Sunday, November 22, 2020

If only 250 thousand have died, it's still possible to not be personally aware of someone who has died. A callus thought, but explains some denial.

I met someone, today, who thinks the numbers for the death and infection rates for corona virus were made up. Seems like people can justify anything with the idea that there's some conspiracy.

She said she hasn't known anyone to have died. I haven't either, to be honest. Not that I know of, at least. Out of 325 million Americans, 250 thousand isn't really that many. There's still 325 million left. If counting in the millions, it doesn't move the needle.

Seems like the underlying debate is over the value of trying to save lives, versus opening the economy. There is also debate over what the best strategy is for saving the lives, but seems like lives can be disposable in a machine called the economy.

Over 100 years ago, that attitude would more likely be the case, but back then there was less we could do to save the lives.

Saturday, November 21, 2020

At Arecibo, could drones replace the suspended platform if the bowel is salvageable? Just an idea.

NASA image from Twitter

National Science Foundation is decommissioning the giant radio telescope Arecibo in Puerto Rico. Two supporting cables has broken and the suspended platform is likely to crash. They say it's too dangerous to try and fix. Plans are to try and dismantle it safely.

I got to thinking; could drones revitalize the telescope? After the platform is dismantled, could they repair the dish below? Instead of a suspended platform, could drones be used to hover receivers over the dish?

This telescope has played an important role in Puerto Rico's economy. During this interview on NPR Science Friday, one person said it was an inspiration, beyond just medicine, for students to study science. Medicine isn't a field every aspiring scientist on the island would necessarily want to go into; especially if one is afraid of blood, according to the interview.

For astronomy, the telescope has been the largest radio astronomy dish in the world until recently being topped by a bigger one in China. While no longer tops, it was still quite useful. Especially useful as a powerful radar for tracking asteroids and doing solar system research. It was being used for some other projects, as well; including accurate measurements of pulsars as one way to see evidence of gravity waves across the universe.

I remember following news in 1998 when SOHO, sun observing satellite lost communication with earth. They used radar from Arecibo to find that satellite again and then restart communications. The satellite was rehabilitated and is still in service today. If it hadn't been for Arecibo, SOHO would have probably only lasted from it's launch in 1995 till 1998. It's still working today as one of several satellites observing the sun from space. More bang for the buck.

Friday, November 20, 2020

My take on reconciling the debate between far progressives and moderates in the Democratic Party.

A moderate, like Joe Biden, was the most likely electable nationwide.

Various urban areas, like where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was reelected from, are different when one isn't including the more conservative rural parts of the country.

I think urban areas need more autonomy from state governments to continue pushing the boundaries of things like municipal income taxes, funding for transit, restrictions on fossil fuel use and so forth. We need less "one size fits all" solutions.

Moderates are more electable at the national, and possibly the state, levels. Moderates can create a framework that is more friendly to low carbon footprint planning than conservative extremists like Trump. We need to settle for the Biden's, at the national level at least. Then push farther at local and personal lifestyle levels.

If we want to push farther, people have to do more in their personal lifestyles to walk the talk. We can't impose things like carbon taxes and then complain about higher gas prices.

Monday, November 16, 2020

More progressive politics only works in certain districts so maybe allow urban areas more autonomy?

Biden won the presidency, but Democrats did loose some seats in the House of Representatives. Progressives and moderates are doing their normal squabbles.

The phrase "defund police" doesn't play well to much of the electorate. I think it's a phrase based in anger. Bills to bring police reform have passed in the House, but it wasn't about defunding.

I think Democrats missed a golden opportunity to tell voters that Republican tax cuts are likely to defund the police. Local government is what funds local police.

As for progressives versus moderates, progressives are strong in certain local districts. Mostly urban districts and maybe college towns. Some say, "politics is local."

There are also a lot of rural districts where Republican ideas are still very popular. It's hard to win a nationwide vote on a farther left agenda. Maybe the cities could think toward more autonomy. Things could go farther in certain districts.

If we want more action on things like climate change, it's time to support the change with our own personal lifestyles as well. Look at what we consume. Think solar at home. A lot of people do have solar panels on their roofs. Alternative transportation is tested out in various cities. New forms of city planning; where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

Meanwhile a more moderate framework can be maintained at the national level. If cities do it well, the rest of the country might just want to follow along. Someday, maybe winning in the court of popular opinion.

Some say that most voters really do want things like Medicare for all. That could be true, but ideas are popular until the taxes needed to support the ideas are included. Why are Tim Eyeman's anti tax initiatives still popular in the blue state of Washington? They didn't pass in the highly urbanized King County, however. Urban autonomy.

People are for things like healthcare and raising the minimum wage, but not for some of the associated costs.

As for the results of polling, much depends on how the question is framed.

Sunday, November 15, 2020

If big Pharma executives are greedy, can we trust the vaccine? Yes, I think we can, but I don't buy the mainstream careers and lifestyles

Some people are wary of a vaccine noting that big pharma companies, that develop vaccines, are the same companies that try to get out of paying taxes, that pay executives huge salaries and so forth.

My thinking is different. I still trust, for the most part, the quality of the products and services produced by business. On the other hand, I have, to a large extent, dropped out of the mainstream culture that goes along with creation of products and services.

I've never climbed the corporate ladder, myself. Probably couldn't take the stress of those lifestyles. I hardly have the qualifications for that, anyway, not even having a driver's license. I only have non driver's ID. Driving is a requirement for lots of work.

I have found a pretty good niche as a janitor who bikes to work. Having a decent boss is more important than top pay scale, to me. I've elected to avoid lots of our toxic culture, but at the same time I do enjoy, and trust, many of the products that it provides.

If only we could figure out how to work our miracles, like the vaccine looks like it may be a miracle, without the cultural baggage that so often goes along with corporate life.

Friday, November 13, 2020

I've learn a lot from Michael Krasney's discussion forums for many years from KGO to KQED

One of my favorite talk show hosts plans his retirement in February 2021. Michael Krasney, host of Forum at KQED Radio in San Francisco. He's had quite a career and contributed a lot to deeper thought. I think KQED Forum will continue. There are several people who host it at various times.

I first remember hearing Krasney when he was a talk show host on KGO Radio, in San Francisco, during the 1980's. I could pick up the signal only at night here in Washington State. Only on certain nights due to conditions for ionospheric skip. Those were the days when 50,000 watt AM radio was a big deal.

I once wrote him, at KGO, and he wrote back. He said that someone reported picking up KGO from Norway. Signal went over the north pole. Normal for shortwave radio, but AM "broadcast band" usually didn't bounce farther than maybe 2,000 miles. I may have missplaced that origenal letter, but kept a followup exchange where I was discussing thoughts about clear channel AM stations.

When Krasney left KGO, I wasn't able to listen. He was on KQED; an FM station. The FM band doesn't go that far past line of sight. I live way too far from the San Francisco Bay Area for that.

When the Internet got going, big time, I was able to reconnect with Krasney's show. Podcasts of KQED Forum at my convenience. The archive at my fingertips. What a world we live in now.

On KQED, an NPR Station, Krasney's style has thrived. A better place than the more commercial KGO. His kind and thoughtful analysis comes through.

Meanwhile, KGO Radio has gone through some turmoil. It's 50,000 watt signal is less of an advantage in internet times. That station has changed owners a few times and gone down in the ratings. It's been firing many hosts and tweaking the format. KGO is no longer the undisputed top of the ratings in that market.

There was even an "Occupy KGO protest" that I saw on YouTube around 2011 after a bunch of firings over there.

On commercial radio, too many of the hosts are sensational and do a lot of yelling. Commercials pay the bills, but they also crowd out much of the time for deeper thinking. I find commercials to be repetitive. The same messages over and over again.

Krasney is a nice guy. There is the old phrase, "the nice guy finishes last." There's also the phrase, "he who has the last laugh wins." I'm glad to see that KQED has been at top, or near top, in the ratings during recent years.

Krasney joins some great company, in my mind, such as Diane Rehm, who had a show for many years on NPR and has retired. She still does a podcast in retirement.

Saturday, November 07, 2020

Good news. Biden projected winner of the delegate count in the Electoral College.

Good news. It looks like Biden has won. Won the Electoral College by the skin of his teeth. Won by a more comfortable margin in the popular vote.

Trump is still posing legal challenges to the results. It will be hard for someone, as egotistical as Trump, to be a "good sport" and accept defeat. Maybe Trump will soon start a campaign for presidency in 2024? I wouldn't put it past him. He seems in his element on the perpetual campaign trail.

I doubt he would win in 2024, but he would be (I think) still a bit younger than Biden is today. Trump will also have a lot of legal issues to deal with.

I can't picture him participating in the transition team. Looks like much of the transition work would take place around him.

I hope the winner in the Electoral College is the winner of the popular vote

I hope the winner in the Electoral College is the winner of the popular vote. That would be Biden, this time around.

Two times, in recent history, the popular vote was not reflected in the Electoral College. 2000 and 2016. If that happens too many times, it's fertile ground for civil unrest. For the sake of the country, it's better for that situation to not happen too many times.

If it weren't for the Electoral College, I think the results of this presidential election would have already been determined.

Friday, November 06, 2020

It isn't just the left that might defund the police. It's more likely finding efficient solutions for limited budgets.

Speaking of defunding the police, the town of Republic, WA. has just defunded it's police department. Republic is not a bastion of "liberal, radical" people.

As I've been saying all along, the budget speaks loudly. Republic City Council voted to eliminate it's one person police department due, I guess, to a tight budget. Police services have been turned over to county sheriff's department.

The one officer being laid off is also known for his run for governor of Washington in 2020. Republican Loren Culp. He recently lost to incumbent Democrat Jay Inslee, but is challenging the results. That's a whole-nother story.

During Culp's run for governor, he was on leave from the city so they used the county sheriff's department to take his place. Apparently they discovered that doing it through the county was a more efficient arrangement than having a one person city police department Though that town has had a police department for over 100 years, according to a video posted by Culp.

On a personal note, I've been through Republic on a bike tour, or two. Below see some pictures I took passing through.
Some photos I took in Republic.

I'm not a big fan of "defund the police," but I understand the need to think about "prevention," such as mental health funding, versus "cure," such as having to call the police. It's similar to the concept of having preventative medicine versus relying on the emergency room for healthcare. Problem is, there is never enough funding for everything. These problems can be made worse by an attitude that is anti government. I can also see why people wish to limit government, but remember, if you want the police, you do need government.

In a way, this isn't really defunding the police. It's just finding a more efficient way to fund police services.

I think the bigger issue, in the whole defund the police discussion, is the effects of tight budgets; especially due to corona virus effect on the economy and whether federal relief to local governments becomes available. Moderate Democrats need to point that out as a bigger problem than, necessarily, animosity toward the police from farther to the left.

To the swing voters in the middle that might be driven right wing from their fears about crime and anti police rhetoric from the far left, I'd say be more worried about the far right. If government was to be drowned in a bathtub, as in anti tax activist Grover Norquist's famous quote, it could mean anarchy.

Wednesday, November 04, 2020

How low interest rates and debt, versus savings, makes people and business less flexible for adapting to climate change

Over the years of low interest rates, there hasn't been much incentive for people to save money. Instead, folks assume that the road to building wealth is not saving money, but going into debt. Buying a house, starting a business, or what ever.

Problem is, this straps one into having to make payments on that debt each month.

If one were, instead, to build wealth by saving extra money in the bank, it could mean having more flexibility in the household budget. Flexibility that's needed to address climate change, for instance.

Something like a carbon tax can increase the cost of gasoline and energy. If one has a big burden of debt payments, it's harder to find extra money. On the other hand, if one is building wealth by putting money in the bank, it's easier to just cut back, temporarily, on the amount one is putting in the bank in order cover the higher cost of energy.

It's easier to just save a little less, rather than default on a debt payment.

Over time, everything changes. Down the road, one could get a raise so they could go back to saving more money again; even after the carbon tax were to go into effect.

Another solution is that a transit line could become available, as payed for by the carbon tax. The person facing more expensive gasoline, in the short run, might save more after switching to using transit, rather than driving, in the long run.

All these changes don't happen overnight. Carbon taxes and then the availablility of better transit don't always happen simultaniously. Over time, economic conditions keep ebbing and flowing. What seems like a setback, in the short run, can become a blessing later on.

Savings allows for more flexibility, in household budgets, than having a large burden of debt would allow. Low interest rates, in the private sector, encourage too much debt and not enough savings.

Low interest in private sector is designed to spurr employment, but it often just pushes up the cost of existing assets. For example, existing housing gets more expensive, especially if new construction is restricted by things like single family zoning. Low interest rates are designed to spur new construction and job creation, but local restrictions can stand in the way.

Meanwhile, low interest rates might be good in the government sector. Since it seems like the federal government is more and more dependent on debt, rather than taxes, government spending benefits from low interest rates. It keeps jobs, such as police, on the payroll. It Props up unemployment benefits, keeps people on health insurance and can create jobs in infrastructure development, scientific research and so forth.

Maybe we need zero interest on government borrowing. Print the money. Don't worry about government debt, at least until general inflation becomes apparent.

Today's inflation seems mostly confined to certain sectors; such as housing costs. More and more, we need government assitance help the majority of people pay for their rising cost of living. Without government assitance, there is lots of suffering. Also it could eventually lead to deflation. Rents can only remain high while there is a market to afford it.

Personally, I've never gone into debt. Buying a house would be out of my reach. I don't drive, so car payments are not an issue. I've always saved up for my consumer purchases; such as buying a computer. Fortunately, my rent has been reasonable over the years and I've had no big medical bills. I'm not raising a family either.

Even though my income has been fairly low, I've always had some extra money. Haven't had to live paycheck to paycheck. I could have saved more of that money, but have tended to just let it sit in my checking account. Little incentive to save.

Instead, I've usually spent it, before the year was out, by going on bike trips in the summer. Camping and motels can take most of my extra money. The trips have been worth it, however.

Saturday, October 31, 2020

As society progresses, our tolerance for early death diminishes. Over 225,000 deaths from COVID-19 is less acceptable now than in the so called "good old days."

In many ways, society is becoming loss tolerant of early and preventable death. I've read that the 1918 flu pandemic killed roughly 675,000 Americans. This, out of a total population of only around 104 million. Society's response to control that epidemic was slow at start. It was more "business as usual" than today.

So far, this epidemic has killed around 225,000 Americans out of 325 million total. There have been more measures, early on; such as here in Washington State, to try and stop the spread.

Our prevention measures haven't been as good as they could be; especially at the national level and in certain states. The 225,000 death toll is appalling to our modern sensibilities.

Seems like some of the folks, who would want us to go back to business as usual, could bring us to a higher tolerance of death than most of society is accustom to in modern times.

Some will argue that death from the forced slowdown of our economy could be worse than that from the virus itself. The increased poverty, isolation, domestic violence and so forth.

These things are harder to measure as they are spread across many death rates and categories of statistics; versus a death toll from the virus itself which is easier to pinpoint.

Few politicians, in today's world, would want to have a high death count under their watch; especially if it can be blamed on something they did, or didn't do.

In today's society, we have better technology to prevent death. Along with the better technology comes less tolerance for unnecessary death.

Given the understanding of infection today, we could do better than we have done, up until now. A more robust social safety net would help. People shouldn't be loosing their health insurance and having to go homeless during a pandemic. Businesses should be able to operate with reduced crowds and pay their rent and fixed costs, but rents and fixed costs have gotten too high.

We could adapt to this situation better, but the high cost of life, in America, makes it more difficult. More generous fiscal support (Congress willing to spend money) is needed to prop things up.

Part of the problem is the many past years of low interest rates. People don't have much in the way of "rainy day savings." Money in regular "liquid" bank accounts doesn't pay much when interest rates are low.

Low interest rates have, instead, encouraged a mountain of private debt which still needs to be serviced.

Now it looks like more government debt is needed to prop up the other debts that businesses and individuals have incurred. Quite a few economists say that government debt isn't as much of a problem as they've thought in the past.

This is debatable, of course, but there is an emerging school of economics called "Modern Monetary Theory." Popular among Bernie Sander's camp, and in other places.

MMT places less worry on government going into debt. Rather than looking at the debt total, since government can create its own money, these economists watch for signs of inflation. If we are now in danger of deflation, spending can happen.

This thinking may be partially the result of years of high deficits and low interest rates. Interest rates remain low, so what's the worry?

I feel that the low interest rates have pushed up fixed costs, such as property values, while other things in the economy; such as most wages, have lagged behind.

Technology has pushed down the cost of many goods and services including the need for labor. It's time to try and rebalance.

Government bailout continues to be needed as businesses and individuals, that have been lured into high debt and fixed costs, struggle.

We could do better if we had an economy that could shift into lower gear more easily. Lower gear for a temporary period. Being able to survive on part time work, for instance. Then we could better ride out this situation till vaccines and cures become available. Ride things out as technology continues to advance.

Shifting into lower gears could help us adapt to climate change as well. There is always some economic disruption when transitioning to something new. Transitioning to clean energy; for instance.

We can do better looking forward.

I've often thought that around 35,000 Americans, dying each year in traffic accidents, was an appalling cost of "business as usual." This figure is out of step with other safety measures in our modern society; such as workplace safety and building codes.

Future generations, riding in safe self driving vehicles, might look back on our current highway death toll the way we look back on the high death toll, due to cholera, before better treatment of drinking water.

The death toll, from the corona virus pandemic, is much worse than the steady background of car crashes. It is a temporary and unique situation. Future generations could look at this death toll with horror the way we now view the 1918 pandemic.

Years ago, I think negative news was less available, so, to tell the truth, I never even heard of the 1918 flu pandemic until more recent times.

I'm assuming that future generations can still make progress over what we have now if we can put technology to good use and control looming threats such as climate change.

Monday, October 26, 2020

Maybe Trump sincerely does want to raise all boats with prosperity, but prosperity as an only goal is problematic; especially given climate change.

Some people might laugh at me for saying this, but I think Trump's main goal is to increase prosperity for all Americans. He believes the rising tide lifts all boats thing. That's one reason why he doesn't care much about climate change; even the pandemic. Addressing those problems gets in the way.

Biden does have the goal of reducing climate change, but he believes addressing that goal will bring more prosperity. He's probably right, in the long run, but the road to change can bring a lot of disruption and economic dislocation along the way.

Banning fracking could mean banning oil production as (these days) it just about has to come from fracking. The easily pumped oil is already gone. This is an example of disruption. That's why Biden really can't push for something like a ban overnight. He can advocate a gradual transition, versus Trump who's even said, "bring back coal."

At least Biden places a high priority on trying to do something about climate change.

Our addiction to prosperity, as the highest goal, is a problem. There are some things that are more important than how much money we make. Obviously, a livable planet, but also quality of life in many ways. Less stressful living.

How we plan our lives and our neighborhoods hold a lot of the keys to solving the problems of climate change; even reducing the pandemic. Technology is a big part of the solutions also.

The most important changes to neighborhoods and lifestyles, for reducing climate change, don't seem to get discussed that much in national politics. They are sometimes discussed more in local politics. Transportation, walkability, affordable housing.

Actual health doesn't get discussed that much either, at the national level, when talking about healthcare reform or, to some extent, dealing with the pandemic. A healthier public could reduce costs.

We do need to keep evolving as a society. Otherwise we are just shaking our fists at whatever politicians get elected who aren't able to fully deliver on their promises.

Sunday, October 25, 2020

People grumble about Hunter Biden's high payment for sitting on that board. Fame opens doors; like the artist who commands a big price on name recognition.

In our society, fame and fortune can bring one opportunities not easily available to others. There's the famous artist who, supposedly, can sell a canvases for a fortune by just putting a dot on it.

Relatives of famous politicians will often get breaks on name recognition. For instance Hunter Biden's stipend for being on that board; something being talked about in a few circles these days.

One way to deal with these sort of inequities would be higher taxes on the elite. Many in the elite even want this because they see it as a price to pay for civil society. Billionaire Warren Buffett is noted for advocating some tax increases that would apply to himself. He's said that it doesn't make sense for his secretary to pay a higher percent of taxes on her wages than he does on his capital gains.

During my college years, the gay student organization would bring speakers to campus for symposiums. They would get stipends for coming to campus. I think usually around $50 plus travel, food and hotel expenses. This was back in the 1970's.

One year, they brought a famous former football player to speak. David Kopay. His stipend was $1,000. I remember thinking that was a lot of money. He had made a big name for himself in professional sports and later came out of the closet. This was a big news item at the time. It made for bigger headlines than the gay symposium normally got in the campus. A win for symposium organizers. WWU was pretty liberal toward LGBTQ people, back then, but bringing Kopay to campus was a real headliner.

During 1977, sculptures on campus were controversial. A foundation paid $55,000 for an iron sculpture called "India." When people questioned it's worth, I remember a quote from one professor, on the Art Acquisition Committee at the time, saying, "$55,000 is not a bad price for an Anthony Caro Sculpture." Caro, a famous artist.

I thought, "it's the name."

After that sculpture was installed, a few gorilla artists left welded assemblies in the grounds around the campus with signs saying, "I donate." The money for India came from something called the Virginia Wright Foundation which had donated several sculptures.

One morning, there was a big pile of old tires in the main square of campus with a sign attached saying "Pakistan." A few days later, maintenance removed the tires.

It doesn't snow that often in Bellingham, but the best picture, I have, of India was during a snow storm.

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Economy needs to be propped up by government spending as the marketplace fails. Private business works, but the marketplace has failed.

More corona virus relief bills are being discussed, but looks like passage is unlikely; at least for quite a while. Some Republicans, in the Senate, are worried about the growing national debt.

Seems like the economy and even the stock market depends on stimulus from government. These days, government has to create new money to keep it going. This process can be inflationary, but why isn't inflation raging?

My idea is that new money is just propping up the inflation that has already happened. Without it, the high property values, rents and other things in the economy would start deflating.

Seems like the private marketplace is broken. Private enterprise, itself, isn't necessarily broken, but the marketplace is.

By private enterprise, I mean privately owned businesses that provide goods and services. Often private companies do a better job than government bureaucracy, but companies are often doing the work that's paid for by government. Government contracts; such as developing the vaccine.

Why doesn't the private marketplace bring us the things we need without the money from government?

It's because the market, itself, is broken. We can't rely on people's mass spending habits to bring us the things society needs, for the most part. It might work to some extent, but it does need lots of infusion from government spending.

Government often has more rational spending priorities, such as providing healthcare to people based on need rather than how wealthy they are. Affordable housing seems to be another thing provided by government. We also need things like roads, police, basic scientific research; the list goes on.

The private market provides some things also; like a lot of the media. Hollywood films, pro sporting events (before the virus). Government often does chip in for building the stadiums. Here in Washington State, the private market brings the marijuana industry, now legalized in Washington State.

Thinking about failure of the marketplace, climate change comes to mind also.

Back when I was in college, it looked like we were running out of oil. The price was going up. It looked like the marketplace might work to push us toward alternative energy because oil would get so expensive that other forms of energy would be cheaper by comparison. The path of least resistance. The market would seek the least expensive product.

Turns out private enterprise figured out how to extract more oil. The fracking revolution was born. There was fracking before, but the technology, now, has brought a glut of relatively inexpensive oil out of places, like North Dakota and Texas.

Now we have another problem. We are not running out of oil, not for a long time. The problem is climate change. Too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and there is no cost to releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Normal market forces of supply and demand don't work in curbing carbon emissions.

We need something like a carbon tax to rig the market so it works for the long term good of our environment.

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

We need to do better than just going back to the 1950's, 1960's economy.

Interesting article from Strong Towns:

Dangerous Nostalgia: Why Romanticizing the 1950s and 1960s Won't Get Us Anywhere

I'll add that so many people, including a lot of Democrats an Republicans, romanticize about the prosperity of the 1950's and 60's. A time when suburban sprawl, single family neighborhoods and automobile dependency really revved up.

US was pretty much the undisputed industrial leader after World War II, it was also a historic anomaly not likely to be repeated. A pattern of life that's unsustainable emerged. What replaces it could actually be better. Strong Towns has a lot of good ideas for better planning.

I still support the Democrats, more than the Republicans, but there are big changes in planning and living that mainstream politics, on both sides, tends to ignore. I see more talk about these needed changes in local, rather than national, political discussions. Local politicians have to deal with traffic gridlock and so forth.

A better world, in my opinion, would include things like more walk able neighborhoods. This, encouraging healthier, less costly lifestyles.

While the 1950's brought a surge of prosperity, all was not happy. Ask gay people. A lot of minorities were left out. Pedestrians were relegated to the status of second class citizens.

Much of our lives, today, are rooted in the patterns of the 1950's and 1960's. At that time, the patterns seemed beneficial to a lot of people. Comfortable lives, a growing middle class. In a lot of ways, we could do better in the future, but it will be different. It would need to be something more healthy and environmentally sustainable.

I remember the song from the 1960's about little boxes on the hillside made of ticky tacky. People were critical of things, back then. The boxes were houses in Daily City California, so I remember.

Today, those little boxes command very high prices. There is a high price which indicates a strong demand for going back to the way things were before, but back then, there were less people in America. Global warming was hardly an issue. We could get by with it. Today, it's price is very high, but there are people willing to pay for it. Really? Can't we find something better?

On the left, some people say the 1960's American Dream can come back with liberal spending policies, taxing the wealthy and putting more money in the hands of ordinary Americans. Raising minimum wages and so forth to help small business have more customers. Bringing back unions. To some extent, this may be true, but I think the whole dream has to be modified. I think we need new definitions of prosperity. That's why I prefer talk about sustainable development to a lot of the traditional left wing talking points.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

Higher taxes passed along to consumer might mean higher prices for cheap stuff. Do we really need all that cheap stuff?

Some economists point out that even if we just increase taxes on the wealthy, higher costs will get passed along to consumers and workers. This argument sometimes kills tax proposals; like the rich folks have us over a barrel due to our cravings for cheap products and services.

I have to ask, do we need all these cheap products and services from places like Amazon and Walmart? Do we need all that clutter in people's lives with it's impact on the natural environment?

There is no free lunch. Life does have tradeoffs. For instance something like a carbon tax would increase things like the cost of gasoline. This is needed for the environment and to nudge technology toward greener energy, but it will hit working people, in the short run. A price that might be worth paying; especially if things are planned carefully to help those who really do need the energy; such as farmworkers following the crops.

A carefully crafted tax bill would need to preserve most of the working assets of businesses; such as the buildings and equipment. Businesses would need to be able to exempt some expenses so the business climate could remain a healthy source of jobs, products, services, taxes and charitable contributions. Otherwise, politicians will hear hell and the political climate favoring the taxes will crumble.

While there is no free lunch, it does seem like we can get by taxing the wealthy to some extent. Due to wide wealth discrepancy; there does seem to be a lot of loose money awash around the world. Wealthy people are looking for places to park their extra personal wealth. Not necessarily in creating businesses. Wealth is used to buy up real estate and in some cases even just leave it empty. They buy empty condos and various properties while other people remain homeless. I hear about wealthy folks buying condos and leaving them empty since having renters is too much hassle. The property goes up in value anyway, even while empty. This indicates too much money is flooding into real estate. In Vancouver, BC. this has been a big problem so they have passed a tax on foreign investors of empty property. Sometimes called the "empty condos tax." This is a worldwide situation. Empty investment properties is a problem in the US as well. A sign of an overheated asset market.

Taxing the wealthy could cause a decline in the markets for things like high priced antiques, summer homes, yachts, collectables, high priced art and so forth.

Increasing revenue for governments could boost the economy in other ways such as infrastructure development and creating jobs in green energy. Also governement can put more money in the hands of lower income consumers thus stimulating consumption.

Friday, October 09, 2020

Macho American "can do" spirit, that Republicans push, doesn't fit the current condition of American's elderly and couch potato public.

The macho American "can do" spirit that so many Republicans like to talk about doesn't really fit the current state of the American people. "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" might have been more applicable when the demographics of our population skewed more toward younger people. Now we have more of an elderly population and even a lot of younger people with various disabilities. Positive thinking is still useful, but we need a smarter strategy.

Thursday, October 08, 2020

Why Republicans can't come up with a better plan than Obamacare. Premiums have to be subsidized for many and Republicans don't like wealth transfer.

Here's why Republicans can't preserve coverage for preexisting conditions and replace Obamacare for average people.

The way that insurance has kept premiums affordable, in the past, was to deny coverage for people with preexisting health conditions. Premiums are less in a pool of lower cost healthier people.

Protecting people with preexisting conditions raises the premiums higher than a large segment of the population can pay. Thus the need to subsidize premiums for lower income people; something Republicans don't like. Subsidies are a form of wealth transfer.

Another way around that dilemma is to have a large pool of insured people; such as big employers providing coverage or universal government provided single payer coverage. The bigger pools tend to spread and soften the spikes in the cost a bit more, but if there are a lot of unhealthy people in the population, premiums are still high. Employers have paid those premiums in the past, but as time goes on, more and more employers are dropping the health coverage they provide to their employees and / or making the employees pay a bigger share of the cost.

Income discrepancy has gotten so high, in this country, that health insurance doesn't work without subsidies.

Tuesday, October 06, 2020

Why we humans are worried about this period of climate change and not the others that were millions of years ago.

Why should we be more worried about our current period of climate change than the many big climate changes that have already happened on earth over millions and billions of years?

We weren't living on earth back then so we weren't around to worry about them. This period of climate change, that we are playing a big role in causing, is the one that's effecting us.

Monday, October 05, 2020

Imagine the United States with a population of 1 billion people. A thought experiment.

An interesting thought experiment. What if the US had one billion people? This video says it could be beneficial, due to a larger economy. Bigger markets, more workers, more skills, economic growth.

But what about the environment? Toward the end of this video, the environment was not ignored. Some of the problems and potential solutions were discussed in figuring out how to accommodate 1 billion Americans.

One thing that wasn't mentioned, though, is over population worldwide. At over 7 billion, can the planet survive? 11 billion?

Maybe the US could survive if 1 billion, out of that 7 billion+ people, were to relocate here. The US might be able to hold a larger share of the world's people, but I'd say there is a limit to how many people can comfortably live on earth.

My first thought is that 1 billion Americans would create total gridlock in many aspects of life; especially traffic. If Americans insisted on living, the way Americans do today. Would you be able to find a parking spot?

For 1 billion people to live in USA, big changes would need to be made in the way folks live. More people would have to use alternative transit. There would have to be planning for higher density where most would be living.

As birthrates in the US have dropped, most of this population increase would come from immigration.

According to the video, immigration can fuel economic growth as it has done for decades, but video points out hypocrisy among Republicans who oppose immigration. Republicans seem to want economic growth, but not the growing number of people that fuel the bigger markets.

Republicans say they just oppose illegal immigration which is a valid point, but the author of this video points out that recent Republican policies have strived to reduce legal immigration as well.

Due to China's large market, China is gaining clout and will soon surpass USA.

This video says that Hollywood is now having to kowtow, more and more, to the wishes of the Chinese market. He cited films where mention of Tibetan independence is being removed by Hollywood film makers so the film can sell in China.

I think that this happens, unless there can be custom versions of the film for different markets.

When I was a child, I thought that China's big population was more of a drag; like a millstone around the neck, than a benefit. Too many people for the land and resources.

During my childhood, natural resources, such as minerals, were thought of as wealth. How much copper, iron, timber and food products can you produce? Today, intellectual creativity is more thought of as wealth. In some cases, the more people, the more wealth. Copper and iron can be either recycled or imported.

Still, I have to keep saying, Bigger is not necessarily better and how we live in the environment can make or break us.

Sunday, October 04, 2020

Should a vaccine be more widely circulated if it's found to be safe, though not necessarily effective? A bigger trial sample to test its effectiveness?

FDA has a careful process for approving vaccines. I got to thinking the terms "safe" and "effective" are usually said in the same breath. My guess is that "safe" takes less time to test than "effective."

One can get data on the safety of a vaccine pretty quickly if people in the trial aren't having bad side effects.

As for testing effectiveness, people in the trial would need to be exposed to the virus to see if they have immunity. That takes longer as in the normal course of events, not that many people, in the sample, would be exposed. Exposing folks on purpose brings up ethical questions.

Maybe they could separate the two concepts of safe and effective?

If a vaccine is safe, at least in the short run, (not counting possibly some strange cancer 20 years from now), maybe they should distribute it farther and wider? If it's safe though not effective; little is lost.

I would guess it's especially not a big loss since quite a bit of the COVID-19 vaccine has been already manufactured, in this case, to jumpstart eventual distribution. Vaccine that is not safe and effective will have to be thrown out anyway.

A premature distribution could mean a larger pool of people for trials. This would make it easier to test for effectiveness as a larger group of people means more would come in contact with the virus at some point in their normal lives.

Just a thought. Maybe they are doing this, I wouldn't know.

There is also, of course, the worry about public trust of a vaccine when it does become available. I realize that is one reason for caution.

Monday, September 21, 2020

What makes Facebook such a successful networking and publicity tool is not privacy. It's the openness.

In a way, I think Facebook has painted itself into a corner. Part of the magic that has made Facebook so successful as a networking tool is the broad connections and the conversations that can start between so many different kinds of people.

Now that so many folks are worried about lack of privacy, there is a contradiction. Getting the word out is kind of the opposite of privacy.

Instead of falsely trying to offer privacy also (trying to be all things to all people), maybe they should have just said Facebook is not about privacy. It's about interconnectedness, sharing and publicity.

This might have mean a few less users and a few less billions in the corporate coffers, but it would be more focused on how this type of networking works best. Maybe it's not for everyone.

Alternatives to Facebook, that try and get off the ground while placing more emphasis on privacy, can't get the ball rolling. It's hard to create the network effect when people are behind privacy walls. Without a bunch of people interacting, other forums can be pretty quite and lonely.

There are various alternatives, though. I hear a lot about Reddit, but haven't used it that much. For photo sharing, I use Flickr a lot. I write long photo descriptions as an outlet for my writing. Flickr gets the pageview hits, but not a lot of feedback.

People, on Facebook, ought to come into it with and understanding of what it is; a networking forum that can make connections far and wide.

A lot of connections are not always what we might expect, but that can create new experiences. I am a fan of diversity in ideas, but I am also a fan of civility. We, as users, need to do our part too.

Sunday, September 20, 2020

Trump rally alluring. The 1970's song YMCA was played. Fun to watch, but like drinking sugary Kool Aid.

I watched part of the Trump Rally in North Carolina. After the speech, they played the song YMCA by the Village People. Folks were dancing with hands in the air.


There is a lot of energy in that song. I've danced to it also, in different circumstances.

As for the speech, I am not bothered by watching. It's kind of alluring. I know it's toxic, but it's like drinking Kool Aid.

Drinking the Kool Aid.

One can learn how so many people think, or its better to say, "how so many people feel." Emotions drive a lot of things.

The speech had promises; like "we are going to hire more police."

I thought who pays for that? Are we going to bail out local governments that pay for the police?

He says, "We are going to protect people with preexisting conditions, take care of the veterans, on and on."

If it were just Trump alone, I think he'd bail out a lot of things. Just call his buddies at Federal Reserve to print up the money. Anything to get votes, but deficit hawks in Congress (the Republican establishment?) have other ideas.

Much of what I heard (I tuned in late) was repeated stories about the deals he's made. There's that new embassy building in Jerusalem that was going to cost over 1 billion dollars till he got on the phone. It's now $500,000; supposedly. There's the new version of Airforce One. He got that down also; supposedly.

The crowd cheers.

A few small stories, but meanwhile things like more police and coverage for preexisting conditions, can cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Hundreds of billions when implemented across this big country. A bigger story than just an embassy or an airplane. Looking at the big picture, things don't add up behind the sales pitch.

Thursday, September 17, 2020

A slow growth economy throws a monkey wrench into the meritocracy

Another interesting interview I heard.

There is a high bar of education, credentials and merit that prevents a lot of workers from having a sense of dignity and in many cases even a livable wage. A meritocracy which could be thought of as an elitism.

One of the factors that could have caused some labor vote to break with Democrats and vote for Trump in 2016.

A point that wasn't mentioned tho, is this thought I have had for a long time.

A slow growth economy makes it harder for people rise in their career paths. I think slow growth is partially the result of environmental limits on growth. Also the problem of increasing income inequality.

When I was a child, I remember thinking that the economy was growing pretty fast and people seemed like their career paths were advancing. Then, sometime in the early 1970's, it seemed like that growth stagnated and never fully recovered. Here in Washington State, that was the time when the famous Boeing layoff hit Seattle.

Before the 1970's, as I was growing up in a college town, the college was growing. Hiring more faculty, constructing more buildings. Seemed like it wouldn't be that hard to rise in a career path.

Then everything slowed down. Budget cuts and so forth. Rising into the professional class became more difficult. More competitive. Even remaining in the middle class became harder.

Part of this relates to slow economic growth, but I think slow growth isn't necessarily all bad given the environmental effects of the types of growth we had in the past.

Without much career advance, one can still have a life of dignity; like what I think I have had, but this has been hard for a lot of people. Especially hard for people trying to raise families.

As income inequality has risen, the cost of basics, such as housing, has risen along with it. Also the cost of professional services, such as medical care as well as the cost of sending kids to college.

There's a gap between the 1% and the rest of society, but there is also a gap between the top (say) 20% professionals and the rest of working society. The higher cost of professional services is pushing up things like the cost of higher education. This ontop of the reduction in state support as a percentage of the cost of college.

As for the perception of elitism, the institution of faculty tenure comes to mind. It was invented to protect professors from the whims of politicians firing someone for unpopular views. This makes sense, but it was started at a time when universities were growing and hiring new faculty. When things stagnated, the number of tenure positions stagnated creating more of a barrier to entry. It became more of a zero sum game. That's when people notice some dead wood among those with tenure while talented people get turned away from teaching due to lack of available positions.

I don't mean to focus just on colleges, but that has been my background growing up in a college town. It's been an issue across the entire economy. An upper middle class harder to enter and upper middle class income becoming more necessary for a stable life. As a culture, we haven't adapted that well to a slow growth economy. Slow growth partially a necessity for protecting the environment.

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Recent Goal Keeper's report says world prosperity now in reverse. I wonder if world has reached peak prosperity?

Something called the Goal Keepers Report, from the Gates Foundation, has recently come out with a report saying world poverty is increasing again. Poverty had been in decline for quite a few years. Prosperity and health was on the increase, but most recently, these trends may have reversed. Report cites the corona virus pandemic as the main cause.

My thinking goes beyond to wondering if the world has reached something that could be called "peak prosperity?" Beyond just the virus, global warming brings other threats to the global economy.

Unless there are major changes in our ways of living and doing business, the growth of prosperity could have stalled.

There have been big problems all along, but increasing global prosperity has brought a form of complacency. Dire predictions of global die offs and the ongoing extinction of species has been countered by an overall increase in world prosperity. How long can these contradictions last?

World population growth continues to be a big problem, tho it has been slowing down as much of the world's standard of living has improved. There may be a limit to how much prosperity we can create for how many people. A limit given the way most of the world has been functioning up until now. Continuing dependency on fossil fuels as a case in point.

This report focused on effects of the pandemic, but I'm thinking beyond and questioning whether prosperity, itself, may have stalled.

Some people are critical of Bill Gates for having much wealth, himself. Still, I would guess the foundation does have a lot of knowledge about worldwide trends. Many of the things the foundation is trying to do are beneficial, such as research on vaccines.

Sometimes I do think about the Microsoft fortune in relation to the concept of missed opportunity, however. Much of it's work has focused on improving global health and education. The world is a big place and it seems like just drops in the bucket tho I'm sure it has been beneficial to many lives. Not always visible from our North American vantage point.

Meanwhile, in Seattle Metropolitan area, where Microsoft and the Gates Foundation are headquartered, the area is becoming, in some ways, more dysfunctional. I think lost opportunity.

Investments could have been made for Seattle area to solve it's traffic gridlock problems, lack of affordable housing, carbon footprint, transit and so forth.

One can't necessarily blame Microsoft for all of this as the whole culture, in USA, isn't that conducive to sustainable living. Former Microsoft Billionare Paul Allen comes more to mind with his local investments in sports teams for Seattle and the Experience Music Project.

It would have been neat if Seattle could have been a world leader for making it's city more livable, investing in affordable housing, transit, bike paths and so forth. It has done some, but the problems of population growth and traditional visions of prosperity outpaces the greener visions. At least one thinks dysfunctional looking at the traffic and the cost of living. Remember the CHOP Zone and social unrest. Does that city no longer work?

One way forward, for the world, is to look at things in Europe, I guess. Cities like (from what I've heard) Copenhagen in Denmark as examples of city planning and greener living. Cities that are prosperous. The world ought to aspire to be like those places.

Seattle area isn't that great an example.