It has just been reported that Agrivino is going to close its doors in early July, due to the narrow interpretation of certain liquor control laws that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission has adopted. They are saying that AgriVino's high-tech Enomatic system is illegally allowing "self-pour" by customers.
AgriVino was planning to provide a very high-tech system for dispensing tastes. Economatic is "state-of-the-art wine dispensing and preserving system," which allows the dispensing of single tastes from wine bottles without exposing the wine to air. Instead, carefully measured one-ounce quantities are pushed out by argon, a noble gas that does not react chemically with wine, into the customer's waiting wine glass.
The problem is that the customer was supposed to pay at the front desk, receive a card, and use the card to sip wine until the money ran out. However, the cashier did not physically handle each pour; the computerized system did this. No can do, says OLCC.
This despite the fact that the central computer was keeping track of the number of pours for each person and would stop delivering when it felt that the customer was drinking too fast. At the price of a sip, this strikes me as a pretty academic concern, but they made the effort. In the real world, this would be among the best regulated and least excessive environments for drinking wine in Oregon.
OLCC wants us to believe that they are forced into this position by ORS 471.360(b), which they say prohibits "self pour" by customers. If you read the statute, you'll see that it says:
(b) No licensee of the commission shall permit any person to mix, sell or serve any alcoholic liquor for consumption on licensed premises unless such person has a valid service permit issued by the commission.
Notice that the statute forbids any unpermitted person to serve liquor. It does not say that, at every step, a permitted person must be taking part. In restaurants, the waiter does not pour every glass of wine. In a tavern, the waitress will almost never pour from the pitcher of beer.
Clearly, OLCC does not require a permitted person to physically take part every time an alcoholic beverage flows from a container into a glass, but they are insisting that AgriVino do this, even though it would destroy the efficiency that makes it possible for them to offer the public such wonderful wines at reasonable prices.
This is not over.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Way out of Iraq -- Money
From the start of the Iraq war, I was plagued by the sense that there was simply no peaceful solution through which the U.S. could exit. It now seems that combat deaths are setting new lows and although there hasn't been much tangible political progress, the rhetoric doesn't seem to be all that strident.
I have never claimed to understand the Iraqi mind, so I never tried to say for sure how far they would go with their antipathies towards one another. Pretty clearly, the Kurds despised the Arabs, probably with more fervor and more justification than the Sunni/Shiite split within the Arab community. I have felt all along that the Kurds would not give up their share of oil, about 40% compared with their 20% representation in the population. This meant that the remaining 60% of oil revenue would perforce be divided among the 80% of Iraqis who are Arabs. I was pretty sure that the economic conflict would form on sectarian lines and would be bloody.
But the economic conflict may be unnecessary. At $30/barrel, there wasn't enough cash there to make everyone happy. Even the $30 wasn't clear profit, as the Iraqi infrastructure would have absorbed a lot of it. But $120 is a whole new ballgame. Just on the back of an envelope, it looks like Iraq would have enough money to bring all the Shiites into the middle class and let the formerly prosperous Sunni administrative and professional class be prosperous again. Subtract the economic imperative, and there may not be enough enmity left for a civil war.
Arabs are historically very good at math (think "Al Gebra") and the thought may have occurred to them as well. They need to stop killing one another in order to get rid of the occupation and cash in. There is so much cash available that the corrupt political class (essentially a redundant phrase) can become spectacularly rich without depriving their less privileged supporters.
I'm going to now predict that a combination of fatigue and greed will lead to a modus vivendi in Iraq among the factions. One of the conditions will be that Americans leave. The super embassy in Baghdad may become an issue. But the violence will decline and we'll eventually stop spending our resources there, so we can devote them to the consequences of food riots elsewhere.
I have never claimed to understand the Iraqi mind, so I never tried to say for sure how far they would go with their antipathies towards one another. Pretty clearly, the Kurds despised the Arabs, probably with more fervor and more justification than the Sunni/Shiite split within the Arab community. I have felt all along that the Kurds would not give up their share of oil, about 40% compared with their 20% representation in the population. This meant that the remaining 60% of oil revenue would perforce be divided among the 80% of Iraqis who are Arabs. I was pretty sure that the economic conflict would form on sectarian lines and would be bloody.
But the economic conflict may be unnecessary. At $30/barrel, there wasn't enough cash there to make everyone happy. Even the $30 wasn't clear profit, as the Iraqi infrastructure would have absorbed a lot of it. But $120 is a whole new ballgame. Just on the back of an envelope, it looks like Iraq would have enough money to bring all the Shiites into the middle class and let the formerly prosperous Sunni administrative and professional class be prosperous again. Subtract the economic imperative, and there may not be enough enmity left for a civil war.
Arabs are historically very good at math (think "Al Gebra") and the thought may have occurred to them as well. They need to stop killing one another in order to get rid of the occupation and cash in. There is so much cash available that the corrupt political class (essentially a redundant phrase) can become spectacularly rich without depriving their less privileged supporters.
I'm going to now predict that a combination of fatigue and greed will lead to a modus vivendi in Iraq among the factions. One of the conditions will be that Americans leave. The super embassy in Baghdad may become an issue. But the violence will decline and we'll eventually stop spending our resources there, so we can devote them to the consequences of food riots elsewhere.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Plagiarism in the Digital World
In my previous post on Clergygate, I remarked that ideas should not be held responsible for their supporters. It wasn't an original idea. In fact, it may have been almost the same wording that someone else used earlier, although that person in turn may have borrowed the phrase. I could try to track it down, since search engines make the job so much easier now, but it's not worth the effort.
I will simply admit that I don't invent every phrase I use. It would be almost impossible to track down everything we know we're borrowing, let alone the many phrases that our subconscious minds allow us to think are original but which came largely intact from some previous source.
Surely, it shouldn't matter when political candidates borrow freely. In February, Obama was accused by the Clinton campaign of plagiarism in a speech. Who cares? We don't elect people to office with the idea that their platforms are original. Why should it matter if they language in support that closely mimics some prior speech by someone else?
Especially since almost no words that come out of a candidates mouth are his own anyway. They are produced by speechwriters. Does anyone think that George W. Bush actually composes his thoughts in the language you hear from him in formal situations? Not likely. But no one accuses him of plagiarizing his own speechwriter. If we're going to demand originality, let's be consistent.
I will simply admit that I don't invent every phrase I use. It would be almost impossible to track down everything we know we're borrowing, let alone the many phrases that our subconscious minds allow us to think are original but which came largely intact from some previous source.
Surely, it shouldn't matter when political candidates borrow freely. In February, Obama was accused by the Clinton campaign of plagiarism in a speech. Who cares? We don't elect people to office with the idea that their platforms are original. Why should it matter if they language in support that closely mimics some prior speech by someone else?
Especially since almost no words that come out of a candidates mouth are his own anyway. They are produced by speechwriters. Does anyone think that George W. Bush actually composes his thoughts in the language you hear from him in formal situations? Not likely. But no one accuses him of plagiarizing his own speechwriter. If we're going to demand originality, let's be consistent.
Being responsible for supporters
I recall several years ago when I formed an organization known as OLL -- Oregonians to Limit Lawyers. It was a small organization, consisting of precisely myself and my mimeograph machine. OK, it wasn't technically a mimeograph, but the I like to recall it that way as a more colorful story. As an organization, however, it was definitely just me.
Our platform, using "our" in the imperial form now, was that there were already too many lawyers in Oregon and the private law schools at Willamette and Lewis & Clark were sufficient. The University of Oregon should close its. I sent out a memo to all the candidates for the state legislature, asking for their position. It was a campaign year and indeed, a few responded. Most ignored me.
I actually got a little publicity out of it and people sent me letters. One guy even sent a check, which helped cover my printing and mailing costs. Unfortunately, they seemed generally to be nut cases. I felt then, and feel now, that we have too many lawyers and the state should get out of the business of producing more of what taxpayers want less of. But it became clear that this position attracted an undesirable number of wackos, so I dropped the campaign.
I remember this situation as I watch the current presidential campaign unfold, with candidates now busily trying to explain their relationships with clergymen whose views on public matters make my anti-lawyer adherents look statesmanlike.
This is sad. Ideas should not be regarded as responsible for their supporters. No one (except perhaps some talk show host somewhere) has ever suggested that Barack Obama planned to take advise from Jeremiah Wright should he be elected, or that McCain shares Hagee's views on Hitler. As a practical matter, their support should not matter to the voter.
It's actually a bit more disturbing that although McCain now condemns Hagee's theoretical views, he hasn't moved an inch from the mindless pro-Israeli policies that Hagee's theology led him to. Obama is at least separate from Wright as regards practical impact. McCain seems like a nice guy, but when you consider that he thinks not only the Iraq War but, in retrospect, the Vietnam War as well have been good ideas, it worries me.
Our platform, using "our" in the imperial form now, was that there were already too many lawyers in Oregon and the private law schools at Willamette and Lewis & Clark were sufficient. The University of Oregon should close its. I sent out a memo to all the candidates for the state legislature, asking for their position. It was a campaign year and indeed, a few responded. Most ignored me.
I actually got a little publicity out of it and people sent me letters. One guy even sent a check, which helped cover my printing and mailing costs. Unfortunately, they seemed generally to be nut cases. I felt then, and feel now, that we have too many lawyers and the state should get out of the business of producing more of what taxpayers want less of. But it became clear that this position attracted an undesirable number of wackos, so I dropped the campaign.
I remember this situation as I watch the current presidential campaign unfold, with candidates now busily trying to explain their relationships with clergymen whose views on public matters make my anti-lawyer adherents look statesmanlike.
This is sad. Ideas should not be regarded as responsible for their supporters. No one (except perhaps some talk show host somewhere) has ever suggested that Barack Obama planned to take advise from Jeremiah Wright should he be elected, or that McCain shares Hagee's views on Hitler. As a practical matter, their support should not matter to the voter.
It's actually a bit more disturbing that although McCain now condemns Hagee's theoretical views, he hasn't moved an inch from the mindless pro-Israeli policies that Hagee's theology led him to. Obama is at least separate from Wright as regards practical impact. McCain seems like a nice guy, but when you consider that he thinks not only the Iraq War but, in retrospect, the Vietnam War as well have been good ideas, it worries me.
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Problem of the Median Home Buyer is Nonsense
I have a keen ear for statistical nonsense. Once again, I hear that it's a
great crisis in this country that a person with the median income cannot afford the cost of the median home in his area. This is not only not a crisis, it's something close to a mathematical certainty.
Not quite, because it's not certain that the average person will pay as much for a house as he can afford. Some will buy homes that are well within their abilities, although it is now clear that some others were spending above that level. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that builders will build enough home at every price level that everyone can find a home at the highest price they can afford, which is not true but good enough to make this point.
However, not everyone will buy a home. Even though in America, there is a very high level of home ownership, there is still a segment of the population that will be unable for economic reasons to own a home. Usually, this is a question of income.
About 31% of housing units are occupied by non-owners. Add to that the number of people who don't occupy any housing, i.e. the homeless, deduct the number who are simply happy renting. For the sake of argument, let's call it 20% who would buy a home if they could but haven't got enough income.
Then the class of Americans who would be buying and selling homes is about 80%. The median among them would buy the median home, which is what they can afford (see assumption above). That would be the median of the top 80%, or the 60th percentile overall.
Consequently, people with the median income among all Americans would be around the 38th percentile of home buyers and would NOT be able to afford the type of home which someone at the 50th percentile of home buyers could afford.
This does not say that there isn't a housing price problem. One of our greatest problems is that when we're in our working years, we think we can "save" for our retirement by buying oversized houses which we expect to sell at still higher rates to the next generation so we can live off the capital gain. It's a national "greater fool" theory.
We need to be living more modestly, perhaps renting more often, and putting our money collectively into roads, bridges, and the like, and individually into productive parts of the economy. We can then leave a legacy to the next generation which will allow them to support themselves and us as well. Creating national wealth by building houses is foolishness.
great crisis in this country that a person with the median income cannot afford the cost of the median home in his area. This is not only not a crisis, it's something close to a mathematical certainty.
Not quite, because it's not certain that the average person will pay as much for a house as he can afford. Some will buy homes that are well within their abilities, although it is now clear that some others were spending above that level. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that builders will build enough home at every price level that everyone can find a home at the highest price they can afford, which is not true but good enough to make this point.
However, not everyone will buy a home. Even though in America, there is a very high level of home ownership, there is still a segment of the population that will be unable for economic reasons to own a home. Usually, this is a question of income.
About 31% of housing units are occupied by non-owners. Add to that the number of people who don't occupy any housing, i.e. the homeless, deduct the number who are simply happy renting. For the sake of argument, let's call it 20% who would buy a home if they could but haven't got enough income.
Then the class of Americans who would be buying and selling homes is about 80%. The median among them would buy the median home, which is what they can afford (see assumption above). That would be the median of the top 80%, or the 60th percentile overall.
Consequently, people with the median income among all Americans would be around the 38th percentile of home buyers and would NOT be able to afford the type of home which someone at the 50th percentile of home buyers could afford.
This does not say that there isn't a housing price problem. One of our greatest problems is that when we're in our working years, we think we can "save" for our retirement by buying oversized houses which we expect to sell at still higher rates to the next generation so we can live off the capital gain. It's a national "greater fool" theory.
We need to be living more modestly, perhaps renting more often, and putting our money collectively into roads, bridges, and the like, and individually into productive parts of the economy. We can then leave a legacy to the next generation which will allow them to support themselves and us as well. Creating national wealth by building houses is foolishness.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Not so quick, Wall Street
Things seem to be looking up in the financial markets. optimism has returned, it seems.
This is a little premature. Remember that although 1929 had the Great Crash in October, November was a pretty good month. Overall, 1929 wasn't a bad year. 1930 was a bad year. As was 1931, 1932, ...
The usual cycle involves things getting good, people getting too optimistic and overexpanding, then pulling back at the same time. Eventually, demand is unmet and expansion begins again.
This cycle was different. We drove consumption upwards while manufacturing migrated overseas. The engine was, as economists and journalists kept telling us, the housing market, which remained robust even as the trade deficit rose.
The housing market is bust and it isn't going to be fixed. We'll of course need some housing, but not on the same scale. Manufacturing will also not rebound. We haven't had plants cutting overtime, they've just been closing down. They aren't there anymore. And because we aren't really into engineering in this country, the likelihood that the next generation of world class manufacturing will take place in America is slight.
Jobs growth in April came in unsustainable areas -- education, health, government. These are things we do for ourselves. If we want to continue to import what we need and/or want, we need to have something to barter with.
What we produce that the world wants, in exchange for the oil to which we are addicted, isn't a lot. Food, certainly. Some raw materials. A handful of manufactured goods where we're still near the top, like commercial aircraft and software. We also have tourism and higher education, but they aren't significant in the big trade picture. The dollar will fall further and we'll be required to consume less, as foreigners lose interest in funding our consumption. This recession is going to continue for a long time.
This is a little premature. Remember that although 1929 had the Great Crash in October, November was a pretty good month. Overall, 1929 wasn't a bad year. 1930 was a bad year. As was 1931, 1932, ...
The usual cycle involves things getting good, people getting too optimistic and overexpanding, then pulling back at the same time. Eventually, demand is unmet and expansion begins again.
This cycle was different. We drove consumption upwards while manufacturing migrated overseas. The engine was, as economists and journalists kept telling us, the housing market, which remained robust even as the trade deficit rose.
The housing market is bust and it isn't going to be fixed. We'll of course need some housing, but not on the same scale. Manufacturing will also not rebound. We haven't had plants cutting overtime, they've just been closing down. They aren't there anymore. And because we aren't really into engineering in this country, the likelihood that the next generation of world class manufacturing will take place in America is slight.
Jobs growth in April came in unsustainable areas -- education, health, government. These are things we do for ourselves. If we want to continue to import what we need and/or want, we need to have something to barter with.
What we produce that the world wants, in exchange for the oil to which we are addicted, isn't a lot. Food, certainly. Some raw materials. A handful of manufactured goods where we're still near the top, like commercial aircraft and software. We also have tourism and higher education, but they aren't significant in the big trade picture. The dollar will fall further and we'll be required to consume less, as foreigners lose interest in funding our consumption. This recession is going to continue for a long time.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Five uncomfortable truths
I'm not usually much of a fan of Thomas Friedman but his editorial this morning was one of his better efforts. "Who will tell the people?" he wants to know. They want to hear the truth, he believes. They want to know what it would take to make America great again. I doubt it, since any politician who tries is successfully beaten down by idiocy, over and over, everywhere, all the time. However, since he brought the subject up, here are five truths to tell the American people.
First, our medical system is atrociously inefficient. We spend more than any other industrialized country with nothing on balance to show for it. We have spectacular abilities in certain specialized areas and we lead in research, but we are crushing our manufacturing sector with costs that other nations do not have.
Second, we have too many lawyers and accountants. Other countries have fewer of these and more engineers. Our children enter the fields where the money is, and as long as we reward people for gaming the system more than engineers who contribute to productivity, we're going to misdirect our best minds.
Third, we use too much oil and we must reduce our use whatever it takes. The first thing it should take is increased cost. Simultaneously, in fact with the tax money that drives up the cost, we should engage in massive research to make our energy use more efficient in general, and less dependent on oil in particular. Drilling in Alaska isn't going to do anything but postpone the inevitable by a year.
Fourth, not all teachers are created equal. I have nothing but respect for people who teach first grade or art, but their skills are not as difficult to find in the market as those of a high school physics teacher. Teachers with real world experience are more valuable than those who have done nothing since college outside of classrooms. The NEA mantras on these subjects are debilitating to education.
Fifth, we can't win the war on drugs. Some people are going to abuse drugs. Not a lot, but some. Let 'em go. Offer free treatment to those who want to get off drug dependency, offer cheap drugs to the addicts so they will stop burglarizing homes to pay for their habits. This is an enormously expensive undertaking with almost nothing to show for it.
None of these positions are politically possible. Even the modest idea of HMOs has been torpedoed by Americans' wish to have no constraints on their use of the highest cost treatment conceivable. The lawyers represent an enormously powerful lobby and for some reason, their argument that they help the little guy is hard to counter. Higher gas prices mean short term discomfort, which nobody will support. The NEA has successfully equated support for teacher unionism with support for education. And no politician can be seen as "soft on drugs."
I'm certainly not the first to identify any of these issues. However, they come up against the sacred cows of both left and right. It's not that Americans don't hear the truth. They don't want to listen.
First, our medical system is atrociously inefficient. We spend more than any other industrialized country with nothing on balance to show for it. We have spectacular abilities in certain specialized areas and we lead in research, but we are crushing our manufacturing sector with costs that other nations do not have.
Second, we have too many lawyers and accountants. Other countries have fewer of these and more engineers. Our children enter the fields where the money is, and as long as we reward people for gaming the system more than engineers who contribute to productivity, we're going to misdirect our best minds.
Third, we use too much oil and we must reduce our use whatever it takes. The first thing it should take is increased cost. Simultaneously, in fact with the tax money that drives up the cost, we should engage in massive research to make our energy use more efficient in general, and less dependent on oil in particular. Drilling in Alaska isn't going to do anything but postpone the inevitable by a year.
Fourth, not all teachers are created equal. I have nothing but respect for people who teach first grade or art, but their skills are not as difficult to find in the market as those of a high school physics teacher. Teachers with real world experience are more valuable than those who have done nothing since college outside of classrooms. The NEA mantras on these subjects are debilitating to education.
Fifth, we can't win the war on drugs. Some people are going to abuse drugs. Not a lot, but some. Let 'em go. Offer free treatment to those who want to get off drug dependency, offer cheap drugs to the addicts so they will stop burglarizing homes to pay for their habits. This is an enormously expensive undertaking with almost nothing to show for it.
None of these positions are politically possible. Even the modest idea of HMOs has been torpedoed by Americans' wish to have no constraints on their use of the highest cost treatment conceivable. The lawyers represent an enormously powerful lobby and for some reason, their argument that they help the little guy is hard to counter. Higher gas prices mean short term discomfort, which nobody will support. The NEA has successfully equated support for teacher unionism with support for education. And no politician can be seen as "soft on drugs."
I'm certainly not the first to identify any of these issues. However, they come up against the sacred cows of both left and right. It's not that Americans don't hear the truth. They don't want to listen.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Gas Tax Folly, the Endless Circle
John McCain is at least consistent, in his notion that we should get relief from the federal gas tax for a few months and just add it to the tab. Hillary Clinton thinks we should have it and pay with an excess profits tax. If for no other reason, I think I'd support Barack Obama for calling this the folly that it is.
We are not in this situation because of greed. Everyone is greedy and always has been, yet five years ago, petroleum fetched about a third of what it does now. The change has been supply and demand, notably the rapid rise of Chinese consumption.
What we need is not a drop in the tax, but a $1 increase. The intent would be to deliberately reduce U.S. demand, which would lead to lower prices for the product. The net effect would be less than $1 for Americans. In the longer term, we could reduce demand by advancing our technology, and we should but we can't do this overnight.
Any demagogic proposal to cut the tax this summer, when supply pressure is already likely to be at its worst, should be denounced. Obama wins this one.
We are not in this situation because of greed. Everyone is greedy and always has been, yet five years ago, petroleum fetched about a third of what it does now. The change has been supply and demand, notably the rapid rise of Chinese consumption.
What we need is not a drop in the tax, but a $1 increase. The intent would be to deliberately reduce U.S. demand, which would lead to lower prices for the product. The net effect would be less than $1 for Americans. In the longer term, we could reduce demand by advancing our technology, and we should but we can't do this overnight.
Any demagogic proposal to cut the tax this summer, when supply pressure is already likely to be at its worst, should be denounced. Obama wins this one.
American Generosity Courtesy of China
The Bush Administration has proposed an increase in the level of food assistance provided by the United States. We should all feel proud of this latest example of American generosity.
Except, of course, that we're not paying for it. If George W. Bush had said to the American people, "There are folks starving all around the world. I want each of you to dig into your pockets and come up with $2 to help them," he would have received about almost nothing. If he had asked Congress to institute a new tax that would generate $770 million to cover the aid, he would have been denounced by his own party.
Instead, it's another appropriation with no funding, which means more public debt. Just doing back of an envelope work, it's looking like half a trillion annually to cover the never-ending rise in the monthly cost of Iraq/Afghanistan, the economic stimulus, and slowing revenues due to the recession.
I remember when half a trillion would have been serious money, enough to get people talking, political candidates posturing, and headlines blaring. Not anymore.
Except, of course, that we're not paying for it. If George W. Bush had said to the American people, "There are folks starving all around the world. I want each of you to dig into your pockets and come up with $2 to help them," he would have received about almost nothing. If he had asked Congress to institute a new tax that would generate $770 million to cover the aid, he would have been denounced by his own party.
Instead, it's another appropriation with no funding, which means more public debt. Just doing back of an envelope work, it's looking like half a trillion annually to cover the never-ending rise in the monthly cost of Iraq/Afghanistan, the economic stimulus, and slowing revenues due to the recession.
I remember when half a trillion would have been serious money, enough to get people talking, political candidates posturing, and headlines blaring. Not anymore.
Less Good News than Meets the Eye
Wall Street is delighted that the April jobs report shows fewer jobs lost than anticipated and fewer than previous months. On closer inspection, though, we see the usual pattern of earlier months being adjusted downward. The revised figures show more than a quarter million jobs lost in the first four months of the year. There's a good chance that April will be worse than 20,000 when the dust settles in another 60 days.
Worse than that is that the nearly neutral effect of April was achieved by offsetting huge loses in manufacturing and construction with gains in services and government. Generally, a service job is probably worth half one of the first two, so from an economic standpoint, this wasn't neutral at all.
And government jobs are rising. One wonders how this could be. Except for the feds, who simply print whatever amount of money they need, governments are limited roughly by tax receipts, which are falling short of expectations. Apparently they haven't yet adjusted payrolls but it's just a matter of time.
Here in Oregon, the process will be distressing. The annual budget cycle for most less-than-statewide units is intense in May. The figures everyone is using assumes that whatever money has been coming from the state, which is most important for schools and community colleges, will stay at the level promised a year ago. A new state tax projection should be coming out within a few days. When it shows another sharp decline, a lot of those budgets, and hence hiring expectations, are going to need revisions.
Worse than that is that the nearly neutral effect of April was achieved by offsetting huge loses in manufacturing and construction with gains in services and government. Generally, a service job is probably worth half one of the first two, so from an economic standpoint, this wasn't neutral at all.
And government jobs are rising. One wonders how this could be. Except for the feds, who simply print whatever amount of money they need, governments are limited roughly by tax receipts, which are falling short of expectations. Apparently they haven't yet adjusted payrolls but it's just a matter of time.
Here in Oregon, the process will be distressing. The annual budget cycle for most less-than-statewide units is intense in May. The figures everyone is using assumes that whatever money has been coming from the state, which is most important for schools and community colleges, will stay at the level promised a year ago. A new state tax projection should be coming out within a few days. When it shows another sharp decline, a lot of those budgets, and hence hiring expectations, are going to need revisions.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Miley Cyrus Crisis
I would make some superior comments about the stench of hypocrisy, but it doesn't even rise to that level. This is just froth. Miley Cyrus, aka Hannah Montana, has showed that at 15, she has the beginnings of a woman's body and this has shocked the world. A large number of people think she should apologize for the photos Annie Leibovitz took for Vanity Fair.
Miley and her family are retroactively upset. Disney is wildly upset. Parents are furious. Bill O'Reilly is incensed.
And from all of this ...
Vanity Fair will sell more magazines. Annie Leibovitz will get higher fees. Disney will not cancel the show and will continue to reap huge profits. Parents will say nothing to their daughters, or they'd need to explain why showing less skin than is evident on any day at the beach is cause for alarm. The daughters will remain fans because either (a) they don't understand, or (b) they do. An increased number of teenage boys will become fans. Bill O'Reilly will return his attention to Rev. Wright.
And if this turns out to be the wildest moment that a girl who has been earning millions of dollars in the entertainment industry indulges in before she turns 16, then Billy Ray deserves Father of the Year. Nobody needs to apologize to Annie, who has seen all this before.
Miley and her family are retroactively upset. Disney is wildly upset. Parents are furious. Bill O'Reilly is incensed.
And from all of this ...
Vanity Fair will sell more magazines. Annie Leibovitz will get higher fees. Disney will not cancel the show and will continue to reap huge profits. Parents will say nothing to their daughters, or they'd need to explain why showing less skin than is evident on any day at the beach is cause for alarm. The daughters will remain fans because either (a) they don't understand, or (b) they do. An increased number of teenage boys will become fans. Bill O'Reilly will return his attention to Rev. Wright.
And if this turns out to be the wildest moment that a girl who has been earning millions of dollars in the entertainment industry indulges in before she turns 16, then Billy Ray deserves Father of the Year. Nobody needs to apologize to Annie, who has seen all this before.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Stimulus? More like gasoline compensation
The United States consumes about 150 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Prices are higher by about $1 in the last year. That means that the entire benefit of the federal "stimulus" payments to American taxpayers will be enough to offset the increase in gas costs.
If the increase went to American producers, then it would at least recycle to some degree, but all the increase is due to the rise in oil prices. More than half of that now goes to foreigners.
What little stays home is going to large oil companies. Do you think that transferring billions of dollars of federal government money to them will offset the catastrophe in housing? I doubt it.
If the increase went to American producers, then it would at least recycle to some degree, but all the increase is due to the rise in oil prices. More than half of that now goes to foreigners.
What little stays home is going to large oil companies. Do you think that transferring billions of dollars of federal government money to them will offset the catastrophe in housing? I doubt it.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Education spending priorities
The SMART program in Oregon, which uses volunteers to assist students with reading, is being cut. The paid coordinators, numbering about 200, are getting axed in order to save about a million dollars. This despite the fact that taking part in SMART boosts a child's chance of passing the state reading standards by about 60%.
Put this in perspective. Statewide, public spending on K-12 education runs about $4 billion a year. Some 200 coordinators, costing $8 to $11/hour, make SMART happen, along with other private sector contributions. Why are the schools letting this happen?
First, I suppose, because the coordinators would be unionized and with benefits, vacations, etc. would cost twice as much as now. More importantly, volunteers are never embraced by the public schools because they constitute such a danger to the chief argument for high teacher pay. Which is that public teachers are highly educated in their specialties and are consequently much better at teaching.
I'm not questioning that some academic specialties, such as teaching calculus and physics in high school, can't be replaced by ordinary volunteers. Nor do I doubt that there are dedicated and effective teachers who are worth everything they're paid and more. I do doubt that the ownership of a masters degree in education has much to do with it, or even more than a tiny amount of "teach ed" classes for undergrads.
An intelligently organized system of education will use all the assets available to the maximum possible, in order to get the best results for the money. There may be times when you need specialists. On the other hand, without much apparent effect, we taxpayers employ specialists in bi-lingual education to attempt to bring Hispanic children up to fluency in English.
The low-cost alternative is to locate the Hispanic children at age five and figuratively plunk them down in sandboxes with a greater number of English-speaking five-year-olds for a few months. Not only are five-year-olds more effective at this than highly educated adults, they will do it for free. All we need to do is build the sandboxes and employ some adult to keep little Johnny from hitting Maria with his shovel.
The great myth is that the optimum strategy is to employ the most skilled possible people to perform every function, even if you then cannot do enough. This was the issue when I ran for the Lane Community College Board (three times, unsuccessfully). It has not been resolved there either.
Put this in perspective. Statewide, public spending on K-12 education runs about $4 billion a year. Some 200 coordinators, costing $8 to $11/hour, make SMART happen, along with other private sector contributions. Why are the schools letting this happen?
First, I suppose, because the coordinators would be unionized and with benefits, vacations, etc. would cost twice as much as now. More importantly, volunteers are never embraced by the public schools because they constitute such a danger to the chief argument for high teacher pay. Which is that public teachers are highly educated in their specialties and are consequently much better at teaching.
I'm not questioning that some academic specialties, such as teaching calculus and physics in high school, can't be replaced by ordinary volunteers. Nor do I doubt that there are dedicated and effective teachers who are worth everything they're paid and more. I do doubt that the ownership of a masters degree in education has much to do with it, or even more than a tiny amount of "teach ed" classes for undergrads.
An intelligently organized system of education will use all the assets available to the maximum possible, in order to get the best results for the money. There may be times when you need specialists. On the other hand, without much apparent effect, we taxpayers employ specialists in bi-lingual education to attempt to bring Hispanic children up to fluency in English.
The low-cost alternative is to locate the Hispanic children at age five and figuratively plunk them down in sandboxes with a greater number of English-speaking five-year-olds for a few months. Not only are five-year-olds more effective at this than highly educated adults, they will do it for free. All we need to do is build the sandboxes and employ some adult to keep little Johnny from hitting Maria with his shovel.
The great myth is that the optimum strategy is to employ the most skilled possible people to perform every function, even if you then cannot do enough. This was the issue when I ran for the Lane Community College Board (three times, unsuccessfully). It has not been resolved there either.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The China/Zimbabwe crisis
Some people are taking the isssue of Chinese ship carrying arms to Zimbabwe as posing a problem for China. I doubt it. It should pose an ethical problem for the United States, but I also doubt that it will be recognized as such.
The idea is supposed to be that the Chinese will be discomfited by the prospect of supplying arms to Mugabe after his regime has effectively been voted out of power. This ignores the simple fact that China has never had a problem dealing with Mugabe because there is nothing that Mugabe does to Zimbabweans that the Chinese government doesn't do to its own citizens. In spades. There isn't really even a pretense of democracy in China, so why should they be upset that Mugabe indulges in the pretense and then abrogates it.
This should be a problem for the United States. China is a world power today because we have decided to buy everything they can manufacture, which is most everything we consume. They have no political ethics that we would recognize. Thugs like Mugabe will stay in power because of our obsession with having our consumers goods at the least apparent cost. The situation would be a wakeup call. I'm not holding my breath.
The idea is supposed to be that the Chinese will be discomfited by the prospect of supplying arms to Mugabe after his regime has effectively been voted out of power. This ignores the simple fact that China has never had a problem dealing with Mugabe because there is nothing that Mugabe does to Zimbabweans that the Chinese government doesn't do to its own citizens. In spades. There isn't really even a pretense of democracy in China, so why should they be upset that Mugabe indulges in the pretense and then abrogates it.
This should be a problem for the United States. China is a world power today because we have decided to buy everything they can manufacture, which is most everything we consume. They have no political ethics that we would recognize. Thugs like Mugabe will stay in power because of our obsession with having our consumers goods at the least apparent cost. The situation would be a wakeup call. I'm not holding my breath.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Suffering under Rhodesian colonialism
An AP story describes Mugabe's initial reputation for reconciliation, mentioning that he had offered concessions to whites in 1980. It also states that black africans had suffered under white rule for decades before that.
What exactly does that mean? Prior to white colonists, the population was 710,000. It then grew above 10 million. Life expectancy rose. Literacy, previously zero, became fairly high. Intertribal wars vanished.
Without any question, the whites did not see any likelihood that they could or should turn over the management or ownership of the large farms they had created, and which had produced the excess food that made the population growth possible, to blacks. The general opinion of the outside world at the time of Mugabe's guerrila war was that the whites were just narrow bigots.
Black majority rule has been in place for almost 30 years. Life expectancy is plummeting, and certainly not just due to AIDS. Education is declining. Unemployment is 80%. Inflation is in six figures. Exercising your democratic rights can cost you your life. The seized white farms, formerly productive, are now running at subsistence level or less.
Exactly what did Ian Smith get wrong?
What exactly does that mean? Prior to white colonists, the population was 710,000. It then grew above 10 million. Life expectancy rose. Literacy, previously zero, became fairly high. Intertribal wars vanished.
Without any question, the whites did not see any likelihood that they could or should turn over the management or ownership of the large farms they had created, and which had produced the excess food that made the population growth possible, to blacks. The general opinion of the outside world at the time of Mugabe's guerrila war was that the whites were just narrow bigots.
Black majority rule has been in place for almost 30 years. Life expectancy is plummeting, and certainly not just due to AIDS. Education is declining. Unemployment is 80%. Inflation is in six figures. Exercising your democratic rights can cost you your life. The seized white farms, formerly productive, are now running at subsistence level or less.
Exactly what did Ian Smith get wrong?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Iraq isn't Germany
Once again, I read in the newspaper this morning that there are parallels between Germany in 1945 and Iraq now. Would that this were so. But isn't.
Starting at the top, George W. Bush isn't a reincarnation of FDR and Bremner was not Marshall. This was managed badly. But it must be remembered that the project was sold to the American people on two premises. First, that Saddam had WMD of which he must be deprived. Second, that the process would be brief and relatively inexpensive.
It would simply have been impossible to go into Iraq with the public knowing that they were looking at a trillion dollar cost stretching over a decade. It was a few tens of millions and we would be out of there in a matter of months. After WW II, we knew what we had to do in Germany, which was to make sure that we didn't do it again. The Germans were thoroughly beaten and knew it. They and everyone else accepted that they had started the war and however the Allies dealt with them, they had no moral cause for complaint.
The Iraqis could be, and generally were, grateful for the overthrow of Saddam, but they then wanted to run their own affairs. By our standards, they would have done so badly, but if ensuring that people have functioning democracies is an imperative, why haven't we invaded Burma or Zimbabwe?
When we leave Iraq, which can't be a moment too soon, we will leave a mess. Whenever we leave, and it's not likely to get any better. The world is full of messes. True, we exacerbated this one, but it's time to cut our losses.
Starting at the top, George W. Bush isn't a reincarnation of FDR and Bremner was not Marshall. This was managed badly. But it must be remembered that the project was sold to the American people on two premises. First, that Saddam had WMD of which he must be deprived. Second, that the process would be brief and relatively inexpensive.
It would simply have been impossible to go into Iraq with the public knowing that they were looking at a trillion dollar cost stretching over a decade. It was a few tens of millions and we would be out of there in a matter of months. After WW II, we knew what we had to do in Germany, which was to make sure that we didn't do it again. The Germans were thoroughly beaten and knew it. They and everyone else accepted that they had started the war and however the Allies dealt with them, they had no moral cause for complaint.
The Iraqis could be, and generally were, grateful for the overthrow of Saddam, but they then wanted to run their own affairs. By our standards, they would have done so badly, but if ensuring that people have functioning democracies is an imperative, why haven't we invaded Burma or Zimbabwe?
When we leave Iraq, which can't be a moment too soon, we will leave a mess. Whenever we leave, and it's not likely to get any better. The world is full of messes. True, we exacerbated this one, but it's time to cut our losses.
The Zimbabwe Civil War
The odds are increasing that Zimbabwe will descend into civil war as Mugabe has figured out that his neighbors won't do anything about him. He'll play the anti-colonial card to the end. That will continue to work with his core supporters, who don't understand economic reality at all, but the millions who will starve may develop a working hypothesis that Mugabe is the root cause.
At some point, a large number of blacks will form a working partnership with the white farmers. We will then see whether the Western democracies, which were so keen on booting out Ian Smith and "liberating" the country thirty years ago, will have the stomach to stay with him this time. I'm guessing they won't.
At some point, a large number of blacks will form a working partnership with the white farmers. We will then see whether the Western democracies, which were so keen on booting out Ian Smith and "liberating" the country thirty years ago, will have the stomach to stay with him this time. I'm guessing they won't.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Whither Zimbabwe
A hundred years ago, the population of what is now Zimbabwe was perhaps 6% of what it is now. It was possible to feed and house the former population with the attitudes toward social and economic organization that then prevailed. However, the current population is unsustainable without white farmers.
Life expectancy has fallen by about a quarter century since Robert Mugabe "liberated" his countrymen from the oppression of white people. Nevertheless, total population continues to rise. There is simply no way to sustain the population without persuading some of the diaspora to return, but instead, the regime is intent on driving away the few who remain.
Death, as someone once said, is nature's way of telling you to slow down. It's also nature's way of balancing resources and requirements in a population. I doubt that Mugabe's new cleansed Zimbabwe will be able to feed more than three or four million, and with food suddenly no longer in surplus worldwide, it would take an act of serious altruism for donor nations to make up the difference.
The future of Zimbabwe is death on an unprecedented scale. There's little to be done to prevent it. The politics of race in Africa is such that those who have some influence, such as the rulers of South Africa, will not act because to do would be to admit that Robert Mugabe did not produce an improvement in the lives of black Africans and that maybe Ian Smith was not evil.
Instead, they will prevaricate while many, eventually millions of, Zimbabweans die. I wish I could feel more empathy, but when a people collectively commit suicide with their eyes wide open, I figure it's their choice. Not a wise choice, but not one that we are required to overturn.
Life expectancy has fallen by about a quarter century since Robert Mugabe "liberated" his countrymen from the oppression of white people. Nevertheless, total population continues to rise. There is simply no way to sustain the population without persuading some of the diaspora to return, but instead, the regime is intent on driving away the few who remain.
Death, as someone once said, is nature's way of telling you to slow down. It's also nature's way of balancing resources and requirements in a population. I doubt that Mugabe's new cleansed Zimbabwe will be able to feed more than three or four million, and with food suddenly no longer in surplus worldwide, it would take an act of serious altruism for donor nations to make up the difference.
The future of Zimbabwe is death on an unprecedented scale. There's little to be done to prevent it. The politics of race in Africa is such that those who have some influence, such as the rulers of South Africa, will not act because to do would be to admit that Robert Mugabe did not produce an improvement in the lives of black Africans and that maybe Ian Smith was not evil.
Instead, they will prevaricate while many, eventually millions of, Zimbabweans die. I wish I could feel more empathy, but when a people collectively commit suicide with their eyes wide open, I figure it's their choice. Not a wise choice, but not one that we are required to overturn.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Gluttony is an Economic Sin, too
I've never been quite sure why the church views gluttony as a sin. Makes you unhealthy and unattractive, but it seems mostly a personal failing. On the other hand, it might be viewed as a sign when the consequence of one person's gluttony is his neighbor's hunger.
We may be moving away from that into a new era, where gluttony is an economic sin as well. We've known for a long time that the American eating habits could not be sustained worldwide without some incredible, and probably physically impossible, increase in food production. This was not a problem as long as the rest of the world was sufficiently poor that they couldn't compete economically for the foodstuffs.
Unfortunately for Americans, the rest of the world is getting rapidly more prosperous and they are developing a taste for more, better, and less efficient (e.g. meat) diets. In addition, there have been some droughts and stuff, but mostly it's demand rather than supply.
If Americans had a lot of self-discipline, this would be an opportunity. We could cut down on our excess consumption of calories and increase our exports, thereby paying for the manufactured goods we love and don't manufacture anymore. More likely, we'll continue to overeat and drive up the cost of our food.
It's time to put food and energy back into the "core" inflation rate. There were taken out, years ago, in order to have a number that changed less month-to-month, but this only works if the fluctuations in food and energy average out. They aren't doing this. Oil going from $30 to $115 is not a fluctuation, it's a sea change.
We may be moving away from that into a new era, where gluttony is an economic sin as well. We've known for a long time that the American eating habits could not be sustained worldwide without some incredible, and probably physically impossible, increase in food production. This was not a problem as long as the rest of the world was sufficiently poor that they couldn't compete economically for the foodstuffs.
Unfortunately for Americans, the rest of the world is getting rapidly more prosperous and they are developing a taste for more, better, and less efficient (e.g. meat) diets. In addition, there have been some droughts and stuff, but mostly it's demand rather than supply.
If Americans had a lot of self-discipline, this would be an opportunity. We could cut down on our excess consumption of calories and increase our exports, thereby paying for the manufactured goods we love and don't manufacture anymore. More likely, we'll continue to overeat and drive up the cost of our food.
It's time to put food and energy back into the "core" inflation rate. There were taken out, years ago, in order to have a number that changed less month-to-month, but this only works if the fluctuations in food and energy average out. They aren't doing this. Oil going from $30 to $115 is not a fluctuation, it's a sea change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)