Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
This I like!
Illinois sheriff introduces jail chess program
DON BABWIN | Associated Press
2 Apr 2012
CHICAGO (AP) — Call it the Sheriff's Gambit.
A sheriff in Illinois is turning to kings, queens and rooks to help teach inmates at his jail not to behave like pawns.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart launched a chess program at the county jail in Chicago. The law enforcement officer, known for making unusual moves in the name of justice, hopes inmates can take what they learn from a game that rewards patience and problem-solving and apply it to their own lives.
Mitt & "Full Disclosure" - he don't!
Mr. Mitt has called upon Mr. Barack to fire Ken Salazar (Interior Sec'y), Steven Chu (Energy Sec'y), and Lisa Jackson (head of EPA), on the grounds that these three are conspiring to raise the price of gasoline via imposition of ever-increasing tax on gas.
What Mr. Mitt doesn't tell you is that his senior econominc advisor, Greg Mankiw, has advocated just this position!
What Mr. Mitt doesn't tell you is that his senior econominc advisor, Greg Mankiw, has advocated just this position!
TAX BADS RATHER THAN GOODS A good rule of thumb is that when you tax something, you get less of it. That means that taxes on hard work, saving and entrepreneurial risk-taking impede these fundamental drivers of economic growth. The alternative is to tax those things we would like to get less of.Ah, Mitt, we wish we knew ye!
Consider the tax on gasoline. Driving your car is associated with various adverse side effects, which economists call externalities. These include traffic congestion, accidents, local pollution and global climate change. If the tax on gasoline were higher, people would alter their behavior to drive less. They would be more likely to take public transportation, use car pools or live closer to work.
The incentives they face when deciding how much to drive would more closely match the true social costs and benefits. Economists who have added up all the externalities associated with driving conclude that a tax exceeding $2 a gallon makes sense. That would provide substantial revenue that could be used to reduce other taxes. By taxing bad things more, we could tax good things less.
[NYT, 22 Jan 2012]
Carrot and Stick
I've frequently noted that it would've been a whole lot cheaper for us to offer Saddam a deal he couldn't refuse: buy all his oil at double or triple then-prevailing market price. This would've been LOTS cheaper than going to war with him!
We've been using stick against Iran, in the form of sanctions.
Doesn't seem to be working.
How 'bout trying a carrot?
Let's suppose that following Obama's re-election, oil prices drop dramatically.
This is NOT an unreasonable proposition (see graphs in preceding post).
... say $40/bbl is the prevailing market price.
We offer to buy ALL Iran's oil for double that price - $80/bbl.
Iran exports around 3Mn bbls/day.
That'd cost us about $88Bn/year.
We'll make the deal for 4 years.
Of course there would be strings attached.
IAEA and anyone else who wants to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities would be welcomed with open arms.
There would be NO movement toward developing a nuclear weapon.
On the plus side: this is $$$ directly from U.S. tax-payers - and we just GIVE the oil to our Big Oil buds. They don't have to pay one red cent for it.
(Of course, they would have to pay for transport & refining... )
That $88Bn/year works out to about $350Bn over 4 years.
Based on cost of Iraq war, 4 years of war with Iran would cost about $356Bn.
We save $6Bn with my plan.
... AND - our Big Oil buds get the oil for FREE!
We've been using stick against Iran, in the form of sanctions.
Doesn't seem to be working.
How 'bout trying a carrot?
Let's suppose that following Obama's re-election, oil prices drop dramatically.
This is NOT an unreasonable proposition (see graphs in preceding post).
... say $40/bbl is the prevailing market price.
We offer to buy ALL Iran's oil for double that price - $80/bbl.
Iran exports around 3Mn bbls/day.
That'd cost us about $88Bn/year.
We'll make the deal for 4 years.
Of course there would be strings attached.
IAEA and anyone else who wants to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities would be welcomed with open arms.
There would be NO movement toward developing a nuclear weapon.
On the plus side: this is $$$ directly from U.S. tax-payers - and we just GIVE the oil to our Big Oil buds. They don't have to pay one red cent for it.
(Of course, they would have to pay for transport & refining... )
That $88Bn/year works out to about $350Bn over 4 years.
Based on cost of Iraq war, 4 years of war with Iran would cost about $356Bn.
We save $6Bn with my plan.
... AND - our Big Oil buds get the oil for FREE!
Graphs
Just in case any GOPer tells you gas prices are today at record highs:
Nope, they're not - the record high was under W's administration!
[Note: price started going up just as soon as we invaded Iraq! - yep, this is a REAL cause-effect relationship!... but none of the war-mongering GOPers today seem to care.]
Price of oil?
Same story. Fairly steady till W's invasion of Iraq. Record? About $140/bbl.
... and do any of the GOPers ever wonder if their strident militancy towards Iran might just have something to do with price of crude on the up-swing???
Just for grins: Obama's inauguration brought prices WAY down, really fast.
... 'Tis been GOP's threats against Iran, and insistence on punishing Iran since then that's caused oil & gas to steadily increase!
Nope, they're not - the record high was under W's administration!
[Note: price started going up just as soon as we invaded Iraq! - yep, this is a REAL cause-effect relationship!... but none of the war-mongering GOPers today seem to care.]
Price of oil?
Same story. Fairly steady till W's invasion of Iraq. Record? About $140/bbl.... and do any of the GOPers ever wonder if their strident militancy towards Iran might just have something to do with price of crude on the up-swing???
Just for grins: Obama's inauguration brought prices WAY down, really fast.
... 'Tis been GOP's threats against Iran, and insistence on punishing Iran since then that's caused oil & gas to steadily increase!
Being politically incorrect... and explaining Mitt's flip-flops
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) has an "open scripture". This means that the Church President can - and does - receive God's word, today, and is free to change Church doctrine in response to these revelations.
Till 1978 the LDS Church held that blacks were inferior to whites - a status determined by God Almighty.
The Church's President then had a revelation.
"Oops - sorry! Blacks are equal before God!"
I suspect this attitude towards DOCTRINE goes a long way to explaining Mitt's pliability regarding just about everything.
No belief is carved in stone, no position is absolute...
... He could have a revelation tomorrow.
[I'm betting that some future Mormon prophet will have a revelation that, in fact, gay marriage is just hunky-dory!]
Till 1978 the LDS Church held that blacks were inferior to whites - a status determined by God Almighty.
The Church's President then had a revelation.
"Oops - sorry! Blacks are equal before God!"
I suspect this attitude towards DOCTRINE goes a long way to explaining Mitt's pliability regarding just about everything.
No belief is carved in stone, no position is absolute...
... He could have a revelation tomorrow.
[I'm betting that some future Mormon prophet will have a revelation that, in fact, gay marriage is just hunky-dory!]
From a far-flung correspondent
"An anthropologist proposed a game to African tribe kids. He put a basket full of fruit near a tree and told them that whoever got there first won the sweet fruits. When he told them to run they all took each others hands and ran together, then sat together enjoying their treats. When he asked them why they had run like that as one could have had all the fruits for himself they said: UBUNTU, how can one of us be happy if all the other ones are sad?
UBUNTU in the Xhosa culture means: "I am because we are".
Economics 101 (again...)
(Why do I bother?)
Gross Domestic Product: GDP.
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
In the modern U.S. economy, that 'private consumption' term accounts for close to 70% of GDP.
"Private Consumption" = folks buying stuff.
Giving tax breaks to investors (the GOP's so-called "job creators") is pointless as a spur to the economy. Investors constitute that "gross investment" term.
Why invest (in capital equipment, factories, workers) when no one has any $$$ to buy the goods and services you produce?
The current recession derives from depressed DEMAND, not lack of supply.
Business statistics confirm this: firms are SITTING ON tons of $$$, waiting for the economy to rebound.
The economy will rebound when folks have jobs!... and are earning $$$ to SPEND! - generating DEMAND.
How best to quickly generate JOBS?
The third term in the equation: GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!
Build/repair roads and bridges, fund education, fund healtcare.
In GOP parlance, "fiscal responsibility" means CUTTING government programs - withdrawing $$$ from the economy, killing jobs... and thereby reducing employment, reducing tax revenue, ... and making the U.S. economy WORSE!
Folks, this isn't rocket science, but your friendly GOP hasn't a clue.
Gross Domestic Product: GDP.
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
In the modern U.S. economy, that 'private consumption' term accounts for close to 70% of GDP.
"Private Consumption" = folks buying stuff.
Giving tax breaks to investors (the GOP's so-called "job creators") is pointless as a spur to the economy. Investors constitute that "gross investment" term.
Why invest (in capital equipment, factories, workers) when no one has any $$$ to buy the goods and services you produce?
The current recession derives from depressed DEMAND, not lack of supply.
Business statistics confirm this: firms are SITTING ON tons of $$$, waiting for the economy to rebound.
The economy will rebound when folks have jobs!... and are earning $$$ to SPEND! - generating DEMAND.
How best to quickly generate JOBS?
The third term in the equation: GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!
Build/repair roads and bridges, fund education, fund healtcare.
In GOP parlance, "fiscal responsibility" means CUTTING government programs - withdrawing $$$ from the economy, killing jobs... and thereby reducing employment, reducing tax revenue, ... and making the U.S. economy WORSE!
Folks, this isn't rocket science, but your friendly GOP hasn't a clue.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Santorum switches party affiliation!
Having failed to de-rail Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries, Rick Santorum today announced he is running as a Democrat!
Friday, March 30, 2012
Just too cool a headline to ignore...
Man Attacked by Mountain Lion, Saved by Bear(Nope - didn't read the story.)
Buffoon off-line for a few days
Sorry folks - I'm off to Boston for a few days... if we end up in a war I'll do what I can to comment, but otherwise I'll be silent till Sunday, late.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Perfection
A Perfect Number is a positive integer that is equal to the sum of its proper positive divisors.
For example: 6 = 1 + 2 + 3.
Euclid proved that [2^(p−1)]*(2^p−1) is an even perfect number whenever 2^p−1 is prime.
('^' here represents exponentiation: 2^2 = 2*2 = 4; 2^3 = 2*2*2 = 8; 3^2 = 3*3 = 9.)
Euler proved that every even perfect number has the form given above.
Does an odd perfect number exist?
No one knows.
For example: 6 = 1 + 2 + 3.
Euclid proved that [2^(p−1)]*(2^p−1) is an even perfect number whenever 2^p−1 is prime.
('^' here represents exponentiation: 2^2 = 2*2 = 4; 2^3 = 2*2*2 = 8; 3^2 = 3*3 = 9.)
Euler proved that every even perfect number has the form given above.
Does an odd perfect number exist?
No one knows.
Sounds like New Zealand is the place to be!
Elephants Down UnderAh, yes: sane politics.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 27, 2012
... Indeed, to go from America — amid the G.O.P. primaries — to Down Under is to experience both jet lag and a political shock. In New Zealand and Australia, you could almost fit their entire political spectrum — from conservatives to liberals — inside the U.S. Democratic Party.
...
For instance, there is much debate here over climate policy — Australia has a carbon tax, New Zealand has cap and trade — but there is no serious debate about climate science. Whereas in today’s G.O.P. it is political suicide to take climate change seriously, in Australia and New Zealand it is political suicide for conservatives not to.
...
Conservatives in Australia and New Zealand have also long accepted single-payer national health care systems. The Labor Party ruled New Zealand from 1999 to 2008, when it was replaced by the conservative National Party. During Labor’s tenure, it passed legislation legalizing civil unions, giving prostitutes the same health and safety protections as other workers, and extending income subsidies for families with children, noted Jon Johansson, a political scientist at Victoria University of Wellington. While these moves were resisted by conservatives when in opposition, he said, they have “not tried to repeal any of them” now that they are in power.
... and I understand that Wellington has a nice climate!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)