Jobs

One wonders about legacies and what they mean. Virtually every native passer-by in Rome can give some explanation of the art of the town. Among the Germans it's the composers, not the philosophers. The English revere their political leaders who forged their legal system. In Russia, even Lenin had to deal with Tolstoy. Civilized nations/cultures seem to want a personification, a symbolic representative of what is best in them. And those nations without a symbolic heritage seem sad indeed.

So what about the Americans? Washington? Jefferson? Lincoln? All strong, principled visionaries who changed their nation and the world--and practical men, not abstract and elusive academics who, in a hailstorm of opinions, were occasionally right.

There is another element, though: The innovator. Edison, Ford and now Jobs--men who knew their field, dominated it, and initiated and developed changes that improved the nation and the world. Competence, integrity, privacy without the need for the public arena. Greek heroes in every way but violence.

Not America's creators but their legacy.

Oxymoron Nation and the Dialectic of Progress

I recently bought a poison for pests and was surprised to see the packaging had changed. Not only was the poison less powerful, it was packaged in a special dispenser. Why? To reduce risks of accidental poisoning. The tremendous oil and gas findings in Western Pennsylvania has caused angst because people are fearful that the mining can not be done with risk. Drilling at a similar find in the Midwest is on hold for fear of the health of a field rodent. Nuclear power has been effectively banned by the fear of nuclear plants created by the Japanese accident.

Change entails disruption. No appendix is removed without a scar--except on Star Trek, an apt symbol of the fantastic. If we stand frozen before our decisions we will do nothing. If we do nothing we will miss opportunities at worst, we will simply erode at best. I am not speaking about breaking eggs for omelets here, I am talking about managing risk. Looking at a problem, assessing the options, then moving to fix the problem with as good a control of the downsides as possible--that is not capitalistic or dangerous, that is adult. Safe poisons, clean drilling, bloodless surgery are not.

Life is unsafe and ends poorly. The problems we as a people face are sometimes gigantic, sometimes minor but the solutions are rarely without risk. The charge, "Prove this can not happen," is a powerful deterrent to people who do not understand the uncertainties of life and the process of trial and error that is inherent to progress.

I used to think we needed business people in government; now I think we need engineers.

Liquidity Trap and the Paradox of Thrift

We are caught between these two views:

1. Economic activity is a function of production and consumption. But debt has risen perilously so anyone making a profit in these times will not expand their business or take on new workers. This has led to a "liquidity trap" where any new cash goes not for production or consumption but rather to pay down debt. Therefore the only option is to stimulate the consumption side by giving noninvestors money to spend. Therefore we should tax those who have money but will not spend it and give it to those who have no money and will spend what they are given. This will stimulate production and lead to growth.

2. Economic activity is a function of production and consumption. But the government's interference in the economy has led to flooding the country with money thus threatening inflation, constraining investment with micromanaging regulations and shunting money from areas of production to areas of ideological preference. This has led to a "liquidity trap" where available money does not go in to investment but fearfully stays in cash. Therefore the only option is to stimulate production by decreasing the size and scope of government, decrease their regulations and taxes and allow the private sector to develop. This will stimulate production and lead to growth.

So there is a lot of money available that going either to pay debt or to the mattress. The solution of one group is to add more money to potential consumers so there is a group to produce for and the other group is to decrease taxes and regulations so businesses can appear, grow, expand, etc. so that the working base grows and can increase consumption.

There is a charming coffee house logic to all of this. Both sides seem sensible. Both seem concerned and sympathetic. Both sides despise each other so fortunately we can eliminate brotherly love as a deciding factor here. But despite the protests of both sides, these two alternatives are not benign choices for the benefit of "the consumer" or "the worker" or "the businessman." Someone will also be damaged by the increase or the contraction of government money. Let's also look at the other consequence of their respective unprovable dogmas.

Who will suffer the most and is it deserved?

Will Work for Tax Breaks!

Saft Corporation received a $95.5 million grant from the Department of Energy to open a 235,000 square foot lithium battery plant in Jacksonville, FL.. Saft got economic incentives from the state of Florida and the city of Jacksonville to build the plant, and construction of the 235,000-square-foot facility was further funded by a $95.5 million federal grant from the Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, i.e. TARP!

Now here is a French company expected to create 300 jobs at $318,333.33 of taxpayer money per job...to make lithium-ion batteries for cars. This is, by most assessments, a dead end and the government looks foolish.

But, wait. It is actually more complicated. These batteries also have a U.S. Department of Defense application. The Defense Department can not rely on domestic American production for their needed products. So the government may have another motive and may have made a decision based on weakness and need.

What a mess.

Glenn Beck

I've always thought Glenn Beck an interesting phenomenon because he was so vulnerable. Not because he cried or because of his confessional quality but because he was admittedly uneducated and he tried to learn. He tried in public. He would stumble on something and devour it and then he would change his mind about something as a result. So different and refreshing, so unlike the Fox regurgitators or the numbing Hannity. His decision to go private on a subscription internet venture was gutsy too. Here is part of a WSJ article on his progress so far.

"Because Mr. Beck owns the show and the network, he could make substantially more than the $2.5 million salary he got each year at Fox. GBTV is on track to take in more than $20 million in revenue in its debut year, according to a person close to the company.
The television industry will be watching closely to see whether the TV host can preserve his popularity while migrating to the Web, where efforts to get consumers to pay to watch online-only channels are just beginning.
When Mr. Beck announced GBTV in June, the network had 80,000 subscribers. In the months since, GBTV subscribers have swelled to more than 230,000, according to people close to the network, even though Mr. Beck‘s show hasn’t yet begun.
The audience is far less than the more than 2.2 million daily viewers his program on Fox drew, on average, over its 27-month run, which ended in June after clashes with the network’s management.
But it is more than the average 156,000 people who were watching the Oprah Winfrey Network in June."

Sunday Sermon 10/2/11

One characteristic of the modern world is the development of group thinking. Historically there was little more than national identity, if anything. Joan of Arc, travelling to meet the king for the first time, could not speak easily to neighbors in towns twenty miles away because their french was so different. Indeed, Manchester says that war was a unifying factor in nations not because it created a common enemy but because it organized a national language.

With better unification, identities formed and sometimes ethnicity trumped nationality. (See Balkans, see Black America.) But these reasonable identities could not prepare us for the new identities that were discovered/invented/smoked up in the last two hundred years. We, as a species, became thralls to economics, power and sexual urges among many others. Captivated by the surmising of bright and creative men we became slaves to the plausible.

And some of these ideas were quite captivating. Some made sense. But all of these generalities were as unproven and unprovable as string theory. Nonetheless we were ready to kill and die for them.

This modern tendency is in great conflict with two groups, religion and the English (really Scot) Enlightenment. Both emphasize the nature of man as an individual rather than a part of some group movement or evolution. Before any discussion occurs between the two philosophies of groups and individuals, that impossible bridge must be built.

And before any thought of man's relationship with man can be entertained, that personal and individual relationship between him and his soul must be encountered.

Cab Thoughts

Will the military, comfortable now with their position on gay soldiers, open their ranks to cross dressers and transgender volunteers as well?

Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by American drone in Yemen. He was an American citizen who was behind a number of terrorist attacks. Did he deserve a trial? Was he deprived of his constitutional rights?

First bin Ladin, now al-Awlaki. And Obama's popularity rises. Is it possible that the leadership in this country will be judged on its assassination success rate?

The U.S. is now importing less oil from the Middle East for the first time since 1999.There are a number of factors. We now have an increase in domestic production, the first such improvement in a long time. Mileage has improved. There is a rise in synthetic fuels and ethanol--still a dumb deal--is up. The downturn in the economy has helped too. The trajectory, if continued, will make us independent of these people in 12 years.

Some European utilities are experiencing periodic surges in their solar sources for their grid and are selling energy at a loss. This believe it or not impairs their ability to upgrade and increase their sources.

A recent article by a very bright libertarian compared the qualities of socialism to the qualities of capitalism as "envy, entitlement, and aggression" juxtapose to "commerce, creativity, and comity." Is that true?