A government default could pull the plug on asset values

The debt ceiling impasse has gone to the next step. Surprisingly enough Republicans in the House did barely get on board for a "Republican plan" to raise the ceiling and have big cuts in spending.

Democrats and probably most of the American people would not go for those cuts. Meanwhile, raising taxes isn't being considered by the Republicans.

The government does provide a lot of important services, such as health insurance for many who can't afford super high insurance premiums. Governments provide public safety, police, fire, and the large military budget. Affordable housing is provided as well. Basic research in medicine, space exploration and other science is often funded by a small sliver of the budget which helps to keep us abreast with the rest of the world that is moving forward.

Some people think we need to rely more on the private sector, which does some good things, but much private money goes to private yachts, big homes, called McMansions, second homes, political bribes and multi million dollar salaries for playing football.

There we have the dilemma of the budget. We could just pull the plug and let the economy go into a depression. Much of the money, that we thought we had in things like bank accounts and asset values could disappear. These perceived stores of value could plummet.

Perceived stores of value are possibly no more real that some of the tricks proposed, that Biden could do, such as minting a trillion dollar coin and calling it "money," so we can continue to prop things up, rather than the possibility of panic setting in and things crashing.

One possible scenario for the debt ceiling problem is that the impasse will put the US into default and uncharted financial territory. Like the virus, it could cause financial panic and a Wall Street crash. Like in March of 2020, politicians got a bit scared and figured out how to make more money out of thin air; thus paying unemployment to cover the shutdowns that likely saved many lives. Rents were paid for businesses and individuals when restaurants, bars and so forth closed. Money was spend to develop the vaccine and provide hospitalization to the afflicted. Most of us, still alive at least, came out of the pandemic, but now there is worry about some inflation.

We would be better off if Dianne Feinstein aspired to become an elder states person, rather than trying to hang on as a Senator

I think Dianne Feinstein should step down; given the bottleneck that her temporary absence from the Senate Judiciary Committee places in the way of Biden's judicial appointments.

I wonder why she wants to cling to the job in light of all the damage this situation could do? A younger Democrat, in that position, would be better for the big picture. Come to think about it, Biden, himself, is also up there in the years, but he still seems to be functioning okay.

Maybe Feinstein wants to remain in office for personal reasons to keep engaged and active. If I were in her shoes, I would rather be an elder statesperson (used to be called "elder states man) than have the responsibility and stress of high office. An elder statesperson can remain as engaged as they want to be expressing opinions, granting interviews, raising money, writing articles, influencing politics and so forth.

Former Justice Ginsberg should have taken that route also. Maybe Biden should consider that as well, though he seems to be functioning. The ideas and the staff behind public officials is what's most important. Younger people can continue to carry the torch.

My vote is still for Biden if he is the main Democratic candidate as I remind people that it isn't just about one person. Biden has a whole staff behind him that's likely better than what a Trump, or other Republican would assemble. I vote for the issues that Biden is more likely to represent.

Trigger happy gun owners may be more of a problem than even the guns themselves.

I've read that, In most of the world, going to the wrong house is not a deadly risk. But in the United States it can be. It does seem like we are getting trigger happy, wary of strangers and so forth. The proliferation of guns in this society is a big part of the problem as well.

In an ideal world, anger would be a more immoral emotion than eroticism.

In an ideal world, anger and hate would be emotions that tread close to the lines of immorality while eroticism would be more acceptable.

In this world, it's almost the other way around.

First a teacher was hated in Sudan for the misnaming of a Teddy bear. Now a hateful war.

There's a big war of hate happening inside Sudan.

Flashback to 2007 and I remember the controversy about when a teacher, from UK, was arrested and convicted, in Sudan, for insulting Islam by allowing her class of six-year-olds to name a teddy bear "Muhammad."

She was later released back to the UK. Having some memory of that news, I just looked it up in Wiki.

Here in USA, the name "Teddy Bear" was named after our former president Teddy Roosevelt. One could just call then "stuffed bears," I guess. We, in USA, are usually more tolorent.

Some folks might say a president is different than a religious profit, but some hard core fundamentalist Christians, here in USA, nearly consider Donald Trump to be the second coming of Christ.

I don't think much of fundamentalist religions.

Variable rate carbon tax could stabilize oil prices the way the Strategic Oil Reserve does now.

During my college years, in the shadow of the 1973 oil crisis, the US created the Strategic Oil Reserve. Back then, the idea was to have a reserve supply of oil in case we needed to fight a war while overseas oil imports were diminished.

Back then, we were dependent on imported oil for much of our supply. Today, we produce most of our own oil, due to increased domestic production; thus the reserve serves another purpose.

Since my college days, the use of our Strategic Oil Reserve has shifted to other goals; mainly the goal of stabilizing oil prices. When gas prices go up, Biden and other presidents, have dipped into the reserve to lower prices and to save their own political fortunes.

When prices go down, the reserve can be refilled. This practice can make money for the treasury due to the process of buying cheap / selling high.

It is not necessarily a bad strategy, but I also think this price stabilization effect can be done with carbon taxes that would be imposed when oil is too cheap. This would put a floor on oil prices so they are less apt to undercut alternative energy. The tax could be removed or lowered at times when oil prices are high. That temporary tax cut could relieve the shock of sudden price hikes.

The American people are to blame for the national debt

There is much anxiety about the federal debt. Finger pointing as well. Ultimately, I think it's the American people who can be blamed for the debt. Not wanting to pay higher taxes while still demanding various things, like the military for instance, from government.

Republicans are likely more to blame, but Democrats are not angels either. Republicans refusal to even consider tax increases is a problem. Another problem is the idea that money and wealth is the most important goal in life.

In my personal life, I haven't been that motivated by making more money. I do need enough for survival and comfort as a single person and a bit more to make life interesting, some travel for instance.

On the other hand, I do have a big interest in the workings of the economy on a large scale. Not my personal finance, but learning, from a distance, how business, government and so forth function. I have an interest in how these things can remain viable to create the economy that we are dependent on. I was a geography major, in college and one of my favorite subjects is "Economic Geography."

Another Earth Day

Sometimes I think Earth Day is just another way to appease our guilt and make it look like we are trying to do something to save the livability of the planet.

This year, a friend was thinking of attending a tree planting event, but found that the event, near his neighborhood, was fully booked. Maybe not enough saplings at that location, but other locations, in the city, still had openings. He wanted to walk, rather than drive across town, but he may attend anyway regardless of whether there is a sapling for him to plant.

The events offer instructions on where to park for attending the event.

Years ago, another friend walked into a meeting, I was at, with sapling in hand asking people if they wanted to take one for planting. I took one and then walked to Sehome Hill to plant it myself. There wasn't an event. I don't know if it survived or not. There wasn't an event to show me how to plant it.

Now I can't tell if it survived, or not, as when I look at that area, I just see lots of trees anyway. I forgot exactly where I planted it.

Many more years before that, I remember the first Earth Day while I was in high school. The art teacher led a tree planting event, but a biology teacher thought the trees wouldn't survive on that hillside which was naturally a grassland environment. That event was still a nice memory.

Driver assist technology could be used to enforce safer driving.

While I tend to feel favorable toward the police, I also understand the argument that "an ounce of prevention," from things like social services, is better than "a pound of cure;" only relying on police.

This same logic can apply to traffic safety as well. Driver assist technology and even self driving technology is becoming more prevalent. I've heard that we can pretty much make the cars enforce things like speed limits, but there is reluctance to do this from automakers and the driving public.

How about having a breathalyzer in all cars so the car doesn't start if the breathalyzer detects alcohol? We've had that technology, since the 1980s, as it is often installed in the cars of folks who have been convicted of drunk driving.

How about having the cars, themselves, enforce speed limits and having the cars refuse to do reckless driving? The human driver could still override these features given certain emergencies or the need for higher speeds in passing and so forth.

This isn't just my idea, I've heard, on the news, that we could do a lot more to make cars safer by just installing technology where the car refuses to do reckless driving. GPS could be used so the car knows the speed limits for each road.

Many of the problems, that cause folks to complain about police, stem from traffic stops. The cars, themselves could do more to enforce public safety.

Strong Towns suggests changing street design to encourage slower and safer driving. Slower style city planning is nice. I would appriciate it being a bicyclist and a pedestrian, but it does take billions of dollars in retrofitting. A quicker solution is to use technology, in the cars themselves, to enforce safer driving.

If better mental health services is seen as the answer, instead of better gun legislation, that can be turned into an argument for universal access to mental healthcare and maybe single payer.

Some Republicans say that guns aren't the problem, the problem is mental health. Maybe that could be turned into an argument for universal access to healthcare. Possibly an argument for single payer.

Ironically, Republicans are not likely to embrace that logic, however.

Today I hear in the news that quite a few people will loose access to healthcare as the pandemic emergency winds down. Some low income folks, in states like Texas, will loose access to Medicaid expansion; states that still refuse Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.

Others, even in states like Washington that has the Medicaid expansion, will likely get confused by the myriad of choices and miss open enrollment periods as some people need to reenroll in various plans as things change after the pandemic.

In some cases, folks will fall through the cracks and loose access to psychiatric medicines that they need as the complex landscape of healthcare finance keeps changing.

Add to this more and more guns in society and you have a recipe for problems.

Biden's new energy standards for mobile homes may only cost pocket change compared to renting a space for a mobile home anyway. Might as well not fret about that.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) is asking the Biden administration to delay new energy standards for mobile homes set to go into effect at the end of next month.

I say, "why bother fretting about this?" It seems like the $750, added purchase cost for a singlewide mobile home to make it more energy efficient, is just pocket change compared to monthly rent for a space at mobile home parks in this (western Washington State) area, at least. I've heard that rent can be around $800 per month just to be in a mobile home park; if one is lucky enough to find a space. That's not counting utilities. One month covers that entire cost difference for the better insulated homes to save lots of money, over time, on heating and cooling.

I assume the cost is only for new mobile homes as existing ones would be grandfathered in, for a while, anyway.

This may be one difference between "blue state" and "red state" thinking as maybe, in South Carolina where Senator Scott is from, rents and property prices are lower. In Bellingham area, rents and property values are high as our blue state economy tends to be booming. That prosperous situation does bring other challenges, however; like rents so high, in our "hoity toity" communities, that they dwarf the cost of things like better insulated windows.

I've never been to South Carolina, but I hear that rents may be more affordable, but that's just a stereotype?

Maybe it's expensive in the Charlston area. I do have a college degree in geography. I hear that, in North Carolina, Ashville rents and property values are through the roof.

What if DeSantis were to become president and pardon Trump?

Here's a thought experiment. What would happen if Ron DeSantis became president in 2025 and pardoned Donald Trump? I realize that DeSantis and Trump are rivals, however, for the Republican nomination. They aren't exactly buddy buddy.

On the Trump topic, I haven't said much lately. My reaction to the indictment ranges from "glad that it's proceeding" to a bit of "indifference." Long term issues, such as the economy and climate change, tend to captivate me more.

I've always been, pretty much, a moderate Democrat, myself.

It seems like it's gotten to where ethics are more and more determined by politics. Guilt or innocence, ethical or unethical depends, to a large extent, on who one asks.

Republicans tend to think one way, Democrats another.

Seems like there are a lot of things that Trump has done that would do more than raise the eyebrows of; for instance, evangelical Christians, but these days most Republicans do give him a pass. That's why I ponder the question, "what if DeSantis were to pardon Trump if he were President by 2025."

What if red states were to protect their red friends and prevent them from being sent to blue states for legal proceedings? The United States ununited? So far, that hasn't happened, however.

I often think that when in power, Republicans tend to show more bias toward their own comrades than Democrats do. For instance Senator Al Frankin stepped down, rather quickly, after mild acusations related to the Me Too movement, while, around the same time, Trump could "double down" and still keep his support.

Most likely there was never a totally objective basis for ethics anyway. It just seems like, as time goes on, there is less and less of an illusion of objective ethics.

I still try to hold to my own set of ethics, however. As for society, there still seems to be enough common ground that, for the most part, society still does function.

Thinking more deeply about the basis of ethics.

From observation of human behavior, I tend to think that ethics evolves out of our need to function among one another in this world. Our need to be neighborly and reduce harm or pain to one another. Our need to work together for building the institutions of society that allow us to achieve more than we would as isolated groups or individuals.

I don't rule out a spiritural dimention to life, but seems like our rules, beliefs and ethics are separate from that. Maybe they are inspired, but looking at how humans function, I am skeptical.

There are the laws of physics and there are a lot of open questions about intelligents and spiriturality that I enjoy contemplating.

There is so much that we still don't know so I go at it with a bit of humbleness.

The behaviour of fundamentalist religious people tends to discredit any idea of a divine basis for human morality. At the same time, I haven't thrown out the idea that a divinity exists, it just seems like we (humans) get into trouble when we try to define it in our own terms.

In politics, it seems to me like extreme left, or extreme right, doesn't lead to good governance. Middle ground, with some compromise, works best.

Slowing population growth could benefit the nations where people still want to live. Benefit democratic ideals.

Elon Musk is worried about the population bust with it's potential drag on world economies.

Instead of that, it looks like population is shrinking in places like Russia, where people are trying to get out, but population is still growing in places like Canada, where people are waiting at the borders trying to get in.

If economic growth follows population growth, countries like Canada, with better respect for diversity, will grow. This sorting out of nations could benefit democratic ideals, however worldwide economic growth can still present problems such as climate change.

Electric trolley style mass transit gets around the battery chemicals problem

There is some worry, not just from right wing pundits, but from others that a green energy revolution may be difficult. One big concern is the chemicals needed in batteries for cars and utility power storage; the mining and so forth.

I still think we should migrate more to public transit which can function without batteries. Seattle's trolley bus system, for instance. Electricity fed direct from overhead lines.

More compact city planning, more transit, walking and bicycling is needed.

Electrification is better than fossil fuels, but the transition may not be as easy as some folks think. Heat pumps can save lots of energy for buildings. They are better than regular electric heating, but smaller homes are a virtue as well.

We need to think beyond just sitting back and expecting that battery technology will do it all for us in just the next two decades or so. That's a tall order.

More deaths among medically expensive people, plus more homecare has bolstered the solvency of Medicare

Catch your breath. Medicare is on stronger financial footing than was feared a few years back. The deadline, for it's costs to outstrip revenue, has been pushed back 3 years to 2031.

Trustees anticipate some cost savings for Medicare, thanks to a switch to less-expensive outpatient treatments and because some people, who would have required the most costly care, died prematurely during the pandemic.

That does sound a bit harsh as some of the most costly people have died, but it means a savings for Medicare.

Social Security faces a projected revenue shortfall by 2033, unless raising the tax cap or instituting benefit cuts. Increased taxes have been proposed by Democrats for shoring up both the Medicare and the Social Security systems. Another alternative is less services and / or more deaths.

Link to article that I got this info from. I saw beyond the headlines.

Natural disasters create more stumbling blocks to Republican budget cutting plans

The Republican goal to cut federal spending would be hard to achieve. Seems like every time we turn around, there's another disaster. Recent tornados across the Midwest; a case in point.

More and more money is needed for disaster relief and budget planners don't seem to take that into account. The disasters are often larger than anticipated.

Way back in the days before our government was as large as it is today, communities were more left on their own to repair the damage based on private charity. Many needs would go unmet.

Patience is a virtue that is in short supply in politics

A while ago, I suggested that Democrats and Biden should ask Republicans to come up with a budget and specify what spending they think should be cut. My suggestion is kind of stating the obvious and I notice that Democrats are now doing that. Republicans are struggling to come up with any major cuts that don't upset large swaths of the voting public.

It does seem like "the people" are pretty much impossible to satisfy. That's really the crux of the problem, but few people care to discuss that problem.

Politicians don't get elected by saying that the people's expectations are impractical. Politicians tend to rally our expectations.

Seems like patience is a virtue lost in modern society.

At the same time, I do feel that the expectations of Republicans are even more unrealistic than the expectations of Democrats. Tax cuts, such as during the Bush and Trump eras, have contributed to wealth inequality.

Both Democrats and Republicans have benefited, personally, from these lower taxes. Democrats may have even benefited more as there tends to be more wealth in Democrat led districts.

In this information economy, innovative, educated populations, in urban areas, have tended to benefit more.

I think that if Democrats were more in the majority of government positions, there would be some higher taxes on success which would lead to less inequality, but the Republican politicians have blocked that, for the most part.

In some cases, prosperous cities have tried to tax themselves more while state legislatures, led by Republicans, have blocked that.

I think both Republican and Democrat elites have personally benefited from relatively low taxes compared to European countries, for instance. Society, as a whole, has suffered.

If Democrats were more in control, wealth inequality would be somewhat less, but life would still be no nirvana. Climate change would still be a problem as wealth and things like automobile addiction would still prevail. It would still be hard for American society to meet climate goals, as set out in the Paris Agreements.

Other big demands, that are often made by some folks on the left such as reparations to address racism, would, most likely, still remain out of reach.

Even in a system more controlled by Democrats, expectations would continue to be far too high for the reality of what we can realistically expect. Plain logistics and math is often what stands in the way.

It seems like pretty much everyone has little patience. Expectations seem to always outstrip what can be realistically provided. This situation, of excessive expectations, does lead to anxiety and unhappiness in modern society.

In many cases, we need to learn to appreciate more of what we have.

We still should strive for better deals, but at the same time, I think we've gone overboard in our constant complaints and expectations for something better. Ironically, due to so much demanding, we could end up with less than we have now. We could loose civil society and democracy itself.

Did "family values" cause the air travel chaos of Christmas 2022?

As both the traditional left and traditional right jockey for the "moral high ground" on family values, it could be family values that caused the airline chaos of Christmas 2022.

Republicans try to blame Transportation Secretary Buttigieg for that chaos, but Buttigieg doesn't control the weather.

People's desire for bringing together distant family members, during the worst travel season of the year, is more to blame. Our family oriented holidays of Christmas and Thanksgiving happen to be during the stormy time of year and storms of 2022 took aim right at Christmas travel mania.

Being less family minded, myself, I didn't travel then. Visiting with my brothers and sisters, electronically, was sufficient in my family of origin. Connection with local folks was sufficient as well; local folks that are not connected by blood or marriage.

A bike ride across town, or walking when the snow made biking treacherous was sufficient. At times, I think American culture is trying to squeeze too much out of our transportation systems as well as the natural environment.

Could Intalco Alcoa Aluminum site be used for energy storage? Powerlines are already in place.

Could the old Intalco / Alcoa aluminum site, Now owned by AltaGas be used for intermittent storage of energy from the power grid?

As more green power comes to the grid, such as solar, there is potentially a need for storage; such as storage of solar power for night use.

This site already has good powerline connections to the grid. It could be used to store energy in batteries, or hydrogen. If hydrogen, maybe it would help to have the port and rail access that is already there. The site has rail, port and good powerline access.

Maybe use it for wind power also? Unfortunately Whatcom County still has a moratorium on wind power development, but that moratorium does have an exemption for industrial areas, so I hear.

Now that Alcoa has suttered the mill for good, there are still plans to possibly find a new industrial use for the land. Energy storage is one possibility.

Could groundwork for district heating also provide ground field for a heat pump system?

Picture of a chilled water plant at WSU, Pullman.

I've got to thinking that district heating and geothermal could go together well. They both use pipes in the ground.

District heating uses the pipes to bring heat, or cooling, from a central plant; like a steam plant, to buildings where the heat is used. Geothermal uses pipes through the ground to collect heat, or cooling, from the ground for buildings.

Can't the two go together?

A district heating network provides a lot of surface area of pipes in the ground between buildings. Couldn't the same tranches, or tunnels, also provide space for the refrigerant pipes of a heat pump system?

I'm not an expert on heat pumps, such as how far the pipes can be from the heat pump compressor, but there could be satellite compressors along the system that would feed hot, or cold water into the heating district distribution pipes.

Below, picture of old cooling tower for a chilled water plant they built at WWU, in Bellingham. It was built to cool some new buildings, but later discontinued. The chiller has been removed and space looks like it's used as a shop connected to WWU steam plant.

Now there are plans to eventually convert WWU's heating system to a heatpump system.

Winning the peace often works better than winning the war.

When the oppressive Soviet Union started to reform, it wasn't so much by military force as by people, within, finding out what folks in freer countries get to have. It was innovations, lifestyle choices, music, diversity, economics, consumer goods, art and so forth that caused people to push for reform.

Even if war isn't able to unseat Russia from it's captured territories, maybe the best strategy is to wait things out. In the long run, the yearnings for reform could come again.

Decades of low interest rates mostly just led to inflation in asset prices when money was given to private sector.

Given the past decades of low interest rates, it seemed like the most lucrative way to make money was to buy an asset at low price and then sell it at high price. Homes, stocks, artwork, or whatever; buy low, hold it and then sell. This was more lucrative than having a job.

Ironically, low interest rates were designed to keep employment up, but, instead, it mostly made a mockery out of working for a living.

This was especially true when the money flooded into the private sector. As for government spending, that was better, but still problematic.

Yes, I am kind of a leftist. I think that if cheap money is printed and given to the government, it could, at least, be directed to needed things, such as infrastructure improvement. The money could do needed work on it's way into the economy. After that, the extra money would create inflation in the general economy, but at least it would go into things like infrastructure on the first turnover of the dollars.

Dumping that money directly into the private sector just sped it to inflation faster as cheap bank loans fueled asset bubbles; such as existing housing.

The private sector could do more to create things we need, such as new housing, but environmental restrictions make that a much harder task. If new construction can't happen, the money just goes to inflating existing things.

Now, interest rates are going up so the situation is changing again. My comment is more about the decades that are just past.

Figuring out how to tax wealthy individuals without smothering business

People often talk about taxing the rich, business and corporations all in the same breath. Then Republicans, who are usually anti tax, say that taxing business will hurt the economy; thus hurting consumers and workers.

I think the discussion needs to look more carefully on what the wealth is being used for. In some cases, it's the buildings and things that a business needs to provide it's goods and services to the public. Taxing that away will effect the flow of goods and services to the public.

In other cases, it's just wealthy people spending money on their own luxuries, such as homes, yachts and so forth. I think that wealth should be more taxed. In some cases, it's money that corporations and individuals spend on corrupting politics as in campaigns and lobbying. That wealth should be taxed more as well.

The tax codes do try and differentiate between legitimate capital expenses, to run and expand a business, versus just individuals getting rich.

Public discussion needs to take into account this difference as well.

With income and wealth inequality getting worse, we need to figure out ways to tax the excesses of the wealthy without crippling the functioning of the businesses that consumers, workers and communities depend on.

Someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is more electable in urban settings where people lived in compact neighborhoods. She's less popular in sprawl.

The left leaning politics of someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is electable in an urban district like central New York City.

She would be less electable from the sprawling suburbs across USA where most people live. The suburbs full of swing voters. Even less electable in rural America; though Bernie Sanders, from the rural state of Vermont, is a notable exception.

I think, if we want politics to go more to the left, we need to strive toward more urban lifestyles. This can be seen here in Whatcom County where our urban center; Bellingham, tends to vote more liberal than the rest of the county.

I would guess that things like high gas prices become less of a political liability in places where commutes tend to be shorter.

I recently heard about the concept of the 15 minute city. That's the concept of living within a 15 minute commute to most needs; such as work, shopping and social life.

Face to face social interaction can have an effect on politics, I would guess. It's more likely in the 15 minute city.

Even if a metropolitan area is too large to be crossed by a 15 minute trip, the concept applies to how far one's needs are from their residence. Mixed use zoning can help with that by allowing a mix of densities, jobs and services in each area of the city.

In my case, I'm a 15 minute bike ride from downtown Bellingham so just about all my needs can be met within a 15 minute radius of my residence. This neighborhood also has bus service which, I think, is on an every 15 minute schedule.

The days of agriculture in California's Imperial Valley may be numbered

We, here on the west coast of USA, get a lot of our winter vegetable crops from California's Imperial Valley which is just north of the Mexican border and south of the Salton Sea. Unlike California's larger Sacramento / San Juaquin Valleys, it gets its irrigation water from the Colorado River. The larger valleys, to the north, get their water from mountain ranges inside California.

I recently had a conversation with someone that grew up in the Imperial Valley and he says it's a beautiful valley, but it's days as an agricultural valley may be numbered. It's productivity, for agriculture, is artificially created with irrigation water from the Colorado River and artificially propped up soils from tons of fertilizers.

I've been thinking they could save the agriculture, there, by desalinizing nearby seawater from the Gulf of California, in Mexico, or even the Pacific Ocean near San Diego.

The person, I was talking to thinks, instead, they may have to just let go of agriculture and let that valley return to desert. Agriculture could move to other places where soil and water conditions are naturally better, like some areas quite a ways farther south in Mexico where there could be more investment in agriculture.

It could help Mexico's economy, but we would be importing more food from there.

Artificial national borders are kind of problematic as well. We do live in a changing, global economy.

Falling birthrates are not likely a problem in countries where people wish to migrate to.

Some countries and economists are worried that falling birthrates will create economic problems. Not enough young people to work, shop and pay for the retired folks. Changing demographic distribution.

On the other hand, countries, like USA, Canada, much of Europe and Australia have over whelming numbers of young workers wanting to immigrate here. Seems like so many people, the world over, have the dream of coming to America.

Next problem is, how do we find housing for all those people and if they all drive cars, where are they going to park?

Yes, the earth has had different climates before. Do we want to have that happen in the next few decades?

Some conservatives think climate change is no big deal since there were times, in geologic past, when Earth's climate was much different. Here is an analogy, I just thought of, relating the life of civilization to the life of a person. People know that they will die someday. If something doesn't kill you sooner, old age will.

There are folks that take chances earlier in life; like snowboarding in an avalanche zone. They often die early, which can be seen as more of a tragedy than dying from "natural causes" in old age.

Same can be said for our civilization. We could push climate change to happen over the next few decades; like entering an avalanche zone at age 20, or we could wait till "natural causes" happen, like death at an older age.

If we wait, by not causing climate change ourselves, we could get several thousand more years for civilization to flourish. Who knows.

Climate change is only part of the problem. The other part is increasing demand for things like fresh water. Economic growth.

Climate change is like a two edged sword. It's both the increasing demands of economic and population growth, plus disruptions in supply, created by climate change itself.

The Colorado River is a prime example. From what I read, drought, related to climate, accounts for around a 20% reduction in river flow. That, by itself, wouldn't be so bad except demand for water increases from population and economic growth in the region.

Technology and conservation has helped, but another part of the problem is that they over committed the river, even back when water rights were being divvied up years ago. They thought there would be more water than there was. It's a two fold problem. Climate change plus growth in demands.

Inflation of existing asset prices. One cause of inflation that rising interest rates can curb.

Interest rates are rising. Good news for people with old fashioned savings in the bank. Bad news for borrowers.

The Fed is trying to curb inflation. Higher interest rates tend to curb the inflated asset market, such as home values, where existing real estate inflates so high, in value, that it becomes less affordable, thus one big factor increasing the cost of living.

Other drivers of inflation may be less related to interest rates alone.

Supply chain, such as gas prices, has to do with demand outstripping supply and in some cases, business take advantage of tight supply markets to increase profits.

Then there is the problem of income inequality. There tends to be a bidding war, among businesses and institutions, for retaining their top talent. For instance colleges raising the football coach's salary to keep up with competing institutions. Most workers fall behind top stars so, eventually, there is pressure to raise all wages just to keep up with inflation. A reasonable amount of inflation, maybe even more than the Fed's target of 2%, seems acceptable to me. The problem is that everything doesn't go up evenly.

If everything were to go up evenly, we could just move the decimal point over as time goes by.

Traffic keeps increasing.

As Bellingham grows, there is more and more traffic, even on minor streets.

At first I wondered if car addiction was getting worse, but then I realized that increased traffic, on minor streets, has to do with something I like; increasing density in neighborhoods. I favor increased density, but hope people learn to use cars less. Still, downtown Bellingham is relatively calm, traffic wise. Except for Holly Street, downtown streets are pretty calm. Less car dependency seems to be working downtown.

Whenever I go out into rural areas, it seems like traffic is even more backed up. Sprawl, versus density, is big in the county, but I usually just ride in Bellingham. When I do venture out to the county, it's an eye opener of even more traffic.

Most of the traffic, in both the city and county, does seem to be polite and orderly, however. That's good news.

I keep saying that as our population grows, I-5 will not grow. It will remain only 4 lanes, unlike Seattle metro, where much of it is 8 lanes.

Property values are too high and / or road taxes are too low to widen I-5 through Bellingham and Whatcom County. I doubt it can happen, yet more and more people are using it.

On my bicycle, I have found many good ways to avoid the angst of traffic. First, I am not in a hurry.

If traffic is near bumper to bumper, pulling out into traffic, coming from two directions, can be tedious. I have a remedy. I go out of my way to the nearest stoplight and then cross when the light turns green.

In some cases, I go up to a light just to get across and into the lane going back in the opposite direction. To me that's less nerve wracking than trying to catch enough of a break, in both lanes of traffic, to pull across to the lane going the direction I want to go.

If things are busy, it's much easier to cross at a stoplight. We're getting more of them all the time to help calm the traffic.