Why not offer more fuel efficient cars in America now?
President Obama recently announced new fuel
efficiency regulations for cars and light trucks
White House Blog
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/29/president-obama-announces-new-fuel-economy-standards
Regulations to begin not until 2017 and continue through 2025, car-light truck fleets will be required to average 54.5 miles per gallon.
Why would President Obama be setting new fuel efficiency standards for future Presidential Administrations?
Same phenomenon with our Government's planning for the federal budget spending - "savings" in the budget generally is calculated over 10 years - a period of time out of place with respect to the service terms of Presidents and Members of Congress, and for Presidents, their being limited to a maximum of 8 years in office.
Does this political math have something to do with why our national debt is akin to a runaway train? We're counting on future 'savings' that can easily be nullified by a subsequent Administration or majority in Congress. Plans for cutting program spending are pushed off to future Presidents and members of Congress who don't want them.
Same with plans for raising fuel efficiency standards. CAFE standards for passenger cars were stuck at 27.5 miles per gallon for 20 years, from 1990 through 2010. Only in 2011 did they get a boost to 30.2 mpg. Now the Obama Administration proposes an ambitious leap to 54.5 mpg - but not something that will happen under his administration. Can Americans count on those standards actually being implemented under whomever is President from 2017 to 2025?
The CAFE standard is limited - why not also require that automakers sell certain high fuel efficiency cars, a change that, if we look at the UK and Europe, seems like it could be done in 2 years - by simply offering smaller engine vehicles.
Engines in cars sold in America usually are 1.4 liters or larger. But many automakers offer 1.0L to 1.2 litre engine models for the UK-Europe markets, where gasoline costs yet more than it does at $3.60 to $4.00 in the USA today.
Fiat - which is now selling it FIAT 500 in the US with a 1.36 litre engine, claims 30/38mpg city/highway fuel economy - whereas the 1.2 liter UK model claims as much as 65.7 mpg highway, and 49.6 mpg city.
That's almost double the fuel economy of the American offering. And such higher fuel efficiency is not exclusive to the tiny car market - other larger sporty Fiat models achieve upwards of 50-60mpg on the highway.
And Fiat is not the only automaker producing very fuel efficient cars: Ford UK sells the 1.2 litre Ka which gets a combined 57mpg highway-city, and offers the 1.25 Litre UK Fiesta which achieves a combined 51 mpg. Meanwhile, the American Ford Fiesta brags about its gas mileage of 40 mpg on the highway.
http://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/?intcmp=fv-hpbb-dflt-40mpg-fiesta
Though it may be that US estimates of fuel economy for the FIAT 500 and some other small American cars are lower than the actual possible fuel economy. Even my big Honda accord 4 door with a 2.2 litre engine can achieve 40 mpg on the highway.
But with gasoline prices at $3.50 to $4 per gallon, I would like to be able to purchase a Ford Ka or Fiesta with a smaller engine, by 2012 - not by 2017... All automakers have to do is offer a smaller engine option for some of their current models.
The Obama Admin did also announce new fuel economy standards for freight trucks and buses to begin in 2014.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/09/president-obama-announces-first-ever-fuel-economy-standards-commercial-vehicles
See my old 2007 article on the small-engine car offerings in UK and Europe http://dmfine.com/2007gas_guzzle.html
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Raise the Federal Gasoline Tax
updated 1:22pm MT from Texas, USA
U.S. Gasoline prices jumped suddenly in the past few months, about 40 cents to $3.60 per gallon (aproximately $3.30 in 2005 dollars - perspective: gasoline was selling for $1.88 in 2004) according to US Energy Info Administration, as both the oil market and oil companies are raising prices ostensibly due to the strife in the Middle East.
But hardly any of our petroleum imports, if any, have anything to do with Libya or Egypt, and about half come from South and Central America.
My suspicion is that Big Oil is looking for a pretext to keep its enormous profits high or take them higher - Exxon reported a quarterly profit of more than $9 billion in January (WSJ.com).
But if American consumers are going to be pressured by prices at the pump, more of their money should be going back to their government than to the mostly wealthy shareholders and executives of the Big Oil companies.
If the US Government would raise the federal gasoline tax, that would probably be what happens - as Big Oil would likely resist pushing prices higher than $3.60 to $4 per gallon, and just take lower profits. The tax revenues our Federal Government could then apply to reduce the federal deficit, and/or funnel them into programs for alternative energy and energy-efficient technologies research and development or purchase incentive programs - such as for people or businesses buying solar panels or electric or hybrid vehicles.
Generally, we should desire higher gasoline prices in the United States (around $3 to $4 per gallon), because higher prices should moderate our consumption of this valuable natural resource, which we have been wasting for many years now, by making us switch to energy-efficient or alternative energy-powered cars, trucks, other transportation and appliances.
Oil is a limited natural resource - the market prices it according to present supply and demand, but not according to that future reality that eventually there will be no more or very little of it. Nor does the market consider the impacts on our environment of the extraction, refining, and combustion of its products...
We certainly do not want to find ourselves pumping the last drop of oil from the ground 30 years from now, because we desire to be wasteful today.
Given the inexorable advancement of alternative energy technologies, and, finally, the appearance of electric and hybrid vehicles on the market, we probably won't be pumping the last drop of oil from the ground - but if we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports, generally safeguard petroleum supplies for the next century, as well as reduce our carbon dioxide emissions and impact on the environment, we should be continually making the effort to reduce our burning of gasoline...
2010 did see a significant decline in gasoline consumption, with deliveries down to 45 million gallons per day, compared to 50 to 60 million gallons per day from 1984 to 2009.
Oil has also been used to generate electricity, though that use appears to also be plummeting, from 200 million barrels of oil in 2001, to only 40 million barrels in 2010. http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table2_2_a.html
The Obama Adminstration should be fearless in its energy policy and recommend an increase in the federal gasoline tax of around 25 cents to 40 cents per gallon - though a general carbon tax on fossil fuels should also be considered ( See previous blog post Carbon Tax Time) - to encourage the transition to more fuel efficient, hybrid and electric cars and trucks.
other resources NY Times Greenblog
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/energy-policy/
U.S. Gasoline prices jumped suddenly in the past few months, about 40 cents to $3.60 per gallon (aproximately $3.30 in 2005 dollars - perspective: gasoline was selling for $1.88 in 2004) according to US Energy Info Administration, as both the oil market and oil companies are raising prices ostensibly due to the strife in the Middle East.
But hardly any of our petroleum imports, if any, have anything to do with Libya or Egypt, and about half come from South and Central America.
My suspicion is that Big Oil is looking for a pretext to keep its enormous profits high or take them higher - Exxon reported a quarterly profit of more than $9 billion in January (WSJ.com).
But if American consumers are going to be pressured by prices at the pump, more of their money should be going back to their government than to the mostly wealthy shareholders and executives of the Big Oil companies.
If the US Government would raise the federal gasoline tax, that would probably be what happens - as Big Oil would likely resist pushing prices higher than $3.60 to $4 per gallon, and just take lower profits. The tax revenues our Federal Government could then apply to reduce the federal deficit, and/or funnel them into programs for alternative energy and energy-efficient technologies research and development or purchase incentive programs - such as for people or businesses buying solar panels or electric or hybrid vehicles.
Generally, we should desire higher gasoline prices in the United States (around $3 to $4 per gallon), because higher prices should moderate our consumption of this valuable natural resource, which we have been wasting for many years now, by making us switch to energy-efficient or alternative energy-powered cars, trucks, other transportation and appliances.
Oil is a limited natural resource - the market prices it according to present supply and demand, but not according to that future reality that eventually there will be no more or very little of it. Nor does the market consider the impacts on our environment of the extraction, refining, and combustion of its products...
We certainly do not want to find ourselves pumping the last drop of oil from the ground 30 years from now, because we desire to be wasteful today.
Given the inexorable advancement of alternative energy technologies, and, finally, the appearance of electric and hybrid vehicles on the market, we probably won't be pumping the last drop of oil from the ground - but if we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports, generally safeguard petroleum supplies for the next century, as well as reduce our carbon dioxide emissions and impact on the environment, we should be continually making the effort to reduce our burning of gasoline...
2010 did see a significant decline in gasoline consumption, with deliveries down to 45 million gallons per day, compared to 50 to 60 million gallons per day from 1984 to 2009.
Oil has also been used to generate electricity, though that use appears to also be plummeting, from 200 million barrels of oil in 2001, to only 40 million barrels in 2010. http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table2_2_a.html
The Obama Adminstration should be fearless in its energy policy and recommend an increase in the federal gasoline tax of around 25 cents to 40 cents per gallon - though a general carbon tax on fossil fuels should also be considered ( See previous blog post Carbon Tax Time) - to encourage the transition to more fuel efficient, hybrid and electric cars and trucks.
other resources NY Times Greenblog
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/energy-policy/
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Extremist Disposable Society: Plastics, Recycling, Disposables and Garbage
The United States of America has yet to do enough to address the garbage and recycling challenges we face. We have lived in a world for decades where we purchase food or a beverage in a container that we use for all of a minute and then throw away as garbage.
That is insane! Think of that absurdity of that consumer reality that millions of people participate in daily, that we accept as normal, but is nuts. Why would we make millions of containers - plastic containers, for example - to be used for only a minute (such as soda and juice bottles) and then sent to a landfill to sit there for eternity?
According to the Container Recycling Institute, a 121.8 billion cans and bottles have been landfilled, littered, or incinerated in the U.S. in 2010 alone. The website says 2 million tons of PET plastic containers were wasted - not recycled, while 636 thousand tons were recycled.
Aluminum can recycling rates were less than 50 percent in 2005.
I noticed recently that while the State of California charges an additional 5 to 10 cents per plastic bottle as a redemption value for turning the bottles in to certain recyclers, there are no convenient places to redeem the bottles - such as your grocery store. Tons of CRVed bottles end up in garbage cans. Why add the CRV if citizens have no convenient place to redeem the bottles?
But a 5 to 10 cent RV (Redemption value) is, obviously, not sufficient incentive to Americans to significantly reduce their container waste.
State governments and the Federal government should consider passing a new container RV law that adds a real incentive RV to many types of containers, such as from 25 to 75 cents, depending on the container type, so that our country gets serious about recycling those containers that are recycleable. So that America significantly increases recycling rates of aluminum, glass, and plastic - to the much higher rates they should be at in this enlightened decade.
Other types of "to go" containers - cardboard and styrofoam, might also be subject to a "extreme wastefulness" tax to remind consumers that such quick use of resources is a pathetically extreme form of the "unthinking disposable society". Under the current system, a person is penalized at fast-food restaurants for dining in (charged sales tax), and often exempted from tax for "to go" orders, despite those orders requiring more packaging.
Cities and towns also desperately need to provide recycle-able container disposal cans or machines in public places: malls, parks, town centers. Currently most public areas offer only typical, often unsightly, often overflowing garbage cans. But there do exist machines that refund the container's RV. If the RV were 25 or 50 cents, people would be far more likely to make sure they go to the designated machine to obtain their refund...
It is encouraging to see growing adoption of biodegradable corn-based or other food-based plastics. Many Whole Foods Market groceries now offer "potato-ware" (or Tater-ware, SpudWare) forks, spoons, and knives that reportedly biodegrade in the right composting environment in a few months. And some bottled water companies are packaging with, they claim, biodegradable plastic bottles (Biota water).
America needs more biodegradeable containers, and more recycling, and to escape from the wastefulness of the extremist disposable society mentality we've had for decades.
Other resources:
"Corn Plastic to the Rescue" Smithsonian
ENSO biodegradable bottles
"Plastic Bottles Pile Up As Mountains of Waste" MSNBC.com
~ Corn Plastic Store
That is insane! Think of that absurdity of that consumer reality that millions of people participate in daily, that we accept as normal, but is nuts. Why would we make millions of containers - plastic containers, for example - to be used for only a minute (such as soda and juice bottles) and then sent to a landfill to sit there for eternity?
According to the Container Recycling Institute, a 121.8 billion cans and bottles have been landfilled, littered, or incinerated in the U.S. in 2010 alone. The website says 2 million tons of PET plastic containers were wasted - not recycled, while 636 thousand tons were recycled.
Aluminum can recycling rates were less than 50 percent in 2005.
I noticed recently that while the State of California charges an additional 5 to 10 cents per plastic bottle as a redemption value for turning the bottles in to certain recyclers, there are no convenient places to redeem the bottles - such as your grocery store. Tons of CRVed bottles end up in garbage cans. Why add the CRV if citizens have no convenient place to redeem the bottles?
But a 5 to 10 cent RV (Redemption value) is, obviously, not sufficient incentive to Americans to significantly reduce their container waste.
State governments and the Federal government should consider passing a new container RV law that adds a real incentive RV to many types of containers, such as from 25 to 75 cents, depending on the container type, so that our country gets serious about recycling those containers that are recycleable. So that America significantly increases recycling rates of aluminum, glass, and plastic - to the much higher rates they should be at in this enlightened decade.
Other types of "to go" containers - cardboard and styrofoam, might also be subject to a "extreme wastefulness" tax to remind consumers that such quick use of resources is a pathetically extreme form of the "unthinking disposable society". Under the current system, a person is penalized at fast-food restaurants for dining in (charged sales tax), and often exempted from tax for "to go" orders, despite those orders requiring more packaging.
Cities and towns also desperately need to provide recycle-able container disposal cans or machines in public places: malls, parks, town centers. Currently most public areas offer only typical, often unsightly, often overflowing garbage cans. But there do exist machines that refund the container's RV. If the RV were 25 or 50 cents, people would be far more likely to make sure they go to the designated machine to obtain their refund...
It is encouraging to see growing adoption of biodegradable corn-based or other food-based plastics. Many Whole Foods Market groceries now offer "potato-ware" (or Tater-ware, SpudWare) forks, spoons, and knives that reportedly biodegrade in the right composting environment in a few months. And some bottled water companies are packaging with, they claim, biodegradable plastic bottles (Biota water).
America needs more biodegradeable containers, and more recycling, and to escape from the wastefulness of the extremist disposable society mentality we've had for decades.
Other resources:
"Corn Plastic to the Rescue" Smithsonian
ENSO biodegradable bottles
"Plastic Bottles Pile Up As Mountains of Waste" MSNBC.com
~ Corn Plastic Store
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Laser War on the Mosquito?
On ForeignPolicy.com a story about "Nathan Myhrvold, Bill Gates's ideas guy" - one of several ideas / technology concepts to kill mosquitos: using a computer-assisted laser-gun.
"...There are other, more complicated things like our laser that shoots mosquitoes out of the sky where we'll have to work with some development partner. Although, it is amazingly cheap at the moment. When we first proposed this, people said, "Oh, it's like the Star Wars program; it'll cost you tens of millions of dollars!" But it turns out that every cell phone has a processor in it; every digital camera has a little image sensor in it. All those things that people thought would be so expensive -- we just bought on eBay. Still, that project needs to have a commercial partner who will work with us for some application. That application might be malaria. The first one might actually be in a developed-world context. If you want to sell your crops to Whole Foods, you can't use a crop-duster, but if you use a laser crop-duster -- either by flying in an airplane or [a drone], or if you had it on a pole at the edge of the field -- you can control your pests in a totally environmentally friendly way..."
I have posted in past years my suggestions that the world consider a new kind of hi-tech war on the mosquito, using already on the market mosquito-eater machine concepts - attracting them with carbon dioxide and other chemicals and then zapping them with electricity - and maybe building some very large versions of these - see links below. It's good to read about others
coming up with hi-tech, non-poisonous methods of reducing the mosquito population... It seems developing nations should have eradicated malaria by now.
2008
Malaria was eradicated from the U.S. by the late 1940s, by using poisonous DDT.
~~~ D
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Carbon Tax Time: The US Congress Should Pass a Carbon Tax Bill to Fight CO2 emissions
Back in late June 2009 the U.S. House passed a "Climate" bill that would establish a Cap-and-Trade market incentive program for carbon dioxide emissions. That is, companies would by the rights to pollute so much CO2, and companies that want to reduce their pollution could trade pollution-rights on a market. The bill would also address technological improvements in all areas of energy transport and generation...
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c1112bztye::
But now, that bill is being downplayed by Republican Senators, who have joined with Senator John Kerry on a new bill
saying the House bill will be "too onerous" on energy companies, and possibly consumers...
But this is the typical pro-business, unconcerned-about-the-environment argument. If the US cares about genuinely reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, we are probably going to have to institute not just Cap-and-Trade of carbon emissions, but a carbon tax also... There were a few carbon tax bills submitted in the House this year, and they would initially apply a relatively small tax - such as equivalent to 15 cents per gallon of gasoline - to carbon fuels.
A tax that not only can Americans handle, but could be used to help the federal government cover its massive spending the past few years on bailouts, stimulus, and military operations...
Generally, consumers will care more about the energy they use the more it costs - and they will try harder to conserve energy as prices increase. Certainly there's an upper limit to what consumers are willing to pay for for electricity, gasoline, natural gas - but we're nowhere near there yet. In England and Europe, people pay 5 to 6 dollars per gallon of gasoline.
Links:
LOBBYING: Conoco, BP, Caterpillar leave climate coalition
American Social Security is a Secure Government Program
There is no "entitlements" crisis. The perennial propaganda spin-war against Social Security continues... USA Today just ran the title to the news story: "Rash of retirements pushes Social Security to brink"
"...Social Security's annual surplus nearly evaporated in 2009 for the first time in 25 years as the recession led hundreds of thousands of workers to retire or claim disability.The impact of the recession is likely to hit the giant retirement system even harder this year and next. The Congressional Budget Office had projected it would operate in the red in 2010 and 2011, but a deeper economic slump could make those losses larger than anticipated..."
What the USA Today news story doesn't tell readers is that the retirement Social Security (OASI) and disability Social Security were netting money through 2008, and probably did also in 2009 - as the table projected a net income of $137 Billion (though the Disability fund was projected to be negative $10 billion )
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
So, not only was social security not pushed to any brink, but it still is sitting atop about $2.5 trillion of a Trust Fund which, under a worst-case scenario of government and public neglect, would still last us until 2037...
But that worst-case scenario is extremely unlikely. With a huge increase in retirees looming from 2012 to 2030, more voters will be relying on and counting on OASI - Retirement Social Security - than ever before.
Meanwhile, raising or eliminating the limit on the amount of income to which the SS tax rates are applied (currently only the first $102,000 of income) "could reduce or eliminate the long-term Social Security deficit." - according to this 2008 US Senate report
It is a stating of the obvious, or what should be obvious, to say that increasing taxes or increasing the tax base will bring more money in to the Social Security program.
Is such a tax increase excessively burdensome? An individual earning $300,000 per year today would pay only about $6,000 in OASI and disability tax, but $18,000 if the limit on income taxed were removed. If that individual has no other income, such as capital gains which are not currently subject to SS taxes, that is a significant tax increase that person might find painful.
Perhaps SS taxes could be attributed to a range of income, such as up to $102,000, and $500,000 and above - the person making 500,000 or more in income is better situated to pay more tax.
Short-term Capital Gains taxes already seem rather substantive, though perhaps we should consider allocating 2 percent of them to the Social Security trust fund, to get Social Security through the baby-boomer era.
Medicare should be considered more separately from SS retirement and disability, being a very different entity, health insurance. And what would make most sense given its projected rising costs is to give healthy young people the insurance too - such as a Medicare-for-all program...
The fear-mongering spin about Social Security "going bankrupt" that's been a "conservative" staple probably for the past 20 to 30 years, doesn't have legs to stand on. It's unclear whose interests such lobbying that represents other that the super-wealthy who can provide for their own retirement - a relatively small group of Americans.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Thievery by the Rich? Goldman's $13B Profit
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: David Maxwell Fine
To: letters@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; letters@washpost.com; oped@washpost.com; letter@globe.com; oped@globe.com; newsletter@epi.org; news@epi.org; ncoleman@epi.org; kconner@epi.org; aorr@epi.org; egould@epi.org; newseditors@wsj.com; letters@prospect.org; editor@prospect.org; letters@tnr.com; letters@thenation.com; editorial@theprogressive.org; letters@newsweek.com; letters@economist.com; dollars@dollarsandsense.org; letters.editor@ft.com
Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 2:08:29 PM
Subject: Does Goldman Sachs $13 B profit in 2009 Stink Something Awful?
To: letters@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; letters@washpost.com; oped@washpost.com; letter@globe.com; oped@globe.com; newsletter@epi.org; news@epi.org; ncoleman@epi.org; kconner@epi.org; aorr@epi.org; egould@epi.org; newseditors@wsj.com; letters@prospect.org; editor@prospect.org; letters@tnr.com; letters@thenation.com; editorial@theprogressive.org; letters@newsweek.com; letters@economist.com; dollars@dollarsandsense.org; letters.editor@ft.com
Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 2:08:29 PM
Subject: Does Goldman Sachs $13 B profit in 2009 Stink Something Awful?
Does Goldman Sachs $13 B profit in 2009
Stink Something Awful?
Goldman Sachs posts a profit of $13 B on $45 billion in revenues, while WAL-MART does about the same profit on $400 Billion in revenues.
Did WAL-MART get government help
in the past 2 years?
And why isn't Goldman Sachs listed below WAL-MART in this Fortune 500 list?
profit number quiet?
" The bank’s earnings of $8.20 a share easily topped analysts’ expectations of $5.20 a share "
beating analysts expectations by $3 a share is... Isn't that a red flag? Usually a company is lucky to beat them by a few pennies per share...
Goldman originally took $10 Billion in TARP money,
and then may have or be trying to " pay " that back
through stock - not cash...
So, how much of Goldman's huge " profit " for 2009 is
Corporate Welfare from the US Government?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
David Maxwell Fine
Toledo, Ohio, USA
419-320-6120
Website of Articles and Photography
http://www.dmfine.com
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The World Should Get Serious About Fighting Poverty and Population Growth
The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of “eradicating extreme poverty” a goal of: halving “…between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day.” http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
That goal itself is a modest one – it encourages analysts to regard those living on $2 or $3 a day, possibly still very poor, as less in need of our concern. If the goal is achieved, will it alleviate suffering? Probably, but those whose standards of living have increased only modestly – perhaps to prevent them from daily hunger - presumably will still be living in very poor conditions., such as in a shanty-town or other deplorable, inadequate and possibly unhealthy home.
What would constitute real progress in the fight against poverty?
The UN’s MDGs ignore the need to reduce childbirth amongst women living in poverty. Why should women living in destitution bear children into poverty? If women who are very poor have a child or more than one child, their ability to work will be greatly reduced or restricted, as will their mobility – as will their options to escape poverty.
The entire world needs to adopt a realistic view regarding childbirth and the freedom to bear children with respect to poverty. For example, the poor and very poor should not be free to bear children, to their own detriment, and to the detriment of the children. The middle classes should not be free to bear many children, but should be limited to a certain number of children – such as 1 or 2.
Poverty is not merely an evil afflicting the developing countries – the
The entire world, countries rich and poor, should have an obvious incentive to wage war on poverty within its own borders and globally.
According to Forbes magazine today the world is home to just under 800 billionaires whose wealth is worth about $2.4 trillion – and there are about 9 million millionaires worldwide (that leaves out billionaires that can hide from such lists, as well as money obtained through illicit businesses, such as drugs). The number of households with $30 million or more in wealth is estimated at 95,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire
Meanwhile, of the nearly 7 billion people on the planet, probably as many as 3 billion live in poverty to extreme poverty, and another billion are probably barely middle class. I’m estimating – but given that 65 percent of American Households range from poor to middle class, a world figure for that same percentage would be 4.55 billion people ranging from very poor to middle class.
This reality of global extreme income and wealthy inequality should be a moral outrage in the year 2010, with such advancements in technologies and the vast increase in global wealth over the past 50 years that the world has seen. The poor cannot eat or improve their lots with cellphones and laptops, as current marketing would like us to believe.
Political and business elites speak and act as though world poverty is an intractable problem – possibly because they fear any real effort to address poverty will involve seizing some of their wealth and/or income.
However, the world has not been effectively reducing poverty the past 20 years because, in part, there are certain individuals whose political values and ideologies are very right-wing and do not mind there being a billion or more people living in extreme poverty in the world.
Also, an enormous pool of poor people desperate for work to make any money provides businesses over the world with guaranteed cheap labor - and labor groups that will find it difficult to unionize or organize for higher wages and better working conditions.
The world should not allow the current poverty-wealth dynamic in our world to continue – it should take steps to greatly reduce childbirth amongst the poor in every country, by providing the poor and those young children already born in the past 12 years with financial assistance incentives pegged to abstaining from having children, or postponing childbirth to one’s late 20s.
Often having more children means bringing more children in to a life in poverty. That is true even in the
What incentive do the world’s women have to postpone childbirth to or after their 25thbirthday?
The financial assistance would come in the form of a small amount of cash up front, provided monthly, and as a savings bond held in banks, of varying amounts, that would mature after a period of years, and be obtainable when a woman reached the age of 25 - if they abstained from having children until that age - as much as between US$1000 to $3000 (even in developing countries).
Relocation assistance, financing for farms, as well as grants towards job training and education would also be made available.
This Poverty-population program would have to begin educating girls as early as the age of 11 years, since teenage pregnancy is common worldwide (In Africa there are about 209 million young people ages 15 to 24 source: UN Data
)
Poverty relief workers would communicate to young women (12 years and older) and men regularly that they will likely have a better life and future if they postpone childbirth – and that a dividend for doing so is waiting for them in their latter 20s.
The financial incentives program would be funded by the wealthy countries of the world, and possibly some private wealth , and could be administered partly by the World Bank and the United Nations.
Most of that money would end up in banks held in savings bonds. The program should be invested with around $2 trillion to serve approximately 500 million women globally – US $3,000 per woman, plus to fund education and training or business financing. Maybe $2.5 trillion would be needed. The funding of the program would be done gradually, annually: maybe $200 billion per year over 10 years, contributed by rich countries and wealthy donors ( the
There should be some kind of financial or other incentives for young men to have incentive to abstain from trying to father children - though I don't have an idea for how that would work yet.
Most critics will probably say the world will never make such an investment in fighting poverty – in wars, at least, the bulk of the money is being funneled to big defense businesses and contractors. Meanwhile, how successful would the program be in delaying childbirth? If the world waits to “test” such a system on a small group, by the time the test is finished, the world will have added another billion people… At worst, the world will be giving a very large number of women in poverty a significant amount of financial aid.
If done with the resolve of that kind of enormous investment and mobilization of resources, the benefit to the world both in alleviating extreme suffering and improving the economies of developing nations could be tremendous.
Author's disclosure: I lived on about $14,600 per year since 2006, $40 per day, in the United States - though I have at times received free rent and other assistance.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Bono on America and Fighting Extreme Poverty NYT
Rebranding America ( for the full opinion click the link below )
Can the world make progress on extreme poverty without interfering with freedoms? Like China's one-child policy, or military interventions - to make progress on poverty, does the (wealthy) world need to move with the same intensity and resolve as the US and allies did invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and funding those military operations?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Should Financier George Soros give $1 B to fight climate change or to fight Poverty?
"Soros to Invest $1 Billion in Clean Energy, Form Advisory Group"
According to the Bloomberg story, "New global investment in renewable energy technology totaled $25.9 billion in the third quarter, 22 percent below the same quarter in 2008, according to New Energy Finance, a London- based research company."
The technology-to-fight-climate change sector, does it really need any more investment capital? Aren't we waiting for technological advancement, such as solar cells that can provide more energy per time in the sun than what currently exists?
Perhaps the world's billionaires should turn their attentions to the United Nation's millenium development goals, the first goal of which is, "END HUNGER & EXTREME POVERTY"
To end hunger and extreme poverty, the world should try to make two things happen: give the poor money and greatly reduce childbirth, through financial incentives and birth control. Women in poverty should not be having children until their mid-20s at the earliest, if at all, especially very poor women - they will just be bringing children into a reality of abject poverty, and making it more difficult to move themselves out of poverty.
(previous post on this issue
June 2007 "Reducing Population Growth to Alleviate Poverty"
Monday, August 24, 2009
Afghanistan: A Big Business for Dept of Defense
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
In Afghanistan, the Choice Is Ours
Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of “War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.”
Haass supports the war in Afghanistan in this opinion. However, he doesn't tell us the number of Taliban or insurgents that America and allies are fighting over there - nor does he contemplate the extent to which our military presences in the Middle East in general may have become additional and enormous funnels of money to the Department of Defense and defense contractors ($154 Billion has been spent on defense contracting in the Middle East probably since 2001).
The financial incentives of these military endeavors are probably clouding all decision-makers thinking on the issues. Supposedly the US is spending $4 billion per month on Afghanistan alone...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The best way of providing health insurance and health care to everyone
Health Insurance Co-operatives are now being touted as the solution, but with little details...
Thinking about the American health insurance market - I recently investigated big private insurer Humana, who now has 11 million people it fully insures with health insurance, and another 6 million that it partially insures, one of the biggest health insurance companies in the U.S. with almost $30 B in annual revenues - I was thinking about how size of the pool of the insured helps to spread risk and cost - the healthy pay for those with chronic illnesses, those who develop an illness, or find themselves in an accident, as well as the elderly with health problems.
But the U.S. health insurance system looks like a system almost deliberately designed to help private companies make millions of dollars off of health care - the federal government insures many of the costly Americans who probably use health care often, the elderly (Medicare), and those with low incomes and several children (Medicaid) - a combined group of about 70 to 75 million Americans...
By the federal government taking on the big consumers of health care, companies like Humana, they hope, can mostly insure people who, relatively, use health care only occassionally - enabling Humana to focus on its stock price - which largely determines whether its executives take home millions of dollars per year, or only $500,000.
Aetna, another large insurance company, also pulls in about $32 billion in revenues each year, and nets more than $1 billion. It's CEO makes $3 million in salary, its President $2 million, and does not include their stock options.
According to Wikipedia, Aetna insures about 17.5 million people with medical insurance, 10 million with pharmacy insurance, and 13.6 million with group insurance.
Obviously, health insurance execs with their pay tied to their companies stock price have a conflict of interest built-in when it comes to how to best serve the American public health care and health insurance.
Companies like Aetna and Humana can make big profits off of health insurance because the federal government assumes the coverage of the poor and elderly, and because another 40-plus million go without health insurance.
That is, they are essentially a perfect example of Corporate Welfare from the U.S. Government.
The American health insurance system is a system that evolved to enable private/public corporations and stockholders to make a lot of money off of health inurance - not a system that evolved to provide health care access to all efficiently and easily. Even Medicare and Medicaid are excessively bureaucratic, and many Medicare enrollees are required to buy supplemental private insurance.
The best way to provide health insurance to Americans, if the goal is providing health care to everyone, as opposed to making billions of dollars for corporations - is to combine all of these "pools" of Americans together.
We already have a very large "pool" of about 300 million people - American citizens.
Our solution doesn't have to be government-run health insurance, but it has to be not-for-profit.
The focus on making a profit on health insurance and health care in America is why we're spending so much on health care - but leaving about 40 million uninsured.
The federal government is already spending nearly enough annually to provide health insurance - and excellent health coverage - to all Americans.
- Medicare spending, 2008: $454 billion
- Medicaid spending, 2008: $206.8 billion (by federal govt) / $319 B (with state contributions)
- CHIP Spending: $2 billion
- State Spending on Medicaid: California, $33 billion
Per capita health care spending given spending on these insurance plans alone:
about $2,500 (300 million Americans)
That number is very close to the amount most other nations are spending
But according to that graph, actual per capita spending on health care in the U.S. is more than double that amount: $5,700.
What needs to happen in the U.S. is obvious - that money being spent on these two federal insurance programs which are restricted to membership by age and income - could that be unconstitutional? - needs to be accessible to all Americans.
Who doesn't want that? Obviously, companies like Aetna and Humana.
That's all the argument is really about.
The corporate insurance businessnes may be afraid that this public health insurance option in the House health care bill might be the beginning of a transformaton to a more sensible health insurance system in America...
Doing away with a system of health insurance system as a business focused on profits and stockholders - not providing health care.
One way an ideal health insurance system would look is similar to what some European nations currently have: 2 (two) or 4 (four) Government-chartered non-profit organizations, for example, could assume health insurance management responsibilities, breaking the U.S. into 2 or 4 regions, of pools of 150 million or 75 million people. They would be funded and regulated by the federal government, which would also set the salaries of the managers.
Every American and U.S. resident gets mailed a health insurance card, and your government ID number is part of your account number - just like with Medicare.
Anyone will be able to be provided health care quickly by providing your social secutrity number - say if you go to the ER, or want to go to a different doctor in a different town for some reason.
And an ideal system would cover all your health care needs: pharamaceuticals, basic dental (so anyone can get their teeth cleaned every 6 months) basic eye-exams and lenses - most everything, anywhere in the U.S.
A government-managed Medicare-for-All system could work, too. Though if that's the way thigns go, the name should be changed, and the benefits improved to cover everything. Making Medicare enrollees buy supplemental private insurance, so that corporations can make money off of them is ridiculous.
The solution to providing easy access to health care in America is not complicated - but the politics is ludicrous, and the corporations selling health insurance and profiting from the current complex and ridiculous system are like parasitic interests looking out for their benefit and not what is best for America and Americans.
The ideological argument - that market competition in health insurance might improve quality of health care - is empty. Health care servies are not like buying a car. If you get into an accident in Texas but live in California, you can't spend a week shopping around test-driving all the emergency rooms. Health care depends on hundreds or thousands of factors - where you obtain your services, whether you have an acute or chronic health problem, and even good doctors and nurses can make mistakes.
Health care can be improved upon by consumer groups and consumer involvement in the process, news media oversight, and government regulations - "competition" is just putting millions of dollars in the pockets of health insurance execs and stockholders, and making the system unnecessarily expensive and convoluted.
The Obama Administration and the House of Representative's "public option" plan may be a short-term band-aid addition to a health insurance system that needs to be completely changed - but it may also be the best way in the short term to make sure most Americans have health insurance.
David Maxwell Fine
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Regarding WSJ.com story “Taliban Now Winning”
US-NATO Occupation of Afghanistan
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Regarding your story “Taliban Now Winning”
From:
"David Maxwell Fine"
Date: Mon, August 10, 2009 10:26 am To:
newseditors@wsj.com
Cc: yochi.dreazen@wsj.com ; peter.spiegel@wsj.com
"BBC Have Your Say"
"Boston Phoenix"
"Editors Columbia Journalism Review"
"Democray Now - Amy Goodman"
"Guardian - Foreign"
"Havard International Review"
"Newsweek International"
"International Herald Tribune"
"Journalism.Org"
"Journalism.org Tom Rosenstiel"
"Just Foreign Policy"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSJ Editors, Regarding your story
“Taliban Now Winning”
I have commented about this with respect to other stories I’ve read: can anyone tell us the number of “insurgents” American and other military are fighting in Afghanistan? Are they all Taliban?
Where do they get their weapons and supplies, and why do we have difficulty cutting those off?
And $4 billion seems like an enormous amount to be spending over there – what is that money going to?
And how does our occupation compare to what the Soviets did there in the 1980s?
David Maxwell Fine
Toledo, Ohio
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Letter regarding Time story: Does the U.S. Have an Exit Strategy in Afghanistan?
-- On Mon, 8/3/09, David Maxwell Fine wrote:
From: David Maxwell Fine
Subject: Editors: Re: Does the U.S. Have an Exit Strategy in Afghanistan?
To: letters@time.com
Cc: letters@nytimes.com, letter@globe.com, oped@globe.com, letters@washpost.com, oped@washpost.com, oped@latimes.com, letters@latimes.com, oped@csps.com
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 1:09 PM
Time magazine Editors and other journalists:
Re: Does the U.S. Have an Exit Strategy in Afghanistan?
I continue to wonder how many "insurgents" American, UK, and other military are fighting against over in Afghanistan. This question seems to be of rather large import with respect to how large a military presence we should keep in Afghanistan, for how long, and whether we're going about things there the right way... And obviously, whether there's going to be a constant trickle of insurgents from Pakistan for decades to come... As you point out, the cost in lives and money seems to be rather high...
Actually, I would think the Obama Administration's unspoken goal seems to be to prevent another 9/11 or some type of terrorist attack here or in the UK or Europe. And yet, because of a change in law enforcement and security since and in response to 9/11, this "war/occupation" of Aghanistan might not be necessary to accomplish that goal...
I am glad you're asking this question...
Friday, July 24, 2009
Letter to NY Times editors: Why are we fighting this 'war' in Afghanistan?
---------[ Received Mail Content ]----------
Subject : correction regarding the story "Biden Warns of More ‘Sacrifice’ in Afghanistan"Date : Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:01:47 -0400 (EDT)From : "David Maxwell Fine"To : letters@nytimes.com
NY Times editors:
regarding the story "Biden Warns of More ‘Sacrifice’ in Afghanistan"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/world/europe/24afghan.html?_r=1&hp
I have been wondering, whenever I watch, read, or hear some news, why American troops and so many American troops are fighting a "war" in Afghanistan 8 years after the initial war that ousted the Taliban from Kabul...
The military - and policymakers - can too easily tell Americans that we're fighting to prevent another September 11th attack... American troops could be over there another 10 years fighting to "prevent" some terror attack.
Didn't American troops finish most of the job in 2002 - 2003?
How many guerrilla fighters are fighting in Afghanistan? 800 rebels to our 60,000 - 70,000 American and British troops?
Isn't that ridiculous?
8 years after 9/11 we see how that tragedy has militarized America, funding and running 8 years of wars and occupations in the Middle East... At large costs in lives, injuries, and money that might be better spent in constructive activities.
Why doesn't America bring the troops home from Afghanistan?
David Maxwell Fine
Cc :, "Josh Marshall" , "Bob Calo Journalist Berkeley" , "Talking Points Memo" , , , "Alex Ruskell" , "Alex Ruskell" , "Ben Jones" , "Jason Zengerle" , "Spence Smith" , "Jon Cohn" , "Scott Stossel Atlantic Monthly" , "Joan Walsh" , , "For The Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel" , "Liss Riethoff" , "Irina Prentice" , "Cristina Padres" , "Sage Stossel" , "Kiri Miller" , "Boston Phoenix!" , "Peter Kadzis" , "Dan Eggen W Post" , "D Balz W Post" , "La Times National" , "Washington Post - National" national@washpost.com
Subject : correction regarding the story "Biden Warns of More ‘Sacrifice’ in Afghanistan"Date : Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:01:47 -0400 (EDT)From : "David Maxwell Fine"
NY Times editors:
regarding the story "Biden Warns of More ‘Sacrifice’ in Afghanistan"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/world/europe/24afghan.html?_r=1&hp
I have been wondering, whenever I watch, read, or hear some news, why American troops and so many American troops are fighting a "war" in Afghanistan 8 years after the initial war that ousted the Taliban from Kabul...
The military - and policymakers - can too easily tell Americans that we're fighting to prevent another September 11th attack... American troops could be over there another 10 years fighting to "prevent" some terror attack.
Didn't American troops finish most of the job in 2002 - 2003?
How many guerrilla fighters are fighting in Afghanistan? 800 rebels to our 60,000 - 70,000 American and British troops?
Isn't that ridiculous?
8 years after 9/11 we see how that tragedy has militarized America, funding and running 8 years of wars and occupations in the Middle East... At large costs in lives, injuries, and money that might be better spent in constructive activities.
Why doesn't America bring the troops home from Afghanistan?
David Maxwell Fine
Cc :
Thursday, March 19, 2009
AIG: "Financially Very Strong" in 2005
"In what has been a most eventful and
challenging year for AIG, I am pleased
to report that your company is financially
very strong and well positioned for
the future."
- from AIG's 2005 Annual Report
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/76/76115/reports/10K_2005a.pdf
challenging year for AIG, I am pleased
to report that your company is financially
very strong and well positioned for
the future."
- from AIG's 2005 Annual Report
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/76/76115/reports/10K_2005a.pdf
Friday, March 13, 2009
Letter to the Editors of the WSJ on National Debt
---------------------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------------------Subject: WSJ Editors: regarding editorial Old Europe is Right on StimulusFrom: "David Maxwell Fine" <dave@davidfine.org>Date: Fri, March 13, 2009 3:03 pmTo: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSJ Editors: regarding editorial "Old Europe is Right on Stimulus" (3/12/2009)
I am sure I'm not the only person to notice that you cite a partial US National Debt figure when you write 36% of GDP - when the total/gross US national debt at $11 trillion is around 70 percent of GDP...
Which numbers are you using for the Europe nations? I would think the latter number very important, and what would you say is the significance to the US Economy over the long term, when it is paying out on those bonds to other nations such as China, as opposed to US-based bondholders?
With respect to the stimulus, I don't know yet what the money will be spent on, but marginal taxrate cuts seem essentially a different type of short-term solution...
Not all government spending is alike, obviously, and certain investments could have long-term benefits to a national or global economy - such as the internet developing into the world wide web...
It does seem that our US Government prefers to have a short term focus, which, given the election cycle, makes sense - but makes little sense when considering planning for a healthy economy over the next 20 years...
Sincerely,
David Maxwell Fine
from Savannah, Georgia
WSJ Editors: regarding editorial "Old Europe is Right on Stimulus" (3/12/2009)
I am sure I'm not the only person to notice that you cite a partial US National Debt figure when you write 36% of GDP - when the total/gross US national debt at $11 trillion is around 70 percent of GDP...
Which numbers are you using for the Europe nations? I would think the latter number very important, and what would you say is the significance to the US Economy over the long term, when it is paying out on those bonds to other nations such as China, as opposed to US-based bondholders?
With respect to the stimulus, I don't know yet what the money will be spent on, but marginal taxrate cuts seem essentially a different type of short-term solution...
Not all government spending is alike, obviously, and certain investments could have long-term benefits to a national or global economy - such as the internet developing into the world wide web...
It does seem that our US Government prefers to have a short term focus, which, given the election cycle, makes sense - but makes little sense when considering planning for a healthy economy over the next 20 years...
Sincerely,
David Maxwell Fine
from Savannah, Georgia
Monday, October 6, 2008
Financial Crisis: The Bail-out Idea Is So Wrong. They were so wrong before, could they be so wrong again?
draft 1, 11am est, October 3, 2008
The Bail-Out Idea Is So Wrong
They were so wrong before, could they be so wrong again?
Today's NY Times ran the story "Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt, and Risk" by Stephen Labaton where Labaton writes "How could Mr. [Cristopher] Cox [Chairman of the SEC] have been so wrong?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html
The investment banks went begging to the SEC to allow them to borrow more than was allowed under regulations at the time, their borrowing then destroyed them - and now they and the financial industry want the US Government and other governments to pick up the pieces for them.
"Over the following months and years, each of the firms would take advantage of the looser rules. At Bear Stearns, the leverage ratio — a measurement of how much the firm was borrowing compared to its total assets — rose sharply, to 33 to 1. In other words, for every dollar in equity, it had $33 of debt. The ratios at the other firms also rose significantly."
I wrote in previous opinions that comparing this "crisis" to the market crash that occurred in 1929 is absurd. From an exclusively market speculation perspective there are some similarities, but the reason commentators and journalists are making the comparison is to spark fears of a widespread economic depression that follows the crash - and they're trying to manipulate this fear and panic to force through a Government bailout of irresponsible and greedy speculators.
But will we be asking again "How could they have been so wrong, again?" after the U.S. Government passes a bailout, and encourages reckless gambling in the financial markets? Laissez-faire free marketeers should be applauding the business and banking shake-out, this is the market getting rid of foolish and inefficient companies, companies like parasites subsisting off of an ability to borrow, and for some, play big-time Wall Street Keno with their debt.
The Wall Street Journal article "Uncertainty Over Rescue Intensifies Credit Crisis" gives us some numbers from the federal reserve, and the new concern in this downturn in the commercial paper market, short-term loans that, supposedly, keep some businesses able to meet their costs and payroll.
But what the article doesn't tell us is what companies, and what types of companies, need this this short-term debt, whether this reliance on this short-term debt is a good or bad way to do business, and what these companies will do if they can't get more credit - go out of business? Lay off workers? Nor does the article speculate where this short-term debt market might go in the next 3 to 6 months. Is this a very short-term crisis? How might we know?
Right now a lot of banks and companies may be ruled by fear after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, and some other banks, a fear that is keeping them from lending beyond a few days - right now.
But this could all change in six months to a year, even without any U.S. Government intervention, as everything shakes out.
Financial news media like the Wall Street Journal are not revealing that they possess expertise in these areas of reporting on and explaining to readers the financial markets. There's still a lot of focus on bond and interest rate numbers, and big company deals, which tell us little, especially since the claim is that this crisis could devastate "main street". Could this "crisis" maybe get rid of some inefficient companies that need to get the boot?
Why aren't the financial papers beating the bible about how this is how the free market clears out poorly managed and inefficient companies? Instead they're pathetically clamoring for government intervention, suffering, possibly, from an acute case of cognitive dissonance, brought on by the anxiety of watching their wealth evaporate as the stock markets get caught up in a downward spiral...
Looking around Toledo, Ohio today, I don't see any crisis. No one is talking about the "financial crisis" either.
The bailout idea still stinks. The U.S. Congress should be debating how to invest $250 billion or more in the 75% of Americans who earn about $75,000 or less a year, not coddling the fools who put the financial system in this mess. It seems the U.S. Congress was snoozing when the SEC permitted these big banks to borrow so much money.
Investing in the American people and in American infrastructure is a win-win - it would help the U.S. economy, average americans, and create jobs. This bail-out, who knows what it will do, but it might funnel millions of dollars into the hands of the frauds and gamblers who caused the "crisis" in the first place...
Wake up U.S. Congress, you represent the American people, not Wall Street gambling addicts.
They were so wrong before, could they be so wrong again?
Today's NY Times ran the story "Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt, and Risk" by Stephen Labaton where Labaton writes "How could Mr. [Cristopher] Cox [Chairman of the SEC] have been so wrong?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html
The investment banks went begging to the SEC to allow them to borrow more than was allowed under regulations at the time, their borrowing then destroyed them - and now they and the financial industry want the US Government and other governments to pick up the pieces for them.
"Over the following months and years, each of the firms would take advantage of the looser rules. At Bear Stearns, the leverage ratio — a measurement of how much the firm was borrowing compared to its total assets — rose sharply, to 33 to 1. In other words, for every dollar in equity, it had $33 of debt. The ratios at the other firms also rose significantly."
I wrote in previous opinions that comparing this "crisis" to the market crash that occurred in 1929 is absurd. From an exclusively market speculation perspective there are some similarities, but the reason commentators and journalists are making the comparison is to spark fears of a widespread economic depression that follows the crash - and they're trying to manipulate this fear and panic to force through a Government bailout of irresponsible and greedy speculators.
But will we be asking again "How could they have been so wrong, again?" after the U.S. Government passes a bailout, and encourages reckless gambling in the financial markets? Laissez-faire free marketeers should be applauding the business and banking shake-out, this is the market getting rid of foolish and inefficient companies, companies like parasites subsisting off of an ability to borrow, and for some, play big-time Wall Street Keno with their debt.
The Wall Street Journal article "Uncertainty Over Rescue Intensifies Credit Crisis" gives us some numbers from the federal reserve, and the new concern in this downturn in the commercial paper market, short-term loans that, supposedly, keep some businesses able to meet their costs and payroll.
But what the article doesn't tell us is what companies, and what types of companies, need this this short-term debt, whether this reliance on this short-term debt is a good or bad way to do business, and what these companies will do if they can't get more credit - go out of business? Lay off workers? Nor does the article speculate where this short-term debt market might go in the next 3 to 6 months. Is this a very short-term crisis? How might we know?
Right now a lot of banks and companies may be ruled by fear after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, and some other banks, a fear that is keeping them from lending beyond a few days - right now.
But this could all change in six months to a year, even without any U.S. Government intervention, as everything shakes out.
Financial news media like the Wall Street Journal are not revealing that they possess expertise in these areas of reporting on and explaining to readers the financial markets. There's still a lot of focus on bond and interest rate numbers, and big company deals, which tell us little, especially since the claim is that this crisis could devastate "main street". Could this "crisis" maybe get rid of some inefficient companies that need to get the boot?
Why aren't the financial papers beating the bible about how this is how the free market clears out poorly managed and inefficient companies? Instead they're pathetically clamoring for government intervention, suffering, possibly, from an acute case of cognitive dissonance, brought on by the anxiety of watching their wealth evaporate as the stock markets get caught up in a downward spiral...
Looking around Toledo, Ohio today, I don't see any crisis. No one is talking about the "financial crisis" either.
The bailout idea still stinks. The U.S. Congress should be debating how to invest $250 billion or more in the 75% of Americans who earn about $75,000 or less a year, not coddling the fools who put the financial system in this mess. It seems the U.S. Congress was snoozing when the SEC permitted these big banks to borrow so much money.
Investing in the American people and in American infrastructure is a win-win - it would help the U.S. economy, average americans, and create jobs. This bail-out, who knows what it will do, but it might funnel millions of dollars into the hands of the frauds and gamblers who caused the "crisis" in the first place...
Wake up U.S. Congress, you represent the American people, not Wall Street gambling addicts.
David Maxwell Fine
Toledo, Ohio
(419) 320-6120 cell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
