First, something good: there is a possibility of a preventive measure which can stop leukemia and some other things.
Second, the unthinkable: there is a possibility cacao (for chocolate) will go extinct by about 2050.
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Republican Strategy
Today I heard Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaking to the issue of violence and bi-partisan legislating. He said this session of Congress had been one of the most bi-partisan ever and the media simply weren't telling the public about it.
Of course, we aren't seeing bi-partisan legislation authored by Democrats and ready to go to the floor for a vote because a Democratic Speaker of the House enables it. The reason we aren't seeing that is the political strategy the Republicans have been using has been very effective at getting Republican majorities in the House and Senate, so they (and only they) can control the agenda. If there is bi-partisanship it's because the Republicans think it will favor them. As far as I know, they still follow the "Hastert Rule" which says that a majority of Republicans must favor legislation before it gets sent up for a vote. That makes bi-partisanship mere icing on the cake for them. They don't really care if Democrats support their legislation in most cases.
How did the Republicans get majorities in the House and Senate? By using the most divisive disgusting attack tactics available.
They've been dog whistling to the racists, white supremacists, Klan members, neo-Nazis, and other deplorables and they've been doing that for a long long time. For example, in 1980 Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party nominee for president, went to Philadelphia to kick off his campaign. That sounds patriotic and all red, white, and blue, until you know it was Philadelphia, Mississippi and the purpose was to speak directly to the racists in America to let them know the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan were in their corner, fighting for their white supremacy. Disgusting.
Since then all their Right-Wing pundits have amped up the talk and incited more violence and fear than you can shake a stick at. Their constant attacks on the Clintons is historic. Their use of conspiracy theories is monumental. Their attempt to lead the crazies to power is legend.
Then, with Donald Trump they realized they had to have a higher percentage than ever of that voting bloc to stay in power. Trump began to directly incite violence. At first it was against the media and blacks who had come to his rallies. Later his constant harangue against the media and the continued attacks on Hillary Clinton (after the election) showed he had no shame and never intended to lead Americans to "come together". Trump IS a divider.
This plan to gain power, to control the legislative process, to control the media, to discredit any and all opponents, and to instill actual fear into people, is a first in recent history (perhaps in all American history). Then came the actual violence.
When a Right-Wing conspiracy theory about the Clintons, pedophilia, and a pizza parlor in Washington was promoted, a gunman appeared to try to end that horrible thing. But, there was no pedophilia at the pizza parlor. It was just a pizza parlor and the Clintons were in no way involved. The Right Wing is guilty.
This past week a madman mailed over a dozen pipe bombs to high-level Democrats, including two former presidents and a former attorney general. And, yesterday another madman went into a Pennsylvania synagogue and killed eleven people because he hated Jews.
Donald Trump and the Republican party and their supporters at FOX news and other outlets are guilty of enabling and promoting this.
Talk about a bi-partisan Congress is hardly to the point when Republicans are murdering people.
Of course, we aren't seeing bi-partisan legislation authored by Democrats and ready to go to the floor for a vote because a Democratic Speaker of the House enables it. The reason we aren't seeing that is the political strategy the Republicans have been using has been very effective at getting Republican majorities in the House and Senate, so they (and only they) can control the agenda. If there is bi-partisanship it's because the Republicans think it will favor them. As far as I know, they still follow the "Hastert Rule" which says that a majority of Republicans must favor legislation before it gets sent up for a vote. That makes bi-partisanship mere icing on the cake for them. They don't really care if Democrats support their legislation in most cases.
How did the Republicans get majorities in the House and Senate? By using the most divisive disgusting attack tactics available.
They've been dog whistling to the racists, white supremacists, Klan members, neo-Nazis, and other deplorables and they've been doing that for a long long time. For example, in 1980 Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party nominee for president, went to Philadelphia to kick off his campaign. That sounds patriotic and all red, white, and blue, until you know it was Philadelphia, Mississippi and the purpose was to speak directly to the racists in America to let them know the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan were in their corner, fighting for their white supremacy. Disgusting.
Since then all their Right-Wing pundits have amped up the talk and incited more violence and fear than you can shake a stick at. Their constant attacks on the Clintons is historic. Their use of conspiracy theories is monumental. Their attempt to lead the crazies to power is legend.
Then, with Donald Trump they realized they had to have a higher percentage than ever of that voting bloc to stay in power. Trump began to directly incite violence. At first it was against the media and blacks who had come to his rallies. Later his constant harangue against the media and the continued attacks on Hillary Clinton (after the election) showed he had no shame and never intended to lead Americans to "come together". Trump IS a divider.
This plan to gain power, to control the legislative process, to control the media, to discredit any and all opponents, and to instill actual fear into people, is a first in recent history (perhaps in all American history). Then came the actual violence.
When a Right-Wing conspiracy theory about the Clintons, pedophilia, and a pizza parlor in Washington was promoted, a gunman appeared to try to end that horrible thing. But, there was no pedophilia at the pizza parlor. It was just a pizza parlor and the Clintons were in no way involved. The Right Wing is guilty.
This past week a madman mailed over a dozen pipe bombs to high-level Democrats, including two former presidents and a former attorney general. And, yesterday another madman went into a Pennsylvania synagogue and killed eleven people because he hated Jews.
Donald Trump and the Republican party and their supporters at FOX news and other outlets are guilty of enabling and promoting this.
Talk about a bi-partisan Congress is hardly to the point when Republicans are murdering people.
Friday, October 26, 2018
National Security -- A Quick Overview
Recently Vladimir Putin said America is no longer a super power and implied we were "the past" and even that he had been able to push us to adopting a foreign policy more to his liking. I think a quick review of our recent history is in order to understand why we are on the particular path we are on is not of Putin's doing, but is a natural result.
The Fall
The Soviet Union dissolved 12/26/1991.
Federal Debt: $3.665 Trillion, 59% of our GDP that year
Time for a Peace Dividend
Since that time many people in America began to call for a "peace dividend". Without a giant nemesis we had a lot less reason to spend ourselves into debt to buy and build a huge military. Some people said that even prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union we didn't need to, but to simplify this discussion I begin after its dissolution.
Thus, in the 1990s the American economy took off and did great stuff. There were some domestic fights like the Gingrich-led "Reagan Revolution" which was the next generation Republicans trying to find a reason to exist. They attacked Pres. Clinton and he only became more popular. The 2000 presidential election was very close.
Federal Debt: $ 5.674 Trillion (increase from $3.665 T), 55% of GDP for that year (a drop from 59%)
The Global War on Terror -- Another Nemesis
In 2001 when we were attacked by al Qaeda we had a new global foe. For reasons beyond comprehension the Bush administration turned its attention to Saddam Hussein and Iraq (again) and attacked. This cost countless lives and treasure. The Republicans also passed tax reform which ended the austerity of the Clinton years, thus driving up the debt. In the years 2007-2010 we had a horrendous financial recession which cost us many trillions of dollars, pushing us further into debt. This was entirely of our own doing and it was avoidable.
Federal Debt: $10.025 Trillion (up from $5.674 T), 68% of GDP for that year (up from 55%)
Cleaning Up Messes
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama began to lead the nation and with the Bush Treasurer and the Federal Reserve Chairman they began to solve the financial problems. It cost a tremendous amount of money. Much of Obama's administration was cleaning up the foreign policy mess and domestic recession he had been handed. The "Global War on Terror" is ending as I write this, 2018, with the end of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesch).
Federal Debt: $19.573 (up from $10.025), 104% of GDP for that year (first time over 100%)
More Republican Silliness
At the end of Pres. Obama's term we elected another Republican, Donald Trump. He and the Republican-led Congress passed a massive tax cut which is pushing us about $2 Trillion further into debt.
Federal Debt (projected): $21.516 (up from $19.573 T), 107% of GDP (up from 104%)
Where We Stand Today
In a sense, we're back to where we were on 9/10/2001 or 12/27/1991, we have resolved a lot of our foreign security issues. A key difference is that we're more heavily in debt.
1991 $ 3.665 Trillion and 59% of GDP
2018 $21.516 Trillion and 107% of GDP Note: some of 2018 is estimated.
That's a huge increase in debt over 27 years.
Where This Leads Us
That leads us to seek a less expensive foreign policy and a military which is either smaller or at least not growing rapidly. It leads us to turning inward to secure the PPACA/ACA/Obamacare which was created in 2010 and to consider improvements to our economy and financial system. It also gives us a moment to stop spending so much beyond our means. Just as the Clinton administration showed you can shrink the deficit and get to a surplus, today we can do that.
One problem: Republicans, the source of most of our debt problems, still control the presidency, the Supreme Court, and possibly the Congress. The mid-term elections are soon and when we see the outcomes of that event we can better judge how to proceed. If Democrats take the House, they can urge passage of some legislation, but it's doubtful Republicans in the Senate of White House will allow anything dramatically useful to become law. If Democrats sweep Congress, then it will become a question of whether they have a simple majority or a super-majority which can override presidential vetoes. Each of these different states of our government has massive import for legislation that can become law and for policies to be effectuated.
As For Vladimir Putin's Comments
I don't see them as terribly relevant unless he wants to step up and announce that he has been controlling Republicans and forcing them to push America further and further into debt. He could also announce that he is encouraging Iran to continue aggression against Israel, specifically to force America into another foreign war. If he has real ideas of destroying America through asymmetrical warfare techniques, then this could be his approach.
Putin recently made it clear he intends to keep his intermediate range nuclear weapons (believed to be packaged as a cruise missile) to deter China (what?), Pakistan (what?), or Iran (what?). I thought those were either allies of Russia or neutral toward Russia. Putin makes no sense a lot of the time since he doesn't depend much on public pronouncements for his policies. He is a KGB agent through and through and prefers to act indirectly through other people/nations.
The Fall
The Soviet Union dissolved 12/26/1991.
Federal Debt: $3.665 Trillion, 59% of our GDP that year
Time for a Peace Dividend
Since that time many people in America began to call for a "peace dividend". Without a giant nemesis we had a lot less reason to spend ourselves into debt to buy and build a huge military. Some people said that even prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union we didn't need to, but to simplify this discussion I begin after its dissolution.
Thus, in the 1990s the American economy took off and did great stuff. There were some domestic fights like the Gingrich-led "Reagan Revolution" which was the next generation Republicans trying to find a reason to exist. They attacked Pres. Clinton and he only became more popular. The 2000 presidential election was very close.
Federal Debt: $ 5.674 Trillion (increase from $3.665 T), 55% of GDP for that year (a drop from 59%)
The Global War on Terror -- Another Nemesis
In 2001 when we were attacked by al Qaeda we had a new global foe. For reasons beyond comprehension the Bush administration turned its attention to Saddam Hussein and Iraq (again) and attacked. This cost countless lives and treasure. The Republicans also passed tax reform which ended the austerity of the Clinton years, thus driving up the debt. In the years 2007-2010 we had a horrendous financial recession which cost us many trillions of dollars, pushing us further into debt. This was entirely of our own doing and it was avoidable.
Federal Debt: $10.025 Trillion (up from $5.674 T), 68% of GDP for that year (up from 55%)
Cleaning Up Messes
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama began to lead the nation and with the Bush Treasurer and the Federal Reserve Chairman they began to solve the financial problems. It cost a tremendous amount of money. Much of Obama's administration was cleaning up the foreign policy mess and domestic recession he had been handed. The "Global War on Terror" is ending as I write this, 2018, with the end of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesch).
Federal Debt: $19.573 (up from $10.025), 104% of GDP for that year (first time over 100%)
More Republican Silliness
At the end of Pres. Obama's term we elected another Republican, Donald Trump. He and the Republican-led Congress passed a massive tax cut which is pushing us about $2 Trillion further into debt.
Federal Debt (projected): $21.516 (up from $19.573 T), 107% of GDP (up from 104%)
Where We Stand Today
In a sense, we're back to where we were on 9/10/2001 or 12/27/1991, we have resolved a lot of our foreign security issues. A key difference is that we're more heavily in debt.
1991 $ 3.665 Trillion and 59% of GDP
2018 $21.516 Trillion and 107% of GDP Note: some of 2018 is estimated.
That's a huge increase in debt over 27 years.
Where This Leads Us
That leads us to seek a less expensive foreign policy and a military which is either smaller or at least not growing rapidly. It leads us to turning inward to secure the PPACA/ACA/Obamacare which was created in 2010 and to consider improvements to our economy and financial system. It also gives us a moment to stop spending so much beyond our means. Just as the Clinton administration showed you can shrink the deficit and get to a surplus, today we can do that.
One problem: Republicans, the source of most of our debt problems, still control the presidency, the Supreme Court, and possibly the Congress. The mid-term elections are soon and when we see the outcomes of that event we can better judge how to proceed. If Democrats take the House, they can urge passage of some legislation, but it's doubtful Republicans in the Senate of White House will allow anything dramatically useful to become law. If Democrats sweep Congress, then it will become a question of whether they have a simple majority or a super-majority which can override presidential vetoes. Each of these different states of our government has massive import for legislation that can become law and for policies to be effectuated.
As For Vladimir Putin's Comments
I don't see them as terribly relevant unless he wants to step up and announce that he has been controlling Republicans and forcing them to push America further and further into debt. He could also announce that he is encouraging Iran to continue aggression against Israel, specifically to force America into another foreign war. If he has real ideas of destroying America through asymmetrical warfare techniques, then this could be his approach.
Putin recently made it clear he intends to keep his intermediate range nuclear weapons (believed to be packaged as a cruise missile) to deter China (what?), Pakistan (what?), or Iran (what?). I thought those were either allies of Russia or neutral toward Russia. Putin makes no sense a lot of the time since he doesn't depend much on public pronouncements for his policies. He is a KGB agent through and through and prefers to act indirectly through other people/nations.
China Sucking Up US and Canadian Internet Traffic for Spying
Apparently we must deny them local Point-Of-Presences (PoPs) to match their own practices.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
BOMB THREATS - Political Tactic?
If the Right feels it is losing the mid-terms and probably control of the House of Representatives then we have to also wonder how they are going to hang on. Pres. Trump has been giving speeches about immigrants. Immigrants? Why is that so relevant? Democrats have been speaking more often about health care insurance, greater education & job opportunities, and sounder government finances. But, if that comparison isn't working for the Right, is it possible they would try to shift attention to their issues -- to bring out their voters and to sway undecided voters?
So, Democrats should stay the course on their campaign issues, avoid the shift in focus to violence except to praise our security systems and to condemn Republican leaders who have pointedly called for violence against individual Democratic leaders.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Economics Today
I've written about the lack of an American Dream for a lot of Americans and I've written about potential solutions and I've written about short-sellers on Wall St. However, Robert Kuttner beat me to the punch by writing about Wall St. Vultures. They gain control of large, but vulnerable companies like Tesla or Sears, and they strip them to the bones to stuff money in their own pockets. It's the antipathy of how the Free Market is supposed to support commerce in America.
Read his article: Sears bankruptcy and hedge funds
It's another area which needs to be studied and possibly regulated much more than today. However, ending a lot of the CEO-driven stock buy-backs would help to end the Vulture's means of destroying companies.
Security of the U.S. Government E-mail
Read this and weep. Why are our government organizations so slow to take up known useful technologies while they waste billions on weapons systems we will possibly never use?
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Tesla Shoots, They Score, Down goes Mercedes-Benz
The short-sellers have argued for some time that Tesla is mismanaged and failing badly like this. I've seen several articles recently and they all refute that.
Model-3 has the lowest probability for injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA
Tesla just out-sold Mercedes-Benz in the US for the first time (October 2018)
There are also other stories of Elon Musk's successes with other companies or from his own pocket.
Tesla's battery in South Australia breaks stranglehold of natural gas industry
SpaceX aces 1st ever rocket landing in California after satellite launch
Tesla is revving-up to build the world's largest battery farm in California
Tesla to achieve leading $100/kWh battery cell cost this year, says investor after Gigafactory tour
Hyperloop unveils full-scale 750-mph passenger capsule
Elon Musk has tried to help fix these 7 humanitarian crises — here's how he's doing so far
Elon Musk makes good on pledge with $480,000 to Flint schools for clean drinking water for kids
I haven't heard of any short-sellers doing things like this and I haven't heard of ANY CEOs doing this many amazing things.
I'd say Tesla smokes the competition the same way their cars beat others in drag racing.
Teslas Go Drag Racing and Smoke the Combustion Faithful - Bloomberg
I'm not a stock adviser or investor or short-seller. I'm just a fan of the "green energy revolution".
However, one must wonder who is betting against the "green energy revolution" and why. Who suffers from Elon Musk's success? Could it be the oil & gas industry? Could it be foreign oil & gas interests? Could it be OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia or others like Russia?
We have too many opaque business entities in America and it's possible the public needs to know who is investing in these short-sellers and whether their activities are running contrary to the best interests of Americans, investors, and even the US government's foreign policy.
Model-3 has the lowest probability for injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA
Tesla just out-sold Mercedes-Benz in the US for the first time (October 2018)
There are also other stories of Elon Musk's successes with other companies or from his own pocket.
Tesla's battery in South Australia breaks stranglehold of natural gas industry
SpaceX aces 1st ever rocket landing in California after satellite launch
Tesla is revving-up to build the world's largest battery farm in California
Tesla to achieve leading $100/kWh battery cell cost this year, says investor after Gigafactory tour
Hyperloop unveils full-scale 750-mph passenger capsule
Elon Musk has tried to help fix these 7 humanitarian crises — here's how he's doing so far
Elon Musk makes good on pledge with $480,000 to Flint schools for clean drinking water for kids
I haven't heard of any short-sellers doing things like this and I haven't heard of ANY CEOs doing this many amazing things.
I'd say Tesla smokes the competition the same way their cars beat others in drag racing.
Teslas Go Drag Racing and Smoke the Combustion Faithful - Bloomberg
I'm not a stock adviser or investor or short-seller. I'm just a fan of the "green energy revolution".
However, one must wonder who is betting against the "green energy revolution" and why. Who suffers from Elon Musk's success? Could it be the oil & gas industry? Could it be foreign oil & gas interests? Could it be OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia or others like Russia?
We have too many opaque business entities in America and it's possible the public needs to know who is investing in these short-sellers and whether their activities are running contrary to the best interests of Americans, investors, and even the US government's foreign policy.
Friday, October 5, 2018
The Virtue of Short-Sellers
Tesla owner Elon Musk and several of the major stock short-sellers have been debating the value of Tesla and his management practices on one hand and the propriety and value of short-selling on the other. I think a terrific debate could be produced around that topic. Musk isn't an economist or Wall St. guy, so he would probably need help from someone else to understand and properly debate the issue.
This article about David Einhorn (of Greenlight Capital) provides a nice introduction to their running argument. The recent SEC settlement made with Musk which stripped him of his company's Board of Directors chairmanship and $41 million dollars is also on the line. If Musk is correct, then the SEC was just punishing him for talking -- the same thing Einhorn and other short-sellers are doing.
In the article Einhorn said, "Greenlight’s efforts helped move Apple to aggressively repurchase stock, driving up earnings-per-share." One has to wonder what Greenlight's "efforts" were and whether it's better for Apple (or any important corporation) to do stock buybacks rather than reinvesting in the company and its employees. Does he see "talking up a stock" as helping or manipulating the market. I suppose it depends on whether he gain or loses. Is he "helping" someone by talking down Tesla? Isn't influencing the market by talking too much considered to be manipulation and improper?
That's the way Wall St. players win. It isn't about the success of the company, it's about knowing the direction a company is likely to go or talking loudly to convince everyone else in the market that the company is going up or down, then making their profits. Talk talk talk. It used to be called "pump & dump" to push up a stock's price. In the world of short-selling it's about convincing stockholders the company is about to fail, so they will sell it, thereby allowing the short-seller to buy those same shares at a much lower price.
This debate has been had before, but now, after the recession of 2007-10, it has more resonance for me. In the period before 2007 the banks were holding mortgages which were valued highly, but which eventually were recognized as nearly worthless. Had there been short-sellers who could recognize their true value and convince the market to re-evaluate them, it might have headed off a major recession. But, people who are invested heavily in something like billions of dollars in mortgages aren't so interested in reevaluating it.
It's easier for Wall St. firms to assault one company, such as Tesla, which is still growing and perfecting its business. They don't have so many supporters as the mortgage industry had.
It's a worthy debate!
That's the way Wall St. players win. It isn't about the success of the company, it's about knowing the direction a company is likely to go or talking loudly to convince everyone else in the market that the company is going up or down, then making their profits. Talk talk talk. It used to be called "pump & dump" to push up a stock's price. In the world of short-selling it's about convincing stockholders the company is about to fail, so they will sell it, thereby allowing the short-seller to buy those same shares at a much lower price.
This debate has been had before, but now, after the recession of 2007-10, it has more resonance for me. In the period before 2007 the banks were holding mortgages which were valued highly, but which eventually were recognized as nearly worthless. Had there been short-sellers who could recognize their true value and convince the market to re-evaluate them, it might have headed off a major recession. But, people who are invested heavily in something like billions of dollars in mortgages aren't so interested in reevaluating it.
It's easier for Wall St. firms to assault one company, such as Tesla, which is still growing and perfecting its business. They don't have so many supporters as the mortgage industry had.
It's a worthy debate!
New Battery Technology Idea
If they can capture the CO2 and not expend a tremendous amount of energy doing so that would be great. Even better, if they can use the CO2 productively, that would be a terrific achievement.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Green Energy: Recent Articles and Ideas
I looked at the current state of bicycle technologies and saw some nice things, but they're still quite expensive. The main ideas are to keep weight low with aluminum alloy frames, a lithium-ion battery (with motor to drive the wheels), a carbon-fiber "chain" (which doesn't break or rust or fear dirt), and an internal DaVinci-style gear hub. Look 'em up on the net or YouTube.com and there are a lot of videos and stories about them.
Super-Efficient Bicycle Drive: CeramicSpeed driven shaft drive
Here are a variety of articles I've seen over the last few months. They range from business-specific actions and products to business analyses of where the green energy world is headed to ideas for government.
Solar just hit a record-low-price in the U.S. - Earther
Natural gas markets renewable energ - Vox
China investment solar electric buses - Vox
Is it time to build a national energy grid for renewables? - Vox
Analysis reveals that the world's largest battery saves South Australia 8-9 million in 6 months - CleanTechnica
America's first big offshore wind farm sets record-low prices - RenewEconomy
Upgrading the grid to make the integration of renewables easier and cheaper - CleanTechnica
A Silicon Valley startup is giving lithium-ion batteries a much needed silicon-boost - Quartz
UK Scotland north-east Orkney Shetland Wave Power - BBC
SpiceJet to test India's first bio-fuel-powered plane - LiveMint
If Exxon-Mobil can learn to like renewable energy anyone can - TriplePundit
Groundbreaking spinning wind turbine wins UK Dyson award - The Guardian
Tesla model 3 becomes #1 best-selling car in the US - CleanTechnica
Millions of EV charging points planned for U.S. and Europe-by-2025 - Bloomberg
New carbon credits for charging stations could spur EV adoption - Axios
Coal-killing energy storage grows by 200 in US - CleanTechnica
Bombardier battery-powered electric train - Engadget
World's first hydrogen-powered train hits the tracks in Germany - Quartz
Solar panels replaced tarmac on a motorway: here are the results - The Conversation
How used electric car batteries will turbocharge the renewables revolution - ThinkProgress
Wind energy prices market growth offshore tax credits turbines technology - InsideClimateNews
Wind solar farms produce 10 percent of U.S. power in 4 mo - RenewablesNow
All-electric ships on the horizon - Bloomberg
How Wyoming wind farms help Idaho replace coal - CleanTechnica
Super-Efficient Bicycle Drive: CeramicSpeed driven shaft drive
Here are a variety of articles I've seen over the last few months. They range from business-specific actions and products to business analyses of where the green energy world is headed to ideas for government.
Solar just hit a record-low-price in the U.S. - Earther
Natural gas markets renewable energ - Vox
China investment solar electric buses - Vox
Is it time to build a national energy grid for renewables? - Vox
Analysis reveals that the world's largest battery saves South Australia 8-9 million in 6 months - CleanTechnica
America's first big offshore wind farm sets record-low prices - RenewEconomy
Upgrading the grid to make the integration of renewables easier and cheaper - CleanTechnica
A Silicon Valley startup is giving lithium-ion batteries a much needed silicon-boost - Quartz
UK Scotland north-east Orkney Shetland Wave Power - BBC
SpiceJet to test India's first bio-fuel-powered plane - LiveMint
If Exxon-Mobil can learn to like renewable energy anyone can - TriplePundit
Groundbreaking spinning wind turbine wins UK Dyson award - The Guardian
Tesla model 3 becomes #1 best-selling car in the US - CleanTechnica
Millions of EV charging points planned for U.S. and Europe-by-2025 - Bloomberg
New carbon credits for charging stations could spur EV adoption - Axios
Coal-killing energy storage grows by 200 in US - CleanTechnica
Bombardier battery-powered electric train - Engadget
World's first hydrogen-powered train hits the tracks in Germany - Quartz
Solar panels replaced tarmac on a motorway: here are the results - The Conversation
How used electric car batteries will turbocharge the renewables revolution - ThinkProgress
Wind energy prices market growth offshore tax credits turbines technology - InsideClimateNews
Wind solar farms produce 10 percent of U.S. power in 4 mo - RenewablesNow
All-electric ships on the horizon - Bloomberg
How Wyoming wind farms help Idaho replace coal - CleanTechnica
Monday, September 24, 2018
The Connection to Collusion: Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Russian lawyer, Agalarov, Putin
The meeting Rob Goldstone set up and his regrets: https://thinkprogress.org/rob-goldstone-donald-trum-jr-trump-tower-meeting-dirt-eb4d6439068a/
Rob Goldstone: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45625057
Guardian newspaper, on Goldstone: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldstone-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer
Think Progress has an article about Rob Goldstone (who set up the Trump tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer) and his regrets. He says, "Though he doesn't know what was said on the calls, Goldstone described it as incredible "to think that this conversation or these conversations could have taken place without discussion of funding, Russian funding, illegal funding, Democrats, Hillary, and it being of use to the campaign.""
The growing list of convictions and 'guilty' pleadings has indicated that people around Donald Trump have skirted the law in numerous ways, but none of those directly touched on Donald Trump in the way as has the Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer (representing an oligarch who represents Putin). Now, the man who set up that meeting is saying he doesn't know how they could have had that meeting without discussion of "dirt on Hillary" and Russian government help. When Russian president Vladimir Putin was asked in Helsinki (at a joint press conference with Pres. Trump) if he wanted Trump to wni the presidency or if he had helped the Trump campaign, Putin said, yes, he wanted Trump to win and he had helped them.
The connection is being established around this one meeting. Will there be other provable connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (Putin)? So far Robert Mueller has been ahead of the public knowledge, so we will have to wait and see what his investigation reports.
Here's another article about the financial aspect of the "collusion" deal: Follow the money trump tower to russia
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Who Funds Politics in America?
The law says that if a contributor to a PAC doesn't specify that their contribution is to support a particular candidate, their identity doesn't have to be revealed to the government. recent case involving Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS organization questioned how far the law and regulations should go to keeping Americans unaware of who is funding campaigns. The District of Columbia (DC) Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the names have to be revealed in many more cases than had been previously thought. The 3-judge panel were appointed by George H W Bush and Barack Obama. Apparently this displeased our conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. He, and he alone, decided to stay the lower court actions, so that (at least temporarily) the identities will NOT be revealed.
A lot is happening in the world of politics and government, but this is the only story about this Court decision which I have seen.
One detail which is important: we don't know how temporary this stay may be. Will it extend through the mid-term elections?
Monday, September 17, 2018
The Koreas Talk
Now would be a good time for Sec. of State Mike Pompeo (or other State Dept officals assigned to the task) to keep tabs on the progress on the Korean talks and to recommend any needed changes to the U.S. - N.K. relations in order to smooth the development of N.K. That is a necessary part of bringing them into the international community (no more 'hermit nation'). It would be difficult for N.K. to develop properly if we have old trade barriers still in place. We would be slowing or ruining the entire process Pres. Trump has begun.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
6th Recommendation -- About Tax Havens
I've written about tax havens in the past, but I don't see any posts in my list, so I may have written on social network sites. Anyway, I just read an interesting article which helps elucidate the topic and clarify much of the issue.
The US love affair with tax havens helps solve an economic mystery -- Quartz
It's a great article. Here's one of the most important statements from it: "The economists make a counter-factual calculation that, if US corporations couldn’t shift profits to tax havens and were forced to pay the normal US corporate tax rates on their foreign profits (less credits for taxes paid abroad) it would reduce the US investment advantage by 1.2 percentage points, on average."
My proposal is to allow the IRS to examine off-shore tax havens to determine if a corporation is actually doing business there (as oil corporation divisions clearly would be) or if it is merely a "place" to hide money from the tax collector. Clear rules would have to be in place for this to be well done. The issue of whether a patent or copyright was created in a tax haven or merely "shifted there" would have to be solved too.
When the IRS can declare an off-shore tax haven corporate division is (essentially) phony, then the corporation would be given a chance to rebut that argument and challenge the decision. But, when all is said and done, a lot of off-shore tax havens would become illegal for Americans and American corporations.
If eliminating ALL off-shore tax havens would reduce the US foreign investment advantage by 1.2 percentage points, then this more limited reduction in the use of off-shore tax havens would probably reduce it by no more than .5 percentage points. Someone with better access to data and analytic abilities than me could determine that. However, it would also increase government revenues to pay down the federal debt or be used for defense, infrastructure bank, or any other government spending.
The US love affair with tax havens helps solve an economic mystery -- Quartz
It's a great article. Here's one of the most important statements from it: "The economists make a counter-factual calculation that, if US corporations couldn’t shift profits to tax havens and were forced to pay the normal US corporate tax rates on their foreign profits (less credits for taxes paid abroad) it would reduce the US investment advantage by 1.2 percentage points, on average."
My proposal is to allow the IRS to examine off-shore tax havens to determine if a corporation is actually doing business there (as oil corporation divisions clearly would be) or if it is merely a "place" to hide money from the tax collector. Clear rules would have to be in place for this to be well done. The issue of whether a patent or copyright was created in a tax haven or merely "shifted there" would have to be solved too.
When the IRS can declare an off-shore tax haven corporate division is (essentially) phony, then the corporation would be given a chance to rebut that argument and challenge the decision. But, when all is said and done, a lot of off-shore tax havens would become illegal for Americans and American corporations.
If eliminating ALL off-shore tax havens would reduce the US foreign investment advantage by 1.2 percentage points, then this more limited reduction in the use of off-shore tax havens would probably reduce it by no more than .5 percentage points. Someone with better access to data and analytic abilities than me could determine that. However, it would also increase government revenues to pay down the federal debt or be used for defense, infrastructure bank, or any other government spending.
"Fake News" in the Automobile Business
It's interesting what we see and how people categorize stories. It's even more interesting in the Trump era when he's calling anything he doesn't like as "fake news". The social media and other internet news sites add to the confusion.
Well, here's an interesting article reporting a bit of news you won't likely see anywhere else. I read a lot of pop culture article headlines about both Tesla and it's CEO, Elon Musk (weird name, what). This article gives some basic info which changes the picture significantly.
Of the top 5 cars sold in America, the reports says the only America-based corp car is Tesla. The others are 2 Honda and 2 Toyota models. But, more than this, if you count units sold Tesla is 5th and if you count dollar value of sales, Tesla is #1. Their car is valued higher than the other 4, so total sales times $ value makes Tesla's revenue from sales of this one model (Model 3) the #1 seller in America.
Have you seen anything like that in the news or on any web sites? I haven't. All I've seen was pics of Musk smoking pot while criticizing weed's effect on a person's creativity.
Tesla doesn't even have dealerships across the country. Some states have outlawed selling of Teslas. There aren't many charging stations. Yet they're #1 on that one model.
Isn't America an amazing place.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Cancer, Autism, and Marijuana
Here are a few stories which I think are of great interest with regard to cancer, autism, and marijuana.
1. Now The first human trials of this experimental, cancer-killing drug could change everything - USA Today
2.Experimental cancer VACCINE - experimental-cancer-vaccine- combo-has-100-success-rate-in- mice/
1. Now The first human trials of this experimental, cancer-killing drug could change everything - USA Today
2.Experimental cancer VACCINE - experimental-cancer-vaccine- combo-has-100-success-rate-in- mice/
"... the mice given the combination of Diprovocim and the vaccine had a 100 percent survival rate of over 54 days. Mice given the cancer vaccine and alum had a 25 percent survival rate, and those given just the vaccine had a zero percent survival rate.When researchers attempted to re-introduce the tumor in mice, "it wouldn't take," says Professor Boger. "The animal is already vaccinated against it." "
3. Successful test for autism: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial
4. Aspen pot sales exceed alcohol for the first time as people ditch booze for marijuana
5. New studies show that legal cannabis access reduces opioid abuse | TheHill
3. Successful test for autism: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial
4. Aspen pot sales exceed alcohol for the first time as people ditch booze for marijuana
5. New studies show that legal cannabis access reduces opioid abuse | TheHill
Monday, September 10, 2018
5th Recommendation -- about Inheritance Tax Changes
I was thinking about potential changes to inheritance taxes, but I had considered that once before and came to the conclusion the system that exists is pretty good. The main issues have been the deduction which protects family farmers from losing their properties and the marginal tax rate on any other wealth beyond that. Today i read another article which addresses the issue in another way which I found quite interesting. Here's a link: One tiny tax reform could mean billions for America
It has to do with retirement accounts and other kinds of accounts which currently don't require a pay-out. I fully endorse the idea, though I'm not informed enough to suggest any kind of specifics other than the simple identification of the accounts and requirement they pay-out in the same way as retirement accounts. It may be just that simple.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Global Trade War -- China
The Chinese are set on gaining as much from thievery as they can. They insist that any company wishing to have access to their markets must submit to becoming partners with a Chinese firm, so they can steal any intellectual property (IP) of the foreign firm. This isn't acceptable for things we would call high priority or of national security importance. But, some companies have been and will continue to be willing to accept these terms.
The U.S. government must pass any laws necessary to protect us from the loss of high priority national security IP (plans, blueprints, devices, processes, etc.). There is simply no other way to keep these things out of the hands of foreign governments. As for businesses willing to risk their IP to gain access to the Chinese market, good luck.
Thursday, September 6, 2018
4th Recommendation -- about an Infrastructure Bank
The 4th recommendation is one I've discussed earlier this year. It's the creation of an infrastructure "bank" which will let Congress decide projects which need to be done and a way for private contractors to secure the project.
There are always going to be some projects government has to do by itself, but there are also many instances where it is most advantageous for government to merely push along certain projects by providing some extra financial gain or to provide some extra security from problems for private contractors. I have it in mind that government should use the "bank" to assist contractors with money for projects the government wants done, so long as the contractor(s) adhere to certain standards. For one, they should use union labor. They should be required to finish the job on schedule or face penalties. They should have to insure projects which are inherently more risky (such as bridges) for some time period.
There have been many people who have studied this idea, so I won't go into any more detail. Congress can rely on many experts on this topic.
The benefits of this plan are to get infrastructure projects done. These would be maintenance, repair, and new construction. It would employ people at good wages. It would provide work for construction firms.
There are always going to be some projects government has to do by itself, but there are also many instances where it is most advantageous for government to merely push along certain projects by providing some extra financial gain or to provide some extra security from problems for private contractors. I have it in mind that government should use the "bank" to assist contractors with money for projects the government wants done, so long as the contractor(s) adhere to certain standards. For one, they should use union labor. They should be required to finish the job on schedule or face penalties. They should have to insure projects which are inherently more risky (such as bridges) for some time period.
There have been many people who have studied this idea, so I won't go into any more detail. Congress can rely on many experts on this topic.
The benefits of this plan are to get infrastructure projects done. These would be maintenance, repair, and new construction. It would employ people at good wages. It would provide work for construction firms.
Poppy's Soup
Poppy is a friend of mine whose real name is Mirta. She's from Argentina and is in excellent shape for someone 82 years old. She exercises regularly, takes loads of vitamins and supplements, and eats healthy foods. This recipe is one she has been telling me about for years. Well, today is the day we tell the world.
Poppy's Soup
1/2 cup canned pumpkin (unsweetened)
1/2 cup black beans
1/3 cup oatmeal (quick 1-minute oats)
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 handful of walnuts (chop if you like)
water to make a thick soup
parmigiano cheese (grated)
Condiments: tumeric, black pepper, salt (to taste)
Mix the ingredients and refrigerate over-night.
The next day, bring to room temperature if you like.
Heat to simmer for a few minutes.
Add grated parmigiano cheese on top and serve.
Bon appétit.
Poppy's Soup
1/2 cup canned pumpkin (unsweetened)
1/2 cup black beans
1/3 cup oatmeal (quick 1-minute oats)
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 handful of walnuts (chop if you like)
water to make a thick soup
parmigiano cheese (grated)
Condiments: tumeric, black pepper, salt (to taste)
Mix the ingredients and refrigerate over-night.
The next day, bring to room temperature if you like.
Heat to simmer for a few minutes.
Add grated parmigiano cheese on top and serve.
Bon appétit.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Trump's Plan
His whole life, Donald Trump has been an empty shell with a name and a sales pitch. He learned this during his youth and he built his Trump Organization on that pattern. He added to it by learning enough business to know he could borrow money from banks, put it into a business, build up the image of the business and bring in some customers (for a while). Then he would sac the business, take its assets (being a raider before Carl Icahn taught America about that technique) and bankrupt the company. Banks eventually got tired of this and he had to go overseas for money, When he ran for president, he asked a foreign government (Russia and Vladimir Putin) for help. But, he has built his presidency on his name, fake reputation, claims the good things were his doing (as president he claims the good things Obama did) and produce no actual good results (Congressional Republicans have done a few things). To the contrary he has tried to pay back Putin with idiotic things like legalizing use of asbestos. What kind of monster would do that and endanger everyone's health? Now that he's been uncovered and Mueller is closing in, he's preparing to "go bankrupt, go home, rest on his fake laurels". His pattern is just repeating.
The timing is partly because the mid-terms are coming and Congressional Republicans can see they're in a fight for their careers. When even dark red Texas is considering a Democratic senator to replace Ted Cruz, they're worried.
Does Trump care about the disasters he leaves behind? Not at all. In fact, he has already insulted AG Sessions and his southern style. It merely magnifies what Trump said years ago, that if he ran for president it would be as a Republicans because the Republican voters are so stupid they're easily conned.
He sees this as victory.
The United Kingdom may also reform their economy
A major think-tank in The United Kingdom (which advised the Blair government and the Labour Party) has suggested reforms they consider important to correct some problems which are identical to those we face in America.
Think-tank calls for major overhaul of Britain's economy
It should be interesting to compare their ideas with the ones I'm suggesting.
Think-tank calls for major overhaul of Britain's economy
It should be interesting to compare their ideas with the ones I'm suggesting.
Monday, September 3, 2018
3rd Recommendation - About the Minimum Wage
A lot of the recommendations I have (and will) make about the economy are about the behavior of the financial sector and how it sucks money away from the "real economy" or how corporations (mostly large and with international affairs) direct money away from investments which could be profitable and employ workers or away from higher wages & compensation for employees.
To overcome that the government has often raised the federal minimum wage to ensure sufficient money goes into the pockets of the working poor (and some just above that). I don't always think that's the perfect solution because it also affects much smaller businesses which cannot manage sudden changes to their labor costs.
Today we are at a place, after some years of business growth, where I believe we should be able to increase the federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage was last changed July 24th, 2009 to $7.25 per hour. Many states have already raised their minimum wage above the federal level, so it won't be a shock to them at all.
These are the states with a higher state minimum wage than the federal.
Axios did an article on state minimum wages. The main takeaway from the article is that the minimum wages (both state and federal) are too low.
For a bit of recent history of our federal minimum wage, take a look at this U.S. Dept. of Labor article on the minimum wage.
There are about 30 states which have a state minimum wage higher than the federal, there are about 15 states which have the same rate as the federal, there are 5 states with no state-wide minimum wage, and there are 2 states with lower state minimum wage rates (of course, companies there are required to pay the higher federal minimum wage rate).
These are the states with the same state minimum wage as the federal:
What should the new level be? Of states with a minimum wage rate higher than the federal government, there are a few with greater than $10.00, but most are in the $8.25 -- $9.65 range. I would suggest a new rate should be in the lower third of that, perhaps $8.50 per hour. That would give pay raises to people in about 25 states (1/2 of our states).
To overcome that the government has often raised the federal minimum wage to ensure sufficient money goes into the pockets of the working poor (and some just above that). I don't always think that's the perfect solution because it also affects much smaller businesses which cannot manage sudden changes to their labor costs.
Today we are at a place, after some years of business growth, where I believe we should be able to increase the federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage was last changed July 24th, 2009 to $7.25 per hour. Many states have already raised their minimum wage above the federal level, so it won't be a shock to them at all.
These are the states with a higher state minimum wage than the federal.
Axios did an article on state minimum wages. The main takeaway from the article is that the minimum wages (both state and federal) are too low.
For a bit of recent history of our federal minimum wage, take a look at this U.S. Dept. of Labor article on the minimum wage.
There are about 30 states which have a state minimum wage higher than the federal, there are about 15 states which have the same rate as the federal, there are 5 states with no state-wide minimum wage, and there are 2 states with lower state minimum wage rates (of course, companies there are required to pay the higher federal minimum wage rate).
These are the states with the same state minimum wage as the federal:
What should the new level be? Of states with a minimum wage rate higher than the federal government, there are a few with greater than $10.00, but most are in the $8.25 -- $9.65 range. I would suggest a new rate should be in the lower third of that, perhaps $8.50 per hour. That would give pay raises to people in about 25 states (1/2 of our states).
Friday, August 31, 2018
2nd Recommendation and NEWS -- about Union Card-check
Congress should pass the "card check" legislation to enable workers to vote to have a union without company pressure or threats.
With the added friction of a tax on financial trades making stock buybacks a bit less appealing, the card-check would help strengthen unions and then they can push for higher wages to pull money away from the markets and back to real economy activities.
NEWS
Just as I posted the recommendation, I saw a news article which is very good news.
Bloomberg: Trump signs order to help small companies offer retirement-plans
NEWS
Just as I posted the recommendation, I saw a news article which is very good news.
Bloomberg: Trump signs order to help small companies offer retirement-plans
Pres. Trump signed an Executive Order which will help small companies offer retirement plans for their workers. This will enable many more workers in small companies to save money for retirement. That will make them feel a lot more secure and it will shift some capital from companies to workers.
This is excellent news!
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Simple Visuals Indicating the Trend and Current Problem
Are the Rich Getting Richer?
It seems that since (about) 1978 things have changed and gotten quite bad for 99% of the people.
What is the current trend, after the 2017 Republican Tax Reform?
As of the 3rd quarter of 2017, things seem to have gotten crazy. Corporate profits (the blue line) are going way up, but worker's wages (the brown line) aren't going anywhere fast.
It seems that since (about) 1978 things have changed and gotten quite bad for 99% of the people.
What is the current trend, after the 2017 Republican Tax Reform?
As of the 3rd quarter of 2017, things seem to have gotten crazy. Corporate profits (the blue line) are going way up, but worker's wages (the brown line) aren't going anywhere fast.
1st Recommendation -- about a Financial Transaction Tax
I've been reading and thinking about how to encourage companies to hire more, pay more, and/or reinvest more in their companies, rather than doing stock buy-backs or dividend pay-outs. I've looked at a handful of ideas and I've settled on one (after getting some ideas from government and banking) to make a recommendation. It isn't necessarily the only recommendation I will make. It's only the first one.
I recommend a financial transaction tax of .0075% -- .01% on stock or bond transactions in the secondary markets (not for IPOs).
This should automatically begin (turn on like a switch) when the federal government debt-to-GDP ratio is greater than a percentage chosen by Congress (I recommend 40%) and automatically stop when below that level. Therefore, it would not sunset, but it wouldn't brainlessly continue forever.
The revenue from this would be dedicated to paying federal government long-term debt.
It would achieve several goals at once:
I recommend a financial transaction tax of .0075% -- .01% on stock or bond transactions in the secondary markets (not for IPOs).
This should automatically begin (turn on like a switch) when the federal government debt-to-GDP ratio is greater than a percentage chosen by Congress (I recommend 40%) and automatically stop when below that level. Therefore, it would not sunset, but it wouldn't brainlessly continue forever.
The revenue from this would be dedicated to paying federal government long-term debt.
It would achieve several goals at once:
- Add some cost to financial transactions, so that real investment and commerce are more attractive by comparison.
- Raise between $750 million and $1 billion per $1 trillion of transactions for the government to pay off long-term debt.
- Make the use of stock buy-backs less appealing and therefore slowly turn off the spigot leading to corporate executives, while leaving the spigot on leading to real investments. This may help repair the long-term problem of the wealth gap.
- Require all who use our markets and who have benefited from our government stability and strength to help solve our indebtedness problem.
Friday, August 24, 2018
Are we at the end of the Reagan Revolution?
If Democrats can regain control of the House of Representatives and even the U.S. Senate, they will be able to create some important changes. Will this end the Reagan Revolution? Time will tell.
I've been studying stock buybacks and other things which have ruined The American Dream for most Americans. Much of the reason these things happened are ancient history, but the majority of the problems began with Ronald Reagan's presidency. He didn't invent the problem ideas, but they were instituted then.
Analyzing the problem:
First, why have the rich gotten so much richer and 99% of Americans have seen their wages stagnate for 38 years? There are many reasons: from more women in the workforce earning part-time minimum wage and fewer union employees and more non-union and off-shored work. But, one key thing was about the distribution of wealth at the spigot: union busting and Rule 10b-18.
Let's start with rule 10b-18. Prior to Reagan, SEC rule 10b-18 maintained that corporate CEOs who did stock buybacks might be culpable of manipulation of the market, but when it was changed stock buybacks became much safer and more common. It was changed in 1982, without any public comment (most unusual). Here are the Chairmen and Commissioners of the SEC during the first Reagan term.
From this list it would appear John Shad and Bevis Longstreth and James C. Treadway, Jr were in charge. It's safe to say Longstreth was a carry-over from the Carter years. The very offensive Charles C. Cox had yet to arrive. But, when he arrived stock buybacks increased significantly.
Remember, they changed rule 10b-18 with NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
By 1997, when issuing stock options was a very big motivator for Silicon Valley companies, the use of stock buybacks had surpassed dividends as a way to distribute corporate wealth to the shareholders.
In 1981-'83 when the rule was first going into effect, corporations spent 4.3% of profits on buybacks and about 40% on dividends.
In 2014-'16 it was 59% of profits and still about 40% on dividends.
Clearly, the spigot feeding money back to employees and corporate investments had shrunk a lot. Why weren't companies interested in doing more investment and expansion? When the rules are changed, Wall St. used corporate raiders to claim companies were undervalued and should be bought. They would keep the stock price at a peak, so stock buybacks fed as much money as possible to the insiders. Many companies were laying-off workers by the thousands in the 1980s. I remember every Christmas Eve there would be news stories that horrified.
First companies laid-off workers, then with Reagan's help they moved to southern states to hire non-union workers, then they went further and moved to Mexico, and finally to all parts of the world where labor was cheaper. The American mid-west was devastated. their unionized industrial jobs were gone. The Republicans blamed NAFTA on Bill Clinton, though Republicans had written the original trade deals which became NAFTA.
Considering that about 40% of profits are disbursed as dividends and 59% as stock buybacks, there is pitiful little remaining to be reinvested into the companies. Yet, some companies have a lot of profits in the bank or held off-shore (for tax purposes). Even without so many American workers they have made a lot of profit with cheap off-shore labor. This is a major difference with American corporations which DIDN'T go off-shore. And the tax benefits to corporations with off-shore profits is clearly unfair to corporations not using off-shore labor. The incentive for corporations to hire off-shore is still there, still tying down the American economy. Yet, the American economy has grown in recent years and we have a record low unemployment rate. These are strange times.
Corporations have lots of money, labor is working, many corporations don't bother paying down debt, corporate tax rates are at near-record lows, yet the U.S. worker can't see a better future and the U.S. government has a huge debt -- TRILLIONs. Strange times indeed.
What to do?
There are many ideas. One is to take another look at SEC rule 10b-10. Another is to re-enable unions with something like card-check secrecy to let workers join unions without company pressures. But, there are some other ideas too.
First, I do not favor eliminating stock buybacks. It's a key way for companies to distribute their wealth to their stockholders and to manage their outstanding stock. But, as the recipients of the corporate money may be taxed at a much lower rate than the standard individual tax rate, it may be wise to reconsider the difference between the two.
Second, we might consider limiting the ability of corporations to do stock buybacks when they have debt of some level. Companies have real reasons to carry some debt, but it's possible we could improve corporate health by requiring them to pay down debt to some generally approved level before doing any stock buybacks.
Since stock buybacks and dividends both distribute corporate wealth, they are the spigot which directs wealth away from reinvestment in real projects or employees. So, limiting buybacks or dividends to some percentage of a company's profits and requiring real economic activity, may also be viable. Even if a corporation is doing business overseas, it makes sense for them to use capital for commerce and not to fill bank accounts. The American people didn't create corporations to sit on money.
This immediately raises the question of why there is so much wealth corporations want to distribute? Are there no good projects? What level of profit do they require to put their money to work? Perhaps better international trade deals will enable them to do more work abroad where they feel the return on investment will be sufficient.
But, what of the U.S. worker?
The first obvious thing is to fix the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (which Republicans have tried to destroy) or shift to the Medicare for All approach. This will help more people avoid bankruptcies and it will improve the health of workers. That improves corporations.
Another health-related idea is to make the use of marijuana legal for an alternative to opioids and for other medical purposes. This will reduce healthcare costs and help workers be more able to work in today's economy.
I think we need to help unions, raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation, and improve the participation rate for workers in their company's 401K plans (many can't seem to afford to on low wage jobs, even when the company offers good plans). We can also tax away more of the corporate excess wealth to make it clear to CEOs that they had better use it or lose it. A corporate tax rate more like 21% would help. This will help pay down government debt and push the economy along.
Specific legislation:
At present, Sen. Tammy Baldwin has a bill to fix the SEC rule 10b-18. I don't know the details, but that should be discussed seriously.
The recent tax reform of the Trump administration was not "revenue neutral" and if left as is, will cause a massive increase in our government debt. That has to be fixed very soon.
Individual tax rates are relatively low and I would rather see a significant tax rate with a rather larger individual deduction. I think the recent reform wasn't wrong in structure, just magnitude. Democrats suggested the larger individual deduction, but Republicans said "No". We need to fix those numbers and begin regaining proper balance in our annual budgets & revenues and find a long-term path forward which will get us out of this hole.
Conclusion:
These ideas are the result of only a little research. Congress has access to far better data and experts for advice.
The public attitude toward the problems is that government doesn't work, the egg-heads are idiots, and "this problem will get solved right after Wall St. is burned to the ground and the 1% is hunted like game" (so says "gene"). Another comment was "fewer outstanding shares at higher prices, concentrated in fewer hands, does not translate into real economic growth" (so says Bud). I'll go with Bud's advice, though gene's may appeal to some people too.
I've been studying stock buybacks and other things which have ruined The American Dream for most Americans. Much of the reason these things happened are ancient history, but the majority of the problems began with Ronald Reagan's presidency. He didn't invent the problem ideas, but they were instituted then.
Analyzing the problem:
First, why have the rich gotten so much richer and 99% of Americans have seen their wages stagnate for 38 years? There are many reasons: from more women in the workforce earning part-time minimum wage and fewer union employees and more non-union and off-shored work. But, one key thing was about the distribution of wealth at the spigot: union busting and Rule 10b-18.
Let's start with rule 10b-18. Prior to Reagan, SEC rule 10b-18 maintained that corporate CEOs who did stock buybacks might be culpable of manipulation of the market, but when it was changed stock buybacks became much safer and more common. It was changed in 1982, without any public comment (most unusual). Here are the Chairmen and Commissioners of the SEC during the first Reagan term.
| Reagan | *John Shad (R), Chairman | 5/6/81 | 6/18/87 | 5/6/81 | 6/18/87 |
| Bevis Longstreth (D) | 7/29/81 | 1/13/84 | |||
| James C. Treadway, Jr. (R) | 9/13/82 | 4/17/85 | |||
| Charles C. Cox (R) | 12/2/83 | 9/30/89 |
From this list it would appear John Shad and Bevis Longstreth and James C. Treadway, Jr were in charge. It's safe to say Longstreth was a carry-over from the Carter years. The very offensive Charles C. Cox had yet to arrive. But, when he arrived stock buybacks increased significantly.
Remember, they changed rule 10b-18 with NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
By 1997, when issuing stock options was a very big motivator for Silicon Valley companies, the use of stock buybacks had surpassed dividends as a way to distribute corporate wealth to the shareholders.
In 1981-'83 when the rule was first going into effect, corporations spent 4.3% of profits on buybacks and about 40% on dividends.
In 2014-'16 it was 59% of profits and still about 40% on dividends.
Clearly, the spigot feeding money back to employees and corporate investments had shrunk a lot. Why weren't companies interested in doing more investment and expansion? When the rules are changed, Wall St. used corporate raiders to claim companies were undervalued and should be bought. They would keep the stock price at a peak, so stock buybacks fed as much money as possible to the insiders. Many companies were laying-off workers by the thousands in the 1980s. I remember every Christmas Eve there would be news stories that horrified.
First companies laid-off workers, then with Reagan's help they moved to southern states to hire non-union workers, then they went further and moved to Mexico, and finally to all parts of the world where labor was cheaper. The American mid-west was devastated. their unionized industrial jobs were gone. The Republicans blamed NAFTA on Bill Clinton, though Republicans had written the original trade deals which became NAFTA.
Considering that about 40% of profits are disbursed as dividends and 59% as stock buybacks, there is pitiful little remaining to be reinvested into the companies. Yet, some companies have a lot of profits in the bank or held off-shore (for tax purposes). Even without so many American workers they have made a lot of profit with cheap off-shore labor. This is a major difference with American corporations which DIDN'T go off-shore. And the tax benefits to corporations with off-shore profits is clearly unfair to corporations not using off-shore labor. The incentive for corporations to hire off-shore is still there, still tying down the American economy. Yet, the American economy has grown in recent years and we have a record low unemployment rate. These are strange times.
Corporations have lots of money, labor is working, many corporations don't bother paying down debt, corporate tax rates are at near-record lows, yet the U.S. worker can't see a better future and the U.S. government has a huge debt -- TRILLIONs. Strange times indeed.
What to do?
There are many ideas. One is to take another look at SEC rule 10b-10. Another is to re-enable unions with something like card-check secrecy to let workers join unions without company pressures. But, there are some other ideas too.
First, I do not favor eliminating stock buybacks. It's a key way for companies to distribute their wealth to their stockholders and to manage their outstanding stock. But, as the recipients of the corporate money may be taxed at a much lower rate than the standard individual tax rate, it may be wise to reconsider the difference between the two.
Second, we might consider limiting the ability of corporations to do stock buybacks when they have debt of some level. Companies have real reasons to carry some debt, but it's possible we could improve corporate health by requiring them to pay down debt to some generally approved level before doing any stock buybacks.
Since stock buybacks and dividends both distribute corporate wealth, they are the spigot which directs wealth away from reinvestment in real projects or employees. So, limiting buybacks or dividends to some percentage of a company's profits and requiring real economic activity, may also be viable. Even if a corporation is doing business overseas, it makes sense for them to use capital for commerce and not to fill bank accounts. The American people didn't create corporations to sit on money.
This immediately raises the question of why there is so much wealth corporations want to distribute? Are there no good projects? What level of profit do they require to put their money to work? Perhaps better international trade deals will enable them to do more work abroad where they feel the return on investment will be sufficient.
But, what of the U.S. worker?
The first obvious thing is to fix the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (which Republicans have tried to destroy) or shift to the Medicare for All approach. This will help more people avoid bankruptcies and it will improve the health of workers. That improves corporations.
Another health-related idea is to make the use of marijuana legal for an alternative to opioids and for other medical purposes. This will reduce healthcare costs and help workers be more able to work in today's economy.
I think we need to help unions, raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation, and improve the participation rate for workers in their company's 401K plans (many can't seem to afford to on low wage jobs, even when the company offers good plans). We can also tax away more of the corporate excess wealth to make it clear to CEOs that they had better use it or lose it. A corporate tax rate more like 21% would help. This will help pay down government debt and push the economy along.
Specific legislation:
At present, Sen. Tammy Baldwin has a bill to fix the SEC rule 10b-18. I don't know the details, but that should be discussed seriously.
The recent tax reform of the Trump administration was not "revenue neutral" and if left as is, will cause a massive increase in our government debt. That has to be fixed very soon.
Individual tax rates are relatively low and I would rather see a significant tax rate with a rather larger individual deduction. I think the recent reform wasn't wrong in structure, just magnitude. Democrats suggested the larger individual deduction, but Republicans said "No". We need to fix those numbers and begin regaining proper balance in our annual budgets & revenues and find a long-term path forward which will get us out of this hole.
Conclusion:
These ideas are the result of only a little research. Congress has access to far better data and experts for advice.
The public attitude toward the problems is that government doesn't work, the egg-heads are idiots, and "this problem will get solved right after Wall St. is burned to the ground and the 1% is hunted like game" (so says "gene"). Another comment was "fewer outstanding shares at higher prices, concentrated in fewer hands, does not translate into real economic growth" (so says Bud). I'll go with Bud's advice, though gene's may appeal to some people too.
Saturday, August 18, 2018
Desperate Republicans in Georgia Decide to Remove Polling Places for Blacks
Election officials in Georgia have decided that letting Black people vote is too dangerous, so they decided to close polling places which don't meet the standards for people with disabilities. Of course, these same polling places have been used in the past, despite not meeting the standards. And, of course, they've waited until August to close them for the November elections. Yes, these tricky Republicans have covered all their bases and hope to steal a few more elections before anyone notices.
Oops.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Trade War: Clarified Standards and Goals
I've read several articles about the views of the Chinese after their leadership meeting. I think it was a very good idea for them to produce a unified view of their national policies and standards. It will not only help everyone to understand them, but it will help them to stay on course when moving forward into concrete negotiations.
The first thing it brought to mind was discussions recently about Brexit between the U.K. and the EU. Repeatedly the EU representatives have mentioned their four goals for the freedom of movement of people, capital, goods, and services within the EU. This makes it clear how you must relate to them. It's very useful.
Today NAFTA, the EU, the TPP, China, and some other groups are attempting to improve trade relations in some major ways. Knowing where each nation or group stands is very good.
The NAFTA nations tend to believe the previous concept of negotiating about individual products or sectors of the economy was useful, but that we can do better. Each speaks of modernizing the trade deal. In recent years in America there has been discussion of moving to "free trade" or "fair trade" and I believe the recent idea of Zero-Zero (wherein each side of a trade deal would seek to find all product areas or services where tariffs, subsidies, and other market impediments can be reduced to Zero) is worth attempting.
So now, the question is how we can match one trade bloc to the others to move us closer to the Zero-Zero goal, but without 'breaking' the standards of the EU or the Chinese or of other trade blocs.
I won't go into detail in this post. I want to leave this one short. But, I shall attempt to discuss these relationships in other posts very soon.
The first thing it brought to mind was discussions recently about Brexit between the U.K. and the EU. Repeatedly the EU representatives have mentioned their four goals for the freedom of movement of people, capital, goods, and services within the EU. This makes it clear how you must relate to them. It's very useful.
Today NAFTA, the EU, the TPP, China, and some other groups are attempting to improve trade relations in some major ways. Knowing where each nation or group stands is very good.
The NAFTA nations tend to believe the previous concept of negotiating about individual products or sectors of the economy was useful, but that we can do better. Each speaks of modernizing the trade deal. In recent years in America there has been discussion of moving to "free trade" or "fair trade" and I believe the recent idea of Zero-Zero (wherein each side of a trade deal would seek to find all product areas or services where tariffs, subsidies, and other market impediments can be reduced to Zero) is worth attempting.
So now, the question is how we can match one trade bloc to the others to move us closer to the Zero-Zero goal, but without 'breaking' the standards of the EU or the Chinese or of other trade blocs.
I won't go into detail in this post. I want to leave this one short. But, I shall attempt to discuss these relationships in other posts very soon.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Briefly: National Security and Economics
Since World War II there has been one existential threat to America and that is the atomic bomb. We and the Soviet Union held them over one another's heads and it dominated all other policy decisions.
After the fall of the Soviet Union the nuclear threat receded and terrorism became a major issue. It certainly wasn't an existential problem, but it was significant. Now, al Qaeda and Islamic State have dissipated or disappeared and we have fewer major security issues to consider.
First, Russia and some other nations still have nuclear weapons. The "new kid on the block" is North Korea. If our hopes for them succeed, they will develop to become more like Singapore and South Korea and be relatively peaceful. Time will tell.
Next, the plans of Vladimir Putin to conquer certain European nations means America needs to help Europe become stronger and more united, so it will be less of a target for Russia.
Then, there is Israel and its neighbors. Over the course of many decades they have managed to find relative peace with their Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi neighbors. Iraq has changed and Syria has been ravaged by war. Only Iran stands as a major opponent. The smaller Gulf states are not major military powers. How will Iran continue and how will America and Israel dissuade them or change them to being more benign? That remains to be seen.
After those issues, the discussion has to quickly move to economic things. So, I have to say that the next decades may be very peaceful for America and we should take that time to repair our economy and work with other world economic powers to create an economic system which is good for everyone.
There are several assessments of the current U.S. economy and the one most average may be that "the economy isn't collapsing, but it may before long". That is an indication the economists don't exactly trust the politicians to NOT ruin it. I see it as giving us some time to make improvements. It may not be raining, but this is the time to repair the roof.
The first big economic issue is in flux because the current trade policy of Pres. Trump hasn't been resolved. The trade war is still being waged. This too shall pass.
Another major economic issue is our energy supply and distribution system. America has become a major energy producer with our oil and natural gas (which Europe would like to buy) and scientists are working hard to produce a variety of new technologies to harness and use the sun's energy and wind energy. The more we can depend upon "green" energy the more we can be free from the world's oil nations. That makes us more flexible and economically stable. Oil may have its ups and downs, but sunlight and wind seem to be steady.
That leaves one important thing to improve, how our economic system works and is regulated by government. Currently we have a very large government debt and we pay interest on that debt. We have a very low unemployment rate, but wages are not going up very fast. We have large corporations, and perhaps other financial institutions, which aren't utilizing their capital reserves in the usual aggressive commercial ways. We have universities charging exorbitant prices for education which is so essential in our current business world. And, we have the Baby Boomer generation entering retirement.
We need to utilize our computer technologies to improve our educational system. We have the computers and still children are reading paper books. We can educate the world cheaply if we want.
We need cheaper, even free, higher education or apprenticeships for our young people who will need tremendous knowledge and skills to participate in the economy of today and tomorrow. How can they afford it? Government must act in some way to make it possible.
We need a commercial world where capital is utilized in the appropriate way or it is either taxed away or required to be paid as dividends to stock-holders. Corporations do not exist for the benefit of the 1%, they are allowed, so that everyone can benefit. The distribution of wealth from corporations today is not being distributed very evenly to stockholders, bondholders, and all the employees. Thus, we need to change the rules and regulations affecting corporate executives, in order to influence or (in some extreme cases) to control their decisions about use of capital.
In order to limit price inflation it may be necessary to ensure corporations and/or government provide to families non-cash benefits such as the Affordable Care Act subsidies and regulations. If we can maintain a low unemployment rate for a sustained period of time, then we should be able to justify more benefits such as paid or unpaid days off, family leave, or vacations. Something to benefit workers and companies, such as advanced seminars and other training, can benefit and lengthen a worker's productivity and career.
Everyone wants to live in a more beautiful place, whether urban, suburban, or rural. More contributions to community improvements could be made by corporations and other organizations on behalf of their employees and for the benefit of everyone. In days-gone-by this was called corporate citizenship. We don't need to institutionalize that concept again, but we do need ways for the real economy to continue working with a good growth rate, but no destructive price inflation, while the workers benefit more and more.
While I argue we need rising wages, the group most in need has very little bargaining power, even when the unemployment rate is low. The working poor need a minimum wage increase on a more regular basis to ensure price inflation doesn't destroy families.
Our Liberal social programs such as the Veterans Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps (now debit cards), Social Security, the ACA, and the like, are often in need of financial repair. If we can reduce the debt (and deficit) and make the economy work better, then we should be able to maintain those programs as necessary.
Our military shouldn't require a lot of growth, so that may be one place we can maintain size and readiness and adjust to new technologies as they arrive. We always watch for developments from other nations and there's no reason for that to change. But, we don't need to increase military spending at a very rapid pace. If worker pay is barely increasing, then we can hardly justify a rapidly growing military and defense establishment unless there is a very real problem which would deplete our forces which today are already being funded very very well.
I would typically make an argument for Civil Rights and other ways to improve our social cohesion. At this time that seems like a somewhat distant dream. All I can suggest is that leaders speak to the benefits of acceptance of others and how our diversity makes us better.
Another thing which doesn't fit any of the categories listed above is the state of our Democracy. I think there are a lot of things we can do to improve it, to adhere more closely to the moral and legal code of America. Perhaps more schools need to teach about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We were handed some tremendous ideas from European theorists and the Founders of the United States, pragmatic Americans that they were, turned them into something special. It has withstood the test of time and we have to recognize that, teach that to children, and continue to work to achieve its ideals.
To that end, we should use computer technology to improve our voting system; reduce gerrymandering; reduce or eliminate the criminal penalties for personal possession of marijuana; improve our Justice system fairness and reasonableness; reduce the number of situations where police officers have felt the need to use deadly force and regulate possession of handguns at least as well as we regulate the entry of terrorists into America or the privilege to drive a car on the highway. We should protect children from guns by requiring trigger locks on all guns in households with children. These are a few of the important ideas to improve the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness of all Americans.
After the fall of the Soviet Union the nuclear threat receded and terrorism became a major issue. It certainly wasn't an existential problem, but it was significant. Now, al Qaeda and Islamic State have dissipated or disappeared and we have fewer major security issues to consider.
First, Russia and some other nations still have nuclear weapons. The "new kid on the block" is North Korea. If our hopes for them succeed, they will develop to become more like Singapore and South Korea and be relatively peaceful. Time will tell.
Next, the plans of Vladimir Putin to conquer certain European nations means America needs to help Europe become stronger and more united, so it will be less of a target for Russia.
Then, there is Israel and its neighbors. Over the course of many decades they have managed to find relative peace with their Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi neighbors. Iraq has changed and Syria has been ravaged by war. Only Iran stands as a major opponent. The smaller Gulf states are not major military powers. How will Iran continue and how will America and Israel dissuade them or change them to being more benign? That remains to be seen.
After those issues, the discussion has to quickly move to economic things. So, I have to say that the next decades may be very peaceful for America and we should take that time to repair our economy and work with other world economic powers to create an economic system which is good for everyone.
There are several assessments of the current U.S. economy and the one most average may be that "the economy isn't collapsing, but it may before long". That is an indication the economists don't exactly trust the politicians to NOT ruin it. I see it as giving us some time to make improvements. It may not be raining, but this is the time to repair the roof.
The first big economic issue is in flux because the current trade policy of Pres. Trump hasn't been resolved. The trade war is still being waged. This too shall pass.
Another major economic issue is our energy supply and distribution system. America has become a major energy producer with our oil and natural gas (which Europe would like to buy) and scientists are working hard to produce a variety of new technologies to harness and use the sun's energy and wind energy. The more we can depend upon "green" energy the more we can be free from the world's oil nations. That makes us more flexible and economically stable. Oil may have its ups and downs, but sunlight and wind seem to be steady.
That leaves one important thing to improve, how our economic system works and is regulated by government. Currently we have a very large government debt and we pay interest on that debt. We have a very low unemployment rate, but wages are not going up very fast. We have large corporations, and perhaps other financial institutions, which aren't utilizing their capital reserves in the usual aggressive commercial ways. We have universities charging exorbitant prices for education which is so essential in our current business world. And, we have the Baby Boomer generation entering retirement.
We need to utilize our computer technologies to improve our educational system. We have the computers and still children are reading paper books. We can educate the world cheaply if we want.
We need cheaper, even free, higher education or apprenticeships for our young people who will need tremendous knowledge and skills to participate in the economy of today and tomorrow. How can they afford it? Government must act in some way to make it possible.
We need a commercial world where capital is utilized in the appropriate way or it is either taxed away or required to be paid as dividends to stock-holders. Corporations do not exist for the benefit of the 1%, they are allowed, so that everyone can benefit. The distribution of wealth from corporations today is not being distributed very evenly to stockholders, bondholders, and all the employees. Thus, we need to change the rules and regulations affecting corporate executives, in order to influence or (in some extreme cases) to control their decisions about use of capital.
In order to limit price inflation it may be necessary to ensure corporations and/or government provide to families non-cash benefits such as the Affordable Care Act subsidies and regulations. If we can maintain a low unemployment rate for a sustained period of time, then we should be able to justify more benefits such as paid or unpaid days off, family leave, or vacations. Something to benefit workers and companies, such as advanced seminars and other training, can benefit and lengthen a worker's productivity and career.
Everyone wants to live in a more beautiful place, whether urban, suburban, or rural. More contributions to community improvements could be made by corporations and other organizations on behalf of their employees and for the benefit of everyone. In days-gone-by this was called corporate citizenship. We don't need to institutionalize that concept again, but we do need ways for the real economy to continue working with a good growth rate, but no destructive price inflation, while the workers benefit more and more.
While I argue we need rising wages, the group most in need has very little bargaining power, even when the unemployment rate is low. The working poor need a minimum wage increase on a more regular basis to ensure price inflation doesn't destroy families.
Our Liberal social programs such as the Veterans Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps (now debit cards), Social Security, the ACA, and the like, are often in need of financial repair. If we can reduce the debt (and deficit) and make the economy work better, then we should be able to maintain those programs as necessary.
Our military shouldn't require a lot of growth, so that may be one place we can maintain size and readiness and adjust to new technologies as they arrive. We always watch for developments from other nations and there's no reason for that to change. But, we don't need to increase military spending at a very rapid pace. If worker pay is barely increasing, then we can hardly justify a rapidly growing military and defense establishment unless there is a very real problem which would deplete our forces which today are already being funded very very well.
I would typically make an argument for Civil Rights and other ways to improve our social cohesion. At this time that seems like a somewhat distant dream. All I can suggest is that leaders speak to the benefits of acceptance of others and how our diversity makes us better.
Another thing which doesn't fit any of the categories listed above is the state of our Democracy. I think there are a lot of things we can do to improve it, to adhere more closely to the moral and legal code of America. Perhaps more schools need to teach about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We were handed some tremendous ideas from European theorists and the Founders of the United States, pragmatic Americans that they were, turned them into something special. It has withstood the test of time and we have to recognize that, teach that to children, and continue to work to achieve its ideals.
To that end, we should use computer technology to improve our voting system; reduce gerrymandering; reduce or eliminate the criminal penalties for personal possession of marijuana; improve our Justice system fairness and reasonableness; reduce the number of situations where police officers have felt the need to use deadly force and regulate possession of handguns at least as well as we regulate the entry of terrorists into America or the privilege to drive a car on the highway. We should protect children from guns by requiring trigger locks on all guns in households with children. These are a few of the important ideas to improve the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness of all Americans.
Monday, August 13, 2018
How Good are Solar Cells Today?
BBC article: Organic Solar Cells
"Commercial solar photovoltaics usually covert 15-22% of sunlight, with a world record for a silicon cell of 27.3% reached in this summer in the UK
Organics have long lingered at around half this rate, but this year has seen some major leaps forward
In April researchers were able to reach 15% in tests. Now this new study pushes that beyond 17% with the authors saying that up to 25% is possible.
This is important because according to estimates, with a 15% efficiency and a 20 year lifetime, organic solar cells could produce electricity at a cost of less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
In 2017, the average cost of electricity in the US was 10.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to the US Energy Information Administration."
"Commercial solar photovoltaics usually covert 15-22% of sunlight, with a world record for a silicon cell of 27.3% reached in this summer in the UK
Organics have long lingered at around half this rate, but this year has seen some major leaps forward
In April researchers were able to reach 15% in tests. Now this new study pushes that beyond 17% with the authors saying that up to 25% is possible.
This is important because according to estimates, with a 15% efficiency and a 20 year lifetime, organic solar cells could produce electricity at a cost of less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
In 2017, the average cost of electricity in the US was 10.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to the US Energy Information Administration."
This doesn't look great, but we've only been at this Green Energy project for about 20 years. Think where we'll be after another 20 years.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Where do the Republicans stand?
There is an important issue which the Republicans regularly face and they stand firmly on three sides of a fence. It's untenable, but their voters haven't notice and don't care.
When it appears Democrats are coming to power the first argument we begin to hear is that the DEFICIT is far too high and growing and the Democrats have to be responsible to control it. Of course, it was Republicans who gave us the federal debt and deficit problem. Of course, the Republicans don't want the Democrats to be free to do anything but clean up the Republican messes. Pres. Obama spent a big part of his eight years as president fixing the problems they created.
Okay, that's simple. Where do the other two stances come from?
How do the Republicans propose fixing the problem? Cutting spending all across the Liberal social program they say they don't support. They make this argument to convince their voters they have a solution. But, the fact is they won't touch those programs because their own voters are very big users of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and many others. On the other hand, they claim the Democrats are going to raise taxes to solve the deficit gap and their voters hate higher taxes. They often go even further and claim the Democrats are Socialists who will spend more and more and more and create even bigger problems. This, despite the record which shows Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama (with full support of Democrats) kept deficits low or decreasing.
Democrats ARE the party of fiscal sanity.
During the Clinton presidency the economy boomed, despite ZERO support from the Republicans at the beginning and they brought down the deficit to reach a BALANCED BUDGET. The next Republican presidency and Congress immediately destroyed that progress.
During the Obama presidency there was a huge recession at the beginning (2007-2010) and yet the Democrats stopped the recession, brought down the deficit faster and more than ever before and still fought a war and passed the ACA and did financial industry reform regulations.
Of course, when Pres. Trump came into power the first thing they decided to do was to spend more on the military AND do a tax reform which would blow up the debt by several trillion dollars
Republicans are completely irresponsible with the budget.
Now the record is clear, how do the Republicans explain themselves during campaigns? They are currently discussing everything else and ignoring it. What else could they do?
It's up to Democrats to remind the voters that Republicans destroy the fiscally responsible budgets and Democrats immediately work to fix our problems instead of making them worse.
Friday, August 10, 2018
Is our System of Funding Corporations Broken?
Tesla and Spotify say that doing an IPO isn't worth the effort. The regulations, the short-sellers, and the fact institutional investors get a discount all work against new corporations. Others seem to agree, as the article says there are far fewer IPOs these days.
Another issue which has been around a long time is how corporations with extra cash would rather do stock buybacks or buy other corporations (called mergers). Why can't they just invest in their own company? Who profits from mergers besides the brokers and lawyers?
It's worth considering issues such as these from time to time. Our economy and the world economy are not fixed never-changing things. We also want the money in our economy to be used most appropriately and if all the incentives are for short-term raping and pillaging of corporate bank accounts, then we have a problem.
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Netanyahu: "Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews..."
With a view such as this it's no wonder he wouldn't negotiate with the Palestinians (the PLO) to find a peace deal.
Are Our Voting Systems Working Yet?
In Georgia they had a 243% turnout! Way to go GA.
Many say the federal government is terrible. But, they authorized money to fix voting machines and
many states TURNED IT DOWN.
A new bill might help fix some of the problems by banning PAPERLESS voting machines altogether..
With paper, maybe Georgians can finally learn to count!
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Politicians, Asbestos, and Other Dangerous Things
Why is it possible, for any amount of money in the world, that a politician would make it possible to develop dangerous toxins or to use asbestos in products?
I don't understand people who would do such a thing.
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
Why Don't Corporations Give More Pay Raises?
I've been thinking about how our (America's) economy works and why worker pay hasn't been increasing at a faster rate since about 1980. One thing which stands out is that when there was a repatriation of corporate profits held off-shore, most of the money went to stock buybacks. Why buybacks? Because they increase the value of the stock owned by corporate executives. It's a pay raise for them.
Just today I read an article about the corporate giant Apple which recently passed a major marker, becoming the first corporation with capitalization over $1 trillion. Here's a link:
Here are a couple of links from within the Apple article:
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/2/17639762/stock-buybacks-tax-cuts-trump-republicans
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/curbing-stock-buybacks-crucial-step/
So, presuming you are NOT an executive of a big company, what should be done to improve the situation (meaning to reduce buybacks and increase normal investments in plant and workers)?
Well, the simple idea of increasing the time period after a buyback before an executive may execute a stock sale may give the market time to adjust and to eliminate some of the advantages to the executives -- thereby reducing the incentive to do a buyback with NO personal gain.
This won't guarantee they won't try to find another way to distribute the money to themselves rather than to improve their company, but if a way cannot be found to force them to distribute held profits to their stockholders via earnings distributions or to reinvest in the company, then it means there is something fundamentally wrong with corporations. They only exist to benefit the people (workers who are paid, consumers who get good products), not just a handful of already rich executives.
Friday, August 3, 2018
Syria, Post-War
I read that the Russians are interested in having America work with them to resettle Syrians and to get Syria back up on its feet. But, I thought Russia wanted to be in charge of Syria. Take control, take responsibility.
I wonder if Assad is interested in changing his position on working with others in the region to help Israel and the Palestinians to find a real peace agreement. Perhaps something offered from him would earn a little help from America.
Monday, July 30, 2018
How Good Is the Obama/Trump Economy? Consider Income Growth
This graph was copied from an article: https://qz.com/1342009/the-us-economy-grew-by-4-1-in-the-second-quarter-but-dont-celebrate-too-much/
It indicates that the recent continuous job growth period has been rather large compared to past times. I would be surprised if this doesn't result in good things since consumption is always a significant and large driver of the economy.
However, we have a long way to go. According to OECD study labor conditions confirms that US workers are getting ripped-off America has a huge inequality issue.
This comparison of nations inequality problem makes it clear.
Sunday, July 29, 2018
What Will the Mid-Term Elections Be About?
Republicans, particularly those who listen to Steven Bannon and Donald Trump, will believe it's about their hatred of brown-skinned people, the border with Mexico, and the rest of their agenda. It shouldn't be. It's about something much bigger than that. It's about the Law and upholding the Law, so everyone in America can be better off. Our government isn't just for a few haters. It's to serve all of us. It's to protect people of color, gays, working poor, ultra wealthy billionaires who own a newspaper, families who need to stay together, everyone who needs lead-free water to drink, our soldiers who need to NOT be sent to stupid wars, Californians and others who face natural disasters & need government help, and many more things. We don't get to have all those things when our president and a majority of Congress are Hell-bent on serving a minority of Americans and their bizarre hatreds.
When the majority in the House and Senate won't even be seen in the same room with any Democrats, if they can avoid it, we have a problem. When our president says the press shouldn't be allowed to ask him questions or expect an answer, though those journalists pay taxes which fund the government. How can a government run by radicals serve us when they claim the majority are un-decorous for simply doing their jobs?
These mid-term elections aren't just about Donald Trump either. He's just one politician (albeit an important one) who is telling us to think about anything except his incompetence or criminality. The mid-terms are about how we got into this mess, where criminality abounds in the administration and the presidential campaign which preceded it, and how we get out of it by upholding the Law so that all of us can survive and do well.
We are stronger together.
Friday, July 27, 2018
Exoplanet Space Science and a Bit of Political Commentary
Hold onto your hats. This article is out of this world. These are short descriptions of some exoplanets. They are close to the size of Earth, give or take a few hundred percent and some may be inhabitable some day.
Welcome to Hell, planet Hell
This is probably how the Trump family feel about their world and where it's going.
The Mueller Inquiry equivalent ...
Trump may feel those gentle "raindrops of molten glass" coming down on him. All you and I see is a 'cool' blue planet.
Then there are the diamond worlds. We are hoping Rod Rosenstein can match them for durability in the coming months.
Here is a 'view' of the ones discovered up to 2012.
One webpage I see indicates there tend to be two kinds of exoplanets: those which are Earth-like and those which are Neptune-like.
How many of these may we find habitable (where we could live)? Nobody knows for certain as there are factors we can't yet measure. But, this handy visual guide is a start.
Economics Report: Good Friday
I just read an interesting article from Bloomberg. The monthly economic numbers are out and things are still looking good,
except for the (now) perennial problem of the federal debt.
It had some (slightly) startling information which could be very important for policy-makers.
We know a faster growing economy during the Obama years led to corporate growth and profits (at a slow rate) with NO significant increased middle-class worker compensation until the unemployment rate decreased to about 4%. Now unemployment is finally down to the 3% range and worker compensation is increasing some. That's one good factor.
Large corporations have been saving and buying back their own stock, so executives can benefit from higher stock prices. They haven't been paying employees more or hiring a lot more. Before today I haven't seen any reports about small corporations or proprietorships which hire and sell only domestically.
Now, according to the news, the GDP growth rate is up a bit and Americans are saving MORE, but it is only among proprietors. Those are good second and third factors.
Workers still aren't particularly sharing in the GDP or profits growth. Still, this makes me wonder if there will be some point at which proprietors or small corporations would have sufficient savings (or padding if you like) to begin paying employees more. That remains to be seen.
However, if this were to happen, then a sustained growth rate of some percentage, along with a low unemployment rate, and good savings rate, might lead to a better 'trickle down' effect. If that can be established it would be better than more aggressive government measures to enforce higher pay for the middle-class. The poor working class will always require a regularly raised minimum wage as other business factors rarely influence their wages.
It had some (slightly) startling information which could be very important for policy-makers.
We know a faster growing economy during the Obama years led to corporate growth and profits (at a slow rate) with NO significant increased middle-class worker compensation until the unemployment rate decreased to about 4%. Now unemployment is finally down to the 3% range and worker compensation is increasing some. That's one good factor.
Large corporations have been saving and buying back their own stock, so executives can benefit from higher stock prices. They haven't been paying employees more or hiring a lot more. Before today I haven't seen any reports about small corporations or proprietorships which hire and sell only domestically.
Now, according to the news, the GDP growth rate is up a bit and Americans are saving MORE, but it is only among proprietors. Those are good second and third factors.
Workers still aren't particularly sharing in the GDP or profits growth. Still, this makes me wonder if there will be some point at which proprietors or small corporations would have sufficient savings (or padding if you like) to begin paying employees more. That remains to be seen.
However, if this were to happen, then a sustained growth rate of some percentage, along with a low unemployment rate, and good savings rate, might lead to a better 'trickle down' effect. If that can be established it would be better than more aggressive government measures to enforce higher pay for the middle-class. The poor working class will always require a regularly raised minimum wage as other business factors rarely influence their wages.
The next positive factor could be a better government program for infrastructure spending. While the usual kinds of spending are always going to be necessary, it may also be possible to use the development of North Korea as a model for a greater corporate backed corporate development plan. If that can be done it would put to work much more of the (more or less) idle reserve savings of large corporations or other investors. That would push the economy along at an even faster growth rate.
With all those positive factors aligned, it might lead to a strong virtuous cycle for the economy the first time in many years.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Legislative Ideas
Earlier today I was lucky to tune in C-SPAN and saw several quick speeches on legislative issues. I thought it was a very interesting exchange. There was Warren (D-MA), Durbin (D-IL), Tillis (R-NC), Heller (R-NV), and Cornyn (R-TX) and they were discussing opioids, student loans, and immigration.
The main interest of the Republicans seems to be a limited immigration bill the House could pass. Of major importance to Pres. Trump is to not support the Obama DACA program. The interests of the Democrats were opioids, student loans, and a lot more on immigration than the Republicans want to do. They seemed to be at a bit of an impasse, so I'll suggest a few things which may help them move forward.
1. Create more judges and legal counsel positions to solve the immigration backlog. Make sure that this number can be reduced later when the situation is under control. The judges should be non-partisan.
2. Immediately reunite as many of the families as can be done safely. For children not reunited it is critical that their whereabouts and identities and safety be identified and made certain.
3. Appoint a qualified non-partisan professional to run the opioid program and ensure it has sufficient budget to reach any areas in America where the statistics show there is a significant opioid addiction problem.
Elections are soon, so more may be done on these or other issues in a short time. But, these 3 points are short-term and relatively balanced between the interests of the two parties.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
"Where" Should the Democrats "Be" for the Midterms
I've been listening and reading about how the Democrats should position themselves for the upcoming elections. Here are just a couple of articles in today's media.
I've also heard some people saying the Democrats need to "return" to the way they were long ago and "stand for the working man". I don't think that's really possible either.
The argument that Democrats need to move to the Left would mean losing a lot of centrists who simply don't fit as Republicans. It may be that they support Civil Rights or unions or a more sane foreign policy, but there are many people who view themselves as on the Left, but not Liberal or Socialist. Moving to the Left would lose some of those. In fact, during the early years of the Obama presidency we had several Conservative Democrat senators who kept irking the party by breaking off and not supporting the president's agenda at critical moments. Support for those senators dropped and they lost their seats. This cost the Democrats the majority in the senate and we have seen what that means in terms of judicial appointments and running the senate with normal order. Under Mitch McConnell (R-KY) it's been a disaster. If you prefer Democratic majority in the Senate you have to accept some centrist or Conservative Democrats.
There are several arguments about how the Democrats should position themselves regarding economics. There is the Black Caucus view where fairness is critical. There is the working man caucus where a strong economy with employment is critical. There is the Wall St. view which is that the economy should just go faster, so they can make more money. All of these are rational and important. From the 1980s when the Democrats sought new campaign funds and Wall St. responded and from the 1990s when Silicon Valley (near San Francisco) responded, our Congressional numbers are very strong with New Yorkers and Californians and our campaign coffers are doing well enough. We can largely thank Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer for those. But, where does that leave us on the economics? Generally, under both Clinton and Obama, we have run the economy fast, encouraged free and fair trade deals, and tried to get more fairness in the share of corporate profits each group gets. Republicans have favored the first two, but have stopped most efforts at the last. Under Pres. "Dubya" Bush there was a minimum wage increase which helped alleviate some of the problems of the first recession, but when Pres. Obama took office the Republican Senate refused even a minimum wage raise during the great recession of 2007-09. We still need to look at ways to make the economy work better for EVERYONE. That's a key Democratic goal.
In the 1960s & 70s the Democrats were the party of the working man and we supported unions 100%. Then Nixon invented the Southern Strategy and a lot of the racist working men went with Ford and Reagan and the unions began to take a beating. Democrats still support the unions, but the unions are a lot less powerful today. If the racists prefer Democratic policies to Reagan, Bush, and Trump policies, then vote for Democrats!
Generally, if you want support from the party you vote for the candidates and you give money to campaigns. It has worked in the past and will work in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)