Mitt Romney's campaign has made a big deal of Jeep expanding its manufacturing in China, claiming Jeep is outsourcing jobs and blaming it on President Obama. Is he also going to blame George W. Bush for all the outsourcing that was done between 2000 and 2008?
The fact is that Jeep is expanding its total manufacturing, including manufacturing Jeeps where they will be sold.
What does he think of Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, Subaru, Mitsubishi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen having factories in the U.S.? Are they exporting jobs from their home countries? Or expanding closer to their markets. Maybe it's the shipping companies that should complain, all that trans-oceanic traffic that is lost and the associated jobs.
See "'Transplant' auto factories in USA turn 30 this year", James R. Healy, USA Today, 2012-04-03.
As Thomas Friedman wrote, "The World is Flat".
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Typo of the day, a "split vote"
"Some 1.9 Floridians have already voted…"
I have heard about split votes before, but this vote count really takes the prize.
This is what appeared in today's Star Tribune as "GOP steps up early vote" by Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times. As I write this, the above phrase still appears in the Star Tribune online edition at http://www.startribune.com/nation/176347891.html.
I don't know whether the original New York Times article had this same error, but the online edition at the time of this writing, titled "Early Voters, and a Hurricane, Change the Rhythm of Voting", has "Some 1.9 million Floridians have already voted…" The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/us/politics/millions-vote-early-changing-the-rhythm-of-the-campaigns.html.
I have heard about split votes before, but this vote count really takes the prize.
This is what appeared in today's Star Tribune as "GOP steps up early vote" by Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times. As I write this, the above phrase still appears in the Star Tribune online edition at http://www.startribune.com/nation/176347891.html.
I don't know whether the original New York Times article had this same error, but the online edition at the time of this writing, titled "Early Voters, and a Hurricane, Change the Rhythm of Voting", has "Some 1.9 million Floridians have already voted…" The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/us/politics/millions-vote-early-changing-the-rhythm-of-the-campaigns.html.
Mitt and FEMA, ideology trumps pragmatism and sympathy
See "A Big Storm Requires Big Government", New York Times, 2012-10-29.
I wonder how Mitt Romney thinks massive disaster relief by private corporations would work. "Before we rescue from your roof, would you please give us your credit card number?" "Before we spray your house with water as the forest fire gets closer, would you please give us your credit card number?" "Before we give you information about the hurricane's path, would you please…"
I wonder how Mitt Romney thinks massive disaster relief by private corporations would work. "Before we rescue from your roof, would you please give us your credit card number?" "Before we spray your house with water as the forest fire gets closer, would you please give us your credit card number?" "Before we give you information about the hurricane's path, would you please…"
Another inefficient corporation
When I bought my iPhone in September, I cancelled my Verizon Wireless account in favor of Virgin Mobile. I was told at the time by the Best Buy representative that I would have a cancellation fee of around $80 from Verizon.
When Verizon notified me in early October that I had an online statement, I thought I would pay that cancellation fee. Ha! Even though the statement showed an outstanding balance of $89.46, in the "Pay Bill" section, the amount was $0! The site wouldn't even let me pay the true balance online with my debit card. The site did say I would get a paper statement.
The due date was October 23, and so I had plenty of time to get the paper bill and write a check. And the paper bill did not come, and it did not come. Finally, about October 22, I looked up the phone number for "Contact Us". The woman that responded said that I could pay at such and such URL.
Surprise, at that URL I could pay, and I could pay with a debit card. I did and the payment has cleared my bank.
Yesterday, October 29, six days after the payment had been due, I received the paper bill. The paper bill states that I owe $89.46!
From my posts about Netflix, you know the Postal Service can provide next day service. If the sending post office is not within a day's drive of Duluth, Netflix states a DVD will be delivered within 3-5 days. If memory serves me right, the actual delivery is 2-3 days.
The Verizon bill was dated September 28. The only mail that takes over a week to arrive is mail that gets mis-delivered, stuck in a crevice somewhere, or is never sent promptly by the sender. I will go with the last. Is this a deceptive practice to hit me with a late payment fee or is this extreme inefficiency. I think the latter. Of course, if I were actually late with a regular payment, Verizon or many other vendors would promptly charge me with a late payment charge.
Thank you to Netflix, Best Buy, and many others for giving me counter-examples that show corporations can provide efficient customer service. It just goes to show that the management/ownership form of any organization doesn't predict its efficiency or effectiveness; the real guide is the kind of people in the organization – from top to bottom!
When Verizon notified me in early October that I had an online statement, I thought I would pay that cancellation fee. Ha! Even though the statement showed an outstanding balance of $89.46, in the "Pay Bill" section, the amount was $0! The site wouldn't even let me pay the true balance online with my debit card. The site did say I would get a paper statement.
The due date was October 23, and so I had plenty of time to get the paper bill and write a check. And the paper bill did not come, and it did not come. Finally, about October 22, I looked up the phone number for "Contact Us". The woman that responded said that I could pay at such and such URL.
Surprise, at that URL I could pay, and I could pay with a debit card. I did and the payment has cleared my bank.
Yesterday, October 29, six days after the payment had been due, I received the paper bill. The paper bill states that I owe $89.46!
From my posts about Netflix, you know the Postal Service can provide next day service. If the sending post office is not within a day's drive of Duluth, Netflix states a DVD will be delivered within 3-5 days. If memory serves me right, the actual delivery is 2-3 days.
The Verizon bill was dated September 28. The only mail that takes over a week to arrive is mail that gets mis-delivered, stuck in a crevice somewhere, or is never sent promptly by the sender. I will go with the last. Is this a deceptive practice to hit me with a late payment fee or is this extreme inefficiency. I think the latter. Of course, if I were actually late with a regular payment, Verizon or many other vendors would promptly charge me with a late payment charge.
Thank you to Netflix, Best Buy, and many others for giving me counter-examples that show corporations can provide efficient customer service. It just goes to show that the management/ownership form of any organization doesn't predict its efficiency or effectiveness; the real guide is the kind of people in the organization – from top to bottom!
How to vote intelligently
We went to a League of Women Voters meeting, supposedly to watch "Patriocracy", a movie about the divisiveness in this country. For some reason, the movie never made it to the meeting place. Instead we had an impromptu discussion about the subject.
One of the complaints voiced is how many news organizations don't separate fact from fiction, treating every pronouncement from politicians as fact, especially on TV.
I gave these four suggestions for voting intelligently:
Don't watch TV
Don't answer the phone
Read lots of newspapers
Show up and vote
If you don't follow my advice on the first three points, do me, yourself, and your country a favor by proudly acting on the fourth point.
One of the complaints voiced is how many news organizations don't separate fact from fiction, treating every pronouncement from politicians as fact, especially on TV.
I gave these four suggestions for voting intelligently:
Don't watch TV
Don't answer the phone
Read lots of newspapers
Show up and vote
If you don't follow my advice on the first three points, do me, yourself, and your country a favor by proudly acting on the fourth point.
If you're not scared this Hallowe'en, you should be
According to Frank Rich, win or lose, the Republicans are going to be very detrimental to our future. And these pseudo-conservatives won't be going away. See "Right will rage if Obama wins", David Daley, Salon, 2012-10-27.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Plutocracy and democracy
Someone on a facebook page asked what is plutocracy. I don't remember whether it was about all the money in politics or not. I answered that plutocracy meant rule of the wealthy. We certainly see it with the Koch brothers and Michael Bloomberg. The greatest danger of plutocracy is that it drives out participation by ordinary people, the essence of democracy.
I looked up plutocracy on Wiktionary and found this wonderful quote by G.K. Chesterton:
I looked up plutocracy on Wiktionary and found this wonderful quote by G.K. Chesterton:
"Modernity is not democracy; machinery is not democracy; the surrender of everything to trade and commerce is not democracy. Capitalism is not democracy; and is admittedly, by trend and savour, rather against democracy. Plutocracy by definition is not democracy. But all these modern things forced themselves into the world at about the time, or shortly after the time, when great idealists like Rousseau and Jefferson happened to have been thinking about the democratic ideal of democracy."
Why Read?
Fact: Reading can make you a better conversationalist.
Fact: Neighbors will never complain that your book is too loud.
Fact: Knowledge by osmosis has not yet been perfected. You'd better read.
Fact: Books have stopped bullets - reading might save your life.
Fact: Dinosaurs didn't read. Look what happened to them.
From an email from ABE Books.
Fact: Neighbors will never complain that your book is too loud.
Fact: Knowledge by osmosis has not yet been perfected. You'd better read.
Fact: Books have stopped bullets - reading might save your life.
Fact: Dinosaurs didn't read. Look what happened to them.
From an email from ABE Books.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Another quote from the past - flying
"Flying is like taking a very expensive Greyhound bus" - Shari Flasness
I found this as a note from the June meeting of the Italian Conversation Group at Sir Ben's in Duluth. The conversation is more often about travel to Italy than speaking Italian.
But Shari's expensive bus is starting to get poor maintenance. See "Fixing American Airlines", 2012-10-23, Jim Hightower, republished in the 2012-10-25 Reader Weekly.
I found this as a note from the June meeting of the Italian Conversation Group at Sir Ben's in Duluth. The conversation is more often about travel to Italy than speaking Italian.
But Shari's expensive bus is starting to get poor maintenance. See "Fixing American Airlines", 2012-10-23, Jim Hightower, republished in the 2012-10-25 Reader Weekly.
Quote of the day - Competition
"When, for instance, competition laws are not enforced, monopolies grow, and with them the income of monopolists. Competition, by contrast, drives profits down." - "Some Are More Unequal Than Others", Joseph E. Stiglitz, New York Times 2012-10-26
The article relates how the oligopolists are over and over driving down their costs, including taxes and wages, and increasing their profits.
My thought is that there may be a time when there are no profits to made because few can afford to buy the oligopolists' products and services and there will be insufficient qualified employees because there were insufficient taxes to educate a large number of people.
See "fastest to ruin" quote in "The Invisible Adam Smith".
The article relates how the oligopolists are over and over driving down their costs, including taxes and wages, and increasing their profits.
My thought is that there may be a time when there are no profits to made because few can afford to buy the oligopolists' products and services and there will be insufficient qualified employees because there were insufficient taxes to educate a large number of people.
See "fastest to ruin" quote in "The Invisible Adam Smith".
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Invisible Adam Smith
Many who claim to be "free market proponents" cite the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations". However, Adam Smith only uses the term once, only in reference to individuals, and in the context of trade among nations. The chapter is "Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of Such Goods as Can Be Produced at Home". Among the questions Smith raises is :
If a restriction benefits an industry, does it also benefit society?
As to the "invisible hand", Smith does not apply it as a metaphor for an absolutely free market, but as an indication that the acts of an individual can lead to consequences not intended by the individual. A more complete citation than "invisible hand" is:
"[The individual] generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." - pages 242-243
In other words, seeking his own security he may benefit society and seeking his own gain he may harm society, or otherwise, depending on the circumstances. In no way does this describe a "perfect market".
All page references are to the PDF version of "Wealth of Nations" transcribed by the Gutenberg Project. You can select your preferred format from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300.
For the most part, I don't think Adam Smith provides a prescription of how an economy works. Instead he provides a description of what he observed worked or didn't work.
Smith only uses "free market" once, in a discussion of the bad effects of restricting exports - pages 353-354. Woolen manufacturers wanted to restrict exports of wool so that their supply of wool would be increased. The problem was that English wool was inferior for clothing compared to wool from other countries. The prohibition of exports caused the price of wool to drop drastically, making it unprofitable to produce. The "invisible hand" now works to raise the price of mutton because the farmer has to pay his costs. That means to give the woolen manufacturers cheap wool is to give the consumers expensive meat. So, restricting exports did not give society much benefit.
A word that Smith uses frequently is "labour", would you believe over one thousand times? And how many times do you hear proponents of the "invisible hand" talk about labor, other than "greedy labor unions"? Smith looked favorably on labour, both as the basis of all economic activity and how labor can be marginalized by those with power.
The opening paragraph of "The Wealth of Nations" is:
"The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies [sic] of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations." - page 3
In other words, without labor, nothing happens.
"The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that they are going fast backwards."
As the National Football League found out, not paying referees what they asked lowered the owners wealth.
As for those who complain about "greedy unions" and promote "right-to-work laws", consider:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment." - page 142
Few seem to understand the need to balance interests. When profits and wages are out of balance we are in deep trouble. Given the rising cash hoard of many large corporations and the still uncertain job market, we should consider:
"It is the stock [materials, equipment, and workplaces] that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." - page 142
In other words, without corporations much work doesn't get started and without labor it doesn't get finished.
Finally, Smith didn't think business people ["those who live by profit"] should be trusted in public affairs:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." - pages 142-143
Adam Smith was an academic who read widely, considered what he read, and wrote an opinion for the powers-that-be. Those who consider "invisible hand" and "free market" as the only things important about economics, should consider reading more of modern economists, who have the benefit of having read all of "Wealth of Nations" and over two centuries more of data to consider. They are no more in an ivory tower than Adam Smith was.
For a poster of "The proposal of any new law…" see "Poster: A warning from the 'Invisible Hand'".
Updated 2013-07-21 to include Adam Smith's words for "business people.
Updated 2013-08-20 to include link to the poster.
If a restriction benefits an industry, does it also benefit society?
As to the "invisible hand", Smith does not apply it as a metaphor for an absolutely free market, but as an indication that the acts of an individual can lead to consequences not intended by the individual. A more complete citation than "invisible hand" is:
"[The individual] generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." - pages 242-243
In other words, seeking his own security he may benefit society and seeking his own gain he may harm society, or otherwise, depending on the circumstances. In no way does this describe a "perfect market".
All page references are to the PDF version of "Wealth of Nations" transcribed by the Gutenberg Project. You can select your preferred format from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300.
For the most part, I don't think Adam Smith provides a prescription of how an economy works. Instead he provides a description of what he observed worked or didn't work.
Smith only uses "free market" once, in a discussion of the bad effects of restricting exports - pages 353-354. Woolen manufacturers wanted to restrict exports of wool so that their supply of wool would be increased. The problem was that English wool was inferior for clothing compared to wool from other countries. The prohibition of exports caused the price of wool to drop drastically, making it unprofitable to produce. The "invisible hand" now works to raise the price of mutton because the farmer has to pay his costs. That means to give the woolen manufacturers cheap wool is to give the consumers expensive meat. So, restricting exports did not give society much benefit.
A word that Smith uses frequently is "labour", would you believe over one thousand times? And how many times do you hear proponents of the "invisible hand" talk about labor, other than "greedy labor unions"? Smith looked favorably on labour, both as the basis of all economic activity and how labor can be marginalized by those with power.
The opening paragraph of "The Wealth of Nations" is:
"The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies [sic] of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations." - page 3
In other words, without labor, nothing happens.
"The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that they are going fast backwards."
As the National Football League found out, not paying referees what they asked lowered the owners wealth.
As for those who complain about "greedy unions" and promote "right-to-work laws", consider:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment." - page 142
Few seem to understand the need to balance interests. When profits and wages are out of balance we are in deep trouble. Given the rising cash hoard of many large corporations and the still uncertain job market, we should consider:
"It is the stock [materials, equipment, and workplaces] that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." - page 142
In other words, without corporations much work doesn't get started and without labor it doesn't get finished.
Finally, Smith didn't think business people ["those who live by profit"] should be trusted in public affairs:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." - pages 142-143
Adam Smith was an academic who read widely, considered what he read, and wrote an opinion for the powers-that-be. Those who consider "invisible hand" and "free market" as the only things important about economics, should consider reading more of modern economists, who have the benefit of having read all of "Wealth of Nations" and over two centuries more of data to consider. They are no more in an ivory tower than Adam Smith was.
For a poster of "The proposal of any new law…" see "Poster: A warning from the 'Invisible Hand'".
Updated 2013-07-21 to include Adam Smith's words for "business people.
Updated 2013-08-20 to include link to the poster.
Which is the largest political party?
According to Robert Reich, the largest political party is the party of non-voters. See "The Politics of Fear and the Party of Non-Voters" on his blog, 2012-10-09.
My own take was published in today's Duluth News Tribune at http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/247683/group/Opinion/ and follows
Will another election be given away by no-shows?
Consider that more people have stayed away in most elections than have voted for the eventual winners.
The following data is compiled from the American Presidency Project at presidency.ucsb.edu/.
Since 1980, turnouts varied between 47 percent and 53 percent of the voting-age populations. That means that more people stayed away than voted for the successful candidates.
If we multiply the turnout by the winner’s percentage of votes cast, we get:
--26.6 percent for President Reagan in 1980
--31.2 percent for Reagan in 1984
--26.8 percent for President Bush in 1988
--23.7 percent for President Clinton in 1992
--24.1 percent for Clinton in 1996
--24.6 percent for President George W. Bush in 2000
--28.0 percent for Bush in 2004
--30.4 percent for President Obama 2008
No matter who you favor, consider that if you stay away from the polls because you don’t want to vote for “the lesser of two evils,” you actually may be helping elect the candidate you consider “the greater of two evils.”
If you want a better democracy, show up on Election Day, vote for your choices, and proudly wear your “I voted” sticker.
Melvyn Magree
Duluth
- End of letter
And remind your friends and relatives to vote!
My own take was published in today's Duluth News Tribune at http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/247683/group/Opinion/ and follows
Will another election be given away by no-shows?
Consider that more people have stayed away in most elections than have voted for the eventual winners.
The following data is compiled from the American Presidency Project at presidency.ucsb.edu/.
Since 1980, turnouts varied between 47 percent and 53 percent of the voting-age populations. That means that more people stayed away than voted for the successful candidates.
If we multiply the turnout by the winner’s percentage of votes cast, we get:
--26.6 percent for President Reagan in 1980
--31.2 percent for Reagan in 1984
--26.8 percent for President Bush in 1988
--23.7 percent for President Clinton in 1992
--24.1 percent for Clinton in 1996
--24.6 percent for President George W. Bush in 2000
--28.0 percent for Bush in 2004
--30.4 percent for President Obama 2008
No matter who you favor, consider that if you stay away from the polls because you don’t want to vote for “the lesser of two evils,” you actually may be helping elect the candidate you consider “the greater of two evils.”
If you want a better democracy, show up on Election Day, vote for your choices, and proudly wear your “I voted” sticker.
Melvyn Magree
Duluth
- End of letter
And remind your friends and relatives to vote!
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Thanks for reading, please tell others
The daily page views of this blog have gone way up from the usual 20 or so, discounting the Russian reverse-spammers, to nearly 100. I doubt that it is that I'm writing more interesting articles. I think it is that much of what I write is of interest in the election season. In fact, U.S. page views are now about the same as Russian page views.
Whatever your reason for visiting here, regular reader, finder via Google, or link from another site, I thank you for visiting. If you like what you see, please tell others or put links in your own site.
In turn, I'll do my best to post some interesting thoughts more regularly.
Thanks!
Whatever your reason for visiting here, regular reader, finder via Google, or link from another site, I thank you for visiting. If you like what you see, please tell others or put links in your own site.
In turn, I'll do my best to post some interesting thoughts more regularly.
Thanks!
Don't answer the phone until November 7
We have given up answering the phone until after election day. Monday we must have had seven calls, only one of which left a message. That was a personal call that my wife returned immediately.
Why should we drop everything for a political robo-call?
Why should we drop everything for a political robo-call?
The second American Revolution has started, and it ain't pretty
The Republican Party has become a revolutionary party, one that tolerates no opposition.
Consider that if a Republican politician doesn't follow party doctrine then he or she is is sidelined as soon as possible. Why do you think there are so many ex-Republicans? See Jim Ramstad's praise of Wellstone, "Remembering Paul Wellstone", Star Tribune 2012-10-19.
Consider that Republicans keep insisting that their solutions will solve certain problems even when experts point out historic facts that show similar policies have not worked in the past.
Consider that Republicans' stated goal at the start of Obama's presidency was to ensure he did not have a second term. Some commentators think this is barely concealed racism. This may be true, but it is also an effective smokescreen. Their true motive may be to destroy the Democratic Party and to become the only party.
Consider the Republican claims of voter fraud. Are not voter ID requirements a thinly disguised attempt to reduce the number of Democratic voters?
Consider that the Republicans may have already started a civil war. As they give more power to corporations, are they transforming our government from "by the people" to "by the corporations"? Once corporations were tools of the people to be dissolved when their purpose was fulfilled. Now people seem to be the tools of corporations to be discarded when no longer economically useful.
See "The Great Unraveling" by Paul Krugman. He saw this revolution in 2003!
Consider that the Republicans call themselves "conservatives" but they are nowhere near being classical conservatives as defined by Edmund Burke in the Eighteenth Century. In fact, many of the so-called liberals in the Democratic Party may be closer to the Burkian model of Conservative than the Republicans. For more details, see "Why Voters Should Turn From the Pseudoconservative Party of the Great Recession, Part I", Louis M. Guenin, Huffington Post, 2012-10-24. It is quite an indictment of the hodgepodge of conflicting ideas of the Republican Party. Watch for Part II in the Huffington Post tomorrow (2012-10-25).
Consider that if a Republican politician doesn't follow party doctrine then he or she is is sidelined as soon as possible. Why do you think there are so many ex-Republicans? See Jim Ramstad's praise of Wellstone, "Remembering Paul Wellstone", Star Tribune 2012-10-19.
Consider that Republicans keep insisting that their solutions will solve certain problems even when experts point out historic facts that show similar policies have not worked in the past.
Consider that Republicans' stated goal at the start of Obama's presidency was to ensure he did not have a second term. Some commentators think this is barely concealed racism. This may be true, but it is also an effective smokescreen. Their true motive may be to destroy the Democratic Party and to become the only party.
Consider the Republican claims of voter fraud. Are not voter ID requirements a thinly disguised attempt to reduce the number of Democratic voters?
Consider that the Republicans may have already started a civil war. As they give more power to corporations, are they transforming our government from "by the people" to "by the corporations"? Once corporations were tools of the people to be dissolved when their purpose was fulfilled. Now people seem to be the tools of corporations to be discarded when no longer economically useful.
See "The Great Unraveling" by Paul Krugman. He saw this revolution in 2003!
Consider that the Republicans call themselves "conservatives" but they are nowhere near being classical conservatives as defined by Edmund Burke in the Eighteenth Century. In fact, many of the so-called liberals in the Democratic Party may be closer to the Burkian model of Conservative than the Republicans. For more details, see "Why Voters Should Turn From the Pseudoconservative Party of the Great Recession, Part I", Louis M. Guenin, Huffington Post, 2012-10-24. It is quite an indictment of the hodgepodge of conflicting ideas of the Republican Party. Watch for Part II in the Huffington Post tomorrow (2012-10-25).
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The MacBook Pro doesn't have a touch screen, yet!
Lately, I've been trying to touch the screen of my laptop to get it to do something. Nothing happens! I've even gone so far to touch it several times trying to get the exact spot and the right amount of pressure. Nothing happens! Not quite, the screen does move back a bit.
I used to know quite well that I had to move the cursor with the trackpad and then click with the nearest part of the trackpad. But now I spend a lot of time using my iPhone and iPad. With these it's poke and swipe.
Someday I'll get it all sorted out and do the right things in the right place. It's sort of like speaking one language with one person then turning to another and speaking a different language. It's all in practice, practice, practice.
I used to know quite well that I had to move the cursor with the trackpad and then click with the nearest part of the trackpad. But now I spend a lot of time using my iPhone and iPad. With these it's poke and swipe.
Someday I'll get it all sorted out and do the right things in the right place. It's sort of like speaking one language with one person then turning to another and speaking a different language. It's all in practice, practice, practice.
Debates? What debates?
According to the newspapers, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their third and final debate last night, supposedly on foreign policy. As with the previous two, I didn't bother watching. What for? See What do the debates prove?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-do-debates-prove.html and Netflix disappointed me
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/netflix-disappointed-me.html
From what little I read in newspapers, I didn't think it was worth watching. I think the debates were summed up by two snippets from "Sparring Over Foreign Policy, Obama Goes on the Offense
", Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2012-10-22.
"For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists."
"Mr. Romney pinned the cascading crises around the world on Mr. Obama’s shoulders, saying the president had failed to live up to his promises from his 2008 campaign and left the country in a weaker position."
Baker and Cooper seem to say that whoever wins the election will follow essentially the same policies. Maybe, maybe not. However, I think the second quote is quite telling of Romney's attitude that the President of the U.S. should be emperor of the world and bring all these hot spots in line with U.S. "interests". My usual question is who elected the President as "the leader of the free world"? It certainly wasn't the people of Canada, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. How can you claim to be for freedom and democracy if you anoint yourself as "the leader of the free world"? Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor of France, and look what happened to him. Look what's happening to our economy as we spend all this money on weapons and war without raising the taxes to pay for them.
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-do-debates-prove.html and Netflix disappointed me
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/netflix-disappointed-me.html
From what little I read in newspapers, I didn't think it was worth watching. I think the debates were summed up by two snippets from "Sparring Over Foreign Policy, Obama Goes on the Offense
", Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2012-10-22.
"For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists."
"Mr. Romney pinned the cascading crises around the world on Mr. Obama’s shoulders, saying the president had failed to live up to his promises from his 2008 campaign and left the country in a weaker position."
Baker and Cooper seem to say that whoever wins the election will follow essentially the same policies. Maybe, maybe not. However, I think the second quote is quite telling of Romney's attitude that the President of the U.S. should be emperor of the world and bring all these hot spots in line with U.S. "interests". My usual question is who elected the President as "the leader of the free world"? It certainly wasn't the people of Canada, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. How can you claim to be for freedom and democracy if you anoint yourself as "the leader of the free world"? Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor of France, and look what happened to him. Look what's happening to our economy as we spend all this money on weapons and war without raising the taxes to pay for them.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Netflix comes out ahead again on customer service and trust
We put a Netflix DVD in a mailbox outside a post office on Sunday, October 14. On Saturday, October 20, it was still listed as not returned. I clicked on a button about returns, noted that I had returned it on October 14, clicked that it was a street mail box, gave my ZIP code, clicked OK or whatever, and poof! The DVD was no longer in my account as not returned!!!
We thought about the problem a bit and wondered if it was because we opened the mailer at the wrong end. That cut off the closing tab from the return envelope. My wife jury-rigged a closure. Maybe that closure didn't hold and the package wound up getting jammed in a sorting machine. I also realized that the post office where we returned the DVD does not have the same ZIP code as we do.
I called Netflix and within two minutes was speaking with Travis of the cheery voice. Essentially he said, "Don't worry. It's not your problem. It will probably turn up."
I know there are lots of company's that take the customer's word about a problem and make amends quickly. But there are also many company's that don't trust their customers any farther than they can throw them. The former are companies that treat their employees with respect; the latter are companies that create rule-burdened bureaucracies.
We thought about the problem a bit and wondered if it was because we opened the mailer at the wrong end. That cut off the closing tab from the return envelope. My wife jury-rigged a closure. Maybe that closure didn't hold and the package wound up getting jammed in a sorting machine. I also realized that the post office where we returned the DVD does not have the same ZIP code as we do.
I called Netflix and within two minutes was speaking with Travis of the cheery voice. Essentially he said, "Don't worry. It's not your problem. It will probably turn up."
I know there are lots of company's that take the customer's word about a problem and make amends quickly. But there are also many company's that don't trust their customers any farther than they can throw them. The former are companies that treat their employees with respect; the latter are companies that create rule-burdened bureaucracies.
Who creates jobs? Government or Corporations?
According to "The Myth of Job Creation", Editorial, New York Times, 2012-10-21, Obama and Romney agree that "government does not create jobs". The New York Times disagrees, "Except that it does, millions of them — including teachers, police officers, firefighters, soldiers, sailors, astronauts, epidemiologists, antiterrorism agents, park rangers, diplomats, governors (Mr. Romney’s old job) and congressmen (like Paul Ryan)."
It is so hard to break the Norquist attitude that government is useless. If government was so useless, why do so many corporations spend fortunes to get a government that will pass laws they favor? If government was so useless, why do so many corporations seek government contracts? If government was so useless, who would give corporations patents? If government was so useless, who would adjudicate corporations billion-dollar suits against each other?
It is so hard to break the Norquist attitude that government is useless. If government was so useless, why do so many corporations spend fortunes to get a government that will pass laws they favor? If government was so useless, why do so many corporations seek government contracts? If government was so useless, who would give corporations patents? If government was so useless, who would adjudicate corporations billion-dollar suits against each other?
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Who controls gasoline prices
As I watch the gasoline prices drop, I wonder if those who blamed Obama for an increase in prices are giving him credit for the drop. I doubt it, because the latter is just as unrealistic as the former.
"In the end, supply and demand is causing prices to moderate once again."
Sharon Epperson, CNBC, 2012-10-18 via Yahoo Finance.
In other words, free market proponents are all for free markets when markets work to their benefit, but they blame someone else when markets work to their detriment.
"In the end, supply and demand is causing prices to moderate once again."
Sharon Epperson, CNBC, 2012-10-18 via Yahoo Finance.
In other words, free market proponents are all for free markets when markets work to their benefit, but they blame someone else when markets work to their detriment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)