Where will they (we) go?

Throughout history overpopulation, drought, famine and economic transition resulted in mass migrations. Migrations swamped the Roman Empire, the greatest the world has known. When British landowners ejected the Scottish crofters from their farms in a great land consolidation movement, many of the crofters migrated to the United States and Canada. The rise of the industrial United States drew displaced workers and impoverished farmers from across Europe. When the potato famine threatened national starvation in Ireland, victims also made their way west across the Atlantic Ocean.

Over the past five centuries, the new worlds found in the Age of Discovery provided an avenue of escape and hope. But the new worlds now have been widely exploited from Canada to Tierra del Fuego, from North America to Australia. Where will the millions displaced by the transition to the information age or global climate change or environmental degradation go? Where are the new frontiers they will seek? Or will their struggle for survival force the choice to displace less strong populations in neighboring countries as the world grows hotter, more crowded and more polluted?

If we continue to kick the can down the road...

If we continue to kick the can down the road, this generation will have subscribed to the philosophy: apres nous, le deluge.

The following linked article in the Brisbane Times is frightening because it is so straightforward and logical. It does not feel biased, it feels like the observations of a neutral, well-informed bystander.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/decline-of-the-us-empire-will-reshape-our-world-20101109-17m78.html

I believe there is still time to save the greatness of the United States - home of self sufficient, "can do" innovators, melting pot of diverse races and cultures. But I agree time is running out. All great societies rise and fall, but 200 years is but a blink of an eye in world history. Surely we can do better than that?

As I see my state forced to make deeper and deeper cuts in education and other public services, as I watch Washington planning to cut taxes that inevitably will increase our deficits at the same time there is talk of shaving Social Security and Medicare while the wealthiest corporations give obscene bonuses to those who speculate with our nation's assets, I become disheartened.

My friend Bob has issued a clarion call "...from D. C. to city halls across America. Statesmen wanted. No audition required--just performance."

Courage and integrity are hard to come by in the face of the furious media attacks that inevitably rain down on anyone who dares to support real solutions to our very real problems. And yet they are quite desperately needed.

A Bitter Pill - Simpson and Bowles Unveil Deficit Reduction Plan

Click on the post title for my source material - a New York Times article.

Former Senator Alan K. Simpson and Erskine B. Bowles, who was President Clinton's White House Chief of Staff, sent a shot across the bow of Washington policy makers November 10 when they revealed an austere deficit reduction plan composed of deep spending cuts and significant tax increases.

The proposal has something guaranteed to offend every side of the political spectrum:

1. Sharp tax increases, including a 15-cent a gallon federal gasoline tax increase, the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, tax credits targeting low income wage earners and federal tax deductions for state and local tax payments.
2. Across the board cuts in federal spending, including military spending, Medicare and Social Security.

The proposal projects a roughly $4 trillion reduction in the federal deficit by 2020. It recommends a 2-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

This plan deserves serious study and consideration. One of my greatest concerns is whether it, or any ultimate plan, weighs more heavily on the lower economic sectors and more lightly on the wealthiest sectors.

The bleak truth is that meaningful deficit reduction will be painful, unpopular and extremely difficult to implement. Unless it is evenly spread across the economic landscape, it will be disastrous.

The Internet as Public Domain - Plagiarism be Damned

This past week a furor occurred over a cooking magazine that was discovered to have lifted pieces from Internet sites and published them without permission or paying royalties. The site also edited the pieces to fit its "standards." (such as they were!)

The good news was the original writers were credited. The very, very bad news was the editor believed she had a pass to reproduce anything she found on the Internet without permission and TO EDIT IT.

Let me be perfectly clear here. I do not consider anything I have written on these pages or elsewhere to be the property of anyone but myself. I don't care what disclaimers the sites I use make (including Facebook, Blogger and Google). I am the author for better or worse. I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to speak to an Internet audience. I absolutely LOVE it when someone publishes a "link" to my page. But I deny anyone's right to use or edit my writing without my specific permission. I take full responsibility for any grammatical or spelling shortcomings, for any awkwardness of phrase, for the (often intentional) use of slang.

I do not consider this a legal matter. Lawyers can argue any side of a dispute with equal skill. I consider it a moral one.

In my opinion, those who can't copy and paste. I am VERY careful to link to any materials I have used as sources. I expect others to do the same.

Can the Fed save the economy?

I am posting the following link because I believe Reich's analysis of the Fed's attempts to improve the economy is spot on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-republican-recipe-for_b_779121.html

1. Lower the value of the dollar against other currencies: theoretically this action will decrease the cost of our debt and make our exports more competitive. Unintended consequences: other countries respond with attempts to devalue their currencies and neutralize the impact of the Fed's action on their imports and exports; the real cost of our debt is camouflaged by artificially maintained low interest rates.

2. Increase the money supply so banks will lend to business and individuals. Unintended consequence: inflation first of bond prices as investors seek a "safe haven" and then of stock prices as investors seek decent returns on their dollars no longer available in the over-bought bond market. Businesses won't borrow if their revenues are stagnant. Individuals cannot borrow when their incomes have decreased and their debt loads are high.

Evidently I am not the only investor that has opted back into stocks, particularly those with attractive dividends, as bond prices have risen and bond interest rates become anemic. When bond prices finally pull back (and they will) and their interest rates rise, debtor nations like ours are in for a very unpleasant surprise. The cost of debt will soar.

One peculiar side effect of the Fed's recent currency policies is we appear to be teetering on a tightrope between runaway inflation and devastating deflation - a neat trick that does not imply equilibrium.

At this point, the attempts of the Fed to "tweak" the economy back to solid growth could well be doing more harm than good.

Disclaimer: It is far easier to see problems than to provide their solutions. That is one reason I want policy makers and elected officials to be smarter than I am.

Cut Taxes Again?

Sooo, the plan is to cut taxes, cut discretionary spending and return the U. S. Government to solvency?

Cut taxes again? At a time when the country's debt soars into the stratosphere? Oh yes, the spending cuts will keep our balance sheet healthy.

What is included in discretionary spending?
Education? Transportation (what about all those structurally unsound bridges)? Disaster relief (FEMA)? Food and Drug Administration? Security and Exchange Commission? The Interior (perhaps we can sell off our national parks)? Agriculture? Commerce? Justice? Treasury? Environmental Protection Agency? Housing and Urban Development? Nuclear Regulatory Agency? State Department? Minerals and Mines Management? Forestry? Student loans? Foreign Aid to places like Pakistan? Veterans' Affairs? The repeal of Health Care?

According to one just elected representative last night, discretionary does NOT include Defense or Homeland Security. What about Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security? What about Congressional staffs?

Without revenue, it will be moot. Without revenue every last item in the budget will be on the table.

Death and Taxes

Someone (Ben Franklin?) once said "Nothing in life is certain but death and taxes."

Taxes again, I know. No one wants to pay them. But David Stockman, who advised Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, has some strong reasoning behind his position we need to raise them. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20021193-10391709.html

When the medicine comes in the form of a VERY bitter pill, that is NOT a good reason not to take it.

It could well be that only by cutting core programs (the military and entitlements) and raising taxes, will the U. S. economy be able to drag, pull and shove its way back to economic health.

Percentage wise, the wealthiest will have to pay the most. The poorest the least. Why? Because it is a very bad idea to tax citizens into starvation and homelessness. The middle class will probably suffer the most. They are dwindling in numbers, but still have some disposable income.

None of the choices are easy or pleasant. But Keynesian economics calls for increased spending in times of economic hardship, you argue? True, but Keynes also said spending and debt should be trimmed in times of prosperity. This we did NOT do. The unhappy result is staring us in the face - massive public debt, massive public need for stimulus and far less than nothing in the piggy bank.

Across this country states are facing bankruptcy. Most of the current job losses are in the public sector as teachers, firemen, policemen, highway workers, water and sewage workers, trash collectors, regulators are being laid off. These cuts are slicing through the heart of our infrastructure, whether we acknowledge that or not. Public assets are being sold for one-time cash boosts. Any old Yankee would tell you, NEVER unload your capital, but that is what state and local governments across the country are doing.

If someone out there has a better idea, one that actually has a solid chance of working, now is the time to express it.

The money has to come from somewhere. Of course, we could emulate the Roman Empire and try conquer our way back to wealth. Not sure how well that would work.