Prior to the Baby Boom, America was much like any other civilized country. We had multiple generations living under one roof, many industrialists making the lion's share of the money, and the working poor staying that way. Something changed with the second world war though.
The Deaths
So in looking at the lovely chart compiled by our friends at Wikipedia, you will note some statistical oddities. First, that Allied civilian deaths far outstrip military ones. That says something for how the Axis fought. Next, you will see that Axis military deaths far exceeded civilian ones. That says something about how we fought.
But this is all academic to the point. Due to our remote location, (relative to Europe) and our late entry to the war, and frankly our technological advantage, we lost relatively few people. The numbers to reference to see this are the deaths as a percentage of the country's 1939 population. Of all the major powers in the world, we lost the lowest percentage of our population.
This had an immediate impact on our country. (On a historic timeline). The low number of American civilian deaths, compared to the rest of the world players, meant that when the post-war world needed goods manufactured, we were the only ones left who could do the job. When the needs of the world outpaced our workforce, we effectively doubled it, by re-adding women. (They got a taste of the working world during the war and apparently enjoyed it)
Suddenly, (in historic terms), every generation was living separate from each other, there was the option for both partners to work, and a relatively high amount of wealth for working-class families, compared with the rest of the world. So in historic terms, what our grandparents, parents, and ourselves experienced was a brief period of unusually high prosperity.
WWII eliminated the competition, essentially. While I would not advocate the same method of doing this today; this is what we need to do, as a country. How do we put ourselves ahead? Unlike the mid-east we do not have a monopoly on a scarce good. Unlike China and India, we do not have so many laborers that it is cheaper to hand build, as opposed to automation. (Also we mostly enforce our environmental laws...) Our advantage is our inventiveness, When you take in all the ideas of the world, and put them together in one place, it is a natural fit. Yet, we are not the clear-cut technology leaders that we should be.
So here is my suggestion. The President (Obama as of the writing of this article) has recently suggested that community college be "Free". Again, that word is misused, but I have been shouting that same idea at anyone who can hear (and writing it down for those who can't) for decades. I would not limit this to community college, though. But there is one single condition...
The only taxpayer funded post secondary schooling you could get, would be things that benefit the country. (I know, that sounds socialist, but hear me out). No one is saying you can't get that degree in underwater basket-weaving, you just have to pay your own way. If you want Joe and Jane taxpayer to foot the bill, you need to pick a field in which there is either an essential need, or one that would improve the competitiveness of America, in the international market.
This would eliminate the need for protectionist policies, as it would draw business here. It would also provide a benefit to taxpayers. (unlike most government programs). Even those who can't, or who choose not to, go to college would benefit, as the available jobs would be better, due to the influx of manufacturing, and technology.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Starting the year with an economic boost.
Just before the end of 2012, the President gave a speech that praised republicans for ceding ground in the negotiations prior to the dreaded "fiscal cliff". The same speech "damned by faint praise" his own party, and made mention of the need of both, to work harder to compromise. He also stated that , personally, he would have liked to address all of the issues in one broad sweeping agreement, but that this congress was not up to that task.
Given that he was seeing congress fail to do their jobs yet again, and seeing there was a tragedy that unfolded just after the start of the year, I would like everyone to consider the following tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
A school shooting unfolds where many innocents are killed. The country, and congress, lose focus on fixing our fiscal problems. (which are boring and likely mean higher taxes or service cuts we don't want) What if there were a way to use that tragedy to prevent the economic downturn that would happen, due to market uncertainty caused by congressional inaction.
The president could have advised conversations about the possible need for gun control measures. The response of the public is that those who do not care about guns, and those who want them banned, behave exactly as they always have.
Those who enjoy shooting sports and hunting however, would react by going on a buying frenzy. (which is exactly what has happened.) The items they are buying are domestically produced, rather expensive firearms. These are sold by the manufacturers to a distributor, and from there to the shop where Joe "Armed-Citizen" purchased it.
Small business owners profit. Distributors profit. American Manufacturing profits. The downturn in the economy, and the downturn in manufacturing are prevented. A large portion of Americans start spending some of the money they had been hoarding, due to the fear of losing their jobs. (for the second time, in many cases)
Also there are those who were buying up the existing stock in an attempt to have a supply they could sell at huge markups, if there were a ban. This scarcity drives up demand, and thus prices, even further.
I'm not saying that the President turned that idiot Feinstein loose just to sell guns in a panic buying frenzy, thus staving off another recession. But since that is exactly how it unfolded, perhaps we should entertain the idea that it was not an accident.
Given that he was seeing congress fail to do their jobs yet again, and seeing there was a tragedy that unfolded just after the start of the year, I would like everyone to consider the following tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
A school shooting unfolds where many innocents are killed. The country, and congress, lose focus on fixing our fiscal problems. (which are boring and likely mean higher taxes or service cuts we don't want) What if there were a way to use that tragedy to prevent the economic downturn that would happen, due to market uncertainty caused by congressional inaction.
The president could have advised conversations about the possible need for gun control measures. The response of the public is that those who do not care about guns, and those who want them banned, behave exactly as they always have.
Those who enjoy shooting sports and hunting however, would react by going on a buying frenzy. (which is exactly what has happened.) The items they are buying are domestically produced, rather expensive firearms. These are sold by the manufacturers to a distributor, and from there to the shop where Joe "Armed-Citizen" purchased it.
Small business owners profit. Distributors profit. American Manufacturing profits. The downturn in the economy, and the downturn in manufacturing are prevented. A large portion of Americans start spending some of the money they had been hoarding, due to the fear of losing their jobs. (for the second time, in many cases)
Also there are those who were buying up the existing stock in an attempt to have a supply they could sell at huge markups, if there were a ban. This scarcity drives up demand, and thus prices, even further.
I'm not saying that the President turned that idiot Feinstein loose just to sell guns in a panic buying frenzy, thus staving off another recession. But since that is exactly how it unfolded, perhaps we should entertain the idea that it was not an accident.
Friday, November 30, 2012
The fix for the economy
Alexander Hamilton, (Ten dollar bill dude) is credited as being the first American protectionism theorist. Let's look at some of his ideas.
1. "Protecting duties." (Tariffs.)
2. "Prohibition of rival articles or duties equivalent to prohibitions." (Outright import bans.)
3. "Prohibition of the exportation of the materials of manufactures." (Export bans on raw materials needed for industrialization here at home.)
4. "Pecuniary bounties." (Export subsidies, like those provided today by the Export-Import Bank and other programs.)
5. "Premiums." (Subsidies for key innovations. Today, we would call them research and development tax credits.)
6. "The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty." (Import liberalization for industrial inputs, so some other country can be the raw materials exporter and we can industrialize.)
7. "Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures." (Same idea, by means of tax rebates.)
8. "The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, .and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly those, which relate to machinery." (Prizes for inventions and, more importantly, patents.)
9. "Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities." (Regulation of product standards, as the USDA and FDA do today.)
10. "The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place." (A sophisticated financial system.)
11. "The facilitating of the transportation of commodities." (Good infrastructure.)
2. "Prohibition of rival articles or duties equivalent to prohibitions." (Outright import bans.)
3. "Prohibition of the exportation of the materials of manufactures." (Export bans on raw materials needed for industrialization here at home.)
4. "Pecuniary bounties." (Export subsidies, like those provided today by the Export-Import Bank and other programs.)
5. "Premiums." (Subsidies for key innovations. Today, we would call them research and development tax credits.)
6. "The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty." (Import liberalization for industrial inputs, so some other country can be the raw materials exporter and we can industrialize.)
7. "Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures." (Same idea, by means of tax rebates.)
8. "The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, .and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly those, which relate to machinery." (Prizes for inventions and, more importantly, patents.)
9. "Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities." (Regulation of product standards, as the USDA and FDA do today.)
10. "The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place." (A sophisticated financial system.)
11. "The facilitating of the transportation of commodities." (Good infrastructure.)
The basic idea here is to make sure American industry was given preference. We forgot about that in the 80's. In the 90's the factory workers, who now had no factories to work in, switched to construction jobs. In the 00's those jobs began to dry up, as an economy that produces nothing cannot support itself. So far, in the 10's we are seeing crippling unemployment, and the jobs that are being created don't pay as well as what was lost. What do we do about it?
Well, we begin by reinstating Hamilton's brilliant ideas. That action alone will not immediately fix everything, but needs to be done. Then we begin to assist the growth of companies that make pre-fabricated and modular homes. Our workers mostly came from factories and switched to construction, and so are uniquely qualified for this. The homes, or modules, are the same size as a standard shipping container. This allows easy transport by road, rail, or ship.
But to whom do we sell? Our trade partners in Europe have regulations about historic areas, and their own protectionist policies. But, much of India and Africa have a need. We could provide them expertly built and wired homes, giving them no need to develop that particular set of skills domestically, and perpetuating the need to import homes from us.
We would have a great export business for homes going in no time. It would be a status symbol to have an "American Style" house. This would set up further demand for American built goods.
Once these trade partners are cemented, longing for the good stuff America can provide them, we leverage our true strength. Food Production. We do it better. We do it cheaper. We do it so well, we pay farmers to not grow food, just to keep the prices up. Those prices are still a fraction of what the same food would cost in Europe.
I would point out, as well, that protecting American interests should not ever be a partisan issue. Many say protectionism is something that the right disdains, as it hurts trade; and the left embraces, because it helps unions. If it helps unions, that is only because they are covered under the broader category of "American". If it hurts trade, the trade being hurt was not to our advantage anyway, so let it be hurt. American dollars for sub-standard foreign goods is never a good trade.
Of course this idea is expressed facetiously. Well halfway facetiously. We do need to protect our interests better.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Why would you ever buy CFLs?
If you didn't know you should go buy light bulbs. Now. Come back and read the rest of this when you are done. Buy a decades worth, and pick me some up if they are on sale. You will soon no longer be able to buy incandescent bulbs. We've all heard the propaganda, good for the earth, blah, blah, blah.
There was a government appointee on WGN recently extolling the virtues of CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent lamp) and LED bulbs (Light emitting diode). He began by stating that the average American home, assuming 2 hours of lighting per room per day, spends eight whole dollars a year on electricity for lighting. The host, obviously as confused as I was, asked if he didn't mean per month, or per room. The "expert" said that no, he meany per year, but with CFL's you could cut that cost in half. and with LEDs you could get that down to 2 dollars.
I feel that might actually be right because you see, 100 watts of light in a room is a lot. Your computer uses about 1200 watts. Same for a TV. The furnace or AC is around 4000. But that aside lets do some math. We all like math, right. Most of our electric bill is spent on things that are not lighting. Current rates are about 8 cent per KW/Hour. That's 8 cent for each thousand watts, each hour. So one hour of 100 watt lighting is .8 cent. (1/10 of a KWH x 8 cent.) 2 hours per day = 1.6 cent. x 365 = $5.84. I don't think we all use 100 watt bulbs, so he might be right.
On Amazon I found 60 watt, or 60 watt equivalent bulbs of each type. Using the cheapest I could find I came up with: A 24 pack of incandescent bulbs for 11.87. We'll go ahead and call that 12 dollars. That makes them 50 cent per bulb. (49.4 cent, actually) (http://www.amazon.com/SYLVANIA-10489-60-Watt-130-Volt-Household/dp/B000BQPXFK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1321579431&sr=8-3) Found an off-brand for 42 cent per, but I wouldn't buy those.
Next is the CFL, darling of congress. 8 pack for $8.75. That's 1.09 per bulb. These particular bulbs will not quite get you to the four dollar a year mark, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt. (http://www.amazon.com/GE-13-Watt-Energy-SmartTM-replacement/dp/B000NISDNU/ref=sr_1_1?s=lamps-light&ie=UTF8&qid=1321579377&sr=1-1)
Now lets look at the LED bulb. One for $16.00. Easy math at least. (http://www.amazon.com/LED-Standard-Screw-Replacement-1020wh/dp/B004ORFCVM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1321579471&sr=8-4)
So for each year the cost is, assuming 8 bulbs (artificially low) , Standard: $11.92. (8 bulbs plus cost/year) CFL cost would be $12.72 Since they seem to last about as long as an incandescent that means they cost MORE. Also the more bulbs you have the worse it looks for CFLs. (Note: they are supposed to last longer but I have just not seen it.) Next the LED bulb at $130.00 cost per year. Now they are supposed to last a long time and for that price, they damned well better. Like 11 times as long.
I would also like to point out that all of these options have been available for a while. No one was forcing us to buy incandescent bulbs, we did it because we liked the color of the light, and WE CAN DO MATH. Unlike congress.
We now come to the reasons why CFLs and LEDs are bad, other than the cost. You see CFLs and LED lamps take more material to make. Most CFLs are mercury vapor lamps, and technically have to be disposed of by a special waste handler, SINCE THEY ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. And the color of the light they put out is an atrocity. Also the flicker of a fluorescent can induce headaches in some, and migraines in others. You can't put a CFL in your oven for a light, nor can you use an LED. Neither is able to be used around some medical equipment (MRI scanners for example) Congress, is there a plan "B" for that?
But at least we FEEL like we are saving the planet.
There was a government appointee on WGN recently extolling the virtues of CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent lamp) and LED bulbs (Light emitting diode). He began by stating that the average American home, assuming 2 hours of lighting per room per day, spends eight whole dollars a year on electricity for lighting. The host, obviously as confused as I was, asked if he didn't mean per month, or per room. The "expert" said that no, he meany per year, but with CFL's you could cut that cost in half. and with LEDs you could get that down to 2 dollars.
I feel that might actually be right because you see, 100 watts of light in a room is a lot. Your computer uses about 1200 watts. Same for a TV. The furnace or AC is around 4000. But that aside lets do some math. We all like math, right. Most of our electric bill is spent on things that are not lighting. Current rates are about 8 cent per KW/Hour. That's 8 cent for each thousand watts, each hour. So one hour of 100 watt lighting is .8 cent. (1/10 of a KWH x 8 cent.) 2 hours per day = 1.6 cent. x 365 = $5.84. I don't think we all use 100 watt bulbs, so he might be right.
On Amazon I found 60 watt, or 60 watt equivalent bulbs of each type. Using the cheapest I could find I came up with: A 24 pack of incandescent bulbs for 11.87. We'll go ahead and call that 12 dollars. That makes them 50 cent per bulb. (49.4 cent, actually) (http://www.amazon.com/SYLVANIA-10489-60-Watt-130-Volt-Household/dp/B000BQPXFK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1321579431&sr=8-3) Found an off-brand for 42 cent per, but I wouldn't buy those.
Next is the CFL, darling of congress. 8 pack for $8.75. That's 1.09 per bulb. These particular bulbs will not quite get you to the four dollar a year mark, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt. (http://www.amazon.com/GE-13-Watt-Energy-SmartTM-replacement/dp/B000NISDNU/ref=sr_1_1?s=lamps-light&ie=UTF8&qid=1321579377&sr=1-1)
Now lets look at the LED bulb. One for $16.00. Easy math at least. (http://www.amazon.com/LED-Standard-Screw-Replacement-1020wh/dp/B004ORFCVM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1321579471&sr=8-4)
So for each year the cost is, assuming 8 bulbs (artificially low) , Standard: $11.92. (8 bulbs plus cost/year) CFL cost would be $12.72 Since they seem to last about as long as an incandescent that means they cost MORE. Also the more bulbs you have the worse it looks for CFLs. (Note: they are supposed to last longer but I have just not seen it.) Next the LED bulb at $130.00 cost per year. Now they are supposed to last a long time and for that price, they damned well better. Like 11 times as long.
I would also like to point out that all of these options have been available for a while. No one was forcing us to buy incandescent bulbs, we did it because we liked the color of the light, and WE CAN DO MATH. Unlike congress.
We now come to the reasons why CFLs and LEDs are bad, other than the cost. You see CFLs and LED lamps take more material to make. Most CFLs are mercury vapor lamps, and technically have to be disposed of by a special waste handler, SINCE THEY ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. And the color of the light they put out is an atrocity. Also the flicker of a fluorescent can induce headaches in some, and migraines in others. You can't put a CFL in your oven for a light, nor can you use an LED. Neither is able to be used around some medical equipment (MRI scanners for example) Congress, is there a plan "B" for that?
But at least we FEEL like we are saving the planet.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Gasoline as a Utility?
I am just going to jump right into this. Pros first. 1. Gasoline companies are clearly in collusion and fix prices, creating massive windfall profits, year upon year. (This is obviously just my opinion. I have no proof, but the profits and price adjustments are factual regardless.) 2. We all require gasoline to get to work, school, and stores. This is also true for those of you on public transportation. Why do you think that costs so much? 3. We already have natural gas as a regulated utility. Natural gas and petroleum come from the same wells, and go to the same people, eventually. 4. Other countries are buying gasoline before it is even pumped out of the ground, in massive quantities, to insure a low price for their people. This is yet another example of the failure of the U.S. government to look out for the interests of its people. 5. This should have been addressed long before health care. Well or sick, we all have to get to work. Sad is someone who can't afford healthcare. Tragic is that same person unable to afford transportation to get to work, to enable them to feed their family, and pay for healthcare.
Now for the cons. 1. Our utilities are also a sick joke. We are the ones it is being played on, and the punchline is prices being raised anyway. 2. Who will regulate this new utility? the same money-grubbing, ass-chasing, alcoholics who currently could only agree to shove of the debt ceiling problem until after the next election? (They at least had the common courtesy to pretend they were holding out for principles. One of them must have gotten their hands on a dictionary first though; to see what the word meant.) 3. The payment structure would need to be worked out. 4. Gas stations could no longer sell cigarettes and other sundries. (Like Com-ed, and Nicor don't sell you things like appliance insurance and... oh wait.) Although that would be more of a pro, since then we would need more convenience stores, and fast food places. It would create jobs, opportunity, and growth. Hell that alone should be enough to carry this argument.
If there are any members of congress who see this I apologize. To call all of you "money-grubbing, ass-chasing, alcoholics", is a broad generalization, and it is quite unfair. After all, some of you are women.
Now for the cons. 1. Our utilities are also a sick joke. We are the ones it is being played on, and the punchline is prices being raised anyway. 2. Who will regulate this new utility? the same money-grubbing, ass-chasing, alcoholics who currently could only agree to shove of the debt ceiling problem until after the next election? (They at least had the common courtesy to pretend they were holding out for principles. One of them must have gotten their hands on a dictionary first though; to see what the word meant.) 3. The payment structure would need to be worked out. 4. Gas stations could no longer sell cigarettes and other sundries. (Like Com-ed, and Nicor don't sell you things like appliance insurance and... oh wait.) Although that would be more of a pro, since then we would need more convenience stores, and fast food places. It would create jobs, opportunity, and growth. Hell that alone should be enough to carry this argument.
If there are any members of congress who see this I apologize. To call all of you "money-grubbing, ass-chasing, alcoholics", is a broad generalization, and it is quite unfair. After all, some of you are women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)