"No Kings? How about Prince's - 35"

I just had to post this headline from someone's personal ad that I came across just moments ago. Some how, some way, this woman thought that the plural form of Prince was different from that of King. It just boggles the mind.

So I've decided that from time to time, I'm going to start throwing people off by specifically misusing the English language, while staying within the good graces of spell check.

The Kings Prince's we're all hear too revue they're trophy's from yesterdays be spelling tournament.

Conservatives always with the violence.

Arizona state senator Russell Pearce who authored the immigration bill that was partially rejected by a federal judge said, "I'm begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court."

He could have said, "confrontation", "ideological showdown", or "simply fight", but instead he referred to physical violence. And so my question is, what is it with the Conservatives and the constant threat of physical violence?

Rep Michelle Bachman (MN): "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back."
Rep Peter King (NY): "Let’s beat that other side to a pulp. Let’s take them out, let’s chase them down."
RNC Chair Michael Steele: "Let's start getting Nancy (Pelosi) ready for the firing line."

Hmm. In the words of Achmed...

The dust has settled...I declare a winner!

Motorola won, Palm got bought out amid shrinking revenue, sales, and a sea of red ink. Don't mind me if I milk this story for all it's worth, but I said Palm was going to lose last November, and before then, I said that the two companies were going to be worth contrasting over time.

Forbes...the home of the half-brained.

Pay very close attention to this quote from an article written by Michael Pento in Forbes. I DARE you not to laugh:

"Moderate deflation is actually the natural trend for a productive economy....Deflation is also the natural consequence of a contracting economy."

If you did not just explode in laughter, you might need to go see a doctor, because something is wrong with your funny bone. Of course, the article is about why we should be worried about inflation:

"Because of the towering level of U.S. sovereign debt, it is inflation that remains the clear and present danger."

So okay then...treasuries are at some of its lowest levels, inflation for 2010 in advanced nations, was predicted by the IMF to be 1.4%, GDP so far is projecting to be 1.4% or so, less than half of what the IMF predicted. And this guy says the "clear and present danger" is inflation, huh?
Michael Pento recites what happens in deflation (money supply shrinks) and then says:

"The last thing the Federal Reserve and Obama administration can tolerate is an increased debt burden brought about by a shrinking money supply."

Now, I'm not going to get into the entire details, but his argument is this: The Obama Administration can't tolerate deflation because it lowers money supply and therefore tax revenue gets lowered, making it impossible to get ahead of federal debt. Therefore, people should be worried about inflation because inflation is the only way for the Obama Administration to pay down the debt and reduce the debt to GDP ratio.


Aha!
So there you have it folks...without any proof of inflation coming, partisans have now given to arguing about how great deflation is for consumers, most of all the unemployed, and that the Obama Administration is going to ruin this fun of deflation, by pushing the GDP up and increasing federal receipts through high interest rates.


Uh huh, and that's why you shouldn't vote Republican. But hey, just for kicks, I think Michael Pento should go all in and buy, buy buy (gold).

What good is the border wall?

After going through the aggregate data from DHS' estimates from earlier this year, I have three observations:

1. The economy appears to have had a huge impact on the direction that illegal immigrants go.  As Asia suffered less of an economic setback than that of the US, it appears Asians chose to leave for greener pastures. Call me crazy, but isn't a global dynamic work force what global open market advocates point to, as an efficient market?
2. Even as Mexicans were actually LEAVING the US in 2009, more Guatemalans and Hondurans were entering the US illegally.  Doesn't seem like the border's walls and stepped up spending for enforcement of the border itself has made a difference one way or another; people move back and forth either way.
3. Border apprehensions have also dropped, which seems to support the idea that fewer people are entering the US from the Mexican border, and in fact there is an out-migration.

Country/Area	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Mexico	5970000	6570000	6980000	7030000	6650000
El Salvador	470000	510000	540000	570000	530000
Guatemala	370000	430000	500000	430000	480000
Honduras	180000	280000	280000	300000	320000
Philippines	210000	280000	290000	300000	270000
India	280000	210000	220000	160000	200000
Korea	210000	230000	230000	240000	200000
Ecuador	120000	150000	160000	170000	170000
Brazil	170000	210000	190000	180000	150000
China	230000	170000	290000	220000	120000
Americas	7280000	8150000	8650000	8680000	8300000
Asia	930000	890000	1030000	920000	790000

I don't think it's a good idea to crack down on illegal immigrants, as it seems highly likely that we'll end up with goods and services price inflation from a lack of a non-living wage workforce.  We need to identify which market sectors need cheap labor, and provide for a legal migration system for workers in those areas, while taxing them for the time that they're in the US, maybe a flat $600 / year, increasing automatically by 2% every year?

And I'm all for granting illegal immigrants who have children that were born in the US, so long as they pay a hefty fine...say $1000 for every year they've been in the US illegally, or a minimum of $5000 for those who do not have proof of their length of stay.

Sources:

• http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf (top chart and table)
• http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_apprehensions_fs_2005-2008.pdf (bottom chart)

Blogger's Beta Dashboard.

There are bugs, for sure (I'm intermittently switching back and forth between using Blogger and Dreamweaver to compose posts).  But, one of the best things about switching to the Beta Dashboard on Blogger, is stats, stats and more stats from Google!

Freedom comes in many ways.

I can appreciate this person's successful attempt to free herself from a day job.  Maybe it's just idyllic romanticism, but a wide open warehouse space has always been my dream, and her space (below) comes close.

Dear BP, I found your problem.

Playing with a stick and blackberry season photos.

If you take enough random photos, eventually you get funny ones and decently pretty ones from even the worst of the cheapest digital cameras.

Did you download Jackeey Wallpaper from the Android Market?

According to mobile security firm Lookout, the Jackeey Wallpaper app is a malware sending private information to a developer named iceskysl@1sters! and a website - imnet.us - that is owned by someone in Shenzen, China. According to Mobile VentureBeat, data being sent includes "your browsing history, text messages, your phone’s SIM card number, subscriber identification, and even your voicemail password."



And apparently, somewhere between 1.1M and 4.6M people have downloaded this wallpaper app.



Lookout discovered the malware during the development of their App Genome Project which looked at 300,000 apps between the iPhone and Android platforms.



I don't use third-party wallpapers, because, well, I don't need em when I've got my own pictures...I still don't get that...why people use third-party wallpapers...or ring tones.


Anyone freaked out yet?

Has modern macroeconomics failed us?

Honestly, I only know about a dash of salt's worth of economics between micro and macro, so I read and listen to everything while verifying the data by making my own charts to see what's actually happening.  And so, this post actually was going to be about the relationship between (nominal) GDP and the top marginal tax bracket, because contemporaneously, Bush's tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year.  It was to be a simple review of what happens to GDP when the top marginal tax rate is increased or decreased, because according to supply-side economic arguments, a high top marginal tax rate would depress job creation and therefore GDP growth.

Well, it's quite obvious from the first diagram (years 1929 - 1949) that a sudden increase of the top marginal tax rate in 1932 did not have a negative effect on GDP growth.  Just look at the second diagram (years 1949 - 1969) when the top marginal tax rate floated between 91% and 92% from 1951 to 1963.  Hardly any of the wide fluctuations of GDP, but particularly, the economy remained relatively positive; it slowed periodically, but it did not show wildly negative growth in GDP from the previous 20 years.  Now, when you look at the third diagram (years 1969 - 1989), you can see that even as the top marginal tax rate plummeted from 77% in 1969 to 28% by 1989, GDP did not respond in any sort of fashion.  Finally, in the fourth chart (years 1989 - 2009), annual GDP growth remained positive, even if relatively flat, particularly if you exclude 2009.  If you look closely at the top marginal rate increase in 1993 from 31% to 39.6%, there is no corresponding ill-effect on GDP growth.  While some people will point to the Bush tax cuts and the subsequent rise in GDP, you can see that by 2005, the GDP growth rate had peaked, and began to fall precipitously thereafter, rendering any connection illegitimate.

Isn't that enough to show that there is no causal relationship between GDP and the top marginal tax rate?

Now step back for a moment and look at all four charts again.  This is where, the original intent of my looking at the data took a big turn.

The purple shaded areas reflect the upper and lower bounds of GDP change.  As expected, with modern macroeconomics, the fluctuations have been minimized, so we no longer see the wild swings of the first period (1929 - 1949).  Each subsequent period shows a smaller range of GDP change.  But it brings up a question we might want to look at.

Do we really want to limit the upper bounds of GDP growth this much?  I understand that the reason for limiting the upper bound is to prevent runaway inflation and the resulting crash of a bubble...but each of those 20 year periods had in fact, had 4 - 3 - 4 - 3 recessions, respectively.  And honestly, we've already seen that modern macroeconomics did not prevent the current massive recession that can only be compared to the Great Depression in terms of scale.

Let's put it this way, if you control GDP, how are we ever going to recover from the current economic malaise? Therein seems to exist the paradox of modern macroeconomics.  By worrying so much about inflation (if you read the predictions of many Conservatives over the past 1.5 years), are we not simply forcing the US to recover slowly?

That scares me a lot.

Oh yeah, and any pundit who says that the top marginal tax rate matters when it comes to job creation is a lying son of a bitch idiot.

Chart of average duration of people on unemployment.

Very disturbing, indeed.

3D street art.

Very impressive gallery over at CNET's CRAVE.

DRM and the DMCA: Big news.

A little background.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, made it a violation of federal law, to break digital rights management (DRM).  So while the Fair Use Doctrine was still applicable specifically via digital technology per ruling by the Supreme Court in the Betamax ruling, Congress - prodded by copyright holders - made it illegal to break the DRM protecting digital content.

In my sensibility, this is called an end-around of the spirit of the Fair Use Doctrine.

Finally, a judge in the 5th Circuit in New Orleans has bucked the trend, and ruled similarly, that per Betamax, intent is crucial to the role of circumventing DRM.  Circumventing DRM should not in itself be considered illegal, as we have established Fair Use Doctrine that allows us to use digital content in a non-infringing way.

This is big news, as it gives judges a choice to follow the 5th Circuit, or to remain status quo, but it also gives us a chance for the DMCA's section on DRM to go before the Supreme Court and be reviewed.  With the conservative nature of the Court under Justice Roberts, the test will be, whether the justices believe (as they purport to believe) in settled law (aka Betamax ruling) or DRM's lock against fair use, per Congress' law.

via BoingBoing


Update @ 12:56pm - The EFF has been successful in getting the US Copyright office to grant 3 specific exemptions from breaking DRM:

1. You can jailbreak your phone to install the software that you want to install on your phone.
2. You can break the DRM on DVDs in order to rip excerpts for non-commercial use.
3. You can have your phone unlocked so that you may use your phone - once your contract has expired - on other carriers.

via BoingBoing

America is center-right.

I just read some extremely sobering words from the Financial Times' Martin Wolf, that in fact there are some Conservatives who are actually advocating behind closed doors, America defaulting on its loans.  Fed up with spending, they would use a default (and an ensuing global economic catastrophe) to permanently break the system of social welfare spending and the whole free market system, to that before FDR.  Don't think Conservatives are that mean-spirited and foolish?  Think again!

But I believe the circumstances that would allow Republicans to force the US to default are nearly here.

The expiration of Bush's tax cuts will become an instrumental argument for Republicans this Fall's mid-term elections.  They have already taken to the airwaves to promulgate the fallacy that their tax cuts have had a positive inducement on the economy, when as I have shown before, they are in fact lowering federal receipts while massively adding onto the federal debt.  Even if you believed that tax cuts did help push the economy forward, you cannot ignore the fact that Bush's tax cuts (and for that matter neither Reagan's) cut the federal debt.  But they will be using the 2010 mid-cycle elections to push the illusory promise of tax cuts to solve the economic malaise and spending cuts that will magically co-exist with tax cuts, to reduce the federal debt.

So there you have it: We are headed for default because Conservatives (either out of a lack of honest intellect or out of zeal for pushing against social spending) are planning to respond to the weak economy and the growing federal debt with tax and spending cuts just as soon as they win back Congress and in 2012, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But of course, a default won't deliver the Republican's hopes for a death knell to social spending.  What it will do, is create chaos of the violent sort.  

400 SF house (outside dimensions)

Inspired by Ikea's house in a box, I thought I'd give it a mental exercise. Instead of stopping at the floor plan however, I've gone full bore into 3D construction. Note that this is an in-process project to see what can be done, what should be done, and what makes sense, particularly with building a 3D building in lieu of construction documents, all within SketchUp.

2011 Ikea catalog.

:D Was flipping through it, and found the Alex (family) wall shelf with drawer.  Apparently they already have it at the store, but I had not seen it on any display.

And no, you can't get the catalog yet. It doesn't come out until August. But if anyone is interested, the price of the regular Swedish meatball meal is dropping from $4.99 to $3.99, and they're bringing out a new item, a baked(?) chicken breast with pasta/veggie thing.

Speaking of Ikea, I was there yesterday and picked up this very calming LED light that has a silicone skin. Changes colors or you can have it remain a constant color.

And nothing completes a blog post quite like more doggie photos! This one you can see the Broadway Bridge.

And in this one, you can see the Broadway Bridge is partially open as they have closed traffic off while they build the connector to the Portland Streetcar.

Never click on "okay" or "cancel"

While browsing for images (as in 5 minutes ago), I got sent to an infected website that had various scripts that would not allow me to close the tab nor the browser.  In a case like this, go into your Windows Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del) and manually shut the browser down.  When you re-open your browser, do not re-open your closed tabs if prompted to!  The final step - no you're not done quite yet - is to purge your cache.

If you look at the image below, you do not want to click on either the "okay" or the "cancel" buttons in the pop-up dialog box.  You will want to click on the "close" button at the upper right hand corner (at least temporarily, it'll close the dialog box).  Clicking on the buttons in the pop-up dialog box triggers any sort of script that was written for the button.  In some cases, the author of the malicious script may have included a script to hide the (x) close button box by removing the "chrome".

In any case, the only way to get rid of your problem is to go into Windows Task Manager and end the program.

Update @ 7/26: Forgot to mention that you will have to perform a scan to remove the malware that was already present on the website you visited and showed the spoofed virus alarm!

New Google Analytics for Blogger.

I took a peer into this blog's stats, and well, I'm slightly concerned with my audience:

Internet Explorer	43%
Firefox	32%
Safari	11%
Chrome	9%

Really? 43% of you use IE? Okay, let's go over the browsers.

HTML compatibility (note that since Chrome uses Apple's webkit, Safari will likely score very similarly to Chrome, but I don't have Safari installed):

Chrome 5.0.379.99	197
Opera 10.60	159
Firefox 3.6	139
Internet Explorer 8.0.6001	27

ACID3 test for HTML 4.01, ECMAscript and CSS3 compatibility:

Opera 10.60	100
Chrome 5.0.379.99	98
Firefox 3.6	94
Internet Explorer 8.0.6001	12

Then there was CasSecWest's PWN2OWN Challenge, where in 2009 and 2010, no one bothered to take on Chrome:

"There are bugs in Chrome but they’re very hard to exploit. The’ve got that sandbox model that’s hard to get out of... and you have no permissions to do anything. You need another bug to get out of the sandbox. Now you need two bugs and two exploits. That raises the bar."

Safari and IE were defeated within minutes.

Now, if you're going to persist with using IE, I have to insist that you use IE8 and you download Microsoft Security Essentials Beta for the next version of MSE, as it integrates tightly for added protection for those especially using IE.

Of course, nothing is perfect and viruses WILL GET THROUGH at some point. Trust me on this; I've been using the internet for 15 years and I've gone through 5 infections of various types and levels of infections.

And for goodness sakes...change your passwords even if just once a year. It's okay to use just a handful of passwords between all the sites you use, so long as you follow three rules: make them as long as you possibly can but at least 12 characters, make them easy to remember and mix numbers and letters. If you get emails warning you of a password reset, don't click on the email link. Instead, type in the web address yourself and try to log in. If you cannot log in, you must immediately go through all the other websites that share the same login password, and change them to a new one. Once you do that, update your virus scanner's definitions, then scan your entire computer. If it's clean, you're good. If it's infected, you need to clean the infection, then go back to those websites and change your passwords one more time.

NCAA investigating other schools.

I can't believe this is actually happening, but Steve Spurrier, coach of South Carolina Gamecocks said:

"I think they ought to be a little bit more active and help out in that regard (agents). As coaches we do all we can to tell our guys the rules -- you can't accept anything from boosters, agents or whoever. But it's hard to watch them all the time."

So the deal is, players from schools like North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama and Georgia are being investigated for involvement with agents. NOW their coaches are starting to proclaim the problem of agents, and how schools have limited ability to keep track of their players. But hey, why didn't they speak so loud before USC was punished by the NCAA?

Now that their own programs are in trouble, funny how their fans and the coaches are singing a different song.

Ranking of companies by their software vulnerabilities

Saw this report from security firm Secunia via Engadget, and thought I'd highlight (and edit for clarity) the chart pointing out the ranking of companies by the number of vulnerabilities (in a given year) they have in their software / firmware, (most vulnerabilities at the top).

Rats as pets?

Top 5 caption re-do:

1. "Damn...you're ugly. What was I thinking?"
   
2. "Look into my eyes. You're getting sleepy..."
   
3. "Remember the plan. Gouge the eyes first, then run for the door."
   
4. "Aw hell. You better not be going all jungle fever on me, fool."
   
5. "Bitch, where's my food?"
   

via BoingBoing / Scottunder

A lot of love for Rep. David Obey.

He announced two months ago that he wasn't seeking re-election.  With no jeopardy, he's not holding back on criticism of everyone, but most of all, he chronicled the events on how the stimulus bill got whittled down even before it came before Congress.  Interesting read, to be sure.

The highlight for me, comes from Obey's labeling of "the two crown princesses from Maine". Only when you're leaving, can you burn bridges, eh?

via Paul Krugman's NYT blog

Microsoft paying for Bing's market share.

Henry Blodget's Business Insider via NYT has this great visual showing how Microsoft is willing to throw money to show that they're gaining market share in search.

Turns out though, that Bing's market share gain - as determined by Comscore - was something of a trick, because Microsoft and Yahoo have figured out the system and have been gaming it to show a market increase.

Which might explain why statcounter shows Bing being flat at 8%. all year long.  That's a lot of money for nothing.

I drive so little...

I actually pay more for insurance per mile than I do for gas, by a huge margin.

ME:

$840/year / 3500 mi/year = $0.24/mi
$0.24/mi * 22 mi/gal = $5.28/gal
(based on my vehicle's cumulative 22 mpg)

If I drove 10,000 mi/year:

$840/year / 10,000 mi/year = $0.084/mi
$0.084/mi * 22 mi/gal = $1.85/gal

That is just sad.  Or crazy. I dunno...I'm feeling shocked right now.  My insurer (State Farm) eliminated lower mileage rate levels, so I'm stuck paying $840/year.  I need to send an email to my insurer and have him explain why I should stay with them, huh?

Those kids at MIT are pretty darn smart.

Love this proof of concept, of a drawing instrument that can create 3D images.  I'm sure it'll be here in 10 years or so...always the wait, eh?

via Make Magazine

The worst mortgage defaulters are...

Rich people and investors.  I should have brought this up, but last weekend, the NYT had a great article explaining that, in fact, people who owe over $1,000,000 are the worst defaulters, by a wide margin, so far, in this current housing debacle.

Seeing as, at the time of origination of those loans, Fannie and Freddie had FHA conforming requirements of $417,000 (meaning they couldn't buy loans made for more than that amount), it's clear that Fannie and Freddie had no involvement with some of the worst defaulters.  Still, that does not shift blame away from either Freddie nor Fannie, from their involvement in the mortgage crisis.

But we also must understand that Freddie/Fannie play a crucial role in making conventional loans available to the average middle-income and lower-income household.  Because Freddie and Fannie buy loans in cash from banks, they provide the ability of those banks to continue to originate more loans, instead of tying up their capital.  Proof in point, in 2009, Freddie/Fannie owned 75% of all mortgages.  Without them, there would not be even a hint of a housing recovery, as banks are dealing with their own, privately held mortgages.

As much as they were a part of the problem, so are they also part of the solution.  Well that is, unless you believe that only free markets solve problems.

Plastic grocery bag ban?

Portland is considering - and will likely pass - a ban on the use of grocery bags.

I'm not convinced that this is the correct approach.

I think it would be best for the City of Portland to require grocers to either use 100% biodegradable (compostable) bags, or charge $0.05 per non-biodegradable plastic bag.

This way, the money collected could be used to raise awareness of recycling non-biodegradable plastic bags (or to encourage recycling of said plastic bag by using the same refund method of aluminum drink cans), but also giving grocers the leeway to move to biodegradable plastic bags.

By moving in this direction, oil is still removed from the plastic bag equation, but also encourages the use of biodegradable plastic bags (as a secondary-use) to displace non-biodegradable plastic bags (as primary-use). Secondary use means less energy used to produce total number of plastic bags (think trash can liners and picking up dog poop), which is like a win-win situation, really.

In response to Mitch McConnell.

In defense of Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Mitch McConnell said:

"That's been the majority Republican view for some time...that there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy."

So in response to McConnell, I present the reality:

Notice the immediate change from the preceding quarter to the first full quarter after each tax change?

Maybe he was talking long term? That is to say, maybe the Republicans believe supply-side economics take a long time to show up, whereas demand-side economics is supposed to show up immediately? [Sarcastic laughter ensues]

Because you know, they've been arguing that supply-side economics show up immediately with return of higher tax receipts through a growth of GDP.

USDOT confirms...runaway Toyotas caused by driver error.

According to the WSJ via Autoblog, the USDOT has reviewed the data and concluded driver error was the cause for all of the unexpected acceleration (besides the sticky pedal and floor mats, that is).

Question is, is the media recalcitrant?  Will ABC News issue an apology?  Probably not.

Some brief thoughts...musically speaking.

From Green Day's Holiday:

"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies."

And from GD's American Idiot:

"Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along to the age of paranoia.

And from their Longview:

"Call me pathetic, call me what you will
My mother says to get a job
But she don't like the one she's got."

From GD's Know Your Enemy:

"Do you know the enemy
Do you know your enemy
Well gotta' know the enemy.

Overthrow the effigy
The vast majority
We're burning down the foreman of control."

And finally, from their 21 Guns:

"Do you know what's worth fighting for?
When it's not worth dying for?
Does it take your breath away and you feel yourself suffocating?
Does the pain weigh out the pride?
And you look for a place to hide?"

Skip over to Nirvana's In Bloom:

"He's the one, he likes all our pretty songs,
And he likes to sing along,
And he likes to shoot his gun,
But he knows not what it means.
Knows not what it means when I say."

And to Nirvana's Come as You Are:

"Come, as you are, as you were, as I want you to be
As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy
Take your time, hurry up, the choice is yours, don't be late
Take a rest, as a friend, as an old."

Yeah, that's how I feel right now.

Tally of Republican, economic quotes.

We have senator Orrin Hatch speaking (about the Medicare expansion bill from 2003) last December to USA Today:

"It was standard practice not to pay for things."

Yesterday, we had another doozy, this time from senator Jon Kyl speaking to Fox News:

"You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

One Republican says they didn't bother to offset spending increases back in 2003 while the other says that they aren't going to offset tax cuts. Aha...the true legacy of George Bush: FUZZY MATH!

Yikes! Deflation coming right at us?

Paul Krugman's got a post suggesting a linear trend towards deflation using two charts measuring monthly data for inflation based on two different measures (Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank's median consumer price inflation (expressed as a percentage based on an annual rate) and personal consumption expenditure index (excludes food and energy)).

Thought I'd also add some perspective to the stimulus bill that was passed and signed in February of 2009.

This first chart reflects the US economy since the first day George Bush took office. As previously noted, those tax cuts enacted had a strong influence on adding to the national debt. Notice how GDP is growing quite well, while federal receipts have begun to increase but at a much slower rate. If production is growing but receipts is growing slower, is this a sign of slowed inflation...heading towards deflation? Not sure.

But then I thought it was worth looking closer at the last 2 years, to compare the effects of the stimulus.

Yes, there was a short jump in spending, which appears to have had an effect on receipts recovering, but overall, spending did not really have that big of an impact on the overall trend of spending increases from the previous year.  And if you look at that longer chart going back to 2001, spending really hasn't had much of an effect, unlike receipts, to federal debt.  That is to say, that there were huge changes in receipts throughout George Bush's administration, which not just carried over to the Obama administration, but exploded just before Obama took office.

Just interesting info, if you want to discuss making those Republican tax cuts permanent, while trying to cut the federal debt.

If a conservative think-tank dismisses inflation fears, will anyone listen?

Well, not EXACTLY a conservative think-tank, but more like a Libertarian think tank, the American Enterprise Institute's John Makin issued an outlook that describes how Keynes was RIGHT, and how the real threat was never inflation, but deflation.

So do you think people will listen and finally believe if both sides are saying the same thing?

Maybe not.

After all, as Paul Krugman points out, these arguments were played out in 1932, and in some respects, history is repeating itself, including President Obama's Administration's timidity on the first stimulus, and the fear of trying to get a second stimulus passed.  The difference this time...we could be facing a Republican bloc that will - despite their intentions - turn this into the 3rd Depression.

Are neo-conservatives concerned about Palin?

Read an op-ed piece from The American Conservative, suggesting that Palin has made some outrageous statements as well as has obfuscated her position with regards to the military.  But the question is, is Palin co-opting her Tea Party friends, when she is calling for military spending increases, even while they are calling for cutting debt?

Sure, it might be possible for both to co-exist (cutting debt but increasing military spending), but the truth may be, that Tea Party folks are more insistent that tax cuts be enacted while cutting debt.  So the mentality is, that supply-side economics will create miracles, I see.

And unicorn is "the new white meat".

ECB, IMF...which one is correct?

The IMF predicted yesterday that the Eurozone would grow 1% in 2010, while the ECB believes that is too conservative.

Considering that the IMF and ECB are on the same sides when it comes to sovereign debt, I think they're both in for a shock if Germany along with other Eurozone countries go ahead with their planned austerity measures.

It'll be the sucking sound of money being pulled from GDP, and a general lack of confidence that governments know what they're doing.

---

In other news, the global warming skeptics appear to have gone silent during the massive heat wave hitting most of the US.  Those are the same skeptics who were mocking global warming and attacking the science behind it, even when they didn't actually understand it (which explains why they're silent right now).

Scientists find a way to describe (mathematically) wind turbulence.

I thought this was interesting.  Apparently while observing turbulence, scientists have not been able to properly describe it in a mathematical formula, such that it could be incorporated in weather pattern models and design of airplanes.  Now, a fluid dynamics researcher  (and his team) at Princeton have come up with novel observations and a mathematical formula that could lead to stronger weather predictions and far more fuel efficient airplanes.

Link to Wired article

Penn is vulgar, but funnier than hell. And one smart guy.

As I grew older, so did my distaste for astrology.  The premise of astrology is that, all humans around the world are simply defined by the point in a year in which they were born.  I have difficulty accepting this simplistic thinking, because it defies logic, and confers people with limited individuality.  My friend calls it "harmless fun", but is it?  It allows people to come to a predetermined judgment of others, by the basis of their birth date.

Which leads me to Penn's video.  What a great story he has to tell, and his point is my point, even if the outcome is ironic.

The IMF has gone crazy.

They've issued the most ludicrous statement, suggesting that the US cut its social security benefits to ease debt fears.  I'm just flabbergasted that they would even broach the subject.

First, the IMF is essentially promoting the idea that the US Congress continue to borrow against the SS trust fund to pay for general budgetary expenditures.  Instead of solvency issues in 2037, the SS trust fund will be facing solvency issues in 2017, when it is expected to go from building a cash surplus to drawing down from that surplus.  If there is no actual cash left from being raided for general budgetary spending (reducing the debt), Congress will have to borrow to pay back that money.

Cutting benefits would thus have a limited effect, as interest rates would probably be much higher in 2017, than it is today, eating away any future debt reduction.  At best, it's a shell game with a net-zero effect, except of course, to cut benefits of one class of people, which leads me to item two.

Second, they're suggesting that retired, disabled and surviving spouses should suffer cuts for spending largess such as Bush's wars and tax cuts.  Hey, haven't we heard this one before?  It's always the middle class and the poor who must suffer for the sins of the rich, huh?

And they wonder why we tax the rich at a higher rate?

What happens when the dog loses the frisbee on hard ground.

"Hell. I missed the frisbee. You're gonna have to pick it up."

"Look see, I'll even get up and walk closer to it so you know where the frisbee is."

"Look, the frisbee's not going to pick itself up. See, I'm staring right at it."

"It's about time you got off your ass and came over here. Look, it's right over there."

"What do you mean, you don't see it?!? Are you blind, I'm pointing right at it!?!"

"Look, you've got 5 independently movable digits on each hand. Pick the frisbee up already!"

Sometimes you can be REALLY OFF.

This guy wasn't just a little off; he was off by a continent, and then some. What's really amusing, is that though the first edition was published in December 2001 (think right after 9/11 attack), it reached a second edition in December 2008! I know...December 2008, published as a second edition even while the Dow was floating at the 9000 level after having plummeted from 16,000 high. Either you have a pair of enormous cojones or you're an idiot who got lucky and thought that luck would continue. I'm apt to believe the latter.

Another example of obfuscating the truth.

The Obama Administration came up with new pollution rules in lieu of the ones that were created under the Bush Administration and subsequently tossed out by a federal court.

And without delay, the Edison Electric Institute (electric power lobby group) stated that the new rules would create "a great deal of regulatory uncertainty."

Huh?!?

So let's get this straight. The Administration issues new rules saying what the new cap reductions are, and the electric lobby says that these rules bring uncertainty?

Talk about breathtakingly bold-faced lies, but they say if you repeat a lie often enough - regardless of context - that eventually most people will believe you, thus....

another example of obfuscating the truth.

Comment on an Op-Ed piece from David Brooks.

I read yesterday's Op-Ed piece from Conservative David Brooks.  In it, he tried to provide a moderate voice - his usual style - of a contemporaneous issue: federal debt.  To support his position, he paints those who use data, as somehow disconnected from reality, and relied on anecdotal evidence and opinion polls.

He argued that austerity is what drives confidence, or specifically, that a growing debt creates anxiety among the entrepreneurs, and that people with "high IQ's" (presumably on the opposite end of entrepreneurs) rely too much on their theories, entirely lacking a pragmatist's insights.

The bottom line to Brooks: Small businesses are concerned about federal debt and as a result, tax increases.

I don't think so.  I strongly believe that small businesses are wary of expanding for four reasons, none of which has to do with the federal debt or tax increases.

1. First, let me describe how I've seen this process work.  The opinions of Wall Street gets filtered down to small business owners through a variety of routes, including emails, breakfast presentations by local representatives, the media, and opinions of like-minded colleagues.  If Wall Street's opinion is that, there is uncertainty in the future for a variety of reasons, that translates down to the small business owner that there is uncertainty in the future, and the entrepreneur is wary of expanding too fast.  I've seen the exact same arguments being issued from Wall Street's media outlets (professional opinions), and how that is reflected by the banker who then says the same thing to small business owners in emails about the economic outlook.
   
2. Second, the easiest way to expand business after a serious contraction, is to simply increase productivity by increasing work hours.  No need to hire new people, when you can remove that 32 hour work-week restriction, and get your workers up to full capacity 40 hour work weeks, right?  Think about that...which one is cheaper for a business owner?  And you know what?  The data in fact shows this.
   
3. Third, if a bank says credit is tight and you only have so much revolving credit and lending is being limited, what choice does a small business have?  You simply cannot expand, and the core market that has been devastated by this housing bubble, is construction.
   
4. Fourth, yes, small businesses are concerned about uncertainty about future taxes, and obviously they are waiting on the sidelines as they determine how to manage their businesses to navigate the (presumed tax changes).  But let's not fool ourselves.  Local taxes are what drives uncertainty.  Look at the budget shortfall of the states, not the federal debt.  Are you really going to be concerned about federal debt, when you know that, in fact, your state and city may be raising taxes faster than you can expand income?  I understand, that small businesses are concerned about inflation, but I think this plays a very small concern right now, given the historically low interest rates, and the unbelievably low US bond rates.  If there was any doubt that people were afraid of the US economy, again, look to how low the US bond rates are!  Where's the lack of confidence in the US economy?
   

Of course, Brooks always strikes a middle tone, so here's his proposal, which I think people should take note:

First, extend unemployment insurance; that’s a foolish place to begin budget-balancing. Second, you need to mitigate the pain caused by the state governments that are slashing spending. You need a program modeled on Race to the Top. You will provide federal money now to states that pass responsible long-term budget plans that will reduce spending and pension commitments. That would save public-sector jobs and ease contractionary pressures without throwing the country into a fiscal-debt spiral.

Now you tell me, doesn't Brooks sound like a Democrat?

Inflation much?

Heh.  Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor made a market bet last December, shorting the 20 year US Bond.

I think he was listening in too much on the rhetoric of hyper inflation, which has gone back all the way to October 2008, but had continued all the way through 2009.

So far, it's been a bad bet, as indicated by the lowering yield rates, and flat consumer prices.

Just curious though...isn't it there some sort of ethical issue, when a lawmaker can make market bets while attempting to influence economic policy and fear-mongering to drive the market?

How to pay for unemployment benefits.

End Congress' lifetime pension and health care NOW!

Airline mergers and frequent flier miles.

I don't care for either.  But this article points out that both are bad.

Mergers allow badly managed airlines with high costs, to continue to compete against the smaller, well-run and profitable ones.  The result can often be seen as the failure of the smaller airlines, or the inability of start ups to...well...start up.

Frequent flier miles are bad, because they encourage people to stick with those large airlines, particularly when those business miles are an untaxed benefit.  Why don't smaller airlines offer frequent flier miles, you ask?  I'd assume that if they did install such loyalty programs, they'd either have to squeeze margins or charge higher prices, which would considerably weaken their competitive advantage (cheaper fares).

And hey, no mention of those tacked-on fees in the article, but one should take note that the largest US carriers (US Airways, Delta-Northwest, Continental-United and American) all charge $25 for the first checked bag.

I fly SW whenever I can.  Free bags, free snacks, easy flight scheduling with fares clearly shown.

Intelligence varied by country due to disease?

I briefed through an article in The Economist that reviewed a study that suggests a correlation between IQ scores and the burden of (exposure to) disease.  However, I am not entirely sure this link exists, as it may simply be replicating a bias against taught intelligence, or disparities of testing as it relates to accessibility of testing and quality of translation of test materials.  For instance, nearly every African nation has an average IQ score in the mid 60 to upper 70 range, and then Sierra Leone's average IQ score is 91.  Hard to believe that a nation that is at war with itself funded by blood diamonds, would score an average IQ of 91, don't you think?

Nonetheless, I did notice another interesting thing.

When you rank nations with the highest average IQs by their scores, the type of health care appears to matter:

• Singapore - 108
  
• South Korea* - 106
  
• Japan* - 105
  
• China - 105
  
• Italy - 102
  
• Mongolia - 101
  
• Iceland - 101
  
• Switzerland* - 101
  
• Austria* - 101
  
• Britain - 100
  
• Netherlands - 100
  
• Luxembourg* - 100
  
• Norway - 100
  
  
• US** - 98
  

* - Compulsory health care coverage required with a mix of private/public plans available.
** - Compulsory health care coverage not yet required.

Damn, this is funny!

Well, that is, if you're not an Apple lover. If you're an Apple lover, you might not find it funny.  Poor guy though, was fired from Best Buy over creating this video.

Steele, yet another wild and crazy Republican!

Republicans are seriously cracking me up lately! At a fundraiser, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was caught saying some outrageous stuff:

"This was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

Say whaaaaat?!?! But wait, there's more!

"If he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right? Because everyone who's tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."

OMG, are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't have left Iraq to fight a war in Afghanistan? I mean really, revisionist, much? Don't believe me that he actually said these things? Watch the video.

Ranking of the US Presidents.

Conducted by Sienna College Research Institute, they asked 238 presidential scholars from around the nation, to rate all 43 presidents, including Barack Obama (who by the way came in 15th place, just two notches below Bill Clinton at 13th.)

But of course the point of this post, is that I was LOL, because a certain president was ranked 5th worst.

Here are some of this person's individual rankings (1 - 43 based on 43 presidents):

• Communication ability (speak, write) - (42)
  
• Handling of U.S. economy - (42nd)
  
• Luck - (18th)
  
• Overall ability - (40)
  
• Intelligence - (42)
  

You're laughing right about now, aren't you?

Why are Republicans attacking social welfare programs?

After all, they were the ones that added $50 billion to last year's debt, when they created Medicare Part D, drug benefit. I understand the fear of a rising federal debt, but why do they want to cut unemployment support at a time when it is most needed? And why didn't they balance their own budgets between 2001 and 2006?

Silly me, I nearly forgot about good ol Orrin Hatch and what he said last December about his Republican colleagues in Congress:

"It was standard practice not to pay for things."

How silly of me, to think Republicans should be responsible for their own actions?!!?!