the information. Citation of Online source suffers from this lack, but Journals are being reduced to the sole preoccupation of Research for documentation of Papers. The McAfee Proposition brings a potential hazard to this usage, as the search for Journal Fill may become an element of the Vetting process. Wikipedia and other such Websites attempt to introduce some form of Vetting process; the major detriment to effective use of these Sites being the refusal of Academia to endorse material there.
My idea is for Journals to affiliate with Wikipedia, and other such Sites, and design a Box and Icon format to encase any Information that a respectable academic Journal has responsibly vetted. This would grant these Sites potential for being cited in academic Papers. This remains a far distance from what I had planned to write in this Post, but I will simply author another Post Today, if I have the Time; this is the functional utility of the Online process. lgl
Journal time to publication lags have become embarrassing. Many authors have 5 year submission-to-print stories. More insidious, in my view, is the gradual morphing of the referees from evaluators to anonymous co-authors. Referees request increasingly extensive rev! isions. Usually these represent improvements, but the process takes a lot of time and effort, and the end result is often worse owing to its committee-design. Authors, knowing referees will make them rewrite the paper, are sometimes sloppy with the submission. This feedback loop - submitting a sloppy paper since referees will require rewriting combined with a need to fix all the sloppiness - has led to our current misery. Moreover, the expectation that referees will rewrite papers, combined with sloppy submissions, makes refereeing extraordinarily unpleasant. We - the efficiency-obsessed academic discipline - have the least efficient publication process.
Dani Rodrik cites a Paper by Glenn Ellison expressing the decreasing Submissions to academic Journals, Rodrik himself being an editor of The Review of Economics and Statistics. It is fair indication that the Journal reviewing process has become too difficult, defeating the desires of Authors with limited Time. It is made even worse by the fact that Journal referees co-opt in the limited Time allowance. This is one real Side of the Problem.
The other Side of the Problem lay in the fact that Journals have a decreased Readership, due to the relevance that almost any Kind of data is more accessible online. The element of trouble existent with the online access to Information is the lack of Vetting of the information. Citation of Online source suffers from this lack, but Journals are being reduced to the sole preoccupation of Research for documentation of Papers. The McAfee Proposition brings a potential hazard to this usage, as the search for Journal Fill may become an element of the Vetting process. Wikipedia and other such Websites attempt to introduce some form of Vetting process; the major detriment to effective use of these Sites being the refusal of Academia to endorse material there.
My idea is for Journals to affiliate with Wikipedia, and other such Sites, and design a Box and Icon format to encase any Information that a respectable academic Journal has responsibly vetted. This would grant these Sites potential for being cited in academic Papers. This remains a far distance from what I had planned to write in this Post, but I will simply author another Post Today, if I have the Time; this is the functional utility of the Online process. lgl
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Anger at Household Chores
Dani Rodrik bemoans the fact that Teaching requires preparation, especially when dealing with Those who have almost as much Education as yourself; it makes One stretch and apply thyself. Some time ago, I was asked what Graduate course I could be enticed to teach by a Department Head; who wanted me for a Stringer fill-in. I thought about it for a while without Research, and replied that I would like to try a Course on the history of the World War economies. The idea fell through, and thankfully so, as I researched the materials available at the time; and decided I did not want to write a Textbook on the Subject. Today I might enjoy teaching the Economics of American Ranching, but then again; I would not want to write a Textbook on the Subject. People mistake the degree of Ease in the practice of Teaching
Tyler Cowen tells Us that Unions are Outsourcing their Picket lines; it seems it is not just Teachers who tire of the responsibilities of their profession. Carpenters, of course, are not granted cheap labor Teaching Assistants to do the mundane collation efforts. It might be my own downfall that I do not possess an underpaid Researcher to get me a Reading list for my off-target Background asides. Young Economists will tell One it is cheaper to hire Someone to mow your lawn, rather than take the time off from Work to do it yourself. Economists, like the Carpenters who do not admit they are employed on another Job site, forget to mention the supplemental Income they receive from Articles, Consultations, and other Secondary employment. Hint: Teaching Assistants often take the summer off as well (to take Internships).
Daniel K. Benjamin turns his angst at routine labor Intellectual, but does so in a realistic Economic presentation. I must give note to Craig Newmark for the link. Benjamin’s main contention is that Private industry best allocates the recycling function, because it will be determined by the Profits inherent in the Recycling. Compelled Recycling, going back to those young Economists, truly does misdirect some high-Wage labor into rote recycling effort; the individuality of the Household, and the Cost of purchase of replacement labor, will insist on a waste wastage of skilled Labor. lgl
Tyler Cowen tells Us that Unions are Outsourcing their Picket lines; it seems it is not just Teachers who tire of the responsibilities of their profession. Carpenters, of course, are not granted cheap labor Teaching Assistants to do the mundane collation efforts. It might be my own downfall that I do not possess an underpaid Researcher to get me a Reading list for my off-target Background asides. Young Economists will tell One it is cheaper to hire Someone to mow your lawn, rather than take the time off from Work to do it yourself. Economists, like the Carpenters who do not admit they are employed on another Job site, forget to mention the supplemental Income they receive from Articles, Consultations, and other Secondary employment. Hint: Teaching Assistants often take the summer off as well (to take Internships).
Daniel K. Benjamin turns his angst at routine labor Intellectual, but does so in a realistic Economic presentation. I must give note to Craig Newmark for the link. Benjamin’s main contention is that Private industry best allocates the recycling function, because it will be determined by the Profits inherent in the Recycling. Compelled Recycling, going back to those young Economists, truly does misdirect some high-Wage labor into rote recycling effort; the individuality of the Household, and the Cost of purchase of replacement labor, will insist on a waste wastage of skilled Labor. lgl
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Fixed Fee Health Care
Wisconsin Senate tries a Big Brother approach to Health Care, and the WSJ issues a sharp Critique of the issued legislation. No one seems actually serious about the passage of the legislation, it assumed to be readily defeated in its present form. The Intent of the Sponsors being only the start of a political debate for Campaign season, Opponents intent only on establishing their Health Care positions early. This is practically issuing a Challenge to Me, as I can say something stupid about almost anything. So I will present my version of an effective Health Care law.
I will first give it a fancy title: the Fixed Fee Health Care law. The basic underpinning of this Act or Law asserts Government activity should not underwrite any Occupation or industry. Any Government payment system is obviously a Welfare system for the Employees of the industry. The first thing to be categorically stated under such circumstance is that Wage rates should be set by the Payer, not the Payee. Here goes with my Fixed Fee Health Care:
1) Doctors, Dentists, Clinics, and Hospitals are limited to a set Fee per Visit or Day.
2) Doctors’ Fee will equal a per-Patient level where 12-14 Patients per Day, or 65 Patients per Week, will gain them a yearly Income equivalent to the Average for a tenured University Ph.D Professor ( utilized solely because of relative equivalence of Academic study).
3) All Government payment for Medical equipment, Drugs, or supplies will be made on the basis of Production Cost plus 12%, largesse of Profits will be totally dependent upon level of provision of effective care to Patients.
4) Here is where I stick in the knife: No American Citizen (this term is literal, with application to the Immigrant problem in this Country) can be charged a higher Price for any medical treatment, Drug, or medical equipment above the Prices paid by the Government Health Care system.
5) Cost of the Fixed Fee Health Care system will be paid by a Carbon Tax adjusted from the Charge of $1 per gallon Carbon tax on diesel fuel emissions; all Carbon taxes based on a Dollar Cost per constant level of Carbon emission.
My Package may seem as fanciful as the Wisconsin Senate Daydreaming, but it at least has a capability of being implemented. It insists on actual effort output by Health Care personnel, the Health Care sector can be brought inline with other professional services by carefully crafted Clinic and Hospital charges per Patient, and presents a method of Payment for Health Care. Business Profits will be maintained, but Government involvement will insist on limitation of those Profit levels. It is somewhat rationale and sensible, I amaze myself sometimes, but needs to be passed into law with relatively little revision; else We are back where We started. lgl
I will first give it a fancy title: the Fixed Fee Health Care law. The basic underpinning of this Act or Law asserts Government activity should not underwrite any Occupation or industry. Any Government payment system is obviously a Welfare system for the Employees of the industry. The first thing to be categorically stated under such circumstance is that Wage rates should be set by the Payer, not the Payee. Here goes with my Fixed Fee Health Care:
1) Doctors, Dentists, Clinics, and Hospitals are limited to a set Fee per Visit or Day.
2) Doctors’ Fee will equal a per-Patient level where 12-14 Patients per Day, or 65 Patients per Week, will gain them a yearly Income equivalent to the Average for a tenured University Ph.D Professor ( utilized solely because of relative equivalence of Academic study).
3) All Government payment for Medical equipment, Drugs, or supplies will be made on the basis of Production Cost plus 12%, largesse of Profits will be totally dependent upon level of provision of effective care to Patients.
4) Here is where I stick in the knife: No American Citizen (this term is literal, with application to the Immigrant problem in this Country) can be charged a higher Price for any medical treatment, Drug, or medical equipment above the Prices paid by the Government Health Care system.
5) Cost of the Fixed Fee Health Care system will be paid by a Carbon Tax adjusted from the Charge of $1 per gallon Carbon tax on diesel fuel emissions; all Carbon taxes based on a Dollar Cost per constant level of Carbon emission.
My Package may seem as fanciful as the Wisconsin Senate Daydreaming, but it at least has a capability of being implemented. It insists on actual effort output by Health Care personnel, the Health Care sector can be brought inline with other professional services by carefully crafted Clinic and Hospital charges per Patient, and presents a method of Payment for Health Care. Business Profits will be maintained, but Government involvement will insist on limitation of those Profit levels. It is somewhat rationale and sensible, I amaze myself sometimes, but needs to be passed into law with relatively little revision; else We are back where We started. lgl
Monday, July 23, 2007
The Carbon Problem
Tim Haab believes that higher Energy prices are beginning to bring Change. Multiple plans are currently being studied to devise methods to simply reduce the Costs of Commuting. There could be more radical Change, though, to greater benefit for All. I believe in a Pigou form of taxation coupled with Incentive: A law charging every Business enterprise a certain Daily price for each Parking space they provide for both Customers and Employees, plus cheap Interest Government loans for establishment of a Company Busing Service. Employees will be told to take the Company Bus, as Parking is unavailable; automatically making the Bus service sustainable and Profitable in Ticket sales. You will see Walmart advertising Pickup, Shopping, and Home Delivery service for about 3% of Checkout totals to a maximum. Smaller Venders will enter into Cooperative Bus service, when Cities must charge by law equivalent Space property tax rates for Parking by venue of Parking Permits or Meters. Do Car Owners imagine We are in a Stalinist era?
I recently received a Comment on one of my Posts, directing me to a site believing that what is necessary is a revenue-neutral Carbon tax. I would first like to state that it is impossible to create a revenue-neutral Carbon tax; the use of Carbon-burning fuels is too extensive to obtain any degree of neutrality, no matter how you try to shade it, it will be a Tax imposition which will cost Taxpayers. I would favor directed tax payment to achieve stabilization of Our Welfare system, a genuine benefit, rather a Sleight-of-Hand treatment which will allow Business to slide their Expenses off on Consumers, while giving incentive to Politicians to increase their Spending. The only sure Protection is to devote the tax revenues to some Program where Beneficiaries will be up in Arms if Politicians think to touch it.
The more complex a Carbon tax system becomes, the greater the long-term chicanery which will be devised to divert it’s purpose. Cap-n-Trade fails any Test for real achievement, as the goal of Business will be to Profit by it; causing it to be too expensive for Consumers. I could outline how Cap-n-Trade practice could conceivably increase Carbon fuel usage, due to the liberal issuance of Permits; Everyone and their Dog will want them as they can be Sold. Business claims of Need will be universally excessive, so as to get a probable double of their actual Needs; excessive Carbon license given free rein by purchase of cheap Carbon permits on the open market. I think sometimes that the modern world has lost Sight of Community Interest. lgl
I recently received a Comment on one of my Posts, directing me to a site believing that what is necessary is a revenue-neutral Carbon tax. I would first like to state that it is impossible to create a revenue-neutral Carbon tax; the use of Carbon-burning fuels is too extensive to obtain any degree of neutrality, no matter how you try to shade it, it will be a Tax imposition which will cost Taxpayers. I would favor directed tax payment to achieve stabilization of Our Welfare system, a genuine benefit, rather a Sleight-of-Hand treatment which will allow Business to slide their Expenses off on Consumers, while giving incentive to Politicians to increase their Spending. The only sure Protection is to devote the tax revenues to some Program where Beneficiaries will be up in Arms if Politicians think to touch it.
The more complex a Carbon tax system becomes, the greater the long-term chicanery which will be devised to divert it’s purpose. Cap-n-Trade fails any Test for real achievement, as the goal of Business will be to Profit by it; causing it to be too expensive for Consumers. I could outline how Cap-n-Trade practice could conceivably increase Carbon fuel usage, due to the liberal issuance of Permits; Everyone and their Dog will want them as they can be Sold. Business claims of Need will be universally excessive, so as to get a probable double of their actual Needs; excessive Carbon license given free rein by purchase of cheap Carbon permits on the open market. I think sometimes that the modern world has lost Sight of Community Interest. lgl
My Position on Trade
I rarely agree totally with Greg Mankiw, as he is slightly too rigidly Conservative for me, but not so with this Post. I expect, though, that We reached the same conclusions from different directions; he being very much a Free Trader, while I am very much the Protectionist. Greg believes the Worker who loses his Job from Globalization should have no more protection than they who lose their Jobs from other considerations. Of course, I don’t think these Workers should lose their Jobs in the first place, whether it is due to Globalization or not.
The real dissident element for me in Globalization lay in the deliberate export of American Capital and Expertise, solely for establishment of foreign production to substitute for American labor; simply because foreign labor can be attained at cheaper Price. It becomes even more of a derogatory regime when comparison of the levels of Losses against the realizable Gains in Profitability of foreign production over American production. I believe We lose about $7 bn of American economic performance for every $1 bn of Profitable Gain in using foreign labor. The root of this distortion resides in the absence of an intelligent American Tariff structure. I can truly advise that it is time for a change in Trade policy.
Popular sentiment may recognize the Problem, but as usual, the Popular reaction operates in the wrong manner; calling for higher Corporate and Business taxes, and Caps on Executive salaries. I believe People have a natural aversion to Economic models, and so persist in misinterpretation of them. Tariffs are not an enemy to Households: I estimate that a intelligent Tariff system would increase Household Expenditures an average 6%, but increase Household Income about 17%; this effect gained with a reduction in Oil prices, and removal of about 75% of the Inflationary pressure in the Economy if the Government can reach a balanced Budget. An intelligent Tariff system would quadruple the likelihood of balancing the Budget, through increased Employment Income, higher domestic Capital Profits, and switch to Materials importation. lgl
The real dissident element for me in Globalization lay in the deliberate export of American Capital and Expertise, solely for establishment of foreign production to substitute for American labor; simply because foreign labor can be attained at cheaper Price. It becomes even more of a derogatory regime when comparison of the levels of Losses against the realizable Gains in Profitability of foreign production over American production. I believe We lose about $7 bn of American economic performance for every $1 bn of Profitable Gain in using foreign labor. The root of this distortion resides in the absence of an intelligent American Tariff structure. I can truly advise that it is time for a change in Trade policy.
Popular sentiment may recognize the Problem, but as usual, the Popular reaction operates in the wrong manner; calling for higher Corporate and Business taxes, and Caps on Executive salaries. I believe People have a natural aversion to Economic models, and so persist in misinterpretation of them. Tariffs are not an enemy to Households: I estimate that a intelligent Tariff system would increase Household Expenditures an average 6%, but increase Household Income about 17%; this effect gained with a reduction in Oil prices, and removal of about 75% of the Inflationary pressure in the Economy if the Government can reach a balanced Budget. An intelligent Tariff system would quadruple the likelihood of balancing the Budget, through increased Employment Income, higher domestic Capital Profits, and switch to Materials importation. lgl
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Spell-Casting
This Petraeus article explains exactly what is wrong with Our current posture in Iraq. Our concentration centers on the creation of elite Iraqi military and Police Forces, only accomplishable with great length of Training and high quality of Recruit. Iraq doesn’t have the time to train the Recruits, who do not exhibit the quality necessary; a real factor when talented Personnel are specifically targeted by the Insurgents. The Raid on Najaf clarifies the real Problem: Insurgents can simply import the Weaponry, and recruit religious fanatics–no matter the level of their military skills; they only have to Shoot or Blow Up the surrounding countryside. Foreign Fighters alone currently exceed the Force levels being trained by Americans. The Incentive for Foreign Fighters and native Insurgent recruits comes from the Presence on Iraqi soil of the American military. Occupations never succeed if Insurgents possess access to Weaponry at cheap price–the hidden Reality no one explains. Insurgents need only a Goal, and the Weapon to advance that Goal.
Eric Falkenstein feels the same way about Harry Potter, as I do about Iraq and Afghanistan. Both lack theme and plot, Each nothing more than attempt to achieve without Violence. The casting of Magic Spells might help Harry, but it is unlikely to aid GW or his Crew. There is little Effect calling for Peace, when young kids are equipped with assault rifles and bombs. Ask the average Iraqi kid whether he would rather have a Magic Wand or a modern assault rifle? Do not feel too bad; the old Magic of having a religious leader cast a Spell of Peace is not very effective anymore either. Don’t you wish this were a Movie; Producers always insisting on a happy Ending?
David Smith presents a good Post on the economy of Britain, but his critique of the British economy has equal impact on Iraq and Afghanistan–which is the lack of Apprenticeships for the Young. Real Assistance to especially Iraq is not the fancy construction of infrastructure by Contractors from the Skilled World, but the development of a Community College style Apprentice system, where Students are given not only a practical education; they will be given some degree of Safety and adequate Diet. Youth is never distracted from violent Ends except for one thing: the chance for personal advancement. Here lies the only venue for bringing Peace to Iraq and Afghanistan. lgl
Eric Falkenstein feels the same way about Harry Potter, as I do about Iraq and Afghanistan. Both lack theme and plot, Each nothing more than attempt to achieve without Violence. The casting of Magic Spells might help Harry, but it is unlikely to aid GW or his Crew. There is little Effect calling for Peace, when young kids are equipped with assault rifles and bombs. Ask the average Iraqi kid whether he would rather have a Magic Wand or a modern assault rifle? Do not feel too bad; the old Magic of having a religious leader cast a Spell of Peace is not very effective anymore either. Don’t you wish this were a Movie; Producers always insisting on a happy Ending?
David Smith presents a good Post on the economy of Britain, but his critique of the British economy has equal impact on Iraq and Afghanistan–which is the lack of Apprenticeships for the Young. Real Assistance to especially Iraq is not the fancy construction of infrastructure by Contractors from the Skilled World, but the development of a Community College style Apprentice system, where Students are given not only a practical education; they will be given some degree of Safety and adequate Diet. Youth is never distracted from violent Ends except for one thing: the chance for personal advancement. Here lies the only venue for bringing Peace to Iraq and Afghanistan. lgl
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Carbon Policy
The Demand for Gasoline is up, but the threat is gone; a threat many Economists realize did not actually appear. It is not for lack of trying by the Oil-Speculating Hedge Funds, who tried to create Spikes in the Market. The psycho-terrorism of "No Gas" played poorly in the Heartland; the Day when Nebr. led the Nation in Gas Price, an elderly friend still drove 60 miles to a favorite restaurant–as he had not been there for a while. Consumers seem to negate Gas fears with the proper allocation of Household budget; the Market primed Consumers to expect Gas would rise to $4/gallon. Consumers planned for it, Gas rose and dropped in Price, and Soccer Moms grabbed the extra Mad Money.
The Gas situation highlights that Markets are set far more by Expectations, than by the realities of Supply and Demand. Once the fear of high Cost is lost, so is the Propellent for high Price. Even more relevant is the fact that Consumers become jaded, so that future attempts at Scare Pricing have much less effect. This Process is not simply emotional; Household are forced to think through a budget allocation formula of what will be cut first, and Wholesalers and Retailers will develop Inventory strategies to handle Short-term shortages. The Speculator has a hard road to travel, where Users develop immunity systems against Scare tactics.
This Fall is the time to introduce a Gas tax, before the Winter prior to National Elections within the decreasing Energy demands of the Season. The next congenial time will be the Spring of 2009, as political fawning for Voters will rule 2008. A Cap-n-Trade Carbon policy could never be worked out over the next Two years, but an effective Carbon tax policy could be worked out by September; this having the immense benefit of eating up the Deficit, or stabilizing the Social Security/Medicare-Medicaid system. I personally favor stabilizing the Welfare system, because availability of Funding will simply entice Congress to expand their Spending plans; no Tax revenue gain in the face of higher Spending. It does not modify the fact that Now is the time to begin a Carbon retardation program. lgl
The Gas situation highlights that Markets are set far more by Expectations, than by the realities of Supply and Demand. Once the fear of high Cost is lost, so is the Propellent for high Price. Even more relevant is the fact that Consumers become jaded, so that future attempts at Scare Pricing have much less effect. This Process is not simply emotional; Household are forced to think through a budget allocation formula of what will be cut first, and Wholesalers and Retailers will develop Inventory strategies to handle Short-term shortages. The Speculator has a hard road to travel, where Users develop immunity systems against Scare tactics.
This Fall is the time to introduce a Gas tax, before the Winter prior to National Elections within the decreasing Energy demands of the Season. The next congenial time will be the Spring of 2009, as political fawning for Voters will rule 2008. A Cap-n-Trade Carbon policy could never be worked out over the next Two years, but an effective Carbon tax policy could be worked out by September; this having the immense benefit of eating up the Deficit, or stabilizing the Social Security/Medicare-Medicaid system. I personally favor stabilizing the Welfare system, because availability of Funding will simply entice Congress to expand their Spending plans; no Tax revenue gain in the face of higher Spending. It does not modify the fact that Now is the time to begin a Carbon retardation program. lgl
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Motivation of Terrorism
Tim Harford points out that Educational level shows little moderation of Terrorist sentiment. I believe he, and most other Examiners, miss the essential Point: Almost all Terrorist propaganda and espousal originates from the Educated Classes. They are necessary to define Rallying points for the masses, they are again necessary for the design of effective Terrorist targets, and again necessary for the proper functioning of Terrorists operations. The 9/11 Terrorists had to know and comprehend Piloting of aircraft, Air traffic codes in English, and Air traffic schedules. Knowledge of Navigation technique was necessary to find and hit the Targets of 9/11. These are all Skill levels rarely introduced at High Schools.
One might ask what is the impulse behind Collegiate drift towards Terrorism. Citation of multiple causation will undoubtedly miss the Issue structure, though it will be a recounting of elements of the overall problem. There is a basic alienation with the general society, whether this be a crushed Love affair, lack of Job opportunity in their field, anger at the lack of respect for their achievements, or simple inability to maintain the same Living Standard as the Households from which they sprang. Envy of the attainments of Others forms the base foundation on which they lay their personal anger at Society. The major difference between themselves and the masses resides in their possession of the scientific methods to attempt punishment of Society for imagined Wrongs.
John Quigley and David Gordon show that the behavior of leadership does scarcely better than the Educated Terrorist. Decisions taken towards violence action most often is based on false tenets to energize the Populace, while the impulse to warfare comes from personal advantage in national politics. Truman invaded Korea so that Stalin bastard wouldn’t win another Country, even though he knew the C.I.A. had been conducting cross-border Raids into North Korea since 1947. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was manufactured by the Johnson administration, none of the Navy personnel on Station actually witnessing any torpedoes; the rationale being that increased War spending would cancel opposition to passage of Johnson’s social legislation. The Invasion of Kuwait impelled Bush most because of his Oil political support, who feared Saddam’s refusal to abide by the maintenance system of World Oil pricing. Clinton’s incursion into the Yugoslavian disintegration had more to do with forestalling the Movement at home to cancel American commitment to NATO, than it did with the practice of ethnic cleansing. The younger Bush needed to have something to attack after 9/11, else look ineffective; the Administration perceiving Afghanistan and Iraq as easy Targets. American Politics must be considered the most dangerous Terrorist of them all, due to the Educated immorality of its Practitioners. lgl
One might ask what is the impulse behind Collegiate drift towards Terrorism. Citation of multiple causation will undoubtedly miss the Issue structure, though it will be a recounting of elements of the overall problem. There is a basic alienation with the general society, whether this be a crushed Love affair, lack of Job opportunity in their field, anger at the lack of respect for their achievements, or simple inability to maintain the same Living Standard as the Households from which they sprang. Envy of the attainments of Others forms the base foundation on which they lay their personal anger at Society. The major difference between themselves and the masses resides in their possession of the scientific methods to attempt punishment of Society for imagined Wrongs.
John Quigley and David Gordon show that the behavior of leadership does scarcely better than the Educated Terrorist. Decisions taken towards violence action most often is based on false tenets to energize the Populace, while the impulse to warfare comes from personal advantage in national politics. Truman invaded Korea so that Stalin bastard wouldn’t win another Country, even though he knew the C.I.A. had been conducting cross-border Raids into North Korea since 1947. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was manufactured by the Johnson administration, none of the Navy personnel on Station actually witnessing any torpedoes; the rationale being that increased War spending would cancel opposition to passage of Johnson’s social legislation. The Invasion of Kuwait impelled Bush most because of his Oil political support, who feared Saddam’s refusal to abide by the maintenance system of World Oil pricing. Clinton’s incursion into the Yugoslavian disintegration had more to do with forestalling the Movement at home to cancel American commitment to NATO, than it did with the practice of ethnic cleansing. The younger Bush needed to have something to attack after 9/11, else look ineffective; the Administration perceiving Afghanistan and Iraq as easy Targets. American Politics must be considered the most dangerous Terrorist of them all, due to the Educated immorality of its Practitioners. lgl
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Hot Air Generators--And No, not me!
Knowledge Problem started me thinking about older technology with this Post. Most Readers will not understand the Cost dynamic here, which is not simple transfer of Electrical usage to non-Peak hours. It is much cheaper to refrigerate a smaller, confined area much lower in Temperature, than it is to cool a much larger area to a much higher Temperature but below Surface temperatures. The Water utilized in Cooling can be confined to a much smaller area, and refrigerated to Ice at cheaper Price than an entire Building–whether in terms of BTUs, or electric bills. The most Optimum such system depends totally on the Water distribution schematic through the building in question; I think the Best would be Misters at floor level along the walls, with Evaporation Collectors at ceiling level; trough water would be pumped to the refrigerators.
The entire discussion turned my Thoughts to the issue of Waste Heat. I belong to that persuasion who believe Urban centers are Heat Engines, with such intensity that Weather patterns are being corrupted by the Excess Heat. Here lay the two Worst problems facing Us today: more increasingly expensive Energy resources, and vast growth in Waste Heat. The Later could be a vast resource in the production of Energy itself, if its potential could be turned to kinetic energy.
Here is where I turn into Crank Inventor: My first Thought is anchored Hot Air balloons with wide bottom opening, and multiplex escape Vents along the upper One-Third of the balloon, all singular direction Vanes in the Vents tied to a electric generator; power sent to the ground through the anchor lines. Does this sound Stupid? It may well be, but a large number of Engineering problems should be worked through: What would be the BTU power available in the Updraft conditions common to Urban areas? Could the bottom balloon hole have sufficient wing capability to provide stability? Could mechanical resistence be eliminated from the Vane venting system to provide effective motive power for electrical generation? Could ground Transformers concentrate any power generated to sufficient degree as to profitably sell such generated Power? What materials could such balloons be constructed from, so as to provide buoyancy with durability at cheap Cost; it being silly to build said systems if the construction uses more energy than can be generated by the system? And People wonder why responsible Adults consider me childish and senile. lgl
The entire discussion turned my Thoughts to the issue of Waste Heat. I belong to that persuasion who believe Urban centers are Heat Engines, with such intensity that Weather patterns are being corrupted by the Excess Heat. Here lay the two Worst problems facing Us today: more increasingly expensive Energy resources, and vast growth in Waste Heat. The Later could be a vast resource in the production of Energy itself, if its potential could be turned to kinetic energy.
Here is where I turn into Crank Inventor: My first Thought is anchored Hot Air balloons with wide bottom opening, and multiplex escape Vents along the upper One-Third of the balloon, all singular direction Vanes in the Vents tied to a electric generator; power sent to the ground through the anchor lines. Does this sound Stupid? It may well be, but a large number of Engineering problems should be worked through: What would be the BTU power available in the Updraft conditions common to Urban areas? Could the bottom balloon hole have sufficient wing capability to provide stability? Could mechanical resistence be eliminated from the Vane venting system to provide effective motive power for electrical generation? Could ground Transformers concentrate any power generated to sufficient degree as to profitably sell such generated Power? What materials could such balloons be constructed from, so as to provide buoyancy with durability at cheap Cost; it being silly to build said systems if the construction uses more energy than can be generated by the system? And People wonder why responsible Adults consider me childish and senile. lgl
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The dirty little Secret
David Leonhardt writes a good article defining the difference between nominal and real Stock pricing. He didn’t mention that the Dollars used to purchase Stock in 2000 would have keep up with the Inflation rate only if they were priced some 15% higher than they than they are Today; whereas Savings Accounts have relatively kept up with the Inflation rate. There is also another deadly little Secret which he did not detail: Stock Prices would have exceeded the real and nominal Inflation rates with an increased Profit ratio, if the base total amount of Stock had remained at a constant level.
Corporate CEOs and other Executives have gotten Rich absorbing Corporate Profits through Stock Grants and Stock Options, while expanding their Power base by acquisitions by venue of Stock Trades of newly-issued Stock. Corporate leadership may make a high Profit for the Corporation they manage, but they most often take it for their own; and even insist on taking such Profits when the Corporations must absorb an overall Loss. This Corporate leadership even makes it much worse for Stockholders, by the practice of ‘Buying Back’ Corporate Stock to maintain Stock Prices; though the Stock should not have been issued in the first place, and this same leadership exercise their Stock Options and Grants to sell their Stock at the maintained Stock Prices. It would be cheaper for Stockholders to simply change the Rules of Employment, and tell Executives that they would double their Salary every year that they worked for the Corporation (Most would doubt this assertion, but try running an Economic model comparing this Thesis against total exercised Benefits granted to Corporate Officers of the top 400 Companies; remember to start from their initial First Year salary).
Study of the greater Problem of Stock Issuance without Cause will likely find that Corporate leadership remains a little ahead in absorption of Profits, than the actual gain in Corporate Profits themselves. Modern Corporate leadership shows expertise in issuing Stock to bilk Stockholders of the normal Share of the Profits based upon their Stockholdings. Any lapse at the end of the Year is covered by a refusal to distribute Profits under the myth of an Investment Fund for future expansion. Corporate leadership has intrinsic aid in selling the excess Stock through Tax laws granting Tax exemptions only through Investment; Participants never realizing that the Tax is still in place, but going to Corporate leadership, not Payment for Government Services. How is this Tax derived? It is the exact differential between the real and nominal value of Stock. I estimate that this equates to about a 22% Tax on such Income, regulated by Corporate policies to buy back Stock so as not to become obviously excessive. lgl
Corporate CEOs and other Executives have gotten Rich absorbing Corporate Profits through Stock Grants and Stock Options, while expanding their Power base by acquisitions by venue of Stock Trades of newly-issued Stock. Corporate leadership may make a high Profit for the Corporation they manage, but they most often take it for their own; and even insist on taking such Profits when the Corporations must absorb an overall Loss. This Corporate leadership even makes it much worse for Stockholders, by the practice of ‘Buying Back’ Corporate Stock to maintain Stock Prices; though the Stock should not have been issued in the first place, and this same leadership exercise their Stock Options and Grants to sell their Stock at the maintained Stock Prices. It would be cheaper for Stockholders to simply change the Rules of Employment, and tell Executives that they would double their Salary every year that they worked for the Corporation (Most would doubt this assertion, but try running an Economic model comparing this Thesis against total exercised Benefits granted to Corporate Officers of the top 400 Companies; remember to start from their initial First Year salary).
Study of the greater Problem of Stock Issuance without Cause will likely find that Corporate leadership remains a little ahead in absorption of Profits, than the actual gain in Corporate Profits themselves. Modern Corporate leadership shows expertise in issuing Stock to bilk Stockholders of the normal Share of the Profits based upon their Stockholdings. Any lapse at the end of the Year is covered by a refusal to distribute Profits under the myth of an Investment Fund for future expansion. Corporate leadership has intrinsic aid in selling the excess Stock through Tax laws granting Tax exemptions only through Investment; Participants never realizing that the Tax is still in place, but going to Corporate leadership, not Payment for Government Services. How is this Tax derived? It is the exact differential between the real and nominal value of Stock. I estimate that this equates to about a 22% Tax on such Income, regulated by Corporate policies to buy back Stock so as not to become obviously excessive. lgl
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Economic View of China
Brad DeLong paints a glorious picture of Deng Xiaoping, which comes from examining the Chinese system through the rosy glasses of Western Economics. It would not pain me so much if the Deng system was not simply a reversion to the pre-Communist Mandarin system. The Communist hierarchy was replaced by a bureaucratic hierarchy with much higher levels of Corruption. The Agricultural increase so praised by DeLong and Cowen was the result of the Communist system of Education; which integrated the modern Concepts of Fertilization; the later bearing fruit only after Peasants were given a Percentage of the Profits. The average Chinese Peasant today knows more about Japanese Agricultural practice, than do most Western Agriculturalists. This later education most impelled the Agricultural advancement, but also the realization of the rural Youth that Urbanization was their best chance for advancement; resident agricultural land being overpopulated, and lacking in Transportation facilities.
The Deng system made an extreme mistake, which continues to this Day, in its concentration on foreign Trade; rather than on the development of internal Markets. They insisted that the Soviet-style industries provision internal Chinese consumption, and that the new Capitalization be devoted to expensive Goods provision for high-Standard of Living countries. The new Rich in China, mainly associated with Party bureaucrats or their Children, already demand Western Goods at excessive rate unsupported by Energy availability; while the Standard of Living of Workers are chained to the supply of Government industries and limited Western Goods.
Western Economists miss one important element in Chinese Standard of Living evaluations: the fact they include the massive Savings rate of Chinese Workers. They ignore that Chinese leadership functionally forbids both a high level of Consumption, and alternative methods of Savings and Investment. Chinese Banks limit Loans to Party bureaucracy and its clients, and these loans lack collateral and effective Repayment schedules. Subtraction of Worker Savings from the equation (not far-fetched, as major Withdrawals seem unlikely) leaves Workers dependent upon their current Wages; Retirement system, Health Care, and increased Consumption remain distant goals. A Recession in the Developed Nations causing a cutback in Imports, will leave China in the same situation as the Mao Era.
I pity China, which already has Rural Movement to the Cities, where the Unemployed increase by an estimated 30 million per year. It is no accident that the new China Rich are moving their Investments into the West and Developed nations. Economists suggest that China is solving their Problems; I would suggest Chinese leadership only delays destruction from these Problems, until they can move their families to the West. lgl
The Deng system made an extreme mistake, which continues to this Day, in its concentration on foreign Trade; rather than on the development of internal Markets. They insisted that the Soviet-style industries provision internal Chinese consumption, and that the new Capitalization be devoted to expensive Goods provision for high-Standard of Living countries. The new Rich in China, mainly associated with Party bureaucrats or their Children, already demand Western Goods at excessive rate unsupported by Energy availability; while the Standard of Living of Workers are chained to the supply of Government industries and limited Western Goods.
Western Economists miss one important element in Chinese Standard of Living evaluations: the fact they include the massive Savings rate of Chinese Workers. They ignore that Chinese leadership functionally forbids both a high level of Consumption, and alternative methods of Savings and Investment. Chinese Banks limit Loans to Party bureaucracy and its clients, and these loans lack collateral and effective Repayment schedules. Subtraction of Worker Savings from the equation (not far-fetched, as major Withdrawals seem unlikely) leaves Workers dependent upon their current Wages; Retirement system, Health Care, and increased Consumption remain distant goals. A Recession in the Developed Nations causing a cutback in Imports, will leave China in the same situation as the Mao Era.
I pity China, which already has Rural Movement to the Cities, where the Unemployed increase by an estimated 30 million per year. It is no accident that the new China Rich are moving their Investments into the West and Developed nations. Economists suggest that China is solving their Problems; I would suggest Chinese leadership only delays destruction from these Problems, until they can move their families to the West. lgl
Monday, July 16, 2007
Markets, Trade, and Junk Food
Here is an article which confuses the Concepts of Markets and Trade. The implication residual to the Reader is that if one believes in Markets, one must believe intrinsically in Free Trade. The Converse of this theory states that Free Trade works because Markets work. The inherent truth states absolute Free Markets have never worked without massive levels of Crime, the development of major Shortages of required Product for future Production, and generation of artificial Shortages to manipulate Prices in a fraudulent manner. The only real relationship between Markets and Free Trade consists of the fact that Free Trade is unlikely to work any more effectively than absolutely Free Markets.
There is a Current underfoot across the ocean to tax the Goodies of children. Tim Haab would reduce it to a tax on externalties, or oppose it. Political Calculations implies it is another example of Big Brother deciding for the rest of Us. The real rub in this Situation comes from the fact there exists a sound basis for such a Tax upon Junk Foods. Where? Children can absorb incredible amounts of bad Food habits, and still remain relatively healthy. Adults, on the other hand, face a much greater threat in that bad Diet has extreme consequence in most instances, and the greatest majority of Junk Foods are consumed by Adults. An effective Tax on an externality would be to double the Price of such Foods, and give a 70% Discount to Purchasers under the Age of 18. Would it sell as a Presidential Campaign plank?
Maybe I can gain support for the Above measure from Sustain. Anyone who opposes sewage sludge for irrigation and genetically-altered Foods should oppose Food Products artificially-impacted with Fat and Sugar additives. It might revolve around the quantity of Candy bars their Staff might consume per day. One can only try, at least. I should mention, before Many begin to think of myself as a Food Nut, that I have been Dieting consistently for about Two years: I feel for Tim Haab’s misery, and actually had a Diary Queen blizzard last night. lgl
There is a Current underfoot across the ocean to tax the Goodies of children. Tim Haab would reduce it to a tax on externalties, or oppose it. Political Calculations implies it is another example of Big Brother deciding for the rest of Us. The real rub in this Situation comes from the fact there exists a sound basis for such a Tax upon Junk Foods. Where? Children can absorb incredible amounts of bad Food habits, and still remain relatively healthy. Adults, on the other hand, face a much greater threat in that bad Diet has extreme consequence in most instances, and the greatest majority of Junk Foods are consumed by Adults. An effective Tax on an externality would be to double the Price of such Foods, and give a 70% Discount to Purchasers under the Age of 18. Would it sell as a Presidential Campaign plank?
Maybe I can gain support for the Above measure from Sustain. Anyone who opposes sewage sludge for irrigation and genetically-altered Foods should oppose Food Products artificially-impacted with Fat and Sugar additives. It might revolve around the quantity of Candy bars their Staff might consume per day. One can only try, at least. I should mention, before Many begin to think of myself as a Food Nut, that I have been Dieting consistently for about Two years: I feel for Tim Haab’s misery, and actually had a Diary Queen blizzard last night. lgl
Sunday, July 15, 2007
New Form for Patents
Do you want to build a better Mousetrap? If you do, you may not want to Patent the design. Such is the Message of this article in the NYTimes. The purported purpose of Patents–Incentive for intellectual development of new ideas–seems to be poorly served by the current functioning of the Patent system. The Costs of filing for a Patent most often exceed any benefit from the Patent itself, and employment of $400/hr lawyers in litigation of Patents could never possibly be Profitable. It becomes a disincentive to both Developers and Business utilizing such Patents to innovate.
We could enter a discussion as how Patents are not actually Property, but grants of monopoly to individual Concerns by Government; but that holds simple evident truth which needs no amplification. We should instead turn Our attention to Patent use as a form of Wage payment for new Innovations. How do you pay the Inventor? This area presents a wealth of alterable conditions, and is conducive to vast opportunities to improve performance of Patents, and the purpose for which they are issued.
My own take on the Issue is to mandate the fee system of a Patent, based upon the value of the Product idea; this specifically ordered to limit potential litigation with ease of determination, and limitation of the value of said Patent violation. Here is my Suggested alterations:
1) Users of a patented idea, Product, or Process for profitable gain must pay a set-Price for said use of the patent product, ranged between $250 to $10,000. The Patent-Holder need only prove its use by Another, with the initial use-Price determined by the Cost of the Research for the Patent idea, and the Productive gain to be made by the Patent use. Both are to be determined by the Patent Issuance Office at the Date of initial award of the Patent.
2) The Patent Office will also determine, at the time of Award of Patent, the numeral amount of usage of the Patent in salable Goods, before the initial Patent-Use payment has to be duplicated once more; this to be determined by the Cost of Development of the Patent, and the Profit of utilization of the Patent in salable Goods. This reduces litigation processes to simple determination if the Patent was used in the sale of Goods, and how often; with Patent royalties dictated by Government sanction uniformly.
3) Government should finally set the duration of the Patent, said Patents being limited only to individual Designers (Business cannot apply for Patents), with Patents to survive only the length of the Designers’ lifetimes. lgl
We could enter a discussion as how Patents are not actually Property, but grants of monopoly to individual Concerns by Government; but that holds simple evident truth which needs no amplification. We should instead turn Our attention to Patent use as a form of Wage payment for new Innovations. How do you pay the Inventor? This area presents a wealth of alterable conditions, and is conducive to vast opportunities to improve performance of Patents, and the purpose for which they are issued.
My own take on the Issue is to mandate the fee system of a Patent, based upon the value of the Product idea; this specifically ordered to limit potential litigation with ease of determination, and limitation of the value of said Patent violation. Here is my Suggested alterations:
1) Users of a patented idea, Product, or Process for profitable gain must pay a set-Price for said use of the patent product, ranged between $250 to $10,000. The Patent-Holder need only prove its use by Another, with the initial use-Price determined by the Cost of the Research for the Patent idea, and the Productive gain to be made by the Patent use. Both are to be determined by the Patent Issuance Office at the Date of initial award of the Patent.
2) The Patent Office will also determine, at the time of Award of Patent, the numeral amount of usage of the Patent in salable Goods, before the initial Patent-Use payment has to be duplicated once more; this to be determined by the Cost of Development of the Patent, and the Profit of utilization of the Patent in salable Goods. This reduces litigation processes to simple determination if the Patent was used in the sale of Goods, and how often; with Patent royalties dictated by Government sanction uniformly.
3) Government should finally set the duration of the Patent, said Patents being limited only to individual Designers (Business cannot apply for Patents), with Patents to survive only the length of the Designers’ lifetimes. lgl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)