I have had some strange titles, but I think this might be one of my best ones. Exactly what is a "Gradient". In math it is the first derivitive. If it is "zero", there is no gradient. Per the dictionary a gradient is a slope, or the opposite of flat. A gradient is not necessarily uniform, it can be changing either positively or negatively. If the gradient is changing, it means there is accelleration. From math, if the second derivative is not zero, it mean that there is accelleration. Now what does all this have to do with my Blog?
It seems that we are very aware of gradients, but don't realize it. First, let's look at this whole business of gradients from a personal stand point. Take two people who are both poor. They earn the same amount of money and have exactly the same net worth. These two are about as equal as any two people can be, but there is a difference and that is Gradient. One is stuck making the same amount and does not see any chance of making more. The other has a good chance of earning more in the future or is on a positive gradient. Positive mean "more", while negative gradient means making less in the future. Now these two people who are in exactly the same spot have a totally different out look on life. The one who is at a dead end is sad and angry, while the other is happy and optimistic and it is all due to differences in their personal gradients.
This business of gradients is a big deal. Wheather you are in the lower, middle or uppeer class, we are all subject to gradients. If you were the poorest person on earth and were on a positive gradient, my guess is that you would be happier than a person who was in the upper class, but who was on a negative gradient. See what I mean? It is the gradient that is important, not where you are at any point in time. Now Obama is a smart guy, but he doesn't know anything about gradients. If he did he would be pushing policies that affected the gradient rather than moving people from class to class by stealing from one group or another.
People normally think about this as "getting ahead". Us humans are competitive and we want to be ahead of others and we want to be ahead of where we were yesterday. It is human nature. If you are hungry, you don't need to be full to be happy, you only need to have more to eat today than you had yesterday. If, on the other hand, you were hungry yesterday and even hungrier today, you will not be happy. My grandmother was a poor dust bowl Okie, but she was happy because she knew there were people worst off than her. Each day, she was less hungry than she was the day before and again, this made her happy.
A person has to believe that what they are doing today will make their life better in the future. That is the gradient. If that gradient goes "flat", look out. You are going to have a bunch of unhappy and angry people with nothing to lose because they don't feel they have a future. If that gradient is going down, it is even worse. Here in the USA, we have it good, but when our high quality of life goes down by a very small amount, we can be as angry as anyone.
Now look at Egypt. Their problem is that much of the population has come to the conclusion that they are on a negative gradient. The people in Egypt earn more than either China or India, but those two countries are on a positive gradient. See what I mean? Gradients, that is what we should be keeping our eyes on.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Brain Drain---Obama's Comments
Obama recently made a speech about the "Brain Drain" here in the USA. Obama stated that approximately 50% of Phd's earned from our universities are by students who were born outside the USA. I know that students from outside the USA take technical degrees, not the bull shit degrees that our kids take. I did some of my own analysis of Phd's granted by the University of Wisconsin. The UW system is very typical of USA universities. The number one BS degree granted by the UW is for Political Science. Few foreign student take Political Science. The number one MS degree is Social Worker. How is that? In 2010 the UW granted 712 Phd's. I went thru the list and added up those that I feel are worthless and should not be paid for by the taxpayers of Wisconsin or another state. The total was 290 or 40.7% of the 712 total.
My guess is that no thinking smart foreign student would waste their time taking one of these 290 bull shit degrees. UW granted 422 real Phd degrees and foreign student earned about 356 of these. That leaves about 66 for American born students. Now check this out. Our kids earned 290 bull shit degrees and 66 technical degrees for a total of 356 Phd's. The tax payers of Wisconsin paid for a total of 712 degrees, but their kids only earned 66 of those technical degrees while foreigners earned 356. I know parents go around bragging about their kid earning a Phd from the UW, but the chances are less than 10% that it was in a technical area. When a foreign parent brags, he is 99% sure it was in a technical area.
If the tax payers required that 100% of the Phd's go to residents and that they are only granted in technical areas, the UW budget could be reduced by 90% and still produce the same 66 home grown kids with technical Phd's. What I can't figure out is how this has been going on for so long right under the noses of Wisconsin tax payers. When is it going to stop?
My guess is that no thinking smart foreign student would waste their time taking one of these 290 bull shit degrees. UW granted 422 real Phd degrees and foreign student earned about 356 of these. That leaves about 66 for American born students. Now check this out. Our kids earned 290 bull shit degrees and 66 technical degrees for a total of 356 Phd's. The tax payers of Wisconsin paid for a total of 712 degrees, but their kids only earned 66 of those technical degrees while foreigners earned 356. I know parents go around bragging about their kid earning a Phd from the UW, but the chances are less than 10% that it was in a technical area. When a foreign parent brags, he is 99% sure it was in a technical area.
If the tax payers required that 100% of the Phd's go to residents and that they are only granted in technical areas, the UW budget could be reduced by 90% and still produce the same 66 home grown kids with technical Phd's. What I can't figure out is how this has been going on for so long right under the noses of Wisconsin tax payers. When is it going to stop?
California Gold Rush 49ers
I was thinking about the situation in Egypt and their very dire state. Recall that they do not have any of the elements that will be required for the future. Obama and Rev. Wright both see the future where those who are rich have to share their wealth with the poor. The reason that the title of this Blog is the California Gold Rush is that when wealth in the form of gold was discovered in California in 1849, people came from all over the world to grab as much gold as they could. The only difference between what Obama and Rev. Wright want is that in the case of the Gold Rush wealth was shared with the whole world. It happened. We shared the wealth of America with people all over the world even though they had no real claim on the gold. My point is that Egypt is one of the first examples since Hatti where the future has come early. Most people feel that the earth quake was what caused the problem in Hatti, but it was exactly the same as Egypt. They ran head on into the future and it was not a prity picture.
What would happen if people could move from their self made hell hole to better places? Would it be fair? Smart kids have been moving from country to country for years by going to college or joining the army. Others are just crossing borders against the laws, as in Mexico. We have about 25 million illegal Mexicans in the USA now. With their breeding paterns, they will account for about 25% of our population in just a few years. Right now Mexican kids from illegals account for almost half the new births. Egypt has over 80 mmillion people and most would like to move to some place where there is more food and opportunities. I can't blame them for wanting a better life, but I also want a better life for my kids just as my forefathers did when they built the country. I feel that if I let these Mexicans and Egyptians move into the USA, I would be letting down the hard work and scrafices that my forefathers paid for me. I know that we all have different views on this serious subject.
What we need to do is to have some kind of public debate on how to deal with failed countries like Mexico, Egypt and Hatti. Most of us would like to send them food and aid, but in the long run, this is not a real solution. It only makes things worse. All of these countries existed for thousands of years in equalibrium with nature. Their populations were much lower and the life expectancy was much shorter. When we spend large amounts of resources to "extend" a life beyond its productive limit, we risk the future of the whole. This is the situation in Egypt. They don't have many resources to work with so they need to get their population down. China saw this over 40 years ago and limited each family to only one child. This seemed very harsh to most people, but ask Egyppt, Mexico and Hatti what they think.
Why is it that we never hear anyone talking about over population as the biggest risk for the human race. We seem to look at how we can grow more food or discover new sources of energy. These are not solutions. They only delay the reconning and make that eventual reconning much more difficult. What advise or plan would you propose as to how to fix the situation in Hatti? Notice that the Domenican Republic doesn't have the problems that Hatti does, yet they share the same island. In the case of Egypt, they are rioting to get their "freedom". When the French left Hatti and gave the slaves their "freedom", was that the solution? I don't think so. People feel that "freedom" is the solution, but it is not.
What we need to realize is that the Gold Rush is over. We can't let people who have ruined soiled their own beds to come here and do the same in our beds.
What would happen if people could move from their self made hell hole to better places? Would it be fair? Smart kids have been moving from country to country for years by going to college or joining the army. Others are just crossing borders against the laws, as in Mexico. We have about 25 million illegal Mexicans in the USA now. With their breeding paterns, they will account for about 25% of our population in just a few years. Right now Mexican kids from illegals account for almost half the new births. Egypt has over 80 mmillion people and most would like to move to some place where there is more food and opportunities. I can't blame them for wanting a better life, but I also want a better life for my kids just as my forefathers did when they built the country. I feel that if I let these Mexicans and Egyptians move into the USA, I would be letting down the hard work and scrafices that my forefathers paid for me. I know that we all have different views on this serious subject.
What we need to do is to have some kind of public debate on how to deal with failed countries like Mexico, Egypt and Hatti. Most of us would like to send them food and aid, but in the long run, this is not a real solution. It only makes things worse. All of these countries existed for thousands of years in equalibrium with nature. Their populations were much lower and the life expectancy was much shorter. When we spend large amounts of resources to "extend" a life beyond its productive limit, we risk the future of the whole. This is the situation in Egypt. They don't have many resources to work with so they need to get their population down. China saw this over 40 years ago and limited each family to only one child. This seemed very harsh to most people, but ask Egyppt, Mexico and Hatti what they think.
Why is it that we never hear anyone talking about over population as the biggest risk for the human race. We seem to look at how we can grow more food or discover new sources of energy. These are not solutions. They only delay the reconning and make that eventual reconning much more difficult. What advise or plan would you propose as to how to fix the situation in Hatti? Notice that the Domenican Republic doesn't have the problems that Hatti does, yet they share the same island. In the case of Egypt, they are rioting to get their "freedom". When the French left Hatti and gave the slaves their "freedom", was that the solution? I don't think so. People feel that "freedom" is the solution, but it is not.
What we need to realize is that the Gold Rush is over. We can't let people who have ruined soiled their own beds to come here and do the same in our beds.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Currency Of The Future ----Egypt
Did you read my Blog, "Currency Of The Future" dated 1/4? I put out the challenge to comment on what country would fall first due to food shortages. Notice that I had Egypt on my list. That was no accident. Egypt has over 80 million people and most are dirt poor. Egypt is one of the largest food importers in the world. With their large population and small amount of good land and water, they can't produce enough food to feed their people. In terms of the currency of the future, Egypt does not have energy or any of the factors that will save their future. Egypt is a larger Hatti and is going down the same path. It is a very sad site.
Over the next few days, listen to the commentary and see if anyone points out that Egypt is a victum of its own doing. It has a larger population than their land area can support. You will hear comments about the average age of the population and will note that it is one of the youngest in the world. That means the birth rate is high and the marriage age is low. So that you can better understand the situation, look up the average age of Egypt compared to the rest of the world. Also, if you did not read my original Blog back on 1/4, check it out and comment on the Blog and the list of nations that I presented at the bottom.
I don't think anyone can help Egypt or most of countries in Africa. It is too late. What you are now seeing in Africa will happen in more countries around the world. Can you predict the next one?
Over the next few days, listen to the commentary and see if anyone points out that Egypt is a victum of its own doing. It has a larger population than their land area can support. You will hear comments about the average age of the population and will note that it is one of the youngest in the world. That means the birth rate is high and the marriage age is low. So that you can better understand the situation, look up the average age of Egypt compared to the rest of the world. Also, if you did not read my original Blog back on 1/4, check it out and comment on the Blog and the list of nations that I presented at the bottom.
I don't think anyone can help Egypt or most of countries in Africa. It is too late. What you are now seeing in Africa will happen in more countries around the world. Can you predict the next one?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Transfer Of Wealth Myth--Obama Hate
Everytime I watch the News, I hear someone claim that in the past few years we have seen a major transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super rich. It really sounds good and is meant to foster hate by those without much wealth toward those few who have wealth. The idea is to perpetuate the concept that people without wealth are victums and the implication is that those with wealth got that wealth by victimizing people like them. The person who is promoting this hate is the same one who want so save them, but who really only wants to feed their own personal egos by having the unwashed bow down to them. This is the picture of Obama and Rev. Wright. The problem with all this is that it is pure bull shit.
First, let's take a look at who these super rick are and who they victumized. How about Bill Gates? If you were a janitor for some company in Alabama and watched as Bill Gates made billions, ask yourself exactly how Bill took wealth from you? The fact is that he did not take a penny from you or decrease your wealth in any way. If this is so, how can you buy into this hate of class that Obama and Rev. Wright are preaching. Is it because you are just too personally dishonest to face the fact that you made personal choices that prevented you from progressing beyond the job of a janitor in Alabama? If you want to get into the class stuff, what happened to most millionares and super rich people today is that they were born into a similar situation as you only they recognized an opportunity and took the personal risk to take advantage of it. The big rush of technology after the invention of the transistor and the integrated circuit opened up opportunities for people based on merit for the first time in human history. When you are not used to seeing a world where wealth is a function of merit, it can look very strange to many. What we have is a period where it has never been more fair. Who you know or who your mother and father were is less important today than it has ever been in all of human hisory. How could things be better? This is not a zero sum game. For someone to become rich does not mean they took a penny from anyone else. Through out history, you can find examples where someone invented something and became rich as a result. John Deering who invented a self scouring plow became rich started the company that now bears his name, John Deere. In the past during what I call the mill town period, if you were born into money you were rich and if you were not born into money you were poor and stayed poor. That is not the case today and it seems strange, but when you look at the current time honestly, "isn't a society based on merit great?"
Look at the situation in China? They seem to doing a lot better than we are and why do you think that is? Historically, China was one of the worst places in the world to have to live. People have been moving out of China any way that they could over the past 100 years. If you were not born into the right class or if you did not know someone or play ball with them, you were poor and on the outside looking in. It is still bad in China in many ways, but now things are more based on merit. What that a human has to offer to society that is currently the most valueable? It is not muscle power or how to handle a sword or a gun, it is intellectual ability. Smart people are more in demand than strong people or tall people. In China your future is based more on your ability---merit---than it has ever been. At a time when the currency is "smarts" and education, the USA has been committing suicide. We want to be liked or politically correct. Being smart in the Black community is looked down on. If that is not a clear case of social suicide, I don't know what is. Every time I see a new basketball court being constructed in a Black community, I know that it is not to make them smarter, it is to keep them from killing themselves or others.
Back to my main point of the Transfer Of Wealth Myth. Most people who are complaining are the ones who do not have the merit to compete in the new much fairer world that we now live in. If this were some kind of sport like basket ball, and you were 5'-6" and your friend was 6'-6", would you feel that the 6'-6" friend took something from you? Transfered your money to his big pro basketball paycheck. Is it fair for people who are over 6'-6" to dominate basketball when most of us are in the "middle class" at 5'-6". Get over it and be honest.
First, let's take a look at who these super rick are and who they victumized. How about Bill Gates? If you were a janitor for some company in Alabama and watched as Bill Gates made billions, ask yourself exactly how Bill took wealth from you? The fact is that he did not take a penny from you or decrease your wealth in any way. If this is so, how can you buy into this hate of class that Obama and Rev. Wright are preaching. Is it because you are just too personally dishonest to face the fact that you made personal choices that prevented you from progressing beyond the job of a janitor in Alabama? If you want to get into the class stuff, what happened to most millionares and super rich people today is that they were born into a similar situation as you only they recognized an opportunity and took the personal risk to take advantage of it. The big rush of technology after the invention of the transistor and the integrated circuit opened up opportunities for people based on merit for the first time in human history. When you are not used to seeing a world where wealth is a function of merit, it can look very strange to many. What we have is a period where it has never been more fair. Who you know or who your mother and father were is less important today than it has ever been in all of human hisory. How could things be better? This is not a zero sum game. For someone to become rich does not mean they took a penny from anyone else. Through out history, you can find examples where someone invented something and became rich as a result. John Deering who invented a self scouring plow became rich started the company that now bears his name, John Deere. In the past during what I call the mill town period, if you were born into money you were rich and if you were not born into money you were poor and stayed poor. That is not the case today and it seems strange, but when you look at the current time honestly, "isn't a society based on merit great?"
Look at the situation in China? They seem to doing a lot better than we are and why do you think that is? Historically, China was one of the worst places in the world to have to live. People have been moving out of China any way that they could over the past 100 years. If you were not born into the right class or if you did not know someone or play ball with them, you were poor and on the outside looking in. It is still bad in China in many ways, but now things are more based on merit. What that a human has to offer to society that is currently the most valueable? It is not muscle power or how to handle a sword or a gun, it is intellectual ability. Smart people are more in demand than strong people or tall people. In China your future is based more on your ability---merit---than it has ever been. At a time when the currency is "smarts" and education, the USA has been committing suicide. We want to be liked or politically correct. Being smart in the Black community is looked down on. If that is not a clear case of social suicide, I don't know what is. Every time I see a new basketball court being constructed in a Black community, I know that it is not to make them smarter, it is to keep them from killing themselves or others.
Back to my main point of the Transfer Of Wealth Myth. Most people who are complaining are the ones who do not have the merit to compete in the new much fairer world that we now live in. If this were some kind of sport like basket ball, and you were 5'-6" and your friend was 6'-6", would you feel that the 6'-6" friend took something from you? Transfered your money to his big pro basketball paycheck. Is it fair for people who are over 6'-6" to dominate basketball when most of us are in the "middle class" at 5'-6". Get over it and be honest.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Rev. Wright's State Of The Union Speach
I don't know about you, but the speech last night made me embarrassed to be an American. I felt like I was watching Rev. Wright speaking in the Nation's Capital. The only thing that I did not see was the black church speak back routine. When you think about it, Obama and his wife sat in Rev. Wright's church and listened to him spew hate for 20 years. Between the two of them that is a total of 40 years of listening and agreeing with the most socially destructive speech that I have ever heard. That was the State of the Nation Speech last night. Obama could not help himself. He had to spew hate onto wealthier people and state that he was not thru trying to take their hard earned wealth away from them so that he could redistribute it to those people who either voted for him or who agree with him. He told me in so many words that he was "not" my President. How is that?
As predicted, Obama is now going to "invest" in America with our money. The thing that I can't figure out is how Obama got so smart that he knows better than me, how to invest my money. In one of Obama's earlier speeches, he stated that he was going to review all government programs and eliminate those that did not work. If he would just look at the Department of Education, he would find that there is a "zero" relationship between the amount of money spent by the Department of Education and student performance. Isn't that good enough proof? Actually, student performance has gotten "worse" since the Department of Education was founded.
If I hear Obama or anyone else propose some kind of energy independance or a shift to "green" energy, I am going to puke. We could get much more of our energy from things like the Sun and Wind if we didn't care if our kids had food or not. Why would a person want to take the money that they had saved for college and spend it on a wind mill that would only produce a fraction of the power they needed when they could spend a fraction of that money and buy power from coal? I know these morrons want to save the Planet or prevent glogal warming, when they have no idea what the chances of their action having any affect or when those affects might make a difference. Obama, just like his best friend Rev. Wright, knows that most of use voters are stupid and can be let around easily by a person as smart as he and Rev. Wright. It has to be a big boost to one's ego to have thousands of people hanging on each of your spoken words. Obama and Rev. Wright don't care about the welfare of people, they care about the power and feelings they get speeking to a group of sheep like us.
Obama made a joke out of the fact that most of he voters kicked his ass in the last election. He was not worried because he still holds the position of President and he knows that no one can take that away from him. He know that he still has two more years to speak down to everyone and feed his big ego. When it is over, he knows that he had one of the best rides that a person can have. He will be able to keep giving speaches and writing books and make enough money that he can continue to rub elbows with the rich people who he now attacks. It is a very intereting situation to watch except that it is the future of our country we are talking about.
Rule number one of cost reduction is to "eliminate" things, not reduce or rearrange them. Look as the slight of hand about business taxes. Obama wants to eliminate, so called, loop holes so that the over all rate can be reduced. Look at it this way and you will see how you have been mislead. We have a lot of corporations that are "conglomorates" made up of a lot of different business units. This is what GE is and ITT for which I worked for many years. I can tell you right now that the total amount of tax paid by GE now will not change one cent due to Obama's plan to simplify the business tax code and eliminate loop holes. For every dime less tax that GE has to pay because of a lower base rate, they will pay a higher tax due to the elimination of a tax loop hole. Obama said that the program would be revenue neutal. Isn't it clear? The simple minded psychology that Obama is banking on is that over half of the voters feel that they will come out ahead with the tax changes Obama is proposing when in reality the total tax and thus spending will not change. Most people feel they are being screwed by the tax system and get less than they pay in when in fact it is the other way around. When half the people don't pay federal income tax and only 10% pay 50% of all tax, how can the average person feel they are getting screwed if they are not morrons? Obama knows how to take advantage of the pea brained voters better than anyother politition that has come down the pike.
Nothing is going to change. It is only going to get worse.
As predicted, Obama is now going to "invest" in America with our money. The thing that I can't figure out is how Obama got so smart that he knows better than me, how to invest my money. In one of Obama's earlier speeches, he stated that he was going to review all government programs and eliminate those that did not work. If he would just look at the Department of Education, he would find that there is a "zero" relationship between the amount of money spent by the Department of Education and student performance. Isn't that good enough proof? Actually, student performance has gotten "worse" since the Department of Education was founded.
If I hear Obama or anyone else propose some kind of energy independance or a shift to "green" energy, I am going to puke. We could get much more of our energy from things like the Sun and Wind if we didn't care if our kids had food or not. Why would a person want to take the money that they had saved for college and spend it on a wind mill that would only produce a fraction of the power they needed when they could spend a fraction of that money and buy power from coal? I know these morrons want to save the Planet or prevent glogal warming, when they have no idea what the chances of their action having any affect or when those affects might make a difference. Obama, just like his best friend Rev. Wright, knows that most of use voters are stupid and can be let around easily by a person as smart as he and Rev. Wright. It has to be a big boost to one's ego to have thousands of people hanging on each of your spoken words. Obama and Rev. Wright don't care about the welfare of people, they care about the power and feelings they get speeking to a group of sheep like us.
Obama made a joke out of the fact that most of he voters kicked his ass in the last election. He was not worried because he still holds the position of President and he knows that no one can take that away from him. He know that he still has two more years to speak down to everyone and feed his big ego. When it is over, he knows that he had one of the best rides that a person can have. He will be able to keep giving speaches and writing books and make enough money that he can continue to rub elbows with the rich people who he now attacks. It is a very intereting situation to watch except that it is the future of our country we are talking about.
Rule number one of cost reduction is to "eliminate" things, not reduce or rearrange them. Look as the slight of hand about business taxes. Obama wants to eliminate, so called, loop holes so that the over all rate can be reduced. Look at it this way and you will see how you have been mislead. We have a lot of corporations that are "conglomorates" made up of a lot of different business units. This is what GE is and ITT for which I worked for many years. I can tell you right now that the total amount of tax paid by GE now will not change one cent due to Obama's plan to simplify the business tax code and eliminate loop holes. For every dime less tax that GE has to pay because of a lower base rate, they will pay a higher tax due to the elimination of a tax loop hole. Obama said that the program would be revenue neutal. Isn't it clear? The simple minded psychology that Obama is banking on is that over half of the voters feel that they will come out ahead with the tax changes Obama is proposing when in reality the total tax and thus spending will not change. Most people feel they are being screwed by the tax system and get less than they pay in when in fact it is the other way around. When half the people don't pay federal income tax and only 10% pay 50% of all tax, how can the average person feel they are getting screwed if they are not morrons? Obama knows how to take advantage of the pea brained voters better than anyother politition that has come down the pike.
Nothing is going to change. It is only going to get worse.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
What Is All The Complaining About?
I just read another article in the Atlantic about how the rich are getting richer and the super rich are in a class by themselves. The implication is that the poor are getting poorer like this is all a "zero sum game". I think what we have is a bad case of invy.
For millions of years humans have been poor. They were hunter gatherers who were just able to keep one step ahead of the reaper. Then with all their over sized brain, they figured out how to game the hunter gatherer system greatly to their advantage. That is all they did and the real gain was made by a very few and all the rest of us took advantage of those few, but we claimed it was due to our own hard work and intellect. If you don't believe me, take this simple test.
(1) The first big discovery by "us" humans was how to build a fire. If that is such a universal ability, then I want you to go out into your back yard without any modern tools and build a fire. Can't do it can you? Only one human in 10,000 could pull that one off. I guess you are not one of the 1 in 10,000, so why should you complain?
(2) This is an easy one. Another major discovery was the domestication of animals like sheep and the ability to make clothing out of the wool. If I gave you a whole fleese and a week in your backyard without any modern tools, could you spin that wool into yarn and make a wool cap? I did not think so. Here again, you must not be in that group of 1 in 10,000, so exactly where do you stand? Are you still complaining that life is not fair?
(3) Here is a point that I have Blogged on before. The one discovery that the Native Americans did not have was iron tools like the Europeans. This was one of the main reasons that the Europeans defeated the Native Americans. I think you know what my next test questions is going to be. If I were to give you some iron ore and send you out in your back yard for a week or into the woods without any modern tools, could you come back with a piece of pure iron? If I allowed you to take any tool from your home with you, would it make any difference? Still couldn't do it? See what I mean? Are you still complaining about rich people?
(4) One universal tool that most humans discovered very early in human history is how to make a bow. If I sent you into the woods with your Boy Scout pocket knife, could you build a bow and arrow? Could you then use that bow and arrow to kill enough game for just one meal? I did not think so. I guess that you are still not in that group of 1 in 10,000 so why are you complaining about some guy who got rich?
(5) Here is another one. How about gun powder? It was one of he biggest advances in modern human history. I will give you the same challenge on gun powder. For this one, I'll let you use any knowledge that you currently have, but no new knowledge. You can use any tools or equipment that you currently have around your house. Can't do this one either? I guess that you are not one of those special people in the 1 in 10,000 group. Are you still complaining about rich people?
The point that I am trying to make is that most of use seem to give ourselves far too much credit. Just because our kids know how to punch keys on a computer does not mean that they know anything about computers or smart enough to advance the human race. Most parents think that their kids know much more about computers when, infact they don't know the first thing about computer programming. For those few people who know how computers work and how to write their own programs, do you think they should be paid more than you or your kids? Most of the things that you have been doing to make a living can be done by a person half way around the world who doesn't even know how to read or write. He gets paid only $1.00 per hour and you expect to be paid $25 per hour. The guy halfway around the world used to only get paid $0.50 per hour and now he gets paid twice as much. Isn't that good? The fact is you were finally caught up with you and now is only going to pay you what you are worth. Sad but ture. Stop complaining. It was a good ride, but now it seems to be over.
For millions of years humans have been poor. They were hunter gatherers who were just able to keep one step ahead of the reaper. Then with all their over sized brain, they figured out how to game the hunter gatherer system greatly to their advantage. That is all they did and the real gain was made by a very few and all the rest of us took advantage of those few, but we claimed it was due to our own hard work and intellect. If you don't believe me, take this simple test.
(1) The first big discovery by "us" humans was how to build a fire. If that is such a universal ability, then I want you to go out into your back yard without any modern tools and build a fire. Can't do it can you? Only one human in 10,000 could pull that one off. I guess you are not one of the 1 in 10,000, so why should you complain?
(2) This is an easy one. Another major discovery was the domestication of animals like sheep and the ability to make clothing out of the wool. If I gave you a whole fleese and a week in your backyard without any modern tools, could you spin that wool into yarn and make a wool cap? I did not think so. Here again, you must not be in that group of 1 in 10,000, so exactly where do you stand? Are you still complaining that life is not fair?
(3) Here is a point that I have Blogged on before. The one discovery that the Native Americans did not have was iron tools like the Europeans. This was one of the main reasons that the Europeans defeated the Native Americans. I think you know what my next test questions is going to be. If I were to give you some iron ore and send you out in your back yard for a week or into the woods without any modern tools, could you come back with a piece of pure iron? If I allowed you to take any tool from your home with you, would it make any difference? Still couldn't do it? See what I mean? Are you still complaining about rich people?
(4) One universal tool that most humans discovered very early in human history is how to make a bow. If I sent you into the woods with your Boy Scout pocket knife, could you build a bow and arrow? Could you then use that bow and arrow to kill enough game for just one meal? I did not think so. I guess that you are still not in that group of 1 in 10,000 so why are you complaining about some guy who got rich?
(5) Here is another one. How about gun powder? It was one of he biggest advances in modern human history. I will give you the same challenge on gun powder. For this one, I'll let you use any knowledge that you currently have, but no new knowledge. You can use any tools or equipment that you currently have around your house. Can't do this one either? I guess that you are not one of those special people in the 1 in 10,000 group. Are you still complaining about rich people?
The point that I am trying to make is that most of use seem to give ourselves far too much credit. Just because our kids know how to punch keys on a computer does not mean that they know anything about computers or smart enough to advance the human race. Most parents think that their kids know much more about computers when, infact they don't know the first thing about computer programming. For those few people who know how computers work and how to write their own programs, do you think they should be paid more than you or your kids? Most of the things that you have been doing to make a living can be done by a person half way around the world who doesn't even know how to read or write. He gets paid only $1.00 per hour and you expect to be paid $25 per hour. The guy halfway around the world used to only get paid $0.50 per hour and now he gets paid twice as much. Isn't that good? The fact is you were finally caught up with you and now is only going to pay you what you are worth. Sad but ture. Stop complaining. It was a good ride, but now it seems to be over.
Monday, January 24, 2011
High School Civics, Government, US History
We all had to take US History in school so what I am about to Blog will not be much of a surprise. I think that we studied the fact that George Washington was our first President in at least 15 different classes and this counts thru college. We also heard about the Pilgrims from day one on. The problem is that we seemed to study the exact same set of facts over and over without adding too much new stuff. We learned all about the three branches of the Federal government, but there is one thing that we never covered and I now realize that it just might have been the most important. What is that, you might ask? Accounting for all the money our government collects and spends.
Most of you think of accountants as just "bean counters". This implies that their job is insignificant, but it is not. Because we have to pay taxes on our businesses, and corporations want to sell stock or be listed on one of the stock exchanges, there is a set of "rules" for accounting that all these units have to follow. This is not the case for governmental bodies. Some have such rules as that they have to have a "balanced budget". Exactly what do you think this proves? Those states or governmental unit that require a "balanced budget" are not any more understandable than those who do not. This whole thing would not be so pitifully except for the fact we are talking about billions and trillions of dollars.
In most companies, they produce something and sell it to produce revenue. The trick is to produce something that is worth more than it costs to produce. That difference is what we call "profit". Accounting for the above is handled on what is called the P&L, or profit and loss statement. We don't have this for our government even though they claim to providing a service, a product. Now, we don't know what the service or product is worth nor do we know how much it costs to produce. If I have heard this simple minded statement coming out of the mouth of a voter once, I have heard it a thousand times. "If is saves energy, we should do it." This is just an example. There are thousands of statements like this from simple minded voters who can not grasp the concept that services have value and that they also have a cost. Some thing as simple as a "benefit cost ratio" has not seemed to have gotten any traction either. I am not even going to go into the details of situations where the expenditure is today, but the benefits don't come for many years in the future. This is the case with all this global warming bull shit. If we spend ourselves into bankruptcy for the next 99 years, we might prolong the human race another 4 or 5 years. We have to get past the point where we only evaluate ideas or expenditures on the basis of being "good" or "saves lives" or "you can't put a value on a life" to one where we debate the "value" of something before we pull out the "credit card".
Before I leave the P&L, we need to look at a few items that are on the statement. One of the big items on the P&L is "accounts Payable" or liabilities. These are items that we have purchased or have gotten the value of, but have not yet paid for. In the case of our governmental units, these are the future benefits that they have promised, but have not yet set aside any money for. We keep hearing on the News that we owe trillions of dollars for these promises, but no one can tell us exactly how much we all owe. Isn't it strange that we should owe trillions and yet not have a good system to account for it? Back when the decision was made to promise these future benefits, who exactly signed those contracts and what did they tell the public they were signing? If you don't want something to happen again, then you should find out what caused it in the first place and put a stop to it. Seem logical to me. I would like to see some names.
How about the balance sheet? One thing that I always look for on their balance sheet is the place were it shows "net worth" or "owners equity". The reason that they call it a "balance sheet" is that the two sides "Balance", assets and liabilities. The difference between these two is what you own. In the case of the government, I would like to see an accounting of assets and liabilities so that we would know how much we "own". I just hope that our government is not "under water". That is where you owe more on your liability side than you are worth on the asset side. We all know what the impact was on real estate when our homes were worth less than what we owed on them.
In the state of the union by Obama, he is going to go on and on about "investing" in America rather than just spending and there is a difference. Take the bailout of the banks. We keep hearing that we spent all this money bailing out the banks, but what we really did was to "invest" or "loan" the banks some money for a short term so that if they had a run on their banks, they could pay off depositors. We have a system of insurance for depositors, but this loan went much further and provided money so that those who were "not" covered as depositors could get their money back. I am not going to go into the fact that it was a big mistake to loan money to AIG so that they could pay off banks all over the world who they owed money too. AIG should have paid 10 cents on the dollar to them rather than paying them the full amount. Us tax payers got screwed but not the banks around the world who knew they were taking on risk. In the case of AIG, I feel that it was not an "investment". We just "spent" the money and did not get much for it. Same for the auto companies. Now the banks were different. Those were "loans" that would be paid back and most have been. I would like to see an "accounting" of how that cash was used by the banks. The only reason for loaning the banks all that cash was so they could give depositors their money back if they asked for it. I don't think a lot of them asked for it and thus the banks just gave us back the same cash we loaned them.
Now the point of this Blog was to point out how confusing the accounting is within the government for all these financial transactions. Are you confused?
Most governmental use the basket method of accounting. That is where they put all the revenue into a basket and then take it out and spend it. When the basket is empty, they either have to stop spending or go borrow more money. It is like using the plastic to pay for food. If you notice on regular financial statements, there is an item called "cash". This is not cash in a basket, it is deposited in some bank where it earns interest. Over time, if you are making a profit, the cash can accumulate. That is the idea of a business. Many colleges have endowments or cash in the bank that earns interest. Why don't our governmental units have something like this? After over 200 years, you would think that we should be building up a very large bank account that should be earning interest wouldn't you? Well we have just the opposite situation. We owe money and are paying interest rather than earning interest. That's the problem and we don't have a good accounting system that points all this out.
Next time you talk to a school teacher who teaches anything to do with government, ask them what they teach about governmental accounting and financial systems.
Most of you think of accountants as just "bean counters". This implies that their job is insignificant, but it is not. Because we have to pay taxes on our businesses, and corporations want to sell stock or be listed on one of the stock exchanges, there is a set of "rules" for accounting that all these units have to follow. This is not the case for governmental bodies. Some have such rules as that they have to have a "balanced budget". Exactly what do you think this proves? Those states or governmental unit that require a "balanced budget" are not any more understandable than those who do not. This whole thing would not be so pitifully except for the fact we are talking about billions and trillions of dollars.
In most companies, they produce something and sell it to produce revenue. The trick is to produce something that is worth more than it costs to produce. That difference is what we call "profit". Accounting for the above is handled on what is called the P&L, or profit and loss statement. We don't have this for our government even though they claim to providing a service, a product. Now, we don't know what the service or product is worth nor do we know how much it costs to produce. If I have heard this simple minded statement coming out of the mouth of a voter once, I have heard it a thousand times. "If is saves energy, we should do it." This is just an example. There are thousands of statements like this from simple minded voters who can not grasp the concept that services have value and that they also have a cost. Some thing as simple as a "benefit cost ratio" has not seemed to have gotten any traction either. I am not even going to go into the details of situations where the expenditure is today, but the benefits don't come for many years in the future. This is the case with all this global warming bull shit. If we spend ourselves into bankruptcy for the next 99 years, we might prolong the human race another 4 or 5 years. We have to get past the point where we only evaluate ideas or expenditures on the basis of being "good" or "saves lives" or "you can't put a value on a life" to one where we debate the "value" of something before we pull out the "credit card".
Before I leave the P&L, we need to look at a few items that are on the statement. One of the big items on the P&L is "accounts Payable" or liabilities. These are items that we have purchased or have gotten the value of, but have not yet paid for. In the case of our governmental units, these are the future benefits that they have promised, but have not yet set aside any money for. We keep hearing on the News that we owe trillions of dollars for these promises, but no one can tell us exactly how much we all owe. Isn't it strange that we should owe trillions and yet not have a good system to account for it? Back when the decision was made to promise these future benefits, who exactly signed those contracts and what did they tell the public they were signing? If you don't want something to happen again, then you should find out what caused it in the first place and put a stop to it. Seem logical to me. I would like to see some names.
How about the balance sheet? One thing that I always look for on their balance sheet is the place were it shows "net worth" or "owners equity". The reason that they call it a "balance sheet" is that the two sides "Balance", assets and liabilities. The difference between these two is what you own. In the case of the government, I would like to see an accounting of assets and liabilities so that we would know how much we "own". I just hope that our government is not "under water". That is where you owe more on your liability side than you are worth on the asset side. We all know what the impact was on real estate when our homes were worth less than what we owed on them.
In the state of the union by Obama, he is going to go on and on about "investing" in America rather than just spending and there is a difference. Take the bailout of the banks. We keep hearing that we spent all this money bailing out the banks, but what we really did was to "invest" or "loan" the banks some money for a short term so that if they had a run on their banks, they could pay off depositors. We have a system of insurance for depositors, but this loan went much further and provided money so that those who were "not" covered as depositors could get their money back. I am not going to go into the fact that it was a big mistake to loan money to AIG so that they could pay off banks all over the world who they owed money too. AIG should have paid 10 cents on the dollar to them rather than paying them the full amount. Us tax payers got screwed but not the banks around the world who knew they were taking on risk. In the case of AIG, I feel that it was not an "investment". We just "spent" the money and did not get much for it. Same for the auto companies. Now the banks were different. Those were "loans" that would be paid back and most have been. I would like to see an "accounting" of how that cash was used by the banks. The only reason for loaning the banks all that cash was so they could give depositors their money back if they asked for it. I don't think a lot of them asked for it and thus the banks just gave us back the same cash we loaned them.
Now the point of this Blog was to point out how confusing the accounting is within the government for all these financial transactions. Are you confused?
Most governmental use the basket method of accounting. That is where they put all the revenue into a basket and then take it out and spend it. When the basket is empty, they either have to stop spending or go borrow more money. It is like using the plastic to pay for food. If you notice on regular financial statements, there is an item called "cash". This is not cash in a basket, it is deposited in some bank where it earns interest. Over time, if you are making a profit, the cash can accumulate. That is the idea of a business. Many colleges have endowments or cash in the bank that earns interest. Why don't our governmental units have something like this? After over 200 years, you would think that we should be building up a very large bank account that should be earning interest wouldn't you? Well we have just the opposite situation. We owe money and are paying interest rather than earning interest. That's the problem and we don't have a good accounting system that points all this out.
Next time you talk to a school teacher who teaches anything to do with government, ask them what they teach about governmental accounting and financial systems.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Electric Car, Fox News, General Electric
It did not take long for General Electric to get on the News and start plugging for Obama and GMC (Government Motors Corporation). Like all other interviews, the person doing the interview and the producer did not know a thing about technology and thus played right into the hands of the spin doctors. Here are the fact.
The GE spokesman claimed that these new electric cars get about 100 miles per charge and that they can be recharged in 4 to 6 hours for about $3.00 for a full charge. I am going to use some 4th grade math and high school physics to analyse those comments. The interviewer showed a little knowledge when she asked if the car can be recharged from any electrical outlet? The GE guys was prepared for this question and told her that most people would have a "dedicated" outlet in their garages for the charging. Noticed that he used the word "dedicated" without ever answering the special spec's that the outlet would have to have. Most home outlets are good for only 15 or 20 amps. You would need an outlet with a lot bigger wires and circuit breaker.
Let me see how much I can decode the few facts that we got from the GE rep. He said that he could recharge for $3.00 and it would take about 4 hours. From these numbers and personal know ledge about the cost of electricity, here is what I can calculate. Figure your electricity costs is $0.12/kwh. Now, how many KWH can you get for $3.00. $3.00 / $0.12/KWH = 25KWH Now, if your charge takes 4 hours, you will need to charge at the rate of 25KWH / 4 hr = 6.25KWH/hr. If the outlet in the garage is is the normal 110VAC, how big of a circuit breaker does the circuit need? Now, 6.25KWH X 1000 / 110VAC = 56.8 amps. Now that is a very big circuit. I think that most electric close dryers only have a 50 amp breaker. The bottom line is that you are not going to be able to find a circuit just any place along the highway and you will have to hire an electrician to install a special circuit in your garage for recharging. Notice how the "spin doctors" make you think that every thing about electric cars is all rosie.
From these few numbers, you can calculate a few more things. Let's assume that it will take 2.5 hours to drive the 100 mile range and use the 25KWH that I calculated before. This means that the motor uses 10KW/hour. With 100% efficiency .75KW is equal to a horsepower, but from charging to driving, you can figure it really takes 1.0KW to equal a horsepower. Now, from above, if we only use 10KW/hour, the motor is putting out only 10 horsepower. That seems a little small for a real car that can run on the highway. I just don't think you can drive and keep up with traffic while only using 10 horsepower motor. Looks like more spin to me.
You have to ask yourself if we have all the fraudulent spin coming out of the electric car people, exactly what can we trust. I feel the only one you can trust is yourself based on your own understanding of math and science. The sad conclusion is that there are so few people who have the right to vote who don't know their ass from a hot rock about math and science.
The GE spokesman claimed that these new electric cars get about 100 miles per charge and that they can be recharged in 4 to 6 hours for about $3.00 for a full charge. I am going to use some 4th grade math and high school physics to analyse those comments. The interviewer showed a little knowledge when she asked if the car can be recharged from any electrical outlet? The GE guys was prepared for this question and told her that most people would have a "dedicated" outlet in their garages for the charging. Noticed that he used the word "dedicated" without ever answering the special spec's that the outlet would have to have. Most home outlets are good for only 15 or 20 amps. You would need an outlet with a lot bigger wires and circuit breaker.
Let me see how much I can decode the few facts that we got from the GE rep. He said that he could recharge for $3.00 and it would take about 4 hours. From these numbers and personal know ledge about the cost of electricity, here is what I can calculate. Figure your electricity costs is $0.12/kwh. Now, how many KWH can you get for $3.00. $3.00 / $0.12/KWH = 25KWH Now, if your charge takes 4 hours, you will need to charge at the rate of 25KWH / 4 hr = 6.25KWH/hr. If the outlet in the garage is is the normal 110VAC, how big of a circuit breaker does the circuit need? Now, 6.25KWH X 1000 / 110VAC = 56.8 amps. Now that is a very big circuit. I think that most electric close dryers only have a 50 amp breaker. The bottom line is that you are not going to be able to find a circuit just any place along the highway and you will have to hire an electrician to install a special circuit in your garage for recharging. Notice how the "spin doctors" make you think that every thing about electric cars is all rosie.
From these few numbers, you can calculate a few more things. Let's assume that it will take 2.5 hours to drive the 100 mile range and use the 25KWH that I calculated before. This means that the motor uses 10KW/hour. With 100% efficiency .75KW is equal to a horsepower, but from charging to driving, you can figure it really takes 1.0KW to equal a horsepower. Now, from above, if we only use 10KW/hour, the motor is putting out only 10 horsepower. That seems a little small for a real car that can run on the highway. I just don't think you can drive and keep up with traffic while only using 10 horsepower motor. Looks like more spin to me.
You have to ask yourself if we have all the fraudulent spin coming out of the electric car people, exactly what can we trust. I feel the only one you can trust is yourself based on your own understanding of math and science. The sad conclusion is that there are so few people who have the right to vote who don't know their ass from a hot rock about math and science.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Why Are The Rich Getting Richer?
Every time you hear some liberal speak, they seem to be bad mouthing rich people. It all started with Obama. We know he is a smart guy, but that does not mean he is honest or ethical. There is a big difference. I have never been too concerned about dumb people who were dishonest or unethial, but I do worry about smart people who are. I had a great uncle who was a very smart preacher with the tents and all that stuff. I learned at an early age that these were the types of people you have to be concerned about. That's Obama. I want to shed a little light on all the retoric coming out of his mouth about wealth redistribution and bad mouthing rich people.
I know a little about both these groups. I know first hand what it is like to pick cotton by hand and sleep in the fruit orchards at night or under a bridge. Bridges were the best because you were out of the rain and in most cases you had water and a chance to catch fish. I'm a little better off now and own several sailboats and an airplane. It did not start off so good, but it didn't turn out too bad.
My situation has been the result of hardwork, responsible behavior and recongnition of merit. We had a saying on the farm, "no matter how much you stir the milk, the cream will always rise to the top". I rank that right along side the story about "The Little Red Hen". If you don't know that one and did not tell it to your kids, you have some serious short comings as a parent.
What is all this stuff about the "middle class" falling further and further behind? It is the result of the natural rules of economics in operation. I have gone over this before, but it deserves a short repeat. What part to the past 100 year economic history of the USA would you consider "normal"? Most people think of "normal" as some extended steady state period. The fact is there is no such thing. Economics like any big system is in a continuous state of change and transition. We had a "fat" period after WWII that will never come again exactly like it did. We had the "dust bowl", but that one could come back again. So what is "normal"?
The human race has had a revolution in comunication and transportation. In about 100years we went from mule trains to super tankers and pony express to the internet and cell phones. Would you expect to see some other changes as a result? 100 years ago many people had few places to buy things. Less than 100 years ago, you could buy a home or a barn from the Sears catalog and have it delivered by Railway Express. Railway Express is a thing of the past and Sears is on their way there too. Now we can buy things from China, India, Japan and any other place we chose. Many item are in our stores while others come by UPS right to our door. Things like books come electonically thru our cell phone network. The bottom line is that out economic world has gotten a lot bigger. Silk used to come to Europe by Camel. Think of that? Now all these things come from all over the world and itcost less and less to transport them, like in the case of books. Now back to Obama and this "middle class" stuff.
People who used to be competitive in their own little village or town are now being exposed as not being all that competitive or competent. Their customers have found that they can buy their goods and services from someone else for much less. Isn't that the way that it has always been? Yes, but the whole process is moving a lot faster now. There was a time when most sons took up the same profession as their fathers or went to work at the same factory. In the old days it was "most". Now it is "few". For some reason Obama and those like him feel that we need to go back to the time of "most" rather than "few" as now. In my personal case and those of my brothers, we did not follow the path of our father. We took the path of the "many" and worked hard and were rewarded based on merit. The problem that we have here in the USA is that many of our citizens have been exposed as being non-competitive in the larger economic world. They don't seem to want to work hard or be rewarded based on merit. They want to align with Obama and try to turn back the clock to some special time when they were rewarded on the basis of monopoly rather than merit.
Today is the most fantastic period in the history of the human race. There has never been a time when more individuals around the world had the opporunity to rise based on the hard work and merit. Think about it. When was it better? If you were a prince in England 200 years ago it might have been great, but not for a surf who was owned by the King. If you look into the numbers, you will find that most rich people today made their own millions. In the past they were born into it. As I have Blogged in the past, the "middle class" is not a group that one is born into with no way out. You'll find a lot of people who were born rich, but due to the honesty of "merit", they are now in the "middle class". Even Obama and his wife are examples of people moving from the "middle class" upto what we consider "rich". If they were rewarded, why are they so against others folowing their path?
The rich are not getting richer. People who "were" in the middle class are getting richer. We just have too many in the middle class who don't seem to want to get out based on merit.
I know a little about both these groups. I know first hand what it is like to pick cotton by hand and sleep in the fruit orchards at night or under a bridge. Bridges were the best because you were out of the rain and in most cases you had water and a chance to catch fish. I'm a little better off now and own several sailboats and an airplane. It did not start off so good, but it didn't turn out too bad.
My situation has been the result of hardwork, responsible behavior and recongnition of merit. We had a saying on the farm, "no matter how much you stir the milk, the cream will always rise to the top". I rank that right along side the story about "The Little Red Hen". If you don't know that one and did not tell it to your kids, you have some serious short comings as a parent.
What is all this stuff about the "middle class" falling further and further behind? It is the result of the natural rules of economics in operation. I have gone over this before, but it deserves a short repeat. What part to the past 100 year economic history of the USA would you consider "normal"? Most people think of "normal" as some extended steady state period. The fact is there is no such thing. Economics like any big system is in a continuous state of change and transition. We had a "fat" period after WWII that will never come again exactly like it did. We had the "dust bowl", but that one could come back again. So what is "normal"?
The human race has had a revolution in comunication and transportation. In about 100years we went from mule trains to super tankers and pony express to the internet and cell phones. Would you expect to see some other changes as a result? 100 years ago many people had few places to buy things. Less than 100 years ago, you could buy a home or a barn from the Sears catalog and have it delivered by Railway Express. Railway Express is a thing of the past and Sears is on their way there too. Now we can buy things from China, India, Japan and any other place we chose. Many item are in our stores while others come by UPS right to our door. Things like books come electonically thru our cell phone network. The bottom line is that out economic world has gotten a lot bigger. Silk used to come to Europe by Camel. Think of that? Now all these things come from all over the world and itcost less and less to transport them, like in the case of books. Now back to Obama and this "middle class" stuff.
People who used to be competitive in their own little village or town are now being exposed as not being all that competitive or competent. Their customers have found that they can buy their goods and services from someone else for much less. Isn't that the way that it has always been? Yes, but the whole process is moving a lot faster now. There was a time when most sons took up the same profession as their fathers or went to work at the same factory. In the old days it was "most". Now it is "few". For some reason Obama and those like him feel that we need to go back to the time of "most" rather than "few" as now. In my personal case and those of my brothers, we did not follow the path of our father. We took the path of the "many" and worked hard and were rewarded based on merit. The problem that we have here in the USA is that many of our citizens have been exposed as being non-competitive in the larger economic world. They don't seem to want to work hard or be rewarded based on merit. They want to align with Obama and try to turn back the clock to some special time when they were rewarded on the basis of monopoly rather than merit.
Today is the most fantastic period in the history of the human race. There has never been a time when more individuals around the world had the opporunity to rise based on the hard work and merit. Think about it. When was it better? If you were a prince in England 200 years ago it might have been great, but not for a surf who was owned by the King. If you look into the numbers, you will find that most rich people today made their own millions. In the past they were born into it. As I have Blogged in the past, the "middle class" is not a group that one is born into with no way out. You'll find a lot of people who were born rich, but due to the honesty of "merit", they are now in the "middle class". Even Obama and his wife are examples of people moving from the "middle class" upto what we consider "rich". If they were rewarded, why are they so against others folowing their path?
The rich are not getting richer. People who "were" in the middle class are getting richer. We just have too many in the middle class who don't seem to want to get out based on merit.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wood Working, Veneer, Banding, Thin Kerf
It has been a while since I did a Blog on woodworking. That does not mean that I don't do much wood working. In fact, I am involved in wood working almost every day. Like most wood workers, I have my favorite types of wood working and projects. I live in a log house that I built from logs gathered from this area. When I started the logs still had their bark on. Most of my logs were 24" in diameter and were bucked to 40 feet. It took 18 months from start to move in. I have been in the house almost 30 years now and have enjoyed every minute, but this Blog is not about log building.
I enjoy fancy colored inlay wood working. I make all kinds of boxes from small jewelry boxes to large hope chests. I make fancy picture frames and do most of the matting in wood. This brings me to the are of my most interest and that is first making my own thin veneers by resawing complex patterns that I have glued together from small pieces. I saw some with a very thin band saw blade that I bought from Highland Hardware call the slicer. With this blade, I can slice off 24 strips of veneer from a blank that is only 1-7/8" wide. The strips end up about .021" thick and contain the complex designs that I created when I glue together small blocks of different colored woods. When it is done right, it almost seems like magic.
Being able to cut your own veneer is very critical because it opens up all kinds of opportunities for the creation of different designs and fancy wood working projects. The critical factor in being able to produce your own thin veneer is that once your strips are thin enough, they can be cut precisely with a ordinary paper cutter like we all used in school. You don't need any fancy veneer saws or sharp knives. With the paper cutter, the cuts are clean and accurate. The secret is that the stips need to be less than about .025" thick, and you can do that with either the slicer bands saw blade or the new world's thinnest table saw blade that I discovered made by a company called total saw solutions at totalsawsolutions.com.
Besides being able to cut this thin veneer with a paper cutter, the fact that it is thin means that you can glue it down and it will stay put. If you ever tried to glue thick pieces of material together, you often find that the wood will crack apart. This is because the strength of the glue line and the substrate are not strong enough to over come the movement of the thick piece you are trying to glue down. In any joint, it has to be designed so that the glue wins. All wood wants to expand and contract with changes in moisture and humidity. This is a fact that is not going to change. This is why the legs on wooden chairs loosen in the winter with it is dry or when you get a wood gift that was may in some jungle and it splits soon after you get it. You can't fight mother nature, but you can learn to live with it and that is where being able to cut thin veneers comes in.
The fact that this new table saw blade is so thin also means that it does not take so much horsepower to run it. This is because the cutting forces are smaller and the smaller they are the less power is required. A big second benefit of the cutting forces being smaller is that there is less deflection in both your saw and your work piece. This means that you can cut more accurately even with a light weight table saw. This is really big since it means you can get by with your old saw.
The next item is the finish that this new blade can produce. The guys who designed it stumbled onto exactly the right size and weight of stiffener plates that are attached to the blade. Because these plates are exactly right, they tune the blade so that is does not vibrate. This blade is silent with no ringing like you get with most blades. The ringing of a saw blade means that the cutting edge is moving sideways all the time and during the cut. That is why the cut is not smooth no mater how often the blade is sharpened. Think of all the sanding or joining that is eliminated with this new blade? When I first put my new blade on my table saw and turned it on, I was a little worried because I could not hear the blade turning. It was silent. How is that?
Many of my wood working projects are just like those of many others, except for a key difference. I add all kinds of veneer or inlayed wood patterns to most pieces. The changes an ordinary project into a work of art. You would have to see it to appreciate it. It makes that much difference.
I can not recommend more highly this new blade from "totalsawsolutions.com". It will cost a little more, but for me it is almost priceless in what can do and save.
I enjoy fancy colored inlay wood working. I make all kinds of boxes from small jewelry boxes to large hope chests. I make fancy picture frames and do most of the matting in wood. This brings me to the are of my most interest and that is first making my own thin veneers by resawing complex patterns that I have glued together from small pieces. I saw some with a very thin band saw blade that I bought from Highland Hardware call the slicer. With this blade, I can slice off 24 strips of veneer from a blank that is only 1-7/8" wide. The strips end up about .021" thick and contain the complex designs that I created when I glue together small blocks of different colored woods. When it is done right, it almost seems like magic.
Being able to cut your own veneer is very critical because it opens up all kinds of opportunities for the creation of different designs and fancy wood working projects. The critical factor in being able to produce your own thin veneer is that once your strips are thin enough, they can be cut precisely with a ordinary paper cutter like we all used in school. You don't need any fancy veneer saws or sharp knives. With the paper cutter, the cuts are clean and accurate. The secret is that the stips need to be less than about .025" thick, and you can do that with either the slicer bands saw blade or the new world's thinnest table saw blade that I discovered made by a company called total saw solutions at totalsawsolutions.com.
Besides being able to cut this thin veneer with a paper cutter, the fact that it is thin means that you can glue it down and it will stay put. If you ever tried to glue thick pieces of material together, you often find that the wood will crack apart. This is because the strength of the glue line and the substrate are not strong enough to over come the movement of the thick piece you are trying to glue down. In any joint, it has to be designed so that the glue wins. All wood wants to expand and contract with changes in moisture and humidity. This is a fact that is not going to change. This is why the legs on wooden chairs loosen in the winter with it is dry or when you get a wood gift that was may in some jungle and it splits soon after you get it. You can't fight mother nature, but you can learn to live with it and that is where being able to cut thin veneers comes in.
The fact that this new table saw blade is so thin also means that it does not take so much horsepower to run it. This is because the cutting forces are smaller and the smaller they are the less power is required. A big second benefit of the cutting forces being smaller is that there is less deflection in both your saw and your work piece. This means that you can cut more accurately even with a light weight table saw. This is really big since it means you can get by with your old saw.
The next item is the finish that this new blade can produce. The guys who designed it stumbled onto exactly the right size and weight of stiffener plates that are attached to the blade. Because these plates are exactly right, they tune the blade so that is does not vibrate. This blade is silent with no ringing like you get with most blades. The ringing of a saw blade means that the cutting edge is moving sideways all the time and during the cut. That is why the cut is not smooth no mater how often the blade is sharpened. Think of all the sanding or joining that is eliminated with this new blade? When I first put my new blade on my table saw and turned it on, I was a little worried because I could not hear the blade turning. It was silent. How is that?
Many of my wood working projects are just like those of many others, except for a key difference. I add all kinds of veneer or inlayed wood patterns to most pieces. The changes an ordinary project into a work of art. You would have to see it to appreciate it. It makes that much difference.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Obama Care, Name Of The Game
How can anyone be against Obama Care? Who does not what to save lives? Think about all the people who will die if we did not have Obama Care? How many more people will die each year if we didn't have Obama Care? If Obama Care is so good and will save so many lives, then they doesn't it go into affect for 4 more years? Doesn't anyone care about all the lives that will be lost during the years before Obama Care goes into affect? Have you answered any of these questions yet? Well, before you do, think about this.
What do people mean when they save lives? Is it the same as for a Christen when God saves a soul? I don't think so. All that is going to happen is that Obama Care may "extend" the length of a person's life. It will mean that the average life expectancy will be increased from 79 to 81. I just made these numbers up, but I think you get the idea. Did you know that many countries in the world already have longer life expectancies than the USA and they don't spend near the amount of money on medical that we d0. With Obama Care, we will be spending even more. The bottom line is that Obama Care will not save lives. We will have the same number of deaths each year as we do now. Can't follow that? It is like deer hunting. Deer hunters kill thousands of deer each year, but if we stopped all deer hunting, we would still have the same number of deer dieing each year from desease and old age. Same numbeer. It is the same with Obama Care.
Now if we change the debate to one of increasing the average life span in the USA, what kinds of programs do you think we might have? Under Obama Care, the government is willing to make all citizens purchase health care. Further, the terms of those health insurance policies are predefined by the government. As I stated in a prior Blog, there will not be any "good driver discounts". One plan for everyone regardless of age or state of health. Now if the government can force everyone to by the government defined health policy, why can't they make it against the law to drop out of high school or to get pregnant out of wedlock? Most of the people now who can't pay for their own health care or who don't take care of their health are mostly people who dropped out of high school or got pregnant out of wedlock. If they were to address the real problem of life expectancy and address the true root causes, they would not be penalizing those of use who are responsible.
It is a fact that people who are over weight don't live as long as those who are thinner. You can see this all over the world and it does not cost a dime to maintain a reasonable and healthy weight. Let's do the things that don't cost very much before we start to put taxpayer's money into areas that have a poor rate of return.
Now, we could increase the average life expectancy here in the USA if we had a lot more hospitals with state of the art life support systems. We could do that and the average life expectancy would go up, but would it be worth it? We have to ask ourselves and our President, "is it worth it?" We have not done that. I think the people on the island of Okinawa have a life span almost 10 years longer than the USA. I know for a fact that they don't have Obama Care and its cost. Why do they live so long? We should find out. How about France? They live longer and most of them drink wine every day. What is going on? Get on the internet and check out which countries have the longest life spans. You will be very surprised who they are. Remember, even with Obama Care, we will not save any lives. We will have the same number of deaths per year as we do now. It is simple 4th grade math.
PS------
I checked Google and found that the USA ranks 36th in terms of life expectancy. At 36th, that puts us a long way behind a lot of countries what spend a lot less on health care. So what is wrong? Japan is #1 at 82.6 years. The USA is only 80.6 years. When you look into the numbers and take out blacks the numbers look a lot better. Black males average 69.8, black females average 76.5, white males average 75.7 years and white females average 80.8. All USA groups are far bebind Japan, but black males are really far down thne list. My review of the data shows that countries that are mostly white have the longes life expectancy while countries with a lot of blacks are really low. Even Cuba is ahead of the USA.
What do people mean when they save lives? Is it the same as for a Christen when God saves a soul? I don't think so. All that is going to happen is that Obama Care may "extend" the length of a person's life. It will mean that the average life expectancy will be increased from 79 to 81. I just made these numbers up, but I think you get the idea. Did you know that many countries in the world already have longer life expectancies than the USA and they don't spend near the amount of money on medical that we d0. With Obama Care, we will be spending even more. The bottom line is that Obama Care will not save lives. We will have the same number of deaths each year as we do now. Can't follow that? It is like deer hunting. Deer hunters kill thousands of deer each year, but if we stopped all deer hunting, we would still have the same number of deer dieing each year from desease and old age. Same numbeer. It is the same with Obama Care.
Now if we change the debate to one of increasing the average life span in the USA, what kinds of programs do you think we might have? Under Obama Care, the government is willing to make all citizens purchase health care. Further, the terms of those health insurance policies are predefined by the government. As I stated in a prior Blog, there will not be any "good driver discounts". One plan for everyone regardless of age or state of health. Now if the government can force everyone to by the government defined health policy, why can't they make it against the law to drop out of high school or to get pregnant out of wedlock? Most of the people now who can't pay for their own health care or who don't take care of their health are mostly people who dropped out of high school or got pregnant out of wedlock. If they were to address the real problem of life expectancy and address the true root causes, they would not be penalizing those of use who are responsible.
It is a fact that people who are over weight don't live as long as those who are thinner. You can see this all over the world and it does not cost a dime to maintain a reasonable and healthy weight. Let's do the things that don't cost very much before we start to put taxpayer's money into areas that have a poor rate of return.
Now, we could increase the average life expectancy here in the USA if we had a lot more hospitals with state of the art life support systems. We could do that and the average life expectancy would go up, but would it be worth it? We have to ask ourselves and our President, "is it worth it?" We have not done that. I think the people on the island of Okinawa have a life span almost 10 years longer than the USA. I know for a fact that they don't have Obama Care and its cost. Why do they live so long? We should find out. How about France? They live longer and most of them drink wine every day. What is going on? Get on the internet and check out which countries have the longest life spans. You will be very surprised who they are. Remember, even with Obama Care, we will not save any lives. We will have the same number of deaths per year as we do now. It is simple 4th grade math.
PS------
I checked Google and found that the USA ranks 36th in terms of life expectancy. At 36th, that puts us a long way behind a lot of countries what spend a lot less on health care. So what is wrong? Japan is #1 at 82.6 years. The USA is only 80.6 years. When you look into the numbers and take out blacks the numbers look a lot better. Black males average 69.8, black females average 76.5, white males average 75.7 years and white females average 80.8. All USA groups are far bebind Japan, but black males are really far down thne list. My review of the data shows that countries that are mostly white have the longes life expectancy while countries with a lot of blacks are really low. Even Cuba is ahead of the USA.
Electric Car Update, Cold Weather
I have prided myself on technically understanding the electric car, but I have to admit that I over looked a couple of very important points. Here goes.
As it turns out when you operate an electric car in very cold weather, the power out of the battery is greatly reduced. All of us who live in cold areas should know this because our cars are hard to start in the winter. A well charged battery can hardly turn over the engine. Most people think that this is because the engine is cold, but it is mostly due to the fact that a cold battery can't put out as much juice. Recent tests of the electric cars has shown that they get 1/3 less miles per charge than what is on the window sticker. This is a big deal. When you consider that they are not economical when they operate at the sticker specifications, what do you think the figures look like when they lose 1/3 of their driving distance? I don't know why this point did not get greater attention until now. If they missed this big of a point, you have to ask what other important points did they miss or did not tell us.
Now, that is just one point due to colder weather. What if you heated did not work either? In the case of an all electric car, the heat has to come from the battery and we are talking about a lot of watts to heat the car and keep it warm for an hour trip. Running an electric heater that is plugged into an outlet in your home is one thing, but in a car, it kills the distance that you can drive. In the case of a gas car, the heat to heat the inside of the car comes from waste heat that would have gone out thru the radiator and thus has no affect on mileage. Not so with an electric car. For electric cars that have a gas engine, they could start the engine and use the waste heat from the engine to heat the inside of the car. Once again, we can start to see that the electric car is not what it was claimed to have been.
Think about an electric car that was supposed to get 40 miles on a charge, but in cold weather only gets 26.7 miles? What if you were picking the kids up from school and had to wait in the cold for 20 or 30 minutes and had to keep the heat on? In this case, I don't think you could depend on the car getting half the rate miles per charge. I know a lot of mothers who were planning on using the green electric car to pick up the kids and run to the market who now will have to rethink the whole thing. This does not look good for the electric car.
As it turns out when you operate an electric car in very cold weather, the power out of the battery is greatly reduced. All of us who live in cold areas should know this because our cars are hard to start in the winter. A well charged battery can hardly turn over the engine. Most people think that this is because the engine is cold, but it is mostly due to the fact that a cold battery can't put out as much juice. Recent tests of the electric cars has shown that they get 1/3 less miles per charge than what is on the window sticker. This is a big deal. When you consider that they are not economical when they operate at the sticker specifications, what do you think the figures look like when they lose 1/3 of their driving distance? I don't know why this point did not get greater attention until now. If they missed this big of a point, you have to ask what other important points did they miss or did not tell us.
Now, that is just one point due to colder weather. What if you heated did not work either? In the case of an all electric car, the heat has to come from the battery and we are talking about a lot of watts to heat the car and keep it warm for an hour trip. Running an electric heater that is plugged into an outlet in your home is one thing, but in a car, it kills the distance that you can drive. In the case of a gas car, the heat to heat the inside of the car comes from waste heat that would have gone out thru the radiator and thus has no affect on mileage. Not so with an electric car. For electric cars that have a gas engine, they could start the engine and use the waste heat from the engine to heat the inside of the car. Once again, we can start to see that the electric car is not what it was claimed to have been.
Think about an electric car that was supposed to get 40 miles on a charge, but in cold weather only gets 26.7 miles? What if you were picking the kids up from school and had to wait in the cold for 20 or 30 minutes and had to keep the heat on? In this case, I don't think you could depend on the car getting half the rate miles per charge. I know a lot of mothers who were planning on using the green electric car to pick up the kids and run to the market who now will have to rethink the whole thing. This does not look good for the electric car.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Fresh Look At History, Hunter-Gatherers
I have always been a "small" history nut. I like to investigate single historical events or situations in detail as opposed to the big picture. It always seemed to me that most people were too concerned about the big picture and thus gave little attention to "small" events. In this Blog, I want to go "big".
If you first look at animals and their history, you find that they have been here for millions of years and seemed to have handled all kinds of changes and events that could have wiped them out. You have to ask, "how could that have happened?" Notice that all animals are "hunter-gathers". This is what humans were for thousands of years too and we survived just like the animals.
Before I really get into the message, I would like to reveal a little understood piece of animal (bird) history. Remember the Passenger Pigeon? As a kid I used to read about there being billions of Passenger pigeons. Pioneers used to kill them by the wagon load and feed them to their pigs. There are accounts of flocks being so large that they blackened the sky. So many would land in trees that they would break off limbs. Now they are all gone. The last one was died in Wisconsin. Now when researchers go back a look at Native American garbage dumps, they find very few Passenger Pigeon bones. Why was that? It was because there were never very many Passenger Pigeons until the pioneers came to America. The Native Americans and the Passenger Pigeons were after the same food, nuts, so they killed off most of the Passenger Pigeons and kept their numbers low. The Native Americans also cultivated all kinds of nut trees for their food. When disease killed off most of the Native Americans, the artificial over supply of nuts that they had created was now available to the Passenger Pigeons. In no time their numbers grew geometrically into the billions. It was one on the first recorded "boom and bust" of animals here in North America. I will return to this concept of "boom and bust" again later.
While us humans existed as hunter-gatherers, nature was producing wood for fuel and shelter as well as water by evaporation and rain and food from animals who were also hunter gatherers. We were all in balance and this went on for millions of years. Us humans were smarter than most animals and figured out how to build fires, grow our own food and domesticate animals. We even figured out how to smelt iron and make complex chemicals like gun powder. Later, we were able to build engines that used steam produced from coal and oil. What us humans did was to discover that mother nature had produced all kinds of coal and oil and now we could cash in on this one time find. Does this start to look like the start of a new "boom and bust"?
We seem to be able to understand the "boom and bust" concept when it happens to someone else. Out West, you will find all kinds of Ghost towns. We all know that these were the result of some kind of "boom and bust", but it won't happen here.
There is no dought in my mind that we are in a clear "boom and bust" period.
The world wide population doubles every 33 years. At that rate, in 99 years from now, we will have 8 times as many people as we do now. The age mix of that population will also be much older and less able to produce. They will also have a much harder time caring for themselves and will require help for the smaller percentage of younger people. Now that is in just 99 years. I am 70 years old and I know of people who are in their 90's. 99 years is not that far away. In areas of the world where people are hunter-gatherers, they might have a chance of survival, but not those who depend on the elements that created this boom and bust. This is all coming down to the clear fact that there is no such thing as a "free lunch". The only questions is how long before humans become hunter-gatherers again?
PS, What us humans have been doing for the past few thousand years is "gaming the system". We are so smart that we figured out how we could get "more" out of the system by "gaming it". The problem is that no one can game the system for ever. The only way that us humans can keep going for a few more thousands of years is to stop "gaming" the system. We all know that there is no way that the population can keep expanding and doubling every 33 years. Look at Hatti. It just got there first and you can see what the picture is going to look like. I could do a complete Blog just on how we humans have "gamed" every natural system.
If you first look at animals and their history, you find that they have been here for millions of years and seemed to have handled all kinds of changes and events that could have wiped them out. You have to ask, "how could that have happened?" Notice that all animals are "hunter-gathers". This is what humans were for thousands of years too and we survived just like the animals.
Before I really get into the message, I would like to reveal a little understood piece of animal (bird) history. Remember the Passenger Pigeon? As a kid I used to read about there being billions of Passenger pigeons. Pioneers used to kill them by the wagon load and feed them to their pigs. There are accounts of flocks being so large that they blackened the sky. So many would land in trees that they would break off limbs. Now they are all gone. The last one was died in Wisconsin. Now when researchers go back a look at Native American garbage dumps, they find very few Passenger Pigeon bones. Why was that? It was because there were never very many Passenger Pigeons until the pioneers came to America. The Native Americans and the Passenger Pigeons were after the same food, nuts, so they killed off most of the Passenger Pigeons and kept their numbers low. The Native Americans also cultivated all kinds of nut trees for their food. When disease killed off most of the Native Americans, the artificial over supply of nuts that they had created was now available to the Passenger Pigeons. In no time their numbers grew geometrically into the billions. It was one on the first recorded "boom and bust" of animals here in North America. I will return to this concept of "boom and bust" again later.
While us humans existed as hunter-gatherers, nature was producing wood for fuel and shelter as well as water by evaporation and rain and food from animals who were also hunter gatherers. We were all in balance and this went on for millions of years. Us humans were smarter than most animals and figured out how to build fires, grow our own food and domesticate animals. We even figured out how to smelt iron and make complex chemicals like gun powder. Later, we were able to build engines that used steam produced from coal and oil. What us humans did was to discover that mother nature had produced all kinds of coal and oil and now we could cash in on this one time find. Does this start to look like the start of a new "boom and bust"?
We seem to be able to understand the "boom and bust" concept when it happens to someone else. Out West, you will find all kinds of Ghost towns. We all know that these were the result of some kind of "boom and bust", but it won't happen here.
There is no dought in my mind that we are in a clear "boom and bust" period.
The world wide population doubles every 33 years. At that rate, in 99 years from now, we will have 8 times as many people as we do now. The age mix of that population will also be much older and less able to produce. They will also have a much harder time caring for themselves and will require help for the smaller percentage of younger people. Now that is in just 99 years. I am 70 years old and I know of people who are in their 90's. 99 years is not that far away. In areas of the world where people are hunter-gatherers, they might have a chance of survival, but not those who depend on the elements that created this boom and bust. This is all coming down to the clear fact that there is no such thing as a "free lunch". The only questions is how long before humans become hunter-gatherers again?
PS, What us humans have been doing for the past few thousand years is "gaming the system". We are so smart that we figured out how we could get "more" out of the system by "gaming it". The problem is that no one can game the system for ever. The only way that us humans can keep going for a few more thousands of years is to stop "gaming" the system. We all know that there is no way that the population can keep expanding and doubling every 33 years. Look at Hatti. It just got there first and you can see what the picture is going to look like. I could do a complete Blog just on how we humans have "gamed" every natural system.
Friday, January 14, 2011
How To Save Social Security
Give me a break. I can have ideas about how to save social security too. This is going to be a short Blog.
We know all about the social security trust fund and lock boxes and that sort of thing. Well, I think that I have finally gotten to the bottom of the problem and thus the solution. What we need to do is to transfer the trust fund to a third party separate from the government. We can debate who that might be, but I think we could come up with several qualified candidates. Now rather than transfer the IOU's that now represent the, so call, trust fund, we should do it in Gold. Based on a simple accounting concept of FIFO, first in first out, we should calculate how much and when US dollars were deposited in the trust fund and take out an equivalent amount of Gold from Ft Knox based on the price of Gold at the "time" of the deposits.
This is the only way that I can see that the funds could be deposited someplace else without either having the government borrow the money or the treasure print more money. If the government had to borrow enough money to transfer the funds our whole financial system would fail. If we printed enough money to make the transfer, it would ruin the value of our money and thus we would have a complete financial failure. I just heard some nut who claimed to have worked for Greenspan who thinks there is real money in the trust fund. It is just a file cabinet with some sheets of paper showing when and for how much the government promised to payback when they took the money and spent it. Just think if you could do that?
There is something about Gold that I feel would allow all those who are now older than 55 or 60 to have confidence that they would have social security when they retired.
If anyone has a better idea, I would like to hear it.
We know all about the social security trust fund and lock boxes and that sort of thing. Well, I think that I have finally gotten to the bottom of the problem and thus the solution. What we need to do is to transfer the trust fund to a third party separate from the government. We can debate who that might be, but I think we could come up with several qualified candidates. Now rather than transfer the IOU's that now represent the, so call, trust fund, we should do it in Gold. Based on a simple accounting concept of FIFO, first in first out, we should calculate how much and when US dollars were deposited in the trust fund and take out an equivalent amount of Gold from Ft Knox based on the price of Gold at the "time" of the deposits.
This is the only way that I can see that the funds could be deposited someplace else without either having the government borrow the money or the treasure print more money. If the government had to borrow enough money to transfer the funds our whole financial system would fail. If we printed enough money to make the transfer, it would ruin the value of our money and thus we would have a complete financial failure. I just heard some nut who claimed to have worked for Greenspan who thinks there is real money in the trust fund. It is just a file cabinet with some sheets of paper showing when and for how much the government promised to payback when they took the money and spent it. Just think if you could do that?
There is something about Gold that I feel would allow all those who are now older than 55 or 60 to have confidence that they would have social security when they retired.
If anyone has a better idea, I would like to hear it.
Understanding Big Numbers
Us humans have always had a problem with big numbers. That is why a "yard", which is 36" is the distance from an average person's nose to the tip of their thumb. Distances beyond this start to become incomprehensible for us. When it comes to miles or light years, most of us just blank out. Not one person in 10 knows how many yards are in a mile or miles in a light year. If this is the case, it is no wonder that few can understand our current national debit which stands at $14 trillion dollars. How many zeros is that? Would you believe it is 12, 000,000,000,000. Do you have a problem with that many zeros? I am going to try to put this into some kind of perspective that some of you might understand.
To do all this, I am going to draw on my 4th grade math. Here are my assumptions.
* National Debit $14,000,000,000,000
* USA Population 300,000,000
* Average Family size 3
* Number of Families 100,000,000
* Average Number of Hours Worked 2,000
* Average Interest On US Bonds 4%
* Average Return on Stocks 6%
Now for the 4th grade math calculations.
* How much does each family owe on the national debit?
$14 trillion/100,000,000 families = $140,000 per family
This is how much each family owes. Now we know that only half of the population does "not" pay toward the debit, so the other half have to pick up their tab. That means those who pay federal tax have to pay twice as much or $280,000. Now we are starting to talk about real money.
* How much interest does each family have to pay each year just for the interest on the national debit. I have assumed a rate of 4% per year. In the news, we are hearing that this number will rise because of our economic health, so this could go higher.
$140,000 x .04% = $5,600 per year per family
Now we know that only half of the families pay federal tax so those who do have to pick up the tab and pay double at $11,200. Did you have any idea that it was that big?
* Want to know how much per hour just the interest cost per those families who pay the tax? 4th grade math to the rescue.
$11,200 /2,000 hr/yr = $5.60/hr
What if we also wanted to pay off the debit just like we want to pay off our car or home. We need to think about paying something toward the principle. If we get a 40 year note, we need to pay off 1/40th every year. Now how much would that be for those families who actually pay federal income tax.
$280,000 / 40 yr = $7,000/yr (just for principle)
Now if you think about this like a home mortgage, we need to add interest and principle to see what the payments need to be.
$7,000 + $11,200 = $18,200/yr or
$18,200/yr / 2,000 hr/yr = $9,10/hr
Hey, we are starting to be talking about real money here. Many people don't even make $9.10/hr. It is a lot worse than most people think.
Now we hear about "Sovereign Funds". What exactly are these? The reason that we don't know much about these is that the USA does not have any. Rather than having a big national debit, some countries have a big surplus that they have available to invest. Now with a rich country like the USA, what if we had a big surplus rather than a big debit that we were paying interest on? Recall that I assumed the average fund invested would yield 6%, what if we had $14 trillion in the bank rather than the other way around? If we could get 6% on that $14 trillion, how much would we be able to give to each family?
($14,000,000,000,000 X 6%)/ 100,000,000 families = $8,400/yr/family
If we had an invested surplus, we could give every family an hourly raise of;
$8,4000/2,000 = $4,20/hr
Think about it. We are now asking each family to pay $5.60 per hour when we could all be getting $4,20 per hour on our investment for a total swing of $9.80/hr.
I think that if more people would use their 4th grade math a little more often, the USA would be making much better economic decisions and hold our politicians to a much higher standard.
To do all this, I am going to draw on my 4th grade math. Here are my assumptions.
* National Debit $14,000,000,000,000
* USA Population 300,000,000
* Average Family size 3
* Number of Families 100,000,000
* Average Number of Hours Worked 2,000
* Average Interest On US Bonds 4%
* Average Return on Stocks 6%
Now for the 4th grade math calculations.
* How much does each family owe on the national debit?
$14 trillion/100,000,000 families = $140,000 per family
This is how much each family owes. Now we know that only half of the population does "not" pay toward the debit, so the other half have to pick up their tab. That means those who pay federal tax have to pay twice as much or $280,000. Now we are starting to talk about real money.
* How much interest does each family have to pay each year just for the interest on the national debit. I have assumed a rate of 4% per year. In the news, we are hearing that this number will rise because of our economic health, so this could go higher.
$140,000 x .04% = $5,600 per year per family
Now we know that only half of the families pay federal tax so those who do have to pick up the tab and pay double at $11,200. Did you have any idea that it was that big?
* Want to know how much per hour just the interest cost per those families who pay the tax? 4th grade math to the rescue.
$11,200 /2,000 hr/yr = $5.60/hr
What if we also wanted to pay off the debit just like we want to pay off our car or home. We need to think about paying something toward the principle. If we get a 40 year note, we need to pay off 1/40th every year. Now how much would that be for those families who actually pay federal income tax.
$280,000 / 40 yr = $7,000/yr (just for principle)
Now if you think about this like a home mortgage, we need to add interest and principle to see what the payments need to be.
$7,000 + $11,200 = $18,200/yr or
$18,200/yr / 2,000 hr/yr = $9,10/hr
Hey, we are starting to be talking about real money here. Many people don't even make $9.10/hr. It is a lot worse than most people think.
Now we hear about "Sovereign Funds". What exactly are these? The reason that we don't know much about these is that the USA does not have any. Rather than having a big national debit, some countries have a big surplus that they have available to invest. Now with a rich country like the USA, what if we had a big surplus rather than a big debit that we were paying interest on? Recall that I assumed the average fund invested would yield 6%, what if we had $14 trillion in the bank rather than the other way around? If we could get 6% on that $14 trillion, how much would we be able to give to each family?
($14,000,000,000,000 X 6%)/ 100,000,000 families = $8,400/yr/family
If we had an invested surplus, we could give every family an hourly raise of;
$8,4000/2,000 = $4,20/hr
Think about it. We are now asking each family to pay $5.60 per hour when we could all be getting $4,20 per hour on our investment for a total swing of $9.80/hr.
I think that if more people would use their 4th grade math a little more often, the USA would be making much better economic decisions and hold our politicians to a much higher standard.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Animal Farm
It has been so long now that I can't remember when I first read "Animal Farm". It was one of those special books that really had an impact on me. It may have been the way that it was written or just the fact that most important things are really simple when you strip away all the schmaltz. I have been surprised how many people who I know who seem to be well educated who never read "Animal Farm". When ever I hear the phrase used, "...some are more equal than others...", I always think about "Animal Farm" even though it has been many years since I read it.
For me, the simple message of "Animal Farm" is that I do not want any part of a political or social system where some people are more equal than others. I wrote a Blog on this point some time ago, but it deserves repeating. Here in the USA we have come together with the understanding that this is a country of "law" not the whims of individual people. Rule of law is key to who we are and why we are different from many other societies. Further, we came together under a special constitution that protects the interests of the minorities from the majority. All this comes together to prevent just what has been happening in Arizona. How can I be against what Obama is doing there? As an individual person, I do not have any problem with Obama doing or saying anything that he wants, but I do have a problem when he singles out a person or a group and gives them special rights. The people who died in Arizona seem to be, "....more equal....". On a personal basis, I feel very sorry for the individuals and their families. This is not about personal grief. I know that many of you will not agree and say that the government should do every thing they can to help those who were injured and their families. I say no!
People are shot every day in the USA and I don't see the President doing anything special for them. Are they "....less equal...? Go to Flint, Michigan, for example, I have read that they have the highest shooting rate per capita than any city in the USA. Are the lives of those people "...less equal..."? You tell me.
It has been a policy of Obama to single out groups like the middle class or union members as being "....more equal..." than others. How can we allow this kind of conduct by our President? I thought that he was the President for all of us and would protect us equally. I don't think there are classes with in the USA who are ...more equal than others.... Isn't this what we have the Revolution in 1776 for? We did not want any King or Queen who were ....more equal... We didn't want any Dukes or Lords who were ....more equal....
As a kid, I was a poor as dirt, but I held my head high because I knew that I was ...equal to anyone, and no one was more equal than me... When I read the book "Animal Farm" everything that I believed in as a kid was confirmed. Now I am very sensitive about this point as you must by now know. If at any time we have group with in our society that are ....more equal... we have a real problem. It is like a small fire in a dry forest. Once you allow one small fire, you risk the whole forest. You might think this is all hot air, but I feel that this is the way it starts. Small steps at first and then bigger and bigger steps. I might be wrong, but the risk, in my mind, is too big to take the chance.
Agree or disagree, but you have to think about it.
PS, If it was your mother who was shot coming out of the grocery store, wouldn't she deserve to have the President of the USA give a speech for her. Maybe your mother is ....less equal...
For me, the simple message of "Animal Farm" is that I do not want any part of a political or social system where some people are more equal than others. I wrote a Blog on this point some time ago, but it deserves repeating. Here in the USA we have come together with the understanding that this is a country of "law" not the whims of individual people. Rule of law is key to who we are and why we are different from many other societies. Further, we came together under a special constitution that protects the interests of the minorities from the majority. All this comes together to prevent just what has been happening in Arizona. How can I be against what Obama is doing there? As an individual person, I do not have any problem with Obama doing or saying anything that he wants, but I do have a problem when he singles out a person or a group and gives them special rights. The people who died in Arizona seem to be, "....more equal....". On a personal basis, I feel very sorry for the individuals and their families. This is not about personal grief. I know that many of you will not agree and say that the government should do every thing they can to help those who were injured and their families. I say no!
People are shot every day in the USA and I don't see the President doing anything special for them. Are they "....less equal...? Go to Flint, Michigan, for example, I have read that they have the highest shooting rate per capita than any city in the USA. Are the lives of those people "...less equal..."? You tell me.
It has been a policy of Obama to single out groups like the middle class or union members as being "....more equal..." than others. How can we allow this kind of conduct by our President? I thought that he was the President for all of us and would protect us equally. I don't think there are classes with in the USA who are ...more equal than others.... Isn't this what we have the Revolution in 1776 for? We did not want any King or Queen who were ....more equal... We didn't want any Dukes or Lords who were ....more equal....
As a kid, I was a poor as dirt, but I held my head high because I knew that I was ...equal to anyone, and no one was more equal than me... When I read the book "Animal Farm" everything that I believed in as a kid was confirmed. Now I am very sensitive about this point as you must by now know. If at any time we have group with in our society that are ....more equal... we have a real problem. It is like a small fire in a dry forest. Once you allow one small fire, you risk the whole forest. You might think this is all hot air, but I feel that this is the way it starts. Small steps at first and then bigger and bigger steps. I might be wrong, but the risk, in my mind, is too big to take the chance.
Agree or disagree, but you have to think about it.
PS, If it was your mother who was shot coming out of the grocery store, wouldn't she deserve to have the President of the USA give a speech for her. Maybe your mother is ....less equal...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Understanding Energy
When I watch TV, it seems clear than no one understands energy. I know that most people don't know the difference between power, work, force and energy. I would tackle that one, but I don't think that I will live long enough. To keep things simple, I always like to use simple examples. The best simple examples seem to come by way of simple minded people, including our President, Obama. Remember the "Cash for clunkers" program that cost over a $100,000 per net car purchased? I'm going to use that one for my example on energy.
Seems that Obama and his green friends wanted our cars off the roads that got low miles per gallon and get more cars on the roads that got good gas mileage. Seems like a good idea if were to occur in the normal course of business with individuals making decisions in a distributed system that were in their personal interest. That is not the government's way. Obama and his green friends think that it is the government's role to take us stupid taxpayers where we are too stupid to go. They are just helping us stupid taxpayers. How could that be bad? Now for some energy stuff. Think about exactly what a car is and how it got to be? Where did all the steel come from and how did it get to be a car? Well, steel started out as iron ore in the ground some place. At that point it had no real value. It had been sitting there in the ground for over a million years without bothering anyone. Now how did it get into this car? Energy was used again and again to find the ore, dig it out, haul it to the smelter and smelt it into iron and steel. Trucks and tractors using oil as a fuel were used to get it to the smelter. At the smelter, coal was used to take out the oxygen and sulfur from from the ore to leave pure iron. When it was all done, the steel was worth just a little more than the amount of energy that it took to make steel. That is rule number one of economics. If something is not worth at the end, more than the energy that went to make it, why would a normal person do it? This same logic applies to all aspects of the car. The worker who turned the bolts had to be fueled with food of some kind and that food was made of energy. The worker's stomach smelted the food and saved the energy to help his muscles turn the bolts. In the end, it is all energy pure and simple. With me so far? Now for the punch line.
I am not going to develop this point because it would take too long, I think that the value of a car is 90% energy one way or another. That means the price of a car is a 90% measure of the amount of energy that was required to produce it. When things cost less, 90% of the weight is because they use less energy than some other item. This is why many of the energy policies or ideas fall flat on their faces in the long run. Take a wind mill. Many people rationalize that the cost of wind mills will go down or the power they produce with be competitive when the price of oil goes higher. What they do not understand is that the cost of the wind mill is 90% energy and thus when oil prices go up, so does the cost of the wind mill. The gap between the price of energy from oil and that from wind mills will "never" narrow.
Back to the cash for clunkers idea. If you are simple minded and don't take into account the cost of car and only the cost of gas, you would agree with Obama. If you are a two mover in checkers, then you will be able to see thru Obama and his green friends. Think about it. We have a car that gets 20 mpg and is only worth $5,000, but has at least 100,000 miles of life in it. Obama wants us to destroy this old car and force us the buy a new one for $40,000 that has 150,000 miles of more life than the old car, but gets 30 mpg. The old car still has $4,500 worth of energy value that has not been realized. The new car has $36,000 of energy value that has not be use yet and only has a life of 250,000 miles. Now for the 4th grade math. Ready? $4,500/100,000 miles = $0.045/mile for the old car. Now for the new car $36,000/250,000 miles = $0.144/mile. With me so far? Those two number are energy per mile because cars and really energy. Now how about the gas mileage. I am going to use my 4th grade math again. The old car gets 20 miles per gallon and with gas is $3.00/gal. $3.00/20mpg = $0.150/mile. The new car is a lot better and gets 30 mpg. $3.00/30/mpg = $0.100/ mile. With me on this 4th grade math? Now the big one, we add the numbers together. For this I will resort to 2nd grade math and here is what I get. For the old car $0.045 + $0.150 = $0.195/mile. For the new car $0.144 + $0.100 = $0.244/mile. Surprised? Now I have to use 5th grade math. $0.244/$0.195 X 100 = 125%. This shows that the new car as a total system uses 25% more energy than the old car that it replaced.
Now I did this all with 2nd, 4th and 5th grade math. Why is it that I can figure out that the Obama and green friends are stupid and the news media can't seem to figure it out? That is the big question. Now in my numbers, I did not spend any taxpayer money on either of these cars. If I added that money in it would clearly be much worse. In my example, I considered that Obama was able to cause the switch from old gas guzzlers to these new cars with just his "mouth" and no tax money changed hands. My point is that energy is in every thing and it needs to be taken into account. If this had been done by Obama and his green friends, we would have saved all the taxpayer's money that was spent as well as saved energy. A person who knows 4th grade math is smarter than our President.
Seems that Obama and his green friends wanted our cars off the roads that got low miles per gallon and get more cars on the roads that got good gas mileage. Seems like a good idea if were to occur in the normal course of business with individuals making decisions in a distributed system that were in their personal interest. That is not the government's way. Obama and his green friends think that it is the government's role to take us stupid taxpayers where we are too stupid to go. They are just helping us stupid taxpayers. How could that be bad? Now for some energy stuff. Think about exactly what a car is and how it got to be? Where did all the steel come from and how did it get to be a car? Well, steel started out as iron ore in the ground some place. At that point it had no real value. It had been sitting there in the ground for over a million years without bothering anyone. Now how did it get into this car? Energy was used again and again to find the ore, dig it out, haul it to the smelter and smelt it into iron and steel. Trucks and tractors using oil as a fuel were used to get it to the smelter. At the smelter, coal was used to take out the oxygen and sulfur from from the ore to leave pure iron. When it was all done, the steel was worth just a little more than the amount of energy that it took to make steel. That is rule number one of economics. If something is not worth at the end, more than the energy that went to make it, why would a normal person do it? This same logic applies to all aspects of the car. The worker who turned the bolts had to be fueled with food of some kind and that food was made of energy. The worker's stomach smelted the food and saved the energy to help his muscles turn the bolts. In the end, it is all energy pure and simple. With me so far? Now for the punch line.
I am not going to develop this point because it would take too long, I think that the value of a car is 90% energy one way or another. That means the price of a car is a 90% measure of the amount of energy that was required to produce it. When things cost less, 90% of the weight is because they use less energy than some other item. This is why many of the energy policies or ideas fall flat on their faces in the long run. Take a wind mill. Many people rationalize that the cost of wind mills will go down or the power they produce with be competitive when the price of oil goes higher. What they do not understand is that the cost of the wind mill is 90% energy and thus when oil prices go up, so does the cost of the wind mill. The gap between the price of energy from oil and that from wind mills will "never" narrow.
Back to the cash for clunkers idea. If you are simple minded and don't take into account the cost of car and only the cost of gas, you would agree with Obama. If you are a two mover in checkers, then you will be able to see thru Obama and his green friends. Think about it. We have a car that gets 20 mpg and is only worth $5,000, but has at least 100,000 miles of life in it. Obama wants us to destroy this old car and force us the buy a new one for $40,000 that has 150,000 miles of more life than the old car, but gets 30 mpg. The old car still has $4,500 worth of energy value that has not been realized. The new car has $36,000 of energy value that has not be use yet and only has a life of 250,000 miles. Now for the 4th grade math. Ready? $4,500/100,000 miles = $0.045/mile for the old car. Now for the new car $36,000/250,000 miles = $0.144/mile. With me so far? Those two number are energy per mile because cars and really energy. Now how about the gas mileage. I am going to use my 4th grade math again. The old car gets 20 miles per gallon and with gas is $3.00/gal. $3.00/20mpg = $0.150/mile. The new car is a lot better and gets 30 mpg. $3.00/30/mpg = $0.100/ mile. With me on this 4th grade math? Now the big one, we add the numbers together. For this I will resort to 2nd grade math and here is what I get. For the old car $0.045 + $0.150 = $0.195/mile. For the new car $0.144 + $0.100 = $0.244/mile. Surprised? Now I have to use 5th grade math. $0.244/$0.195 X 100 = 125%. This shows that the new car as a total system uses 25% more energy than the old car that it replaced.
Now I did this all with 2nd, 4th and 5th grade math. Why is it that I can figure out that the Obama and green friends are stupid and the news media can't seem to figure it out? That is the big question. Now in my numbers, I did not spend any taxpayer money on either of these cars. If I added that money in it would clearly be much worse. In my example, I considered that Obama was able to cause the switch from old gas guzzlers to these new cars with just his "mouth" and no tax money changed hands. My point is that energy is in every thing and it needs to be taken into account. If this had been done by Obama and his green friends, we would have saved all the taxpayer's money that was spent as well as saved energy. A person who knows 4th grade math is smarter than our President.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
National Debit In Constant Dollars
I am an avid wood worker and work very hard to make sure that everything that I make is very accurate. I buy only the most accurate measuring tape or rulers. I use a very sharp pencil so that all my cuts are right on the money. Can you imagine what my wood working projects would look like if I did not use an accurate measuring tape? Well, that is exactly what we have when it comes to understanding the "National Debit". All the charts that we see are based on "dollars", but we know that a dollar today is not worth as much as a dollar was some years ago. The dollar is like a rubber yard stick. If that is the case, how can we make sense of the value or cost of anything? Constant Dollars.
Constant dollars is a concept that uses a dollar that has the same value over time. That means that if a loaf of bread cost $1.00 in 1950, with constant dollars it still costs $1.00 today. Our own Treasury Department compiles a chart that shows the value of a dollar over time. We keep hearing about how the national debit went up under this or that President and now it is at an all time record. If everyone is using a rubber yard stick, how can we tell who is correct?
Here are the numbers corrected in terms of constant dollars.
Year Constant $ National Debit Corrected Debit
1950 $9.08 $256 $2,324
1960 7.39 291 1,150
1970 5.64 381 2,149
1980 2.66 909 2,418
1990 1.67 3,209 5,359
2000 1.27 5,629 7,149
2010 1.00 14,025 14,025
What you see in the above numbers is that the national debit doubled from 2000 to 2010 rather than triplied as reported in the News. Notice also, that back in 1950 we had a national debit that was 9 times as big as what is being reported. Next time you see talking heads on TV report on national debit, think about what the numbers would look like if they were reported in constant dollars rather than with a rubber yard stick.
You can apply the constant dollars concept to anything. A home in 1950 would cost 1/9th as much as it would today. We are talking about the same house.
Constant dollars is a concept that uses a dollar that has the same value over time. That means that if a loaf of bread cost $1.00 in 1950, with constant dollars it still costs $1.00 today. Our own Treasury Department compiles a chart that shows the value of a dollar over time. We keep hearing about how the national debit went up under this or that President and now it is at an all time record. If everyone is using a rubber yard stick, how can we tell who is correct?
Here are the numbers corrected in terms of constant dollars.
Year Constant $ National Debit Corrected Debit
1950 $9.08 $256 $2,324
1960 7.39 291 1,150
1970 5.64 381 2,149
1980 2.66 909 2,418
1990 1.67 3,209 5,359
2000 1.27 5,629 7,149
2010 1.00 14,025 14,025
What you see in the above numbers is that the national debit doubled from 2000 to 2010 rather than triplied as reported in the News. Notice also, that back in 1950 we had a national debit that was 9 times as big as what is being reported. Next time you see talking heads on TV report on national debit, think about what the numbers would look like if they were reported in constant dollars rather than with a rubber yard stick.
You can apply the constant dollars concept to anything. A home in 1950 would cost 1/9th as much as it would today. We are talking about the same house.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Trust The Academic Community?
Even though I taught in the engineering department of a major university, I still do not have a lot of trust in the "academic community". You know this is where we send our kids and where we spend much of our life's savings. If there is some question of whether these people can be trusted with the minds of our most precious possession, we should get to the bottom of it. You may think this is the strangest Blog to come out of me so far, but wait.
What I have noticed about the academic community is that once one of their group finds a "bone" they all want to get in on it and they never seem to be able to let the "bone" go. This is how dogs operate and it is not all that much different with our college and university professors. I think if we would refer to them as teachers rather than professors, the size of the heads might be restored to normal. I think the best way to get an understanding of the academic community is to review a few examples of how they operate and then see if we can get into their minds.
I mentioned this one before, but it is still a good example. For many years all colleges and universities required everyone to learn Latin. If you look back at all the hours that were spent on learning this one language, it would amount to more mind work than it took to invent the atomic bomb or go to the moon. Think of all the waste of time and energy learning Latin all those years? That is not counting all the cost. I think it was no more than a "jobs" program for washed up teachers. Exactly what caused the academic community to drop the Latin requirement, I am not sure, but I am very glad that most have dropped it. Now, that is just one.
I mentioned this one before too. "New math", now we all remember that one. I was too old for "new math", but my kids got a taste of it. Who dropped this "bone" into the academic community? I have researched it and can't find its "mother". Strange how now no one wants to claim it. Even though it had no basis, it would not die with in the academic community. I still know of old teachers who bought into it and still want to defend it. Am I starting to build my case? In a prior Blog, I showed how this one act by our academic community almost killed science and math in the USA. We still have not recovered. Graduations of engineers reached their peak in 1986 and have been going down ever since. That timing is very close to the introduction of "new math".
How about the famous psychologist, Sigman Fraud? He was a good old Jew boy and thus was welcomed into the academic community with open arms. Here again, the academic community had another "bone" to chew on and they did for over a 100 years. When we now look back on Sigman's theories, we find that they have almost zero basis yet the academic community made our kids learn this material. I covered this before too. When we send our kids off to colleges and universities, we do not prepare them to stand up to the strange and many times wrong statements of their "professors". To get a passing grade they have to chew on this same "bone". Once they have pretended long enough, the "bone" seems to taste good to them. This is the problem.
Since the professors have almost total control of what coursed are required for most of our kids to take, they have control of their minds right from the first day. I think that economics is one of the best examples. Economics is not something that was invented in any university, it is a product of thousands of years of human development. It is somewhat like bees in a bee hive. The queen does not tell the worker bees what to do, yet the hive seems to work very efficiently. Same for ants and us humans. Now exactly how the bees, ants and us humans operate as a society is complex, very complex. Along comes an economist about 100 years ago who claims that he has figured it all out. This looks like a new "bone". The academic community pounces on this new "bone" and adopts it as one of their own. For the next 100 years the academic community runs around showing this new "bone" to everyone and requiring our kids to accept their teachings or they will not pass their class and will bring shame on their families. You know what happened. It has been 100 years and yet the academic community can not turn lose of that "bone" even when every thing in the world points to the fact that it is totally wrong? Who are these professors anyway?
I'm not out yet. Wasn't it about 100 years ago when this Jewish guy living in England came up with the communist idea? Looks like a "bone" for the academic community to me. This new "bone" was so sweet tasting that the academic community went right out and tried to give the "bone" to everyone (literally). It did not take long to prove in the real world that this "bone" was poison, yet the academic community still to this day wants us all to take a bite off this "bone". I don't know about you, but I know when some thing is rotten and this "bone" is rotten.
These were just a few examples of where the academic community has failed us. I know that in the Jewish tradition, they always say, "Screw me once, your fault. Screw me twice, my fault". Isn't this what we have with much of our academic community? Now the academic community is made of at least two groups, those who actually teach something and those who only indoctrinate. The ones who actually teach something are the math and sciences and these have declined as a percentage of what our kids are taking in college while the indoctrination type classes have significantly increased. It is serious. You can laugh at what I have had to say, but when you look in the mirror and are honest about the situation, you know I am right. The problem, like the Jewish saying, what are we going to do about it? We have been screwed by the academic community pure and simple.
What I have noticed about the academic community is that once one of their group finds a "bone" they all want to get in on it and they never seem to be able to let the "bone" go. This is how dogs operate and it is not all that much different with our college and university professors. I think if we would refer to them as teachers rather than professors, the size of the heads might be restored to normal. I think the best way to get an understanding of the academic community is to review a few examples of how they operate and then see if we can get into their minds.
I mentioned this one before, but it is still a good example. For many years all colleges and universities required everyone to learn Latin. If you look back at all the hours that were spent on learning this one language, it would amount to more mind work than it took to invent the atomic bomb or go to the moon. Think of all the waste of time and energy learning Latin all those years? That is not counting all the cost. I think it was no more than a "jobs" program for washed up teachers. Exactly what caused the academic community to drop the Latin requirement, I am not sure, but I am very glad that most have dropped it. Now, that is just one.
I mentioned this one before too. "New math", now we all remember that one. I was too old for "new math", but my kids got a taste of it. Who dropped this "bone" into the academic community? I have researched it and can't find its "mother". Strange how now no one wants to claim it. Even though it had no basis, it would not die with in the academic community. I still know of old teachers who bought into it and still want to defend it. Am I starting to build my case? In a prior Blog, I showed how this one act by our academic community almost killed science and math in the USA. We still have not recovered. Graduations of engineers reached their peak in 1986 and have been going down ever since. That timing is very close to the introduction of "new math".
How about the famous psychologist, Sigman Fraud? He was a good old Jew boy and thus was welcomed into the academic community with open arms. Here again, the academic community had another "bone" to chew on and they did for over a 100 years. When we now look back on Sigman's theories, we find that they have almost zero basis yet the academic community made our kids learn this material. I covered this before too. When we send our kids off to colleges and universities, we do not prepare them to stand up to the strange and many times wrong statements of their "professors". To get a passing grade they have to chew on this same "bone". Once they have pretended long enough, the "bone" seems to taste good to them. This is the problem.
Since the professors have almost total control of what coursed are required for most of our kids to take, they have control of their minds right from the first day. I think that economics is one of the best examples. Economics is not something that was invented in any university, it is a product of thousands of years of human development. It is somewhat like bees in a bee hive. The queen does not tell the worker bees what to do, yet the hive seems to work very efficiently. Same for ants and us humans. Now exactly how the bees, ants and us humans operate as a society is complex, very complex. Along comes an economist about 100 years ago who claims that he has figured it all out. This looks like a new "bone". The academic community pounces on this new "bone" and adopts it as one of their own. For the next 100 years the academic community runs around showing this new "bone" to everyone and requiring our kids to accept their teachings or they will not pass their class and will bring shame on their families. You know what happened. It has been 100 years and yet the academic community can not turn lose of that "bone" even when every thing in the world points to the fact that it is totally wrong? Who are these professors anyway?
I'm not out yet. Wasn't it about 100 years ago when this Jewish guy living in England came up with the communist idea? Looks like a "bone" for the academic community to me. This new "bone" was so sweet tasting that the academic community went right out and tried to give the "bone" to everyone (literally). It did not take long to prove in the real world that this "bone" was poison, yet the academic community still to this day wants us all to take a bite off this "bone". I don't know about you, but I know when some thing is rotten and this "bone" is rotten.
These were just a few examples of where the academic community has failed us. I know that in the Jewish tradition, they always say, "Screw me once, your fault. Screw me twice, my fault". Isn't this what we have with much of our academic community? Now the academic community is made of at least two groups, those who actually teach something and those who only indoctrinate. The ones who actually teach something are the math and sciences and these have declined as a percentage of what our kids are taking in college while the indoctrination type classes have significantly increased. It is serious. You can laugh at what I have had to say, but when you look in the mirror and are honest about the situation, you know I am right. The problem, like the Jewish saying, what are we going to do about it? We have been screwed by the academic community pure and simple.
Arizona Shooting
Like many people, I have my personal opinions about the sad situation. It is clear that shooting a person is both against the law and imoral. I know that most people just can't understand how a person could do something like this. Well, I think that I can.
What we have here in the USA now is a situation where a lot of people are very concerned about the future of the USA. I think they have a good reason to be concerned. In the past few years, I have heard more mature well educated people telling me that they have never been more concerned about the future of the USA. In all past situations that were similar to this one we were united as a country. The only one where we were not united was the American Civil War and in that one the both North and South were united. What we have this time is a President who has again and again stated that he did not consider himself the President of the united USA. He has made it clear that he is only the president of unions and the "middle class". As I have Blogged in the past, most people who are now in the "middle class" see themselves in transition to a higher class. They don't see themselves as just "middle class". It is clear from the actions of Obama and his administration that they do not represent 100% of Americans. When they attached the state of Arizona when Arizona tried to keep Mexicans from crossing their border, Obama made it clear that he was not the President of 100% of the people.
When we went to school, we learned that the USA was a country based on the "rule of law". We all know the law or the rules and know that if someone violates those laws our elected officials will punish and stop the violation. You can sleep night here in the USA knowing that you are safe because of the "rule of law". When you see clear actions by you current government that you do not now live a country where the "rule of law" is inforced, what do you think and what do you do? In the case of Chile where the President is limited to one 6 year term, they thought that all they had to do was to wait 6 years and Allende would be gone. That was wrong. How about Venisuela? Once their socialist President got in, they could not get him out. Obama is cut from the same cloth as both of these guys.
Most of the people who now admit that they voted for Obama, tell me that they made a mistake. This feeling is all over the place. If we had to revote, Obama would never be elected. What makes the situation worse is the erragance of Obama and the way that the Democrates passed bills like the Obama Care bill right in the middle of an economic crisis without any debate. What he did was not a direct violation of the law, but we all thought that our representative could at least be able to state their views for those who elected them.
When we see Obama bad mouthing business daily, we know that he does not represent 100% of Americans. When we see the list of who visits the White House and see that it is a union boss who has made the most visits, we have to thinks, "who does this guy represent"? My point is that many people here in the USA are worried about the future and see Obama as the problem. They do not see the normal rules working and don't see how their rights are going to be protected by Obama and his administration. The carbondioxide thing is just another example that proves that Obama has no concern about "rule of law".
Based on the above, I can see how a person who is watching what is going on could easily feel that there is no alternative but to personally take some action to stop what is going on. I think that Obama has created thousands of people who have been pushed to the brink like the guy in Arizona. I am not advocating this guys action, but I do understand where he was coming from and I don't think he was a "nut" or not concerned about his country. He was too concerned about his country and where it is going and felt helpless.
Check my Blog on "Rule Of Law Allende vs Obama". This has been my most popular Blog.
What we have here in the USA now is a situation where a lot of people are very concerned about the future of the USA. I think they have a good reason to be concerned. In the past few years, I have heard more mature well educated people telling me that they have never been more concerned about the future of the USA. In all past situations that were similar to this one we were united as a country. The only one where we were not united was the American Civil War and in that one the both North and South were united. What we have this time is a President who has again and again stated that he did not consider himself the President of the united USA. He has made it clear that he is only the president of unions and the "middle class". As I have Blogged in the past, most people who are now in the "middle class" see themselves in transition to a higher class. They don't see themselves as just "middle class". It is clear from the actions of Obama and his administration that they do not represent 100% of Americans. When they attached the state of Arizona when Arizona tried to keep Mexicans from crossing their border, Obama made it clear that he was not the President of 100% of the people.
When we went to school, we learned that the USA was a country based on the "rule of law". We all know the law or the rules and know that if someone violates those laws our elected officials will punish and stop the violation. You can sleep night here in the USA knowing that you are safe because of the "rule of law". When you see clear actions by you current government that you do not now live a country where the "rule of law" is inforced, what do you think and what do you do? In the case of Chile where the President is limited to one 6 year term, they thought that all they had to do was to wait 6 years and Allende would be gone. That was wrong. How about Venisuela? Once their socialist President got in, they could not get him out. Obama is cut from the same cloth as both of these guys.
Most of the people who now admit that they voted for Obama, tell me that they made a mistake. This feeling is all over the place. If we had to revote, Obama would never be elected. What makes the situation worse is the erragance of Obama and the way that the Democrates passed bills like the Obama Care bill right in the middle of an economic crisis without any debate. What he did was not a direct violation of the law, but we all thought that our representative could at least be able to state their views for those who elected them.
When we see Obama bad mouthing business daily, we know that he does not represent 100% of Americans. When we see the list of who visits the White House and see that it is a union boss who has made the most visits, we have to thinks, "who does this guy represent"? My point is that many people here in the USA are worried about the future and see Obama as the problem. They do not see the normal rules working and don't see how their rights are going to be protected by Obama and his administration. The carbondioxide thing is just another example that proves that Obama has no concern about "rule of law".
Based on the above, I can see how a person who is watching what is going on could easily feel that there is no alternative but to personally take some action to stop what is going on. I think that Obama has created thousands of people who have been pushed to the brink like the guy in Arizona. I am not advocating this guys action, but I do understand where he was coming from and I don't think he was a "nut" or not concerned about his country. He was too concerned about his country and where it is going and felt helpless.
Check my Blog on "Rule Of Law Allende vs Obama". This has been my most popular Blog.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Performance Specifications
This is going to look like one of my strangest Blogs yet, but wait. For most of you, I am sure you never heard of a "Performance Specification". To make this easier to follow, look at the following example. Let's say that we are writing the specifications for a "car". We give all the items that the car must have, like, four wheels, a steering wheel, brakes, lights, get 40 mpg and seat belts. To most people, these specification seem perfectly normal. What's the problem? Now we are getting to reason for this Blog.
With the above specifications, we would not be able to build a car that had three axles and thus six wheels. We would not be able to build a car with three wheels. If the car ran on electricity, or was man powered, how many miles per gallon would it get. The point is that specifications that define what the item is greatly restricts the development of that item. What do you think would have happened with airplanes if they were restricted to propellers? Simple minded people tend to think in terms of specifications that define what the items is rather than what it is supposed to do.
Another example that I am very familiar with are building codes. Historically, all of these codes were in the form of "here is how you do it". The code specified the size of lumber that could be used for the floor and roof and used this type of definition all thru the code. It was easy for the simple minded inspector to check out the building project because all he had to do was measure the sizes of the lumber used for each function. Good idea? I don't think so. What this did was to kill any new ideas about how to build a home. These kinds of codes using "here is how you do it" specification are all over the place, not just in construction. They are every where and in every case they limit new ideas and technical progress. Are you now too bored to follow me? Fortunately many building codes have been changed to codes that are based on "performance". These types of codes define what the floor is supposed to be able to support. Now engineers and builders can consider multiple ways of building a floor that will support the specified amount. If you look at the construction of a new home, you will see that in many areas they are quite different from the one that your parents lived in. Now let's get to a more interesting area.
You know that I am very concerned about the quality of education in the USA. If you look close, you will find that they do "not" use "performance" specifications. They use the, "this is how it is done" type of specifications. Just like in building, this has lead to a dead end where there is very little innovation. Take math, the teacher has to use a specified book for each grade. More of, "this is how you do it". Unions were born and raised on a diet of, "this is how you do it" so they do not see any problem with the concept. Performance is one of the missing words in the vocabulary of most unionized school teachers. They want to be paid based on, "I did it like the code or this is how you do it" code. I have to tell you that with, "this is how you do it" codes, life can be real simple for the teacher and the principle, but it short changes our kids. More and more, if you look at teaching specifications you will see that they are not only based on, "this is how your do it" they are based on, "how we have always done it". A common thread thru the "how you do it" specifications is that they are always "looking backwards" when we need to be looking ahead. Tell me I'm wrong? Performance specifications, by their very nature are asking us to "look ahead". You may have to reread this Blog a couple of times to get the full meaning.
Just remember that our schools have to be, "looking ahead" not "looking backwards". How long did our schools have to teach Latin before someone "looked ahead" and saw that there was no need for Latin in the future? It is happening every day right under our collective noses.
Try to use the word "performance" at least once a day for the next few weeks and see if you are not able to see the future a little more clearly too.
With the above specifications, we would not be able to build a car that had three axles and thus six wheels. We would not be able to build a car with three wheels. If the car ran on electricity, or was man powered, how many miles per gallon would it get. The point is that specifications that define what the item is greatly restricts the development of that item. What do you think would have happened with airplanes if they were restricted to propellers? Simple minded people tend to think in terms of specifications that define what the items is rather than what it is supposed to do.
Another example that I am very familiar with are building codes. Historically, all of these codes were in the form of "here is how you do it". The code specified the size of lumber that could be used for the floor and roof and used this type of definition all thru the code. It was easy for the simple minded inspector to check out the building project because all he had to do was measure the sizes of the lumber used for each function. Good idea? I don't think so. What this did was to kill any new ideas about how to build a home. These kinds of codes using "here is how you do it" specification are all over the place, not just in construction. They are every where and in every case they limit new ideas and technical progress. Are you now too bored to follow me? Fortunately many building codes have been changed to codes that are based on "performance". These types of codes define what the floor is supposed to be able to support. Now engineers and builders can consider multiple ways of building a floor that will support the specified amount. If you look at the construction of a new home, you will see that in many areas they are quite different from the one that your parents lived in. Now let's get to a more interesting area.
You know that I am very concerned about the quality of education in the USA. If you look close, you will find that they do "not" use "performance" specifications. They use the, "this is how it is done" type of specifications. Just like in building, this has lead to a dead end where there is very little innovation. Take math, the teacher has to use a specified book for each grade. More of, "this is how you do it". Unions were born and raised on a diet of, "this is how you do it" so they do not see any problem with the concept. Performance is one of the missing words in the vocabulary of most unionized school teachers. They want to be paid based on, "I did it like the code or this is how you do it" code. I have to tell you that with, "this is how you do it" codes, life can be real simple for the teacher and the principle, but it short changes our kids. More and more, if you look at teaching specifications you will see that they are not only based on, "this is how your do it" they are based on, "how we have always done it". A common thread thru the "how you do it" specifications is that they are always "looking backwards" when we need to be looking ahead. Tell me I'm wrong? Performance specifications, by their very nature are asking us to "look ahead". You may have to reread this Blog a couple of times to get the full meaning.
Just remember that our schools have to be, "looking ahead" not "looking backwards". How long did our schools have to teach Latin before someone "looked ahead" and saw that there was no need for Latin in the future? It is happening every day right under our collective noses.
Try to use the word "performance" at least once a day for the next few weeks and see if you are not able to see the future a little more clearly too.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Who Are These Liberals (Who Is Obama)
As a conservative, it has been very difficult for me to understand where my liberal friends are coming from. I don't know about you, but if we can't figure out where they got their strange view of the world, there will be no way to guide them back to reality. In prior Blogs, I have touched on ideas about exactly who these people are and where they might have picked up their strange ideas. In this Blog, I am going to try to add some more ideas.
For most of my life, I did not know there was such a thing as a liberal. In the community that I lived within, the only really strange people who I had any contact with were preachers. I spent a lot of time trying to figure these strange people out. Over the years, I have added to my understanding of them. We all know of the many examples of preachers going over the edge. If there are this many going over the edge, you have to ask, "how many are still in the business, but are near the edge?" I don't know if you know this or not, but Jerry Brown went to Santa Clara University to become a Catholic preacher. He later got an itch in his pants and concluded that he was not cut out to be a preacher and went into liberal politics. There was this other guy, Gary Hart, who was running for President when Clinton was running who also first planned to be a preacher, but changed to liberal politics. He was the one who had all the pictures with the bimbos on the boat. My conclusion is that people who become preachers or who give serious consideration to it are strange people. I know that many of you know preachers who seem normal, but have been disappointed to find out that they like to touch little boys. I don't think we are talking about normal people here. I don't think that becoming a preacher makes a person strange, it is just that many strange people decide to become preachers.
How does all this have anything to do with liberals? I'm getting to that. I think that many of the people who become or consider becoming a preacher feel that they want to "help" people. This is the seed that I feel I have been looking for. Think about the person who wants to be a Boy Scout leader or a baseball coach. What all these people have in common is that they want to "help" people. First they have to have a mind set that they are capable of helping someone. Now think about that. If you want to coach the baseball team, you would have to know how to play baseball. With me so far? Not only do you have to know how to play baseball, but you have to feel that you know more about baseball than the people who you are coaching. Now we are getting some place. Isn't this exactly the same for preachers? Thinking that you know more tends to give a person a sense of superiority. Are you thinking about Obama? This is the common thread that seems to run thru most liberals. We have two kinds of liberals, the ones who are active and those who go along for the ride. The ones who I am talking about here are the active ones.
When I was in high school, I belonged to a club called, "Teachers for Tomorrow". I never went to any teachers college, but I was a college professor for 4 years at one time. When I look back at that high school group, most were smarter than average and seemed to be self appointed to be teaching do-gooders. I noticed that the ones who had a better grasp of reality left teaching soon after college and got normal jobs. The others stayed behind in teaching and became more liberal over time. Notice how both preachers and teachers have this common thread of being do-gooders.
Try this one. Remember when the Spanish invaded the new world and were taking ship loads of gold back to Spain? If a liberal were to walk upon the docks in Spain and see a big chest full of gold coins, what do you think they would think? Here is what. They would see all that gold and think about all the food that they could buy and give to the poor in Spain rather than let the chest of gold be taken by the King. They would feel that they would be praised by the poor for giving them food. Isn't this what we have right here in the USA right now? What would a conservative do on seeing the chest of gold? He would see that the gold was stolen from the Indians in the New World and ask that it be returned to its original owner. Isn't it interesting? Liberals want to give your money, not theirs to the poor, where as, conservatives give their own money. For many people this fact is confusing. When people like Buffet or Gates give money to social causes, it is "not" equivalent to giving public tax money to social causes. Often we hear that it is the same. We hear people and even Buffet or Gates saying that paying more tax is fine. For Buffet and Gates, the results are the same. More money goes to social causes, but it is very different. Ask Buffet and Gates what they would have thought, if when they were starting to build their companies, if the government took the money from them by taxation and gave it to social causes. I hope that I made this clear.
I feel that we have to keep a close eye on do-gooders of all colors, preachers, teachedrs, polititicans and wealthy people. These people are out of touch with the reality of most of us working people who only what to be judged on our own merit. We don't feel that we are better than anyone else and want our government to treat everyone equally. There is no such thing as a middle class. Everyone is in transition up and down economically. The people in the so called middle class is not a static group. Liberals seem to see every thing as a static zero sum game.
Down deep, are active liberals just do-gooders?
PS, Non-active liberals or followers are really just "free loaders" and we know how to deal with them.
For most of my life, I did not know there was such a thing as a liberal. In the community that I lived within, the only really strange people who I had any contact with were preachers. I spent a lot of time trying to figure these strange people out. Over the years, I have added to my understanding of them. We all know of the many examples of preachers going over the edge. If there are this many going over the edge, you have to ask, "how many are still in the business, but are near the edge?" I don't know if you know this or not, but Jerry Brown went to Santa Clara University to become a Catholic preacher. He later got an itch in his pants and concluded that he was not cut out to be a preacher and went into liberal politics. There was this other guy, Gary Hart, who was running for President when Clinton was running who also first planned to be a preacher, but changed to liberal politics. He was the one who had all the pictures with the bimbos on the boat. My conclusion is that people who become preachers or who give serious consideration to it are strange people. I know that many of you know preachers who seem normal, but have been disappointed to find out that they like to touch little boys. I don't think we are talking about normal people here. I don't think that becoming a preacher makes a person strange, it is just that many strange people decide to become preachers.
How does all this have anything to do with liberals? I'm getting to that. I think that many of the people who become or consider becoming a preacher feel that they want to "help" people. This is the seed that I feel I have been looking for. Think about the person who wants to be a Boy Scout leader or a baseball coach. What all these people have in common is that they want to "help" people. First they have to have a mind set that they are capable of helping someone. Now think about that. If you want to coach the baseball team, you would have to know how to play baseball. With me so far? Not only do you have to know how to play baseball, but you have to feel that you know more about baseball than the people who you are coaching. Now we are getting some place. Isn't this exactly the same for preachers? Thinking that you know more tends to give a person a sense of superiority. Are you thinking about Obama? This is the common thread that seems to run thru most liberals. We have two kinds of liberals, the ones who are active and those who go along for the ride. The ones who I am talking about here are the active ones.
When I was in high school, I belonged to a club called, "Teachers for Tomorrow". I never went to any teachers college, but I was a college professor for 4 years at one time. When I look back at that high school group, most were smarter than average and seemed to be self appointed to be teaching do-gooders. I noticed that the ones who had a better grasp of reality left teaching soon after college and got normal jobs. The others stayed behind in teaching and became more liberal over time. Notice how both preachers and teachers have this common thread of being do-gooders.
Try this one. Remember when the Spanish invaded the new world and were taking ship loads of gold back to Spain? If a liberal were to walk upon the docks in Spain and see a big chest full of gold coins, what do you think they would think? Here is what. They would see all that gold and think about all the food that they could buy and give to the poor in Spain rather than let the chest of gold be taken by the King. They would feel that they would be praised by the poor for giving them food. Isn't this what we have right here in the USA right now? What would a conservative do on seeing the chest of gold? He would see that the gold was stolen from the Indians in the New World and ask that it be returned to its original owner. Isn't it interesting? Liberals want to give your money, not theirs to the poor, where as, conservatives give their own money. For many people this fact is confusing. When people like Buffet or Gates give money to social causes, it is "not" equivalent to giving public tax money to social causes. Often we hear that it is the same. We hear people and even Buffet or Gates saying that paying more tax is fine. For Buffet and Gates, the results are the same. More money goes to social causes, but it is very different. Ask Buffet and Gates what they would have thought, if when they were starting to build their companies, if the government took the money from them by taxation and gave it to social causes. I hope that I made this clear.
I feel that we have to keep a close eye on do-gooders of all colors, preachers, teachedrs, polititicans and wealthy people. These people are out of touch with the reality of most of us working people who only what to be judged on our own merit. We don't feel that we are better than anyone else and want our government to treat everyone equally. There is no such thing as a middle class. Everyone is in transition up and down economically. The people in the so called middle class is not a static group. Liberals seem to see every thing as a static zero sum game.
Down deep, are active liberals just do-gooders?
PS, Non-active liberals or followers are really just "free loaders" and we know how to deal with them.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Good Driver Discount ------- (Obama Care)
Most of us are drivers and have had to purchase auto insurance at one time or another. We are also bombarded with TV commercials for auto insurance almost every day. The one theme that seems to come thru on all these adds is that you can save money if you are a safe driver. Most of us know of people who have had a lot of accidents and have made numerous claims to their insurance companies. In the case of the very good Allstate insurance add, they state that, "for every year you do not have an insurance claim, your premium goes down". They want to encourage you to be a safe driver and thus to save money. They have clearly fashioned an insurance policy that rewards you for responsible behavior. Doesn't all this seem very logical? Well, logic has been thrown to the wind when it comes to Obama Care.
I was just talking to one of my liberal friends and they feel that it is just great that Obama Care makes insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions and also covers their kids upto age 25. What these liberal friends don't seem to get is that there is no "free lunch". I think that, due to Obama Care, it is against the law for an American insurance company to offer you a "Good Health Discount". If you have been taking good care of your health all your life and don't smoke, for example, it does not count. You can not be rewarded for responsible behavior as with auto insurance. Can you imagine someone crashing their car into a tree and then going down and expecting the insurance company to give them a policy without checking the condition of their car? I didn't think so. Well, this is exactly what we have with Obama Care. How about drug addicts or people who have contracted AIDS by having unprotected sex? Should these irresponsible people be rewarded by getting the same rate for health insurance as someone who has been responsible and taken care of their health?
Obama Care is just the tip of the iceberg. At a time when we need to reward responsible behavior in all areas, we seem to be doing just the opposite. Look at your dog, if you reward him for chasing cars or biting people, he will keep doing it and may even get worse. Same with your kids. As parents, we know that encouraging irresponsible behavior only makes things worse. We all love our kids, but there are times when, as a parent, you have to give them "tough love". You must know as a parent that "tough love" is difficult and as hard on you as it is on your kid, but you know it has to be done. Isn't that what we are talking about here? If the USA is going to make it against the world wide competition that we face, we are going to have to start conducting ourselves more responsibly. That means rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior. It seems like the word punish has almost been stricken from our vocabularies as has the words personal responsibility.
Obama Care is a shot across the bow in the way that it appears to reward bad behavior. We need to start taking responsibility for our actions and not claiming that we are victims and thus not responsible. We have to stop expecting our richer harder working neighbors to pick up the tab for our misconduct. In all insurance plans, we always, on average, pay in more than we get back. Why is it that many people feel that they can save money by purchasing insurance? I see the adds on TV all the time. It is like the state lottery. Don't people know that it is stupid to buy lottery tickets? Next you will see that Obama Care will be selling lottery tickets to save the medical system.
When will we start to admit that we have had enough and start acting like adults?
PS, I just thought of this. My liberal friends are the only ones who I know who purchase lottery tickets on a regular basis. Strange how things seem to come together.
I was just talking to one of my liberal friends and they feel that it is just great that Obama Care makes insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions and also covers their kids upto age 25. What these liberal friends don't seem to get is that there is no "free lunch". I think that, due to Obama Care, it is against the law for an American insurance company to offer you a "Good Health Discount". If you have been taking good care of your health all your life and don't smoke, for example, it does not count. You can not be rewarded for responsible behavior as with auto insurance. Can you imagine someone crashing their car into a tree and then going down and expecting the insurance company to give them a policy without checking the condition of their car? I didn't think so. Well, this is exactly what we have with Obama Care. How about drug addicts or people who have contracted AIDS by having unprotected sex? Should these irresponsible people be rewarded by getting the same rate for health insurance as someone who has been responsible and taken care of their health?
Obama Care is just the tip of the iceberg. At a time when we need to reward responsible behavior in all areas, we seem to be doing just the opposite. Look at your dog, if you reward him for chasing cars or biting people, he will keep doing it and may even get worse. Same with your kids. As parents, we know that encouraging irresponsible behavior only makes things worse. We all love our kids, but there are times when, as a parent, you have to give them "tough love". You must know as a parent that "tough love" is difficult and as hard on you as it is on your kid, but you know it has to be done. Isn't that what we are talking about here? If the USA is going to make it against the world wide competition that we face, we are going to have to start conducting ourselves more responsibly. That means rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior. It seems like the word punish has almost been stricken from our vocabularies as has the words personal responsibility.
Obama Care is a shot across the bow in the way that it appears to reward bad behavior. We need to start taking responsibility for our actions and not claiming that we are victims and thus not responsible. We have to stop expecting our richer harder working neighbors to pick up the tab for our misconduct. In all insurance plans, we always, on average, pay in more than we get back. Why is it that many people feel that they can save money by purchasing insurance? I see the adds on TV all the time. It is like the state lottery. Don't people know that it is stupid to buy lottery tickets? Next you will see that Obama Care will be selling lottery tickets to save the medical system.
When will we start to admit that we have had enough and start acting like adults?
PS, I just thought of this. My liberal friends are the only ones who I know who purchase lottery tickets on a regular basis. Strange how things seem to come together.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Education, Who Is Responsible? (Tea Party)
For the first time this morning I heard a major politician state that, "our only hope for the future is better education". He went one to state that China and most of the world are doing significantly better in science and math than the USA. Maybe someone in government is waking up. Hey, I have more comments on the education situation here in the USA. Who is responsible?
Have you heard the expression, "when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge"? Do you agree? Well, that is exactly what we have with our educational system. It seems everyone is concerned, but no one is in charge. I like the management concept of accountability. I used to play football and if you missed your block or dropped a pass, it was clear exactly who was responsible. It was me and everyone could see that I was the one who did not do their job. It seems that our educational system has drifted into this same problem where no one is responsible. Whose neck do you put the rope around if test scores go down? You can't hang everyone so nothing changes. Have you ever heard of a school principle getting fired because test scores went down? I did not think so. How about teachers or the school boards? Who are these people on the school boards? Should these officials have to refund what we paid them if test scores go down? They all blame someone else or they claim that they are victims of some strange system. What we need is not more management of our educational system, we need "less". That's right "less". We have to narrow down the number of managers and administrators so that it is crystal clear whose neck will go into the noose if test scores don't go up. With me so far?
The first place that I would start is the managers and administration that is the farthest away for the actual education process. You heard the expression, "where the rubber meets the road". We have to get back to that concept. Now we all know what group is the farthest away from that "road" and that is the federal Department of Education. To my knowledge, there are only three federal colleges and they are all run by the military, so what business does a group isolated in Washington Dc have to contribute to our educational system. 99% of the money for education comes from the local communities not Washington DC, unless you want to count the money that the local communities sent to Washington DC and then had to beg to get back. My first step would be to eliminate the Federal Department of Education.
I would also go one step further and eliminate the department of education at the state level. I am a wild guy. If you really think about it, what does the gang at the state level contribute to education? Let them run the state wide colleges and universities, but keep them out of our local schools. Notice that test scores have continued to go "down" since the federal Department of Education was formed. If we got rid of the state level people, who would certify teachers? Let them be interviewed and certified by the local school principles. If the principles are not qualified to certify teachers, they are not qualified to be principles. I think that we need a simple test for all teaching positions and that is, if the test scores don't improve will that teacher's neck go into the noose? If the chain of responsibility can not be made clear enough, we need to change the system. It is just simple management isn't it?
Now for a little history. Myself and many of my friends went to country schools that only had one or two teachers for all eight grades. I have interviewed my friends extensively on the quality of their education and how it had prepared them for their life of the past 60 or so years and all stand behind their education. They go on to claim that they got a much better education than their own kids got or what their grand kids are getting today. Now what was different about the old one and two room schools? Accountability. If the kids were not doing well, it was either the kid or the teacher. No one blamed the school principle or the superintendent or the state Secretary of education or the gang back in Washington DC, because they were not involved.
Now, no one takes responsibility for anything and no one is held to account. We have not gone forward in education, we have gone backwards. We don't need more, we need "less". We need to start talking about whose neck will go into the noose if things don't get better. If you can't find that neck, then you either have not looked or you need to change the way we do things in education.
Have you heard the expression, "when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge"? Do you agree? Well, that is exactly what we have with our educational system. It seems everyone is concerned, but no one is in charge. I like the management concept of accountability. I used to play football and if you missed your block or dropped a pass, it was clear exactly who was responsible. It was me and everyone could see that I was the one who did not do their job. It seems that our educational system has drifted into this same problem where no one is responsible. Whose neck do you put the rope around if test scores go down? You can't hang everyone so nothing changes. Have you ever heard of a school principle getting fired because test scores went down? I did not think so. How about teachers or the school boards? Who are these people on the school boards? Should these officials have to refund what we paid them if test scores go down? They all blame someone else or they claim that they are victims of some strange system. What we need is not more management of our educational system, we need "less". That's right "less". We have to narrow down the number of managers and administrators so that it is crystal clear whose neck will go into the noose if test scores don't go up. With me so far?
The first place that I would start is the managers and administration that is the farthest away for the actual education process. You heard the expression, "where the rubber meets the road". We have to get back to that concept. Now we all know what group is the farthest away from that "road" and that is the federal Department of Education. To my knowledge, there are only three federal colleges and they are all run by the military, so what business does a group isolated in Washington Dc have to contribute to our educational system. 99% of the money for education comes from the local communities not Washington DC, unless you want to count the money that the local communities sent to Washington DC and then had to beg to get back. My first step would be to eliminate the Federal Department of Education.
I would also go one step further and eliminate the department of education at the state level. I am a wild guy. If you really think about it, what does the gang at the state level contribute to education? Let them run the state wide colleges and universities, but keep them out of our local schools. Notice that test scores have continued to go "down" since the federal Department of Education was formed. If we got rid of the state level people, who would certify teachers? Let them be interviewed and certified by the local school principles. If the principles are not qualified to certify teachers, they are not qualified to be principles. I think that we need a simple test for all teaching positions and that is, if the test scores don't improve will that teacher's neck go into the noose? If the chain of responsibility can not be made clear enough, we need to change the system. It is just simple management isn't it?
Now for a little history. Myself and many of my friends went to country schools that only had one or two teachers for all eight grades. I have interviewed my friends extensively on the quality of their education and how it had prepared them for their life of the past 60 or so years and all stand behind their education. They go on to claim that they got a much better education than their own kids got or what their grand kids are getting today. Now what was different about the old one and two room schools? Accountability. If the kids were not doing well, it was either the kid or the teacher. No one blamed the school principle or the superintendent or the state Secretary of education or the gang back in Washington DC, because they were not involved.
Now, no one takes responsibility for anything and no one is held to account. We have not gone forward in education, we have gone backwards. We don't need more, we need "less". We need to start talking about whose neck will go into the noose if things don't get better. If you can't find that neck, then you either have not looked or you need to change the way we do things in education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)