Be Prepared for the F-Bomb!

[heironymouspasparagus]

...but because it has the follow-on effect of significantly reducing damage to our roads, and therefore our maintenance expenses, not to mention the fuel used in that maintenance. One fully loaded truck uses as much pavement life as somewhere around a hundred passenger cars.

That just points to the corruption in road building and the lack of maintenance.  The US interstate system should be built to about a 140 to 150,000 lb traffic rating (can't remember the exact number).  And we can see from the Turner and Will Rogers that is not even close to how they are built.  It would require more than about 8" of asphalt - gravel road with a tasty oil sauce!

We have come full circle - one reason the trucking industry was encouraged, built, and assisted by the government for a long time (from teens to the 20's and 30's) in direct response to the power of the railroads.  The idea was to reduce the railroad power, while getting a stronger trucking/transport industry to offset that power.

[Red Arrow]

Agreed on the point on nicer environment.  I'm not so concerned about cronyism, more along the lines of spending money on ancillary facilities that really are not a necessity to learning progress.  I also think the emphasis on lower student to teacher ratios on the high school level is a complete waste of money.  Considering that college-bound students will eventually face that dreaded auditorium class, they need to get weaned off the desired 15:1 to 20:1 ratio.  I really don't think 30:1 at the high school level is a problem.  On the elementary level, yes, that is a problem as at earlier ages, children need more interface in their learning.

It's more of an issue of the involvement of the parents and the discipline they instill in their kids.  I remember classes being on the order of 30 all the way from first grade.  My first grade teacher would take a small group of say 10 kids for reading to an area of the room for that while assigning the remainder of the kids something like coloring with crayons.  One assignment was to color a squirrel.  The teacher said to color it any color you wanted.  I colored my squirrel red, blue, green.... well you get the idea.  What she really intended was real squirrel colors.  I got an "F".  (Mom reminded me of it years later.)  It taught me that not every effort is an "A".  My parents also read to me from very early.  They also had started teaching me the alphabet.  I didn't go to kindergarten, just started in first grade.  I will admit to growing up in a mixed white collar and blue collar neighborhood rather than an inner city.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Why is high executive pay necessarily a disservice to the employees?  Don't you want the best CEO money can buy to lead the company through smooth and tricky economies?  Don't you want someone who is an innovator and extremely creative?  Considering the culture that Steve Jobs fostered at Apple, the thousands of jobs his ideas created, as well as his overall contribution to modern technology do you think he should have had his pay capped?

First, because while it would be nice to get the best CEO money can buy, paying them $100 million per year does not achieve that goal.  But it does achieve the goal of costing those employees $53 million a year - see the Abercrombie and Fitch example.  The whole premise that the CEO just won't do the job if not pay hundred million is one of the major points in "The Script".  It is false.

No, don't cap his pay, just don't make the rest of the taxpayers pay for it.  ISO should never be a 'salary' expense to a company.

As for Apple, Jobs was brilliant at what he did, but it was NOT creating ideas for new and exciting technology.  He was brilliant at stealing and appropriating other people's ideas who did not have the vision of how to market and maximize the idea.  Sweeping statement time (but true!) - Apple has NEVER had a new idea.  Every successful product they have ever had (and some of the unsuccessful ones - remember Lisa?) was and idea they stole and copied from someone else.  Jobs himself even mentioned this as one of his "articles of faith".

[Red Arrow]

That just points to the corruption in road building and the lack of maintenance.  The US interstate system should be built to about a 140 to 150,000 lb traffic rating (can't remember the exact number).  And we can see from the Turner and Will Rogers that is not even close to how they are built.  It would require more than about 8" of asphalt - gravel road with a tasty oil sauce!

In the 70s, Oklahoma asphalt standards were less than many other states and to build using better paving was not allowed. (Research by my brother back then.)  I don't know if we have improved any.  Brother-in-law syndrome takes care of that.

When I was in Germany in 1995, I saw some construction of new Autobahn paving.  It looked more like our construction of an International Airport runway than our roads.  I also saw on a little country road a sign indicating "Bad Road" (Strasse Schade).  Looked like a brand new Oklahoma road.  The Germans have also decided to pay a lot more for everything too.  Their VAT made the price of a new BMW less in the USA than in Germany with the exchange rate at the time.

[Conan71]

It's more of an issue of the involvement of the parents and the discipline they instill in their kids.  I remember classes being on the order of 30 all the way from first grade.  My first grade teacher would take a small group of say 10 kids for reading to an area of the room for that while assigning the remainder of the kids something like coloring with crayons.  One assignment was to color a squirrel.  The teacher said to color it any color you wanted.  I colored my squirrel red, blue, green.... well you get the idea.  What she really intended was real squirrel colors.  I got an "F".  (Mom reminded me of it years later.)  It taught me that not every effort is an "A".  My parents also read to me from very early.  They also had started teaching me the alphabet.  I didn't go to kindergarten, just started in first grade.  I will admit to growing up in a mixed white collar and blue collar neighborhood rather than an inner city.

You and I both had the same experience, but I figured I'd throw out a bone on the ratios for earlier learning   Even with 30:1, put an aide in each classroom and you've got essentially a 15:1 ratio for 2nd graders.

You are correct, there's simply no substitute for involved parents.  My mother probably helped me more with math issues than any of my teachers or aides.

[AquaMan]

First, because while it would be nice to get the best CEO money can buy, paying them $100 million per year does not achieve that goal.  But it does achieve the goal of costing those employees $53 million a year - see the Abercrombie and Fitch example.  The whole premise that the CEO just won't do the job if not pay hundred million is one of the major points in "The Script".  It is false.

No, don't cap his pay, just don't make the rest of the taxpayers pay for it.  ISO should never be a 'salary' expense to a company.

As for Apple, Jobs was brilliant at what he did, but it was NOT creating ideas for new and exciting technology.  He was brilliant at stealing and appropriating other people's ideas who did not have the vision of how to market and maximize the idea.  Sweeping statement time (but true!) - Apple has NEVER had a new idea.  Every successful product they have ever had (and some of the unsuccessful ones - remember Lisa?) was and idea they stole and copied from someone else.  Jobs himself even mentioned this as one of his "articles of faith".

Look, there are few if any new ideas. Ideas charge through space like isotopes looking for a place to land. Some land, some don't. And the ones that do and are groundbreaking in concept may not land on the fertile ground needed for them to germinate. IOW, a good idea without a way to accomplish it is just two guys drinking whiskey and talkin' gubmint. You can't steal something that has no real owner.

Probably the only good thing I ever learned from a sales motivation seminar!
 
I'm just trolling today. No space for in depth discussion. Carry on.

[Red Arrow]

IOW, a good idea without a way to accomplish it is just two guys drinking whiskey and talkin' gubmint.

I wonder if a bit of investment money would have helped some of them.

(Also trolling.  I need to look up some airplane parts but this is more fun.  )

[AquaMan]

Woulda' helped them buy more whiskey!

[Red Arrow]

Woulda' helped them buy more whiskey!

If you use your money to buy a wide screen TV when you are hungry, I don't have too much sympathy for you.

[nathanm]

Let's say for argument's sake that to make minimum wage a living wage for single parents with two kids, we had to double the current minimum wage nationwide.  How is that paid for?  What would the affect of the sudden inflationary pressure do to our economy and how many jobs would be cut as a result as employers would figure out ways to get the same amount of productivity out of a smaller work force in order to stay competitive with foreign compeition.
...
This reads more like the liberal playbook, but there are certainly some ideas in there which, in theory, would create jobs and increase wages which is what I asked someone to put up instead of being mired in the problem that there is a wage and wealth gap.  In my opinion, every time societies have tried to flatten the curve between the have and have nots, it's resulted in higher rates of poverty for everyone.  Cuba would be a perfect example of that.

Barring a return to full employment, there is no reasonable minimum wage that would cause inflation. Increased demand for goods would merely create more jobs until demand was sated or full employment was reached, at which time inflation would set in.

Your opinion regarding curve flattening is just that, opinion, and it fails to take into account the European social democracies that have been very successful at keeping income inequality to a reasonable level. Note that I'm not talking about Greece or Italy. I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, and Finland. The ones that don't have budgetary issues and don't have banks so poorly regulated that they threaten the entire continent's economy. When the state tries to allocate goods, things don't turn out so well. When the state guides private industry on the straight and narrow through strong regulation, things turn out much better.

In that vein, something has been bothering me about the righties of late. They're acting like the Communists did in the early Soviet Union. They blame the failure of their policies on meddling by those of other political persuasions. Stalin blamed the capitalists for causing mass starvation after forced collectivization. So did Mao in China, for that matter. Extremist Friedmanites (which, sadly, includes many of the Republican primary contenders) blame Democrats and socialists for the failure of their tax cuts to produce lasting growth.

I agree with the vast majority of what you posted in your response to me, but the numbers tell me that we're running out of light sweet crude. (maybe I read The Oil Drum too much) Production already peaked in Saudi Arabia. They're pumping quick as they can. If we're lucky, those deep water offshore fields in Brazil will start producing in a big way soon. It's not so much about reserves as the rate at which we can produce. As I'm sure you're aware, fields produce a lot more quickly when they're fresh, even taking into account our heroic efforts to pump it out as fast as we can.

[heironymouspasparagus]

In the 70s, Oklahoma asphalt standards were less than many other states and to build using better paving was not allowed. (Research by my brother back then.)  I don't know if we have improved any.  Brother-in-law syndrome takes care of that.

When I was in Germany in 1995, I saw some construction of new Autobahn paving.  It looked more like our construction of an International Airport runway than our roads.  I also saw on a little country road a sign indicating "Bad Road" (Strasse Schade).  Looked like a brand new Oklahoma road.  The Germans have also decided to pay a lot more for everything too.  Their VAT made the price of a new BMW less in the USA than in Germany with the exchange rate at the time.

Autobahn specs I have read about in the past include around 18 - 24" of concrete - I think depending somewhat on subsoil structure. 

Asphalt in Oklahoma has always been a cozy relationship situation with the oil companies.  After all, we live in the "Oil Capital".  Of course, they wouldn't let a better road be built - it wouldn't have asphalt in it, thereby depriving the oil companies of that sale of oil.

There was some concrete used, but in recent years, the trend is to 'patch' the concrete then put a 3" layer of oily gravel road over it.

[Conan71]

Barring a return to full employment, there is no reasonable minimum wage that would cause inflation. Increased demand for goods would merely create more jobs until demand was sated or full employment was reached, at which time inflation would set in.

Your opinion regarding curve flattening is just that, opinion, and it fails to take into account the European social democracies that have been very successful at keeping income inequality to a reasonable level. Note that I'm not talking about Greece or Italy. I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, and Finland. The ones that don't have budgetary issues and don't have banks so poorly regulated that they threaten the entire continent's economy. When the state tries to allocate goods, things don't turn out so well. When the state guides private industry on the straight and narrow through strong regulation, things turn out much better.

In that vein, something has been bothering me about the righties of late. They're acting like the Communists did in the early Soviet Union. They blame the failure of their policies on meddling by those of other political persuasions. Stalin blamed the capitalists for causing mass starvation after forced collectivization. So did Mao in China, for that matter. Extremist Friedmanites (which, sadly, includes many of the Republican primary contenders) blame Democrats and socialists for the failure of their tax cuts to produce lasting growth.

I agree with the vast majority of what you posted in your response to me, but the numbers tell me that we're running out of light sweet crude. (maybe I read The Oil Drum too much) Production already peaked in Saudi Arabia. They're pumping quick as they can. If we're lucky, those deep water offshore fields in Brazil will start producing in a big way soon. It's not so much about reserves as the rate at which we can produce. As I'm sure you're aware, fields produce a lot more quickly when they're fresh, even taking into account our heroic efforts to pump it out as fast as we can.

There's vigorous debate within the industry amongst people far more knowledgeable than I am about reserves and capacity.  The unfortunate reality is we need motor fuels and petroleum is going to have to be a part of that mix whether we like it or not.  I'm disappointed there are quite a few fully functional bio-diesel plants which are either mothballed or have been dismantled.  Diesel prices of $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon makes bio-d a no-brainer with little or no subsidy at those prices.  Why there's not more emphasis is beyond me.  I had assumed the free market would have moved on this by now, but perhaps everyone is so punch drunk on subsidies that they won't do squat without the government giving them a dollar a gallon subsidy.

In a very interesting irony, one of my best customers located near Nevada, Mo. is doing steam extraction on shallow wells all over the area.  The office for my primary contact lies in the shadows of a large, shuttered, bio-diesel plant.  They lost their subsidy train, so they shut down.

One reason I believe the emphasis on solar power right now is mis-directed is because very, very little of the electricity we generate in this country is even dependent on foreign oil.  Primarily, we use coal mined in the states and natural gas produced in the states.  I think this administration could have done the economy more of a favor investing in bio-diesel, IMO.

[Conan71]

Personally, I think the obsession with other's incomes is the worst sort of voyeurism. 

President Barack Obama wants to spend the next year talking about economic inequality. Republicans shouldn’t take the bait.

In a speech last week in Kansas, the president presented rising economic inequality as the defining issue of our time. As is often true of political speeches, Obama didn’t make anything resembling a tight logical case. Instead he relied heavily on caricature (Republicans allegedly want everyone “to fend for themselves and play by their own rules”) and dubious assertion (supposedly there are billionaires who pay only 1 percent of their income in taxes).

But even for a political speech, Obama’s Kansas remarks were slippery. He never quite came out and said that rising inequality is the root cause of our economic troubles over the last few years. He never said explicitly that we should raise taxes on the wealthy to combat inequality. Or that the Great Depression was caused by too much reliance on free markets and too little government regulation. Or that the tax cuts and market liberalization begun under President Jimmy Carter and continued through the Reagan, Clinton and Bush years were mistakes that should be reversed.
Instead he strongly implied all of these things. Unless he was trying to convey these ideas, his speech made no sense: It was just an agglomeration of unrelated paragraphs.

So why not speak more clearly? Perhaps because these claims, made directly, are either obviously false or politically perilous.

False Claims

Start with the history. Economists generally believe that the Great Depression wasn’t a cosmic punishment for the excesses of the 1920s but the result of an inappropriately tight monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. Nobody has offered an even slightly plausible argument that connects the financial crash of 2008 to George W. Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 -- let alone to Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts of 1981 and 1986.

Obama didn’t say that deregulation and tax cuts were worthwhile ideas that eventually got taken too far and caused problems. He said that the philosophy underlying these policies was mistaken and that they have led to a ruinous level of inequality.

Center-left critics of the president’s speech, like the Washington Post editorial board, underestimate Obama when they point out that the policies he recommends are inadequate to the scale of the inequality problem. His solutions are politically constrained. But his ambition, to reverse the last three and a half decades of economic and political history, can’t be faulted for timidity.

During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Obama said that he would favor raising the capital-gains tax even if it raised no revenue: It was a matter of fairness.

That’s the impulse at work in his speech and in the 2012 campaign it effectively started. It’s one thing to favor higher taxes on the rich on the theory that the government needs money and they have it to spare. (That’s the case Obama has usually made, until now.) To suggest that their high incomes are in themselves a problem that the government needs to address -- which has to be the case if tax policy is to combat inequality - - is something harder to defend.

Republicans haven’t reached a consensus about how to respond to Obama’s new focus on inequality. Some of them are highlighting statistics that minimize or deny the increase in inequality. A few are saying that inequality is a good thing, the natural result of free markets. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman, points out that various government spending programs and tax breaks reward affluent citizens and that reforming those policies is the right way to tackle inequality.

Voters Don’t Care

There’s no need for Republicans to be defensive about this subject. Although inequality has long been a major concern of liberals, most voters don’t seem to share it.

When the National Opinion Research Center asked people whether they believed the government has a responsibility “to reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes,” in 2008, only 37 percent agreed. Forty-three percent disagreed, and 20 percent had no opinion. When pollsters ask people to name the top issue facing the country, almost nobody volunteers inequality, notes Karlyn Bowman, an opinion-research analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. “I’ve literally never seen it cross the 1 percent threshold,” she says.
But if voters don’t especially care about how much money the rich are making, they do care about how much they themselves are making. A return to robust economic growth and rising middle-income wages doesn’t require reversing a decades-long trend toward higher inequality. It requires improvements to our monetary, tax and health-care policies.

Instead of talking about inequality -- even to rebut Obama’s dubious claims -- Republicans should talk about what voters care about, while pointing out that the president would rather chase ideological will-o’-the-wisps.

(Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Ramesh Ponnuru at rponnuru@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Timothy Lavin at tlavin1@bloomberg.net.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-13/voters-not-buying-obama-s-bogus-inequality-talk-ramesh-ponnuru.html

[Gaspar]

Too bad we don't listen.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY[/youtube]