The Green Myth

I know that much of this is a repeat, but it needs to be repeated.

All of this push for "renewable energy" is a myth and here is why.  No matter how many wind mills we build or how many solar panels we install, it will have zero impact on the number of fossil fuel power plants that we will continue to need.  How can that be true?  Here is why.  We all expect to have power 24/7 and we know that "renewable power" is "not" available 24/7.  If that is the case, where are we going to get power when "renewable power" is not available?  It has to come from a source that is available 24/7 and that is from our conventional fossil fuel power plants.  Simple isn't it?

That means we will have to continue spending our wealth on both conventional and renewable energy.  If you can follow that, you know that energy will cost more and we will not have the money to spend on other things since we will have to spend it on more power plants.  There is even another problem and that is workers will have to man and maintain the conventional power plants 24/7 in case they need to be used to produce energy when the renewable is not available.  You will see a lot of workers in conventional power plants twiddling their fingers waiting for when they may be needed.

It might be possible for a small percentage of our energy needs coming from renewable economically, but it will never be economical for a major amount of our energy coming from renewable.  When it comes to renewable energy, remember not to use "all".  The bottom line is our energy is going to cost more as we move toward green and no matter how much of our wealth we spend on green energy, it will have negligible impact on when human life will end on Earth!

Primary Colors

Did you ever read the book, "Primary Colors"?  There is a very good lesson in the book that I will explain in this blog.

If you did not ever read the book, here is the most significant point that I took from the book.  In this book about a primary election for a new President, the party had a person on the staff who was called a "Dust Buster".  The job of the Dust Buster was to counter any attack on their candidate as soon as they could after the attack.  When I first read this book, I did not appreciate the significance of this point.

Think of it this way.  If there was a leak in a dam, should you wait until the leak gets worse before you take action to plug the leak?  No!  You should plug the leak as soon as possible.  In the case of a political primary, there are attacks going on all the time from the opposition.  If you wait until the bad news gets out and spreads before you act, it has to be clear that it will take a lot more effort to counter the misinformation.  Remember the saying, "A stitch in time saves nine"?  It is as true in politics as it is in almost everything else..

Now, for my punch line.  Look at President Trump.  When he is attacked, he strikes back immediately.  For many of you think that this is a strange way to act, but it is not.  Why wait until a problem grows and gets worse before you act? Most politicians that you have had experience with are too timid and they too afraid to act until they are 100% sure that action is needed.  With that kind of strategy, the normal politician avoids acting too soon for fear of over reacting.  For Obama, he used to take pride in avoiding doing anything that might look "bad".  He did that by never doing anything.  Most voters don't see the difference between "doing something" vs "doing nothing".  Notice that Obama never said anything that was controversial?  That was because he played golf often and did not do much.  Obama was "normal" and President Trump is "different".  Being "different" from "normal" does not mean President Trump is "bad".

What kind of voter are you?  Do you think a President who avoids doing anything "bad" 100% of the time at the expense of doing anything "good" is the kind of President that you want?  We don't live in an exact or perfect world, so get over it.  We need to balance both "good" and "bad", knowing that it is the over all average that is the goal.  President Trump is "not" a typical politician, so get used too it and appreciate what he is doing for you and me and the country.

Global Warming In Perspective

If global warming is a real thing, we still have to keep it in "perspective".  That is what this blog is about.

I am going to start off with "quality of life" being the fundamental objective of the human race.  If you think it is something else, you can stop reading right now.  To put global warming in perspective, we need to compare it to the other things that could lower our "quality of life".  What are they?  This is not a complete list, but I think it includes the major ones, not in any order.
(1)  Global Warming
(2)  Atomic War or Contamination
(3)  Pandemic Disease
(4)  Resistance To Antibiotics
(5)  Starvation Due to Over Population
(6)  Socialism or Communism
(7)  Religions Like Muslim
(8)  Earth Hit By Meteor or Sun Spot

What do you think of this list?  Do you agree that these items would "lower" the "quality of life" for us humans world wide.  Do you think that any would totally eliminate us humans from Earth?  I think that only (8) would cause the elimination of the human race.  All of the others would only reduce the number of humans on Earth or make their quality of life worse.

Next, I want to explore the concept, "Is the effort worth it?" Of all the above, it has to be clear that to counter the idea of global warming would require a massive effort by billions of people and any benefits would not be realized until far into the future, if at all.  Given that the benefits would be far into the future, it has to be clear that some other event could occur during that period which would cancel out any benefits or efforts to slow or stop global warming.

We might also learn from looking back at history.  Has the Earth ever experienced any kind of  catastrophic weather related event in the past?  Yes!  Look at the ice age.  What caused the ice age?  What caused most of the ice to melt?  Note that humans were not eliminated. If we can't answer the cause of what we know happened, how can we expect to explain why "humans" are causing global warming now?

Another way to look at the list would be to see what action would give us the most benefit for our efforts.  I think that control or reduction of human over population would be the cheapest and easiest.  What do you think?  It does not cost humans a penny and no one has to die.  Now, take a look at which one would cost the most and pay back the farthest into the future?  It is clearly global warming.  If you have any understanding of compound interest, then you know that the value of events that occur well into the future need to be "discounted" before the benefits can correctly compared to expenditures today.  Here again efforts to off set global warming scores the lowest.

Given my positions above, why is there so much concern about global warming and so little attention to the other items on my list?  I think that this is because the human race is populated by some very stupid people.

PS--In the case of global warming, the proposed cure is worse than the disease!

PS--How about the pandemic item on my list above considering what is now happening in China?  Where is global warming now?

Trump Risked National Security?

According to the Democrats, President Trump risked our national security when he delayed giving the Ukraine the approved foreign aid money.  This blog will explore the truth.

Remember that the Obama administration gave the Ukraine only MRE's when they were actually fighting the Russians.  What President Trump did was to delay the foreign aid until he was sure that the new Ukraine president would fight their governmental corruption.  That would seem the least one would expect from a "responsible" President.

Was our national security put at risk due to President Trump's action?  No! Here is why.  The Ukraine purchases many of its needed weapons from European countries.  We know that. These weapons are not purchased with "cash".  They are purchased on normal contracts on credit and paid for under the terms of those contracts.  Anyone who has ever made a significant purchase knows how this all works.  The thing that the supplier needs to know and be sure of is whether the purchaser has the means to pay for the material.  That means the purchaser has to be credit worthy.  As soon as it was posted in the news papers that the USA government had approved the foreign aid to the Ukraine, they had the necessary credit standing.

Given the credit rating, the Ukraine could go out and buy or commit to buy any military goods that they needed.  It has to be clear that military purchases of the size that could affect their war with Russia could not be transacted in as little time as one month and thus their credit rating was more critical than the actual "cash" in their bank.  Notice that the new President of the Ukraine was not concerned about the exact date that the money was transferred since, his credit was good enough to purchase the needed military supplies as soon as the USA government approved the foreign aid.

Now, ask yourself, "How did President Trump's actions risk our national security?"  The clear answer is that they did not risk our national security nor that of the Ukraine!  What is this impeachment all about then?

Cheap Shot Critic

It is easy to be a critic and take "cheap shots" at almost everything.  I hope that I do not do that too much in my blogs.  I get disgusted listening to liberals taking cheap shots at the Trump policies.

I listening to one of the liberals today on the news and it motivated me to respond with this blog.  It was so predictable as I listened.  He started off with the #1 cheap shot, "it does not help everyone".  He was thinking about Blacks when he said that, but it has to be clear that in a country with about 350 million people that it is virtually impossible to have a policy that helps 100% of the people.  We all know that so whey do we keep allowing liberals and many others to keep using this same "cheap shot"?

Latter he used the "all" when he was talking about another of Trump's policies.  Notice that "all" is the same as "everyone".  Again, no policy can satisfy 100%, everyone or all of the people.  Do you think that most people see thru this kind of political speak?  I am not so sure.

They don't they seem to use the word "perfect" because I think that would clearly show their ignorance, but that is what they really mean.  The fact is that you can throw cheap shots at anything by claiming that it is "not perfect".  Did you ever think about exactly what is "perfect"?  Nothing!

What we need to do when we are confronted by one of these less than perfect cheap shooters is to ask them what they would do?  The world is very complex and most things are very complicated, so why do so many of us fall for the "perfect" argument? That is the big question.  When I ask people who are using the not perfect cheap shot what they would do, I get a blank look and the discussion ends.  I think it is because of PC that most people are never confronted with reality.

The next time you encounter one of these not perfect cheap shotters, turn the tables on them and ask them what they would do or what the person who they are giving their cheap shots too should do or should have done.  If we all pull together in this or "most" of us pull together, we might make a difference!  See, I did it too.

True Cost Of Nursery School

Did you ever think about how much school costs?  Did you ever wonder what grade was the most expensive?  This blog will try to open your eyes to the real cost of school.

A lot of people want college for everyone to be "free" like public school 1 thru 12.  Are you one of those people?  It does sound good, but realize that public school 1 thru 12 is "not" free.  We pay for public school with our taxes.  I think that most of us feel that it is still "worth it".  Do you?

When I was a kid, I went to half day kindergarten.  It was fun, but I really did not learn much nor do I feel that it made my life any better, now while looking back.  How about you, did you go to kindergarten and do you think that it was worth it?  I don't know of anyone who ever went to "pre kindergarten", do you?  If so, do you think it was worth it and did the tax payers get their monies worth?  I know that most of you never looked at nursery school or kindergarten as being worth it or not, but you should have!  I read that in Russia, they don't start public school until about age 7 while most of our kids start at 5 in kindergarten.  Did you ever think that Russia is better educated than the USA?  I know that most of us think that we are among the best educated in the world when the facts prove that we are not.  Now, let' look at the cost.

These numbers vary around the country, but I think that $13,000 is about the average cost per year for the typical public school student.  It might vary by grade, but I don't have any data on that point.  If the cost per year is the $13,000 above, what would that money be worth when the student graduates from high school?  First, look at kindergarten.  If we were to put the $13,000 in the bank earning 4% interest for 13 years, how much would we have when the kid graduated from high school? Would you believe that it is $21,645?  Compare this to the cost of the kid's senior year in high school which is $13,000.  Did you ever think that the cost of kindergarten is 66% more than the cost for your kid's senior year in high school?  I did not think so.  Now, look at "preschool" or nursery school.  The cost is $22,516.  Now, do you really think that your tax money was well spent and did you get your monies worth?

It has to be clear to all that we get the best value for our tax money in kid's last few years of school.  What if your kid got a check for $21,645 when they graduated from high school if they did not go to kindergarten, but just played on the swings in the park and watched TV at home?  It would not cost the tax payers a penny more to do this.  What if the mother home schooled their child rather than sending them to kindergarten and for their efforts, they got a check for $21,645 when their kid graduated from high school?  How many parents would do this?  Would you?

Nursery school and kindergarten are the most costly years in our education system, not their senior year in high school or their first year in community college.  Think about it!

PS--If your kid did not go to either nursery school or kindergarten, would you do that if you got a check for $44,161 when they graduated from high school?  When you know the facts, it makes you think!  Some people are in favor of "pre-pre kindergarten nursery school".  How much to do you think that will cost?  In a prior blog I proposed that if your kid was home schooled that the taxpayers could afford to give him a check for $250,000 on graduation without costing taxpayers an extra dime.

PS--Recent survey data shows that China is among the first in high school math scores while the USA is over 30th down the list.  What kind of technical advantage do you think that gives China over the USA when you add in their much larger population?  If you have your eyes open, I think you can see our future from here and it is not too bright.

Rich Or Poor

The problem is not whether we are rich or poor.  The problem is when you are wrong about how rich or poor you are.  I know that this does not make any sense to most of you, but this blog will shed some light on this important concept.

I remember from a high school science class that "nothing" is ever exact.  We used the example of a boy on one side of the class room and a girl on the other side of the class room.  The idea was for each to move half way to the center every 5 minutes, over and over.  The teacher then asked the class how long it would take before both were at the center.  The class thought about it and called out that they would theoretically never get to the center.  The teacher agreed that we were correct, but added that after a couple of hours they would be close enough for all "practical" purposes.  We all laughed, but got the message.

The point was that few things are exact so we deal with situations where things are "more" or "less" than some value. Years later, while teaching Decision Theory at a major university, I expanded on this concept where we focused on the advantages and disadvantages of being "above" or "below" some point since it was agreed to be impossible to be "exactly" on the point.  Now how does this apply to "Rich or Poor"?

The bottom line is, "given that we can never be exact, which side of the theoretical exact point should we be?"  Think of an individual thinking about whether they are "rich" or "poor".  Is there a preferred side to error on?  Let's look at some examples. If you or your country is poor, what are the consequences if you think you are rich?  If this is your state of mind, you could easily make your life miserable by going into debit that you could never climb out of.  If, on the other hand, you thought you were poor, there would be no or few bad consequences.  If you or your country was rich it would not make much differences if you thought you were either rich or poor.  Following that?

Here is the punch line.  It is very difficult to determine if you are rich or poor.  Given that point, what is the least bad way to think and act?  It is clear that if we error on the side of thinking we are poor there are zero or very few bad consequences.

Look at Argentina.  They used to be a very rich country and most of the people still feel that they are rich when they are not.  This error by the people of Argentina has caused them to go deeper in debit and make their country poorer.  Until they change their thinking, there is no way that Argentina can dig their way out of the hole they have dug for themselves.

I predict that it is not much different for the USA.  I keep hearing people claim that the USA is the richest country in the world.  This is clearly not true!  The result is that we do the same financially irresponsible things that Argentina has done, like spending more than we can afford.  The best measure of this is the rapid growth in our national debit in the past few years.  We talk about the debit being a problem, but until we realize that we are not rich, I contend that nothing significant is going to happen.  The USA will eventually look like Argentina.

To convince yourself that I am correct, research which are the richest countries in the world and see where the USA ranks on that list.  I think that you will be very surprised! Where do we rank in terms of median family income?  Sorry, we are not in the top 10!

Thinking Analog

Why don't we think "analog"?  Do you have any idea what I am talking about?  This blog will explore this concept.

I just heard about the school shooting in California and the response from officials in the area.  They were saying things like, "..We will not rest until school shootings are eliminated..".  How could you disagree with that kind of statement?  Many of our politicians are claiming that they, "...not rest until poverty is eliminated...".  Here again, how can you disagree with this?  The problem is that when people make statements like this, it starts off a type of thinking and dialog that causes disunity.  Whys is that?

If you are a digital thinker who looks at the world as being "black" or "white", you buy into the above statements and can become polarized against those who do not agree with you 100%.  How many people do you know who are in 100% agree with you?  There are not any, so what is the correct position?

What we need to do is to realize that the world is so very complex that there is no 100% answer to anything. The world is "analog" where statements like "more" or "less" more correctly describes 99% of situations.  We all know that school shootings can not be 100% eliminated.  We can reduce them very close to "zero", but "zero" is impossible to ever attain.  The elimination of guns is a similar impossibility.  Think of how we have tried to stop the illegal drugs coming into the USA?  Each year there are still "tons" of illegal drugs getting into the USA.  We can reduce the amount, but it is foolish to think that if we just spent more that we could eliminate it.

These are just a couple of examples and there are many more.  Look at global warming.  Is the goal to stop global warming?  How much do you think it would cost and how much of our freedom will have to be taken away to stop global warming?  There is "no limit" and if there is "no limit" it means that we will all be dead before that goal is ever met.

Look at bank robberies.  How much do you think we should spend or do in order to eliminate bank robberies 100%?  It is impossible to eliminate bank robberies 100% and we all know it, so why don't we switch our thinking to lowering the rate of bank robberies to a level that was in balance between the cost and benefits?    If we continue to think in non-analog terms you will never find a person who is 100% agreement with you,  If we switch to analog thinking then we can have a productive discussion of how much it is worth to spend to reduce bank robberies to what level.  That is a discussion that could result in an agreement, but if it continues to be 100% elimination, then no agreement on an end point for the cost or effort can be agreed too.

Ar you starting to see that we or "most" of us need to switch our thinking to "analog"?  Notice that I did not say "all of us"?  I want to keep this "analog".

Economics And Compound Interest

I have been critical of Economics as taught in our colleges and universities and how those who have graduated with Economics Degrees have demonstrated their knowledge.  I am going to see if I can apply some basic "compound interest" to see if it sheds some light into a very dark place.

Far too much of the economics dialog is devoted to the percentage growth of the economy as though that is the only objective.  We know that people change jobs, get raises and tend to earn more as they get older.  I don't think that the general economics as taught in our colleges and universities has dealt very well with this point.  Isn't it the individual that we should be talking about rather than how big is the "pot"?  Here is my try at this complex subject.

First off, shouldn't we take into account "inflation"?  That is when the same things cost more in dollars over time.  We all know that our money does not go as far today as it used too.  We need to take that into account when we look at the economics of the individual.  For my example, I am going to take a "typical" person who works for 40 years in an economic system that has a 1% rate of inflation.  To buy the same stuff 40 years from now we would need 48.9% more dollars than today.  Does that sound logical to you?  If you started out earning $10,000 per year, to stay even, you would need to earn $14,890 dollars 40 years from now.

Most of us do better than that, because we get more productive in our "starting" job.  Let's assume that we are rewarded for our greater skill while in the "same" job at the rate of 1.5% annual increase. That is a compound interest factor of 1.814.  Now if we multiply that by the inflation you would earn $27,010 after 40 years.  Now, that would be if you are in the same job, like a mailman whose job has not changed.

Now, how does this square with the growth of the economy?  We need to multiply these together and see what interest rate would give us the same value.  It comes out to 2.701 or just over 2.5% which is close to the economic growth rate which gives us some confidence that we are not too far off with our estimates so far.

Next, what about the impact of getting promoted?  That is a big number because we will assume that you started out at $10,000 per year and 40 years later you were earning $100,000 per year.  Remember that if you stayed in that first job, you would only be making $27,010, so what is your promotion economic growth rate?  The factor is 3.702 which works out to approximately 3.25%.

Now, when we look back at these numbers, it has to be clear that job promotion is the biggest factor in determining how economics applies to the individual.  Why is it then that this number is not reported or discussed?  Is it because we are too stupid to understand it?  It appears that there is more opportunity for promotion if the economy is growing, but even if the economy is static, people are leaving the workforce for different reasons all the time.  When Japan's economy was static a few years ago, I am sure that individuals were being promoted and were earning more.

When we vote, we vote as individuals, not as some average of people doing the same things that they did 4 years ago, so why doesn't our economic dialog point these types of things out?  I challenge you to discuss this with your friends and see if we can all get a more accurate view of our economic situation.

PS--There is a clear shift in the USA from physical labor value added to intellectual labor value added.  Anytime there is a shift like this there will be a disproportionate number of job promotions in this new and expanding area.  For many, this will be great, but for some it will mean that they will be left behind.  Given that promotions pace personal economic growth, it is critical that individuals avoid "dead end" type careers knowing that most promotions will occur in the new intellectual areas.

Economics And Trends In Education

I have been doing some research on higher education and found some interesting things that I want to share with you in this blog.

There are a lot of things that have been changing and like Newton said, those changes can change a lot of other things. The other thing is that actions having reactions.  I think that I explained this before using the example of throwing some thing while standing on slippery ice.  If you throw in one direction, "you" are pushed in the other.  It is important to remember that this applies in almost all situations.

Now, let's look at education.  We have a higher and higher percentage of our kids going onto college today than in the past.  We all know this and feel that it is a good thing, but there are some things that are not good.  Most of you don't know that the average IQ's of our college graduates today are "lower" than they were in the past.  How can it be any different as we encourage kids of lower aptitude to go onto college.  In the past, a larger percentage of our kids went directly onto value added jobs right after graduating from high school than do now.  It follows that the growth of the economy that resulted from growth in our workforce would, thus be less.  Are you following this point?

If we go on, we next see that our kids are taking longer to graduate from college.  That means they enter the workforce later.  When I was going to college years ago, most kids graduated in 4 years and did not have to take "remedial" classes, but today the average is about 6 years, not 4.  See how this lowers the growth of our economic workforce. Now, we have two factors that are working against economic growth.

Here is another thing.  If our kids enter the workforce later when they are older, the length of time they are in the economic workforce is shortened too.  Look at some numbers.  If  kids used to enter at age 18 and work to 65, that would mean they had added to the economy for 47 years. If many kids today take 6 years to get thru college they now have only 41 years of economic work.  That works out to a reduction of 13%.  That is a big number and thus has a big impact.

Let's look at another factor.  How about the government's student loan program?  It has encouraged kids to take more years to graduate and it has also made the cost of college go up significantly.  Very few kids today can work their way thru college like they used to and you know it.  The point that I want to make is that new workers don't start a net positive contribution to the economy until they have paid off their college debit.  Think about a doctor who doesn't start their medical practice until about age 34 or 35 and has to work until to about age 45 or 48 until they have paid back their college cost?

I know that many of you are wondering about the "greater" productivity of more college graduates.  It is true that college graduates have a greater productivity, but this is not true of many college graduates.  That is one reason that we hear about all the recent graduates who now realize that they may not be able to every pay back their college loans.  We need more medical doctors and engineers, but did you know that the number of graduates in these areas have not grown significantly in the past 25 years?  Many of the new college graduates have "fluff" degrees.

I think that more investment in education is critical for real growth in our economy and quality of life, but it has to be "wise", not how we are now doing it.  Our government has "thrown"a lot of  money at education, but have not done it "wisely".  We should have been looking at both the "good" and the "bad" aspects of investments in education. Did you ever think that some aspects of education might be "bad"?  Now you know!

PS--Back in 1969, just 50 years ago, it only took the average college graduate 2 years to pay back their college debit compared to today when it takes 15 years,  That is a 750% increase.  When you think about it, you know that it has to be very significant and needs to be given serious consideration.
What would Newton think about this situation?

Dulcimer Revolation

This might be a bore for many of you, but it got by blood flowing.  It has to do with the Dulcimer and the guitar.

I have been making guitars for some time and think that I know a lot about them.  I blogged some time back about how Pythagoras figured out the math behind the spacing of the frets on the typical guitar fingerboard.  This might be a repeat, but it is worth it.  Pythagoras noticed that when he looked at all the guitars of the time of different lengths, the 12th fret always ended up in the middle.  It was a curious fact and Pythagoras was bound to figure out why.  He notice that the spacing got wider as they approached the "nut".  Why was this?  As he thought about it, he concluded that the only way that this could work out so well was if the frets were spaced based on the 12th root of "2".

Example.  It the distance between the nut and the bridge was 26", the 12th fret would be 13" from the nut or in the middle.  The next or 11th fret would be 13" times the 12th root of "2" from the bridge.  For the 10th fret, it would be the above distance time the 12th root of "2" again and so until you get to fret #1.

Now that we have that out of the way, what does this have to do with the Dulcimer?  The Dulcimer is a popular musical instrument from Scotland, and the Appalachian area of the USA.  Some say that it is actually a stringed equivalent of the Bagpipes. That is because of its 4 strings, two are plucked "open" and only the top two strings are fretted.  This has the affect of a "droning" typical of the droning of the pipes on the Bagpipes.

Now to the punch line.  If you have every looked at a Dulcimer, you will notices that the frets are spaced very irregularly compared to how the frets on a guitar are positioned.  When I first looked at one, I thought that it was some totally new type of arrangement, but the other day I placed a, "just sawed" guitar fingerboard next to the one on the Dulcimer.  To my surprise, all the frets on the Dulcimer aligned with "some" on the guitar.  What they did on the Dulcimer was to leave "off" the extra frets that would not ever be needed to play the notes on the "D" and "A" strings of the Dulcimer.  As pointed out above, when you play the Dulcimer, you only finger the pair of "D" strings.  This avoids the chance of fingering the wrong fret and provides a lot more space for your fingers.  It also makes the Dulcimer much easier to play.

Next time you see a Dulcimer or a guitar, check out the placement of the frets and realize that they were originally place there based on what sounded good to the human ear and much later Pythagoras figured out the math behind it.  Us humans were smart enough to figured it out without knowing anything about science or math.  Interesting!

IQ Of Our Public School Teachers

Several years ago I heard about some data that had been compiled about some of our Eastern states public school teachers that showed their average IQ was less than the students they were teaching.  When I hear strange data like this I am skeptical and reserve final judgment about its accuracy.  That is what this blog is about.

How can it be that the average public school teacher could have a lower IQ than the average of the kids they teach?  It sounds impossible doesn't it?  Well, let's explore the subject a little before we jump to a judgment.  I can tell you that it is very difficult to find quality data on this point, because I have tried.  One thing that I think that I can agree with is that the average of IQ of kids who attend college has gone down.  Historically only those who had higher IQ's went to college.  Over time, more and more of our kids have gone to college.  That meant that those who went to college tended toward the more average IQ that is 100.  Another way to look at this is to realize that school teachers who graduated years ago were on average of higher IQ's than those today.  Do you follow that?

It is clear from the above that the average teacher today has a lower IQ than those years ago, but there is another factor.  If you are familiar with our colleges today, then you know that our teachers colleges have the lowest scholastic standards and often those who fail at the more difficult major drop down to teaching.  This means that there is a second selection process from the general college student population that tends to select those of lower IQ's.  This is clearly a sorting process that selects out the lower IQ kids.

There is yet a third selection process.  Many of those who end up as public school teachers find that they do not fit well and opt for careers that are more intellectually demanding such as stock brokers or starting a business.  You know that this "cherry picking" process takes place where the smartest teachers leave teaching for something that pays more  The net affect is that the few smarter teachers tend to be weeded out, thus lowering the average IQ of those who are left.

After looking deeper into the situation, I think that I now have to agree that the average school teacher has a lower IQ than those who they teach.  If this is good or bad, I am not ready to conclude, but I know that if they compensate by specialization as Henry Ford did, it is a very big step backwards.

When I read the stories about important intellectuals of the past, a common thread is that they were fortunate to have studied under one of the "smartest" people in their community.  That happens less and less today and we are the worse for the change.

PS--We know that kids who are home schooled do better on average than those from public schools.  Do you think that maybe  because the parents who home school their children have higher IQ's than do our average public school teachers?  Data seems to point in that direction.

Green New Deal And Present Worth

I was talking to some friends about the Green New Deal and what they thought about it.  I was surprised with their comments and it prompted this blog about "Present Worth".

I blogged a few weeks ago about the need to "normalize" data when data that does not match exactly is compared.  The most frequent situation where the need for "normalization" occurs is when data or events are compared that are not at the same point in time.  Most decisions are made in the "present" so it stands to reason that the data used for that decision should all be in the "present".  If that is the case, how do you deal with a decision today that involves money or an event that will occur in the future?

The Green New Deal represents such a case.  We are making a decision today where the cost or benefits will occur at some future date.  It would be like loaning your friend $10 today that he will not pay back to you until 10 years in the future?  It is not a case that the $10 may not buy they same amount of goods 10 years from now than it would buy today, it is that you could have invested that $10 and earned some value when you cashed it in 10 years from now.  The question that you have to ask yourself is, "How much is that $10 10 years from now worth to me today".  What is its "present worth:?

The way this is handled is by using compound interest tables to figure out what something in the future is worth today.  For this example, let's use 8% as our discount rate.  The factor turns out to be 0.4632.  That means the promise by your friend to pay back your $10 10 years from now is really only worth $4.63 today or the "present worth" is $4.63.  Are you following this?  If the risk of your friend ever paying you back was not very good, you might raise the discount rate to reflect this risk.  In that case, if you used 10% discount rate the $10 10 years in the future would only be worth $3.86 today.  Are you starting to see why this type of "normalization" is needed if you are to make good decisions about events that do not occur at exactly the same time?

Now, let's move onto the "Green New Deal".  Some people would be against the Green New Deal just on the basis that they think the science is all wrong, but what do you do if you think the science may be correct?  What ever bad is claimed to be going to happens is clearly well into the future, yet we are being expected to start paying "today".  How do we deal with this type of situation?

First off, we need some numbers or estimates about the future.  Let's assume the ocean is going to rise by 10 feet 50 years from now if we do nothing.  Assume you have a home that is just 5 feet above the ocean now and that if the ocean rises 10 feet that your home will be flooded or you will have to move it to higher ground.  If the Green movement is correct and you can avoid the ocean rising by spending 10% of your gross income combating climate change, you will not have to move your home.

Here are the numbers,  You earn $75,000 per year, so it will cost you $7,500 per year and everyone else for the next 50 years to prevent climate change.  For this one, let's use the same 8% interest rate. Consulting the interest tables we find the factor to be 573.770.  That works out to be $4,303,275.  That is a lot more than your house is worth!  You would be a lot better off to not spend a dime to save your house.  Given that your house is worth $1,000,000, how much would it be worth to spend today to save your house?   That works out to be $1,743 per year to save your house, but the Global warming scientists say that is not enough to save your house.  So, here again.  Fighting global warming is not worth it.  The medicine is worse than the disease.  What do we do?  Let the human population starve down to the point that the Earth can support them!

PS--In my example, I stated that you had to spend $7,500 per year fighting global warming, but what if only a small percentage of others spent the same percentage?  Your efforts would not get the job done, so your efforts would be worthless.  Isn't that what the world is into?  The USA might spend much of our wealth trying to prevent global warming while the rest of the world does not hold up their end.  That makes our efforts worthless!

Politics And Economics

With all the talk by politicians about their economic policies, it is very difficult for the average voter to make any sense of what is best for them and the country.  This blog will try to shed some new light on the subject

First off, no single policy will ever be best for everyone.  Think about it.  We have over 325 million people in the USA and no two are exactly the same.  What I propose is that that we divide the USA into three groups and then test the political policies against these three groups.  My groups are by family income and are the top, middle and bottom.  Easy, right?

I think that both of our political parties want close to the same thing, but neither can ever attain their objective because it is an "impossible" goal. They both want all three groups to have a higher family income.  They would also want the top,middle third to have more too.  Since this is "not" possible, both parties can expect something less.  That less is what I will try to explain

Like any system, we have to start from where we are now!  We can't start with a sheet of plain white paper.  Currently the median family income is about $60,000 while there is a wide spread between the top third and the bottom third.  The problem is that these three groups are not independent.  Action on on group affects the others and we have to realize that when we propose a new policy.

I think that it might be possible to raise the lower third while lowering the top third, but in the process I think it would lower the middle third too.  I think this would be the affect of the Democratic economic policies and I feel it would be "bad".  It is a case of the "medicine being worse than the disease".  The Republican economic policy is not perfect either.  I think that it would raise the middle third and the top third, but have only minor impact on the bottom third.

Now we are left with which policy is "best"?  I think that any policy by the Democratic party that raises the family income of the lower third is at the expense of lowering the median family income of both the middle and upper third.  The Republican policy will raise the middle family income and the upper family income while only having a modest positive impact on the the lower third family income. On this basis, I think that it is clear that the Republican economic policy is the best one between two that are not perfect.  Only a fool would hold out for an impossible perfect policy!

A final point about my three groups.  Isn't it the "people" in the groups that we should be thinking about?  Realize that the "people" in these groups are not static.  People are moving up and down in the groups all the time.  Isn't it a lot more significant how individual people moving within the groups?  Why don't we have a good statistic of the "movement"?  If you are in the lower group and are "not" moving, I don't think you would be happy, but if you were moving up, you would be happy. When the average pay for a "group" is going up by 3%, the average individual in that group is actually going up at more than 3%.  Isn't that what we should be looking at?

Sir Issac Newton And Politics

Most of you have heard of Sir Issac Newton, but few of you may know how significant his teachings were.  I will explore some in this blog.

Simply stated, Newton said that "bodies at rest stay at rest and bodies in motion remain in motion unless something changes their state".  Now, how does this apply to politics?  Rather than focus on the "bodies", I like to focus of the "something changes".  We know the state of politics by looking back and studying history.  We know the past, but we don't know the future.  I contend that if we study those things that have changed, they will give us a clue about the future.  Isn't that very logical?

Let's try one and see what we get.  It is clear that the USA has experienced a big change in the past 100 years from a predominantly rural society to an urban society.  We know that has happened, but what has it caused to change about our country?  The body is no longer at rest or going in its old direction, so what is the new direction?  Interesting question for all of us.  We must know that it has had an impact, but what has it been and will be the impact?

Here is one of my guesses. Rural people tended to depend on themselves for most of their welfare.  They grew most of their own food and collected firewood to keep themselves warm in winter.  Many went to the toilet in their "out house" and got water from their own well or spring.  Got the picture?  They did recognize the need for some kind of government, but they did not look for the government to contribute too much to their welfare.  I would say that the rural people tended to be more  "conservative" and thus were cautious of change or promises from the government.

As stated above, we are now much more urbanized and are getting more urbanized at an exponential rate compared to the past.  With the speed and magnitude of this change, few have looked deeply at its long term affects on the country that we see in our rear view mirrors.  Where rural people were more conservative, urban people tended to be more liberal and thus have more need and trust that government would provide them with aid of different types.  Urban people don't rely on an out house or their own well,  They expect some government agency to provide them with these items.

The problem that the USA now faces is that one single type of government does not seem to fit the needs or desires of "most" of its people.  Some what less government while others want more.  It is further complicated by the lack of understanding of the "cost" of more government or where that money will come from.  It sounds like the USA could best be satisfied by some kind of compromise, but what is that?  The founders of the USA were rural people and were very concerned about the growth and power of a bigger government.  They had seen by historical examples how the focus of some more central power tended to end up in power hungry people becoming dictators or royalty.  Whether that was always true, there was not enough history to disprove it.  Are you following this?

There are other things that have changed that we need to take a look at.  The USA used to be called a "melting pot".  When was the last time some one said that or showed pride in that concept?  Most are too young to remember.  It used to be common for children born in the USA from parents who were new immigrants to not be able to speak a work of their parent's native language.  Parents wanted their children to "melt" in as citizens of their new country where they were born.  Why has that attitude changed and what does it mean for the future of the USA?  Like urbanization the movement away form the "melting pot" attitude has serious implication for our future and what are they?

You only have to look at a Silver Dollar to understand the history of the USA.  What does it say on a Silver Dollar that is so important?  Don't know?  Get one out and look at it . It says,"E Pluribus Unum".  Which means "from many, one".  We are not supposed to be a bunch of tribes like much of the world, but a "united" "one" equal people.  That used to work and be accepted, so what has changed and what does it mean for our future?  Do you want tribalism as much of the world has?

I could go on and on with examples like the above and show that we have not looked ahead at the affects of things that we have causally allowed to change.  How about the rural one room school houses compared to today's mega Urban schools?  How about the shift in our economic model from one of physical labor to intellectual labor.  Income inequality is only going to get worse as time goes on.  How about the shift away from having capital being the driver of business to intellect?  Should we rename our economic system from "capitalism" to something like "intellectualism"?

Look around at major things that have changed in your life time and see if you can predict how they will change the direction of the USA in the future?  Newton would be proud of you!

PS--What do you think has been the impact on the education of our children as a result of public school teachers unionizing?

PS--What do you think has been the impact on our children by Facebook where people post the "great" things that they are doing or claiming all the "many" new friends that they have?

PS--What has been the impact of  the "affirmative action" program in our schools and work places?

PS--What has been the impact of the government insuring private home loans for banks in the USA?

AOC's Bernie Sanders Endorsement

AOC recently endorsement of Bernie Sanders has mystified many, but not me.  That is what this blog is about.

Look at Bernie.  He is 78 years old and has a "brand" that has millions of avid followers and a bank account bigger than most candidates.  Now, look at AOC.  She is 30 years old and has a big following in the media.  If you were AOC and was looking at the future, wouldn't it be great if she could combine Bernie's "brand" with her own?  It would be second only to that of President Trump.  Something like that is worth fighting for!

Who else do you think would be capable of taking over Bernie's "brand"?  I don't know of anyone. Do you?  Most everyone knows that Bernie's socialist policies are not very popular with most of the voters.  That fact does not detract from the basic value of Bernie's "brand" and AOC knows that.  It does not have to be a perfect match to be the best match in the game.  The liberal purists, due to their blindness, would not consider taking over Bernie's brand in a million years.  I am starting tho think that AOC might be a lot smarter than most people are giving her credit for.

Who in the Democratic side of the race has the strongest "brand" with the media?  It is AOC and she knows it.  Think about that?  If she can combine the "brands" for both the media and Bernie, we can expect to see big trouble from AOC for years to come.  We all know that money talks in politics plus having the media on one's side is where the real power is.

Follow this and tell me in a couple of years from now how things have worked out?  I think that I am right!

Why Does The Swamp Hate Trump?

I don't know how much you know about the government of Japan, but it is interesting.  The elected officials there don't actually run the country.  Japan is run by the bureaucrats. That is what this blog is about.

Think of it this way.  What percentage of our government employees are elected?  It is less than 0.10%.  If that is the case, you have to ask, "Who actually runs our government?"  Well, it is the  bureaucrats in the swamp!  What happens when a person is elected to the Presidency of the USA, like Donald Trump, who was the president of a major corporation and used to "running" things?  He was also used to playing with his own money, not with the taxpayer's money.

You know how politicians work.  Before they make a decision, they first check the "wind direction".  Further, they really don't know too much either so they depend 99% on the advise of their staffs and their staff gets used to actually pulling the strings.  What do you think happens when one of these "staff" people finds out that the person they are advising actually knows how to run the show and has proven experience?  The staff person has their ego hurt and reacts against the President.  Isn't that what we have seen?

Look at President Obama.  What did he ever run with his own money before he was elected President?  Obama had exactly "zero" proven experience running anything with his own money.  In that case, how did he act?  He had a rule, "Do as little as possible to avoid doing anything bad." In this situation, it has to be clear that staff people and bureaucrats were happy actually running things and thus "liked" Obama.  Can you see that the situation has been totally changed with the election of President Trump?

Where did the media get their data from the government?  Some was from elected officials, but most was from access to bureaucrat leakers in the government who really had the access to the smaller details.  Over time, the media has fallen in love with the bureaucrats and this accounts for much of why the media now is in bed with the Democrats and the "swamp" vs a new kind of President.  Are you starting to see how this whole political business works and why the media is so much against President Trump too?

Our Kids Are No Longer Explorers

As a parent, grandfather and great grandfather, I have seen our kids change away from being explorers.  Why?  That is what this blog is about.

Did you read Mark Twain's book "Tom Sawyer"?  I did and now looking back, I think it had a  significant impact on me and the person I have become.  It started out with his Aunt Polly calling for Tom.  You must remember that!  The parts that impressed me was how Tom and his friend Huck Finn explored the caves along the Mississippi.  We did not have any caves around where I grew up so I was very impressed with all the mystery about caves.  I explored the creeks and rivers in my area and actually built my own raft like Tom and Huck.  The book "Tom Sawyer" was very natural to me, but I am sure that it is "not" natural to kids today.  Why is that and what does it mean?

If you look at exploring in the big picture, it is driven my our intellect.  Our advance brain makes us curious about the world around us.  Exploring is basically how we learn.  We want to know what is on the other side of the river or over that hill.  It has always been that way.  I know as a kid that I spent a "lot" of time exploring the world that I live in.  Humans have always been curious and have wondered about the Sun and Moon and we still do today.  As we learn about new things, we only discover that there is still more to learn.  It never ends, but for many of our kids today, many think that they know "enough" and thus feel that there is no problem stopping exploring and being curious. Are you starting to see that things have changed?

Here is where things changed.  For thousands of years, us humans lived with clear limits.  We thought going to the Moon was impossible, but now we have gone there.  We lived within those limits, but many of us felt that we had been missing out on many things.  As we have gotten more affluent, now we can try to do some of those things.  If our parents could not afford for us to do some of those things, now that we were richer, we could allow our kids to do those things that we were denied.  That is why many parents today are helping their kids participate in all kinds of activities that they could not.  On the surface, this looks "good", but their is a darker side.

What we all forget is that when we "add" something new to participate in, we also have to eliminate something that we used to do.  Look at our kids playing organized soccer or other organized activities.  The word is "organized".  Sounds good, but it is really bad because is cancels out the exploring that we all used to do and learned from.  Think about the impact of "organized" activities, where is the exploring in that kind of activity?  Much of my early exploring was done alone.  That is just the opposite of what happens in these organized activities.  If you think about it, wasn't most of your learning done alone?  If you look at most of the major discoveries thru historically, they were done by individuals working alone.  Did most of the major artists paint their pictures as part of an organized team?  No!  The idea was in the mind of the artist and it was up to him or her to paint it onto the canvas.  Do your kids paint in their bed rooms alone?  Do they work in their garden alone?  Kids today hardly do anything alone.  Their parents want them to participate in some kind of organized activity at the expense of many of the things we use to do alone like exploring.

Why don't you make a list of the exploring activities that you used to do alone that your kids do not do today?  Do you think that it is better now for your kids to punch keys on their PC with their thumbs or exploring like you used to do?

Mother Government

It appears that a lot of people feel that our government should act like their "mother".  Who does not want a loving mother?  This blog is my attempt to show the truth about a "mother government".

I think that the best way to look at the situation is to use a couple of simple examples.  My first example is about "food".  Currently people buy or produce their own food.  Most of us go to the grocery store and buy the food that we need and can afford.  With this system, some people can only buy the minimum amount food, while other buy lobster and steaks.  The median family in the USA eats very well.  Now, rather than each family buying or producing their own food, what if the government collected a food tax from all of us and then provided the food that they felt we deserved?  The idea was to make sure food was shared equally or fairly.  I think that you can see that with the government providing the food that the median family would would have less than when they purchased their own food.  The only way that the government could provide the "same" amount of food would be if they collected "more" in food tax than we were paying before for our food.  Do you know of any thing that government can do "cheaper" than we can do for ourselves?  I did not think so.

How about another example?  This time let's try "shoes".  We all wear shoes and need shoes, so why don't we get our big government to provide us with shoes?  With all the waste in government, do you really think that the government could provide us with shoes cheaper than we can do it ourselves?  Can you imagine what your shoes would look like or fit if the government chose the shoes that we "deserved"?  I don't think you would like that.  If the shoes were even close to what we have now would require the government to collect a lot more in tax than we now pay for our shoes.  Again, I can not think of anything that government can do "cheaper" than we can all do for ourselves.

With these two simple examples, I think that you can see that the founders of the USA were correct when they tried to "limit" the authority and involvement in our lives by their new government.  I know that some people think that services from the government are "free", but someone has to pay and it always turns out that every thing that the government does for us costs more than if we did it for our selves.  My problem is that I can not understand how so many people have so much confidence that "more" government involvement in our lives is "good".  That was the biggest fear of our countries founders and it is mine today.

PS--Look at the healthcare debate.  Why has no one pointed out that since 1975 we have been importing more doctors than we produce here?  I checked out a few states to see if they have increased the number of medical doctors that they graduate.  The data shows that they have not increased significantly in the past 20 years.  In some states it was "zero" increase.  Further, has anyone mentioned that the cost of becoming a doctor has significantly increased since the government got involved in underwriting student loans while the number years it takes has also increased?  What about our lawyers who we allow to leach off our medical system and add to the cost?

PS--When people say that they want "free" this or that, why don't they tell us which of their neighbors they want to pick up the bill?  What if them and some of their neighbors decided to start a business by "pooling" their money by forming a "corporation'?  Would that be bad?  Exactly what is it about corporation that is bad?  How about "partnerships"?  

Ghost Towns And Economics

Have you ever been to a real "ghost town"?  If you have did you ever think that the same thing could apply to a whole country?  That is the idea behind this blog.

Most ghost towns that I have visited were originally mining towns.  In their hay day these towns were so very rich and it was demonstrated by the lavish life style of their inhabitants.  One exception is the small Easter island.  When the first immigrants showed up, the island was totally vacant.  There was plenty of food just for the gathering.  The median family income was very high in the beginning, but started going down as the breeding accelerated.  Eventually the population started starving until the population declined to the "steady state" capacity of the island.  In the case of some of the ghost towns the ore got so poor that only a small percentage of the original miners could survive. I think you see the pattern.  Oklahoma had a similar situation due to the depression and the dust bowl.  Their solution was to immigrate "out" of Oklahoma.

Notice that most of our Economists only stress "growth" similar to what happened with the ghost towns in the early part of their lives.  I have to ask, "Why don't Economists ever consider "steady state" economic models"?  Japan looks like a perfect model of what I am talking about.  If the basic goal of any economic system is to maximize the median family income, you end up with some thing like Japan in the end.  What is wrong with that?  Are you starting to see that "more" may not be better if it is at the expense of the median family income?

Does anyone really want their town or city to be bigger or more cars on the road?  I don't think so.  I like hunting and trout fishing and have found it more and more difficult to enjoy these over time.  That is because we have a bigger economy created by "more" workers, not by a significant growth in the productivity or efficiency of the same number of workers.  I blogged before about exploitation of natural resources and I repeat it here.  What do you think has been the impact of "frac'ing" has been?  The USA is now the largest producer of oil and is oil independant for the first time.  The number of acres of land being farmed in the USA is actually going down.  The production per acre has gone up, but do you really think that it can keep going up in the future that it has gone up in the past?  There are limits, just like our life expectancy has it limits.  Are you starting to see that we just might have the "wrong" objective?

I know that it is not very sexy to be against more growth, but it might be the best objective.  Think about the USA with its 335 million people.  If we had the same population that we had back in about 1950 which was about 125 million, what would the median family income look like.  I think that it might be "twice" what it is now.  What is wrong with that?  You know that we have about 10% of the farmers that we had back in 1950 and they produce "more".  It is the same for drilling oil wells and pumping out the oil.  Is San Jose, Ca a better city to live in today than it was back in 1950 when it was about 50,000 and now it has almost two million?  In 1950 you could buy a house there on a 1/4 acre lot of $20,000 and now that same home will cost you a $750,000.  Is blind growth "good"?  Think about it.

You might say that Argentina is now a ghost country compared to the richness that it once had.  Back in the 1940's they had plenty of grass to grow beef and ship that beef to all over the world.  The money from those sales was divided between very few people.  They were rich.  Then they started letting in more immigrants from Europe as maids and butlers to wait on them.  They played polo and formed golf country clubs.  They went to France for vacations and fine dinning.  Money was no object.  Now, they don't produce any more beef, but what they do produce has to be divided between many times more people making them "poor".  A gold mine can only feed so many mouths and Argentina has come face to face with the realization of "ghost town economics".

Media Bias Normalization

Do you have any idea what "normalization" means?  Do you know anything about "media bias"?  This blog will try to shed some light on the two subjects.

Normalization is well understood by Mathematician and Engineers as a means to "clean up" data so that it correctly represents the subject.  Here is a simple example to show what I mean.  You look at some data that shows the economy has grown by 4% over the past two years.  Most people would conclude that people are 4% richer, but that is not exactly true.  Here is why.  Over the past two years the population of the USA has grown by 1.5% and that needs to be considered.  To "normalize" the data you need to adjust for increase in the number of people over those two years.  This is done by looking at how individual people did during the two year period.  This is done by dividing the 104% by 101.5 and you get 102.463.  The normalized data shows that people are now 2.463% richer, not the original 4%.

Now, how does this apply to Media Bias?  Most of us judge the current situation and the future compared to our past experiences. To do that correctly given that the situation has changed, we need to adjust the data for related items that have changed and alone affect the data.  Look at it this way.  What would the survey data look like if the media today acted like they did in the past without the current bias.  What we have to do is to estimate the degree of bias.  The fact that the media is challenging President Trump 24/7, we all have to admit that this, rather than the true facts alone, are affecting the attitude of their viewers.  Isn't this just like a company using advertising to promote their products that are equal to or better than the competitor's products?

What if the media bias has about a 10% impact on the numbers?  If an honest survey about something showed a split of 55% against President Trump and 45% for President Trump?  The media would jump on this that it was clear that President Trump was wrong or bad when if the bias was removed by "normalizing" the data it would be the other way around.

We all know that social pressures can have big influence on people's attitudes and salesmen and advertisers know this.  A biased survey is a powerful tool used to enforce attitudes of people.  People who, "go along to get along" often wake up when they are behind the curtain in the voting booth and ignore social pressure.  Isn't this what happened with the Trump vs Clinton election?

When you are presented with data or survey information you may need to "normalize" the data before you jump to a simple minded conclusion.  The fact that the USA has such a low literacy rate and low STEM participation support the fact that much of our population do not have the intellectual ability to not be taken in by the media bias that now prevails in the USA.

This is my warning to you and a way to get thru the smoke screen of media bias.

Humpty Dumpty

It looks like Democrats and Republicans have fallen off the "wall" just like Humpty Dumpty and have broken into a million pieces.  That is what this blog is about.

Us humans have done this before with religion.  At one time they seem to have gotten along and debated who had the "best" path to the "happy hunting grounds".  Democrats and Republicans were like those early humans where they debated about who had the "best" ideas that were "best" for those they represented.  It was an active debate for sure.  All kinds of ideas were presented and tested on their voters.  Some were good and were accepted while others did not work out so well and were rejected.  That is how it worked.  Us humans used our God given intelligence in a positive way that tended on average to advance the human race and make life better.  After all this build up, what went wrong?

There were multiple religions just like there are multiple political parties each with their own "best" path.  When Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall that was when religion took the "poison pill".  Now, exactly what is the "poison pill"?  Rather than debating that one religion or another had the "best" path, they changed to stop debating and say that they had the "only" path and thus all other religions were not only "worse", they were "wrong"!  Once they took the "poison pill" that all other religions were "wrong" and they were the only religion that was "right", debate was over because it was worthless to debate now.  Isn't this exactly where politics have gotten too?  There is no longer any need to debate different ideas since each party feels that they are not only "best", but "right" and all other ideas are "wrong".

Back to Humpty Dumpty.  "All the King's horses and all the King's men could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again."  I don't accept this because the consequences are too great.  It has been several thousand years since religion took the "poison pill" and they still no longer debate about who has the "best" path.  I hope that it is not going to take thousands of years before we get back to a civil debate about which political party has the "best" path, but it does not look good in the short term.

It has been my observation that those of low intellect tend to be the ones who do not want to debate ideas and use stubbornness as a means to subdue their adversaries.  You often see this in young children.  I hope that us adults won't keep acting like children in this critical situation.  Those who have little confidence about their values are often the ones who defend them with the most vocalness.  As I have pointed out in prior blogs people who have specific views on a subject are afraid of  the world where their ideas could be proven wrong.  They feel safer keeping their heads in the sand and not having to deal with the new situation.  It seems that us humans are tending toward bigger egos and smaller brains.  Where is Darwin when the human race really needs him?

PS--How about some historical facts?

 Argentina was the richest country in the world in 1945 and turned to socialism.  It took the military to clean up the place, but Argentina has never recovered and is now far from the richest country in the world.  For the record, Argentina has a much higher literacy rate than the USA.

Chile had the second oldest democracy in the world after the USA in 1970 when the socialist Allende was elected.  He screwed the place up such that the military had to take over and clean up the mess.  It took over 25 years for Chile to get back to normal.  Chile also has a higher literacy rate than the USA and longer life spans.

Venezuela was the richest country in South America with massive oil reserves and it only took about 4 or 5 years of socialism to bankrupt the country and starve most of the population.  Like Chile their President had Cuban military for his personal security.  Who knows how long it is going to take for Venezuela to return to "normal" and how bad it has to get before that happens?

It is interesting when you know a few facts.  I attended a couple of Allende's political rallies so I have first hand knowledge.   I also lived in Argentina when the military was in charge.  I have visited Venezuela before it elected a socialist.  They joked about Argentina without knowing that they would go down that same road.

Growing The Economy With Full Employment

Here is a new thing for you to think about.  So far, most of the growth in the economy has been supported by reducing unemployment, but what now?  That is what this blog is about.

I know that most Economists, like most people, have little understanding of real economics.  It has to be clear that as our economy has grown it has been fed by unemployed workers taking up productive jobs.  What happens when we run out of unemployed workers?  That is where we find ourselves today.  We have workers who are getting older and are retiring while we have new young workers coming into the work force.  The net growth is very small, well short of the 1.5% to 3.0% needed to continue past economic growth rates.  Countries like Japan actually have a negative population and worker growth rate, so how do they grow their economy?  It has to come by way of "productivity".  Got it?  The next phase is going to have to focus on greater growth of "productivity" vs lower unemployment rates.

If productivity is our future, how do we do that?  We know that the drivers of future economic growth is intellectual vs more bodies.  Given that fact, what do we do to "raise the medium family income"?  What we will have to do are two basic things.

(1)  Raise the intellectual level of our "median" work force.
(2)  Reduce the number of potential workers who are a drag on the economy.

If you  look around the world at the worker profile of different countries, you will find big differences.  For example, look at the literacy rates.  The USA is far below the top level even though we spend the most on our primary schools.  Japan and most European countries have much higher literacy rates than does the USA.  In our hemisphere, both Chile and Argentina have higher literacy rates than we do.  What is needed for the future is more than just literacy.  We need to focus much more on the STEMS while many of our children opt for easy "fluff" type classes.  As you can see, if we want to "raise the median family income" it will require some major changes in our society.  One thing that is clear is that we can't keep allowing illegal immigration by the least qualified workers in the world.

Now for my second point.  If you look at a couple of world wide statistics, you will see that we have more people in jails or prisons than any other country in the world.  We also have more illegal immigration of low skilled people of any other country in the world.  Look at Japan.  They have a very restrictive immigration policy while their total population is going down.  Their economy is paced by "value added labor" vs exploitation or natural resources.  Look at Switzerland, which is similar to Japan.  They have a much higher median family income than does the USA.  Both Japan and Switzerland actively work to reduce the percentage of their population that "takes" rather than help to "produce".  I know that this would require a major change in our thinking for us to put the USA "first" as do both Japan and Switzerland.  Japan and Switzerland are not out to "save" the world like we are with things like the "green movement".  What we need to do is to look around the world at countries who are doing the right things for their citizens in the area of economics and learn from them.

Are you starting to have a greater appreciation of the fact that the USA economy of the future has to figure out how to grow with fewer new workers?  We have to start changing our thinking and as do our Economist and our colleges and universities.  Economic growth in the future will have different drivers than it did in the past and we will have to all recognize that simple fact.  If the USA continues with past policies, you can expect that our children will live in a "hell hole" like much of the world and I don't think that any of use want that!

PS--The USA was blessed with a lot of natural resources, but most of those have already been developed and "counted".  What will we "count" next to grow our economy?  It has to come from intellectual value added productivity gains.  That is the challenge that we face.

PS--There is another economic element that needs to be considered and that is "mix".  If a person who was making shoes and producing a small amount of economic value were to switch to some kind of high tech value added work, it would result in a growth of the economy.  If the "mix" of jobs were to change toward higher tech or higher intellect it would grow the economy while full employment did not change!

PS--Here is another unrelated point that I want to make.  I just had lunch with a farmer who farms several thousand acres of mostly corn and soy beans,  I asked him about the "Round-Up" herbicide problem.  He said that if farmers did not have "Round-Up" that up to 20% of the worlds population would starve to death.  Now, is it worth it if 10 or 100 people die from exposure to "Round-Up" as a trade off for millions not to starve to death?  In a world with few "perfect" solutions, we have to start recognizing and dealing with the best real world decisions that are not "perfect"!

PS--One thing that we have to stop doing is letting people with above intellect work at assembly line jobs at places like GMC that under utilize their "potential".  We can no longer afford to waste intellect with labor union extortion.  Rather than penalizing intellect, we need to start exploiting it with more "capitalism".

Trade and Duties Made Simple

There is so much discussion about duties and no one seems to really understand the whole thing.  I am going to try to make it simple.

The problem with an imbalance of trade is that it can not be sustained for the long term.  Short term you can save money by purchasing shoes made in China, but that only works as long as you have savings in the bank to buy those shoes.  Since you lost your job at the shoe factory, you don't have any new money to put in that bank. Do you see that this is a long term problem?  This is why you can't just look at what is good for you "today".  How about your grandchildren?

Here are the alternatives to solve the problem. If we have all the alternatives, then which one is best?

(1)  As an individual, one alternative would be for each of us to not by shoes from China and thus bring our trade with China into balance.  It would cost us a little more for shoes, but you and your neighbor would both have jobs here making shoes.

(2) We could put a duty on the shoes from China so that the shoes from China would cost each of us more for the shoes from China.  Now that shoes cost the same or more than those made here, you and your friends would buy shoes made in the USA and you and your neighbor would have a job here.  You would be paying the same for shoes now as in alternative (1) and trade with China would be back in balance.

(3)  We could do what Europe does and add a value added tax on imported shoes and take a similar amount of tax off the makers of shoes here.  We could take off something like the social security tax that you now pay out of your pay check.  The imported shoes would cost more due to the tax, and the shoes made here would cost "the same".  Now that you have more money in your pay check you can afford the shoes made here that used to cost more than the shoes from China.

(4)  We could limit the number of shoes imported from China like we do with sugar from most of the world.  In this case, there would be zero or very few shoes made in China on the shelves here so you would have to buy shoes made here.  In the case of sugar, the world price for sugar is about $0.15 per  pound while we have to pay $0.53 per pound for sugar made from Beets in North Dakota.

There may be some other alternatives, but I think this covers it well enough.  Now, which alternative do you want?  Remember that doing nothing would mean that you and your neighbors would lose your jobs at the local shoe factory!

PS--The whole idea is to make us buy shoes made in the USA rather than China.  We all should know that if we keep buying more from China than China buys from us that we will go broke in the end!  How about all of us just doing the right thing for a change!

Dynamic Economic VS Static Economics

This might look like a strange name, but wait and you will see the significents.

There are two key classes that all Engineers have to take in college and those are "Statics" and "Dynamics".  I had to take them and I got an A+ in Statics, but only a B in Dynamics.  Statics was easy.  You could easily draw up a model of the problem on a sheet of paper and then analyse each part of the problem, step by step.  You could even build a physical model and test it to see if your calculations were correct.  After taking Statics, I thought that Engineering was simple and easy.  Was I ever wrong!

Dynamics was a totally different animal.  Things were changing all over the place and you had to analyse many of the same things from Statics while many elements were on the move.  Think about the differences between holding a baseball "statically" in your hand compared to the forces that were on the same baseball while it was being pitched to a batter?  A lot more complex, right?

Real economics is more like pitching the baseball than just holding the baseball in your hand.  The problem is that most people can not mentally handle the complexity of the baseball being pitched so the stop at the static model.  They might go so far as changing "one" variable at a time, but not take into account the fact that the baseball is starting to spin in a certain direction just before it it released by the pitcher.  In the engineering Dynamics class, they learn how to deal with the many changing variables as the baseball is being pitched.  In may cases, they have to use super computers to simulate what is happening split second by split second because closed form equations would be too complex.  Isn't real economics just as complicated as pitching a baseball?

My point is that most economics is so over simplified for college students that it has little relationship to the real world.  That is just one reason so many economic forecasts end up being so far off.  Growth of the economy seems to be the primary focus of most economics, but what about all the other things that are changing at the same time?  Some in one direction others in other directions.  Here is an example.  Take the "retail" segment or consumption. While Amazon and Wal-Mart are expanding, Sears and any "big box" stores are going out of business.  Amazon is growing at over 10% while others are going out of business at about the same negative rate.  Why do we focus so much on why Amazon is growing and not more on why many others are declining?

Look at IBM or HP.  It was not so many years ago that these were the economic leaders.  What happened?  Where did Apple come from or why are Kodak and Xerox gone?  If you look at the Dynamic picture, you will see that companies are growing faster and dying faster today.  Why is that and what does it predict for the future?  Remember when only those with a big bank wad could start a company?  Today, it is not money, but intellect or new technical ideas that are needed to start a company.  What we are talking about here is "change" and that means "dynamics".  Static models used to be good enough to understand economics and predict the future, but not anymore.  Some how we are all going to have to graduate from simple Statics to the much more complex Dynamics if we what to be serious players in the future.  The problem is that most of us humans do not have the intellect to play in the Dynamics arena.  That means the spread between rich and poor is going to get wider and wider and there is no real way to prevent it.

Talk to your friends and see if they have any idea how significant Dynamics is compared to Statics.  If they have never thought about it or don't know the difference, then you know that the human race has a serious problem.

Wealth Tax

Do you think we should tax people on their "wealth"?  That is what this bog is about.

Did you ever think about this kind of tax? Did you ever think about how such a tax would be administered?   I did not think so.  To administer our current income tax requires very complex set of laws and accounting convention.  What about this?  Income is easy to calculate and it starts on January 1st and ends on December 31st.  It looks at what you earned during that "period". Easy isn;t it?  Now when we tax wealth, it is a lot more complicated.

On what date does the government set your wealth?  Is it January 1st or December 31st?  Is is based on day light time or do different areas of the USA have different times?  Just picking the time is complex.  Would you like someone coming into your home to determine how much your stuff is "worth"?  We are talking about your net worth here.  How about that Bible that your great grandmother gave you?  How much is it really worth?  It is over 150 years old and a collector might pay a lot to own it.  How about your house that was worth $350,000 on March 15th but is now worth $376,000 on September 12th?  How about that old 30-30 Winchester that you got from your uncle?  How much is it worth today?  Who do you think we would have to pays for some kind of professional to come into your home to figure out how much your stuff is worth?  You will!

Many people who don't have to pay or file for income tax actually have a lot of valuable stuff and could have to pay a wealth tax.  What so you think smart people might do?  Do you think that they would move that valuable picture or ring to another country?  There are a million ways to prevent the tax collector from finding some valuable stuff in our home and you know it.  Do you really think that those who feel some kind of wealth tax is a good idea ever thought about how it might be administered?  I don't think so!

Income tax is complex enough.  We don't need another tax that is clearly even more complex to administered.  Think about it?

PS--Think about this.  What if you were a renter and the person you rented from only owned two or three rentals and was thus was exempted from paying a wealth tax. Your rent may not go up, but if they owned 50 rentals, your rent might go up.  What is the logic in that?  If that fair?

Gun Ownership

I have been a gun owner since I was 12 years old.  I got my 20 gouge single shot Savage  shot gun for Christmas.  I never missed a Pheasant for the next two years.  When I was 14, I got my first 30-30 Winchester for my birthday.  In that year, I got my first buck.  As you can guess, I have been into guns and hunting since as long as I can remember.  I now own a few more guns that are mostly family hand-me-downs.  I value these guns as very personal family connections that I plan to hand down to my children or great grandchildren.  Along with those guns, I plan on including some important personal family history.  I think that my involvement with guns is similar to many of those who built this country with sweat and physical labor.  I am disappointed that many people don't understand or have a personal appreciation of the roll that gun have played in the history and building of "our" country.

A lot of my friends own guns.  Many are not hunters, but are part of our history and collect guns to show their appreciation for that history.  We are talking about collectors who have hundreds of historic guns.  Many are over 100 years old and many don't even work.  It is my observation that collectors who own more than 100 guns are the least likely to be involved in some kind of shooting.  It is the person who only owns "one" gun that we have to be concerned about.

I have been following the gun debate and have some observations.  Exactly what is an "assault" rifle?
I have a 1903 Springfield that was used as a military rifle in WWI.  It is a bolt action that shoots the  30-06 shell.  I also have an M1 Gurand that was used in WWII.  It is a semiautomatic.  Both of these rifles were used by our troops in battle to "assault" the enemy.  Are they "assault" weapons?  You tell me!  My M1 has a "clip" that holds only 8 shots.  If it held more, would it then be an "assault" weapon?

Here is what I think happened to change things.  A Russian mechanic by the name of  Kalashnikov figured out that if he raised the sights on a rifle by about 3" it would align the barrel to the shooter's shoulder.  This would prevent the barrel from kicking up with each shot and thus make the second shot more accurate.  He did one more thing too.  That was to design a shell that had much more tapper rather than using an existing shell with little tapper.  This made his new rifle much less prone to jamming.  His ideas were so much better that most new gun manufacturers adopted his new design concepts. Some of the names are the familiar AR15 types.  These are "not" automatics.  They are semiautomatics like my 80 years old M1 mentioned above.

Some retailers claim that they will no longer sell amo for "assault" weapons, but what is an "assault" weapon amo?  I don't know and nor does anyone else who knows anything about guns.  Are you starting to see the problem?

When I was a junior in high school, I had saved up enough to buy a Browning 16 ga semiautomatic shot gun.  Was it an "assault" gun?  It had a "plug" that allowed it to only hold 3 shots.  Are you starting to see that those who want to ban guns have almost no real experience or knowledge about guns.  That's the problem!

PS---The most common weapon used to kill people in the USA is "not" a gun.  Most people are killed by "blunt trauma" by being assaulted by some by some kind of "club" or "fist".  If that is the case, why is there so much focus on guns?   In England, knives are used for most murders.  Do we want to make knives illegal here?

PS--Here is an interesting point.  One of the Presidential candidates claimed that the military assault weapons shoot some kind of special high speed of amo that instantly kills. What he did not explain was that high speed amo has been around a very long time.  Most are higher speed than the military round.
Caliber         Year introduced
270                1925
220 Swift       1935
243                 1950
223                  1964 (military)
 I own a 270 bolt action that I purchased in 1950.  All the above calibers are available in the 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle.  The Remington 740 semi automatic that is equal to any assault rifle in rate of fire was introduced in 1955 in the 270 caliber.

Renewable Energy

This blog is about global warming and renewable energy.

As strange it may sound, I am in favor of "renewable energy".  Energy is something that most people do not understand.  Did you know that energy can not be created or destroyed?  It can only be transformed.  I would like to get into "Entropy", but I think it would be over the head of my readers.

I burn wood to heat my house.  Wood is clearly a renewable form of energy, and it is produced by transforming energy from the Sun that shines onto the Earth.  Trees collect the Sun's energy and turns it into wood,  The trees takes Carbon Dioxide out of the air and lock it into wood.  When I burn the wood in my stove, I release the Carbon and Hydrogen in the wood back into the atmosphere in the form of Carbon Dioxide and Water.  Real simple isn't it?  Since I grow my own trees, I am totally "green".

Now, how about gasoline that I use in my truck.  Is that bad?  No!  What I am doing is recycling the Carbon and Hydrogen that plants took out of the air millions of years ago using the energy from the Sun just like the tree now do to provides me with my fire wood.  If you think about it, oil is Solar energy since the original source of the energy was from the Sun.  Are you starting to see that the Sun is the source of most of the energy that we enjoy here on Earth?

How about wind mills and the energy that we get from wind?  Did you know that the source of the energy that creates the wind comes from the Sun?  Wind is caused by the uneven heating of the atmosphere because of the "rotation" of the Earth.  If the Earth did not rotate or if we had no Sun, there would be no wind here on Earth.  It looks to me that wind energy is actually solar energy.  Did you know that?

How about hydro power that we get from our dams?  The hydro energy is created by water at higher elevation being pull down to the ocean by the Earth's gravity.  What is happening is that the hydro generators actually get their energy from water vapor created by the heat of the Sun which is lighter than air and thus the vapor rises until it condenses and falls at an elevation higher than the oceans.  Isn't it clear that hydro power is actually energy that came to Earth from Sun and heated water.  As long as we have water here on Earth and the Sun, we have an endless but limited supply of green solar energy.

How about solar panels that turn solar energy into electricity?  It has to be clear that this energy actually comes from the Sun too.  This was an easy one!

How about tides in the oceans giving us energy?  In some places where the tides are very high, it is possible to extract energy from the tidal differences.  Isn't this a form of renewable green energy?  Did you know that tides get their energy from the pull of the Sun and Moon on our oceans as the Earth turns.  Are you starting to see the importance of our Sun?

The only source of energy that is not directly from the Sun is nuclear energy, but did you know that the energy from the Sun actually comes from nuclear too?  I guess that the bottom line is that 100% of the energy that we have here on Earth is actually "nuclear" energy!

PS--To be totally accurate, I need to point out that energy from the rotation of the Earth is from the "Big Bang".  As we take that stored rotational energy from the Earth, the Earth actually slows down a little.  It is like taking stored energy from a spinning "fly wheel".  There is no "free lunch" when it comes to energy.  Energy can not be created, it can only be transformed!