One of the things I've noticed about social networking sites is that they really cut down on the blogging, and a bunch of other things I should be doing as well, both on- and off-line. Once in a blue moon I make resolutions, and as it so happens, the New Year coincides with a "blue moon" (the second full moon December). The only resolution I have for this coming year is to try to meter myself and give balanced attention to all the pokers in my fire.
There are a number of things I've not blogged about that I've mentioned on Facebook or elsewhere. Among them are the large number of really interesting sites I've found on the web, like http://www.openfilm.com/. Imagine user-created content made by people who really know how to do it. Then you have some idea of OpenFilm.com... it's the open-ness of YouTube with the production standards of Hulu. Really awesome.
Here's one of the films I found there, by way of Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast:
"Here Be Dragons" is a 40-minute film by Brian Dunning about critical thinking, which should, in my opinion, be shown to every elementary school student. It's not a film that "debunks" anything... rather, it's about how to think logically and skeptically so that valid useful information isn't drowned out by a the cacophony of pseudoscientific and just plain bogus claims that bombard us every day. Dunning targets many of the "dragons" that plague modern thinking... areas of sloppy thought and pseudo-science that reflect thought processes stuck in the Dark Ages... a time when mapmakers annotated the unknown blank areas of the world with the titular label.
I've already heard criticism that the film doesn't address the biggest "dragon" of them all... religion. You can't be comprehensive in a 40-minute film, and Dunning deals with many, many more issues in his weekly podcast than in this film. Skeptoid is a fascinating podcast, well worth your time. Nevertheless, having been a long-time listener of Skeptoid, I know where Dunning's coming from, but I do wish he'd have given a more prominent mention of religion than he did in the film to make it clear.
In the film Dunning notes that not every belief needs to be debunked. Those that stand in the way of progress do. When you're looking at the "dragons" that are addressed in the film, note that they are measurable claims that are nonetheless unsupported by empirical evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong; but that, to the extent they are measurable, they fail. This includes such things as palmistry, homeopathy, ghostbusting, etc. What it does not do is address those claims that are not measurable. I.e., matters of faith.
The mere claim of the existence of God cannot be disproved; therefore it is in no way productive to even attempt to "debunk" it. It's a matter of faith, and faith in no God has no argumentative advantage over faith in God. Where specific, measurable claims are made, however, Skeptoid is on it like white on rice. Does faith healing work? Psychic surgery? New Age energy fields? These are areas ripe for critical thinking.
Keep in mind that Dunning is not out to do your thinking for you. Instead, he's telling you about logical fallacies and questionable debating techniques used to obscure the truth. You are encouraged to research and think on your own. And this is another sense in which "critical thinking" is "critical"... if something is debunked for you, then you're no better equipped to avoid the next scam that comes your way. But if you are taught to think critically, then you are nobody's mark.
So does this film slay the "dragon" of religion? No, nor is it intended to. Not only is that "dragon" not slayable, there are many skeptics that would deny it is a dragon at all. And those that do fare very poorly in debate, as I had previously noted with regard to Michael Shermer's poor showing in a debate on that very subject. Even a highly accomplished skeptic flounders against the immeasurable. Shermer's first and last mistake in that debate was agreeing to it at all.
But the bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The critical thinking techniques laid out by Dunning (and Carl Sagan, and Michael Shermer, James Randi, and others) are every bit as valid and useful to the clergy as it is to an atheist. Something that every human being on this planet should be aware of is that those things that are provable, measurable and demonstrable take precedence over those ideas that are purely held by faith. It's why the Vatican acknowledges a round Earth, heliocentrism, and evolution. So long as religion doesn't deny what is demonstrably real, there is no "debunking" to do.
And that's how it should be.
Do yourself a favor. Watch the film. Read the references Dunning recommends at the end.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Quantum Propulsion and other random thoughts
I'm really geeking out about something right now.
For a while I've had an idea for a sci-fi concept which I call a "vacuum propeller". The concept is that a ship can be propelled by exploiting the quantum fluctuations in empty space. Ever since Stephen Hawking wrote about the phenomenon I thought it was pretty cool, and that this would be a cool application for it if it could be exploited. The cool part is that since you're propelling yourself through a medium, you don't have to carry reaction mass, and your spaceship can be many, many times smaller. Look at how much larger a rocket is than a jet, and you get the idea.
Well, it looks like somebody else had the same idea (as they should... it's obvious), and took it way farther by actually working out how it would work. It's explained here in Technology Review.
BTW, I love just thinking about such stuff. For instance, with this technology I wonder, since quantum fluctuations are particle/antiparticle pairs, could you exploit it for both propulsion (particle) and fuel (antiparticle)? Would it leave a wake?
I LOVE old space operas (of the "Doc" Smith genre) and this has every hallmark of it. The very best science fiction, IMHO, takes ONE possibility and explores the ramifications of it. It keeps everything believable by grounding everything in real science except the one speculative bit. (That's what keeps Star Trek firmly in the fantasy genre for me... they can solve any problem whatsoever by making up a bit of jargon, and they do.) For me, real science fiction can "cheat" on known physics... but only once.
Here's one I'd like to see explored. What if a real force field were possible? The sci-fi staple applications are shields and jail doors (which are silly, IMHO... why burn the power when you could have just put a door in the hole?). What more unusual applications could result? Could you use it as a balloon by forcing air molecules away from your ship? Could this allow you to realize the old sci-fi achievement of apparently levitating your ship well away from the surface prior to kicking in the reaction engines (giving an advantage similar to the advantage that White Knight gives SpaceShipOne)? Could it take the place of your usual reaction engine by accelerating the propellant away from the ship? Would it give you "levitating" cars like Luke Skywalker's landspeeder? No antigravity here... just various applications of the one forcefield technology.
One that I'm absolutely sick of seeing is "magic gravity". The only way of achieving artificial gravity is to substitute mass with acceleration. It doesn't matter what kind of acceleration. So if you constantly speed the ship up you have apparent gravity. Spin the ship (or part of it) and you again have artificial gravity. But "gravitons" and "gravity deck plating" etc don't explain anything. In fact, it becomes a major problem if you consider that in most sci-fi tales the artificial gravity works even when all ship's power dies. And why don't people walk on the ceiling? They should be able to if the deck above you also has "gravity plating". Gravity isn't directional. So lay off the magic gravity. Also, I wish they'd lay off the complicated carousels when designing spaceships with plausible artificial gravity. It's safer, simpler, and more reliable to do away with all the mechanical hocus pocus and simply spin the whole ship. You don't want to have to try to replace or repair a monstrous carousel gimbal while you're a gazillion miles from home.
For a while I've had an idea for a sci-fi concept which I call a "vacuum propeller". The concept is that a ship can be propelled by exploiting the quantum fluctuations in empty space. Ever since Stephen Hawking wrote about the phenomenon I thought it was pretty cool, and that this would be a cool application for it if it could be exploited. The cool part is that since you're propelling yourself through a medium, you don't have to carry reaction mass, and your spaceship can be many, many times smaller. Look at how much larger a rocket is than a jet, and you get the idea.
Well, it looks like somebody else had the same idea (as they should... it's obvious), and took it way farther by actually working out how it would work. It's explained here in Technology Review.
BTW, I love just thinking about such stuff. For instance, with this technology I wonder, since quantum fluctuations are particle/antiparticle pairs, could you exploit it for both propulsion (particle) and fuel (antiparticle)? Would it leave a wake?
I LOVE old space operas (of the "Doc" Smith genre) and this has every hallmark of it. The very best science fiction, IMHO, takes ONE possibility and explores the ramifications of it. It keeps everything believable by grounding everything in real science except the one speculative bit. (That's what keeps Star Trek firmly in the fantasy genre for me... they can solve any problem whatsoever by making up a bit of jargon, and they do.) For me, real science fiction can "cheat" on known physics... but only once.
Here's one I'd like to see explored. What if a real force field were possible? The sci-fi staple applications are shields and jail doors (which are silly, IMHO... why burn the power when you could have just put a door in the hole?). What more unusual applications could result? Could you use it as a balloon by forcing air molecules away from your ship? Could this allow you to realize the old sci-fi achievement of apparently levitating your ship well away from the surface prior to kicking in the reaction engines (giving an advantage similar to the advantage that White Knight gives SpaceShipOne)? Could it take the place of your usual reaction engine by accelerating the propellant away from the ship? Would it give you "levitating" cars like Luke Skywalker's landspeeder? No antigravity here... just various applications of the one forcefield technology.
One that I'm absolutely sick of seeing is "magic gravity". The only way of achieving artificial gravity is to substitute mass with acceleration. It doesn't matter what kind of acceleration. So if you constantly speed the ship up you have apparent gravity. Spin the ship (or part of it) and you again have artificial gravity. But "gravitons" and "gravity deck plating" etc don't explain anything. In fact, it becomes a major problem if you consider that in most sci-fi tales the artificial gravity works even when all ship's power dies. And why don't people walk on the ceiling? They should be able to if the deck above you also has "gravity plating". Gravity isn't directional. So lay off the magic gravity. Also, I wish they'd lay off the complicated carousels when designing spaceships with plausible artificial gravity. It's safer, simpler, and more reliable to do away with all the mechanical hocus pocus and simply spin the whole ship. You don't want to have to try to replace or repair a monstrous carousel gimbal while you're a gazillion miles from home.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Failing Newspapers... Let them GO.
In the Washington Post of 30 October 2009, Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols call for government subsidies for print news media. In this desperate bid to save their own outdated jobs, they use a sort of twisted logic that only a carnival sideshow contortionist could truly appreciate.
They argue... well, read it for yourself:
As I may have mentioned before, my teenage career goal was to become a newspaper journalist. I went to university. I took courses. This was the late 70s, early 80s; the age of Lou Grant, and everybody wanted to be Joe Rossi and change the world. Literally, if you asked any one of my college classmates why they wanted to be journalists, they'd have told you that they wanted to change the world. Not me. I wanted to be Walter Cronkite. I wanted to report the news.
Now, the "change the world" camp has been in charge of all of the news media since the 70s, and quite frankly, they've run the business into the ground. When all we had were three networks and one or two major newspapers per city they were able to do it with impunity. Now, with 300 specialty channels and the Internet... some real choice, they're finding that the American public really and truly doesn't want their product. American people want the news. They do not want the angle, the slant, the spin.
In broadcast media you see incontrovertible proof of this in that FoxNews demolishes its competition in the ratings. Despite the far Left's inability to tell the difference between an opinion show like Hannity and a hard news program like America's News HQ, Fox is as neutral as broadcast journalism gets. You see further proof on the web, where people prefer bare news sources.
In addition to undesired content, people no longer want the physical medium itself. How many trees do we cut down every year to provide a product that is literally thrown away the same day, or put on the floor for the dog to crap on? This IS the 21st century, and the only people who don't know it yet are the Amish and print journalists.
McChesney and Nichols go on to quote President Barack Obama:
This government is far removed from Jefferson and Madison. This government has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to impose any onerous legislation whatsoever on the People, based only on the flimsy foundation of "general welfare"... two words of Section 8 of the Constitution that do not mean "subsidies" in the context of the language of the Founders (rather, it means health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being). Government subsidies under this government will inexorably lead to one thing: the ability of this government to control the content of the media, by declaring that said content isn't "fair enough". They will use this as a lever to separate what is and isn't "news" based solely on this government's criteria. Don't think that they won't do it... they already have.
The Obama quote is further laughable because - as noted - tough and vibrant media are not missing in America. Rather, it's found in other more modern forms. Town criers and printed handbills have lost their popularity as news sources as well, and we don't subsidize them as a result. The remaining news media were tough and vibrant enough. And as the news becomes more digitized, distributed, and democratic it will continue to be so.
That's right. Democratic. Look, I don't believe for one second that there's a shortage of reporters. Rather, the reporters are turning to other media to get the word out. They no longer want to work in a big newsroom where the Editor is going to dictate to them the angle that the paper will support, choking off the reporter's life support if he doesn't toe the line. Instead reporters are free to report the news, as they see it, with no editorial interference. The large print newspapers are not now, nor have they ever been, the voice of democracy. They are the voices of the editors. As more and more papers have been purchased and folded into news conglomerates such as The Times Newspapers, these have been the voices of fewer and fewer editors. What they haven't counted on is that the reporters still want to change the world, though not in the direction the editors would prefer. And now that their empires are in jeopardy, these same media types are looking for their own bailout... or if you prefer, some payback from the folks they helped put in office.
Forget it. Put the newspaper in the museum next to the gaslighter's wick and a used buggy whip. Then turn on your computer and read its obituary on-line.
They argue... well, read it for yourself:
What's notable about Obama's response to the question, posed during an Oval Office interview with editors from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade, was his consciousness that the problem is not that print is fading. The problem is that newspaper newsrooms, once packed with reporters, are disappearing, and neither broadcast nor digital media are filling the void. Obama is right when he says that finding a model to pay journalists to question, analyze and speak truth to power "is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy."OK, mull it over. Print isn't fading, but it can't pay its reporters. Maybe they ought to re-think that "print isn't fading" thing, because if that were even approximately right then they'd have no problem paying reporters and no need for subsidies.
As I may have mentioned before, my teenage career goal was to become a newspaper journalist. I went to university. I took courses. This was the late 70s, early 80s; the age of Lou Grant, and everybody wanted to be Joe Rossi and change the world. Literally, if you asked any one of my college classmates why they wanted to be journalists, they'd have told you that they wanted to change the world. Not me. I wanted to be Walter Cronkite. I wanted to report the news.
Now, the "change the world" camp has been in charge of all of the news media since the 70s, and quite frankly, they've run the business into the ground. When all we had were three networks and one or two major newspapers per city they were able to do it with impunity. Now, with 300 specialty channels and the Internet... some real choice, they're finding that the American public really and truly doesn't want their product. American people want the news. They do not want the angle, the slant, the spin.
In broadcast media you see incontrovertible proof of this in that FoxNews demolishes its competition in the ratings. Despite the far Left's inability to tell the difference between an opinion show like Hannity and a hard news program like America's News HQ, Fox is as neutral as broadcast journalism gets. You see further proof on the web, where people prefer bare news sources.
In addition to undesired content, people no longer want the physical medium itself. How many trees do we cut down every year to provide a product that is literally thrown away the same day, or put on the floor for the dog to crap on? This IS the 21st century, and the only people who don't know it yet are the Amish and print journalists.
McChesney and Nichols go on to quote President Barack Obama:
"Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America."The quote by itself is reasonable, but combined with the source it is laughable. This is the same President Obama whose White House tried to block the nation's #1 rated news channel from access to official press sources, arguing that they "aren't news." All because they were too "tough" and "vibrant" for him. Such blatant hypocrisy! Of course he wants government-funded media, just as he wanted government control of the automobile industry and government-run healthcare. When bullying doesn't work, control of the purse-strings often do. And while McChesney and Nichols invoke high-flying images of Jefferson and Madison, the fact is that those presidents could not in their wildest dreams imagine that the country they built would turn into the Socialistic mishegoss we have today. Do you really believe that they would back any system that taxes most of an individual's income? They revolted for less.
This government is far removed from Jefferson and Madison. This government has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to impose any onerous legislation whatsoever on the People, based only on the flimsy foundation of "general welfare"... two words of Section 8 of the Constitution that do not mean "subsidies" in the context of the language of the Founders (rather, it means health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being). Government subsidies under this government will inexorably lead to one thing: the ability of this government to control the content of the media, by declaring that said content isn't "fair enough". They will use this as a lever to separate what is and isn't "news" based solely on this government's criteria. Don't think that they won't do it... they already have.
The Obama quote is further laughable because - as noted - tough and vibrant media are not missing in America. Rather, it's found in other more modern forms. Town criers and printed handbills have lost their popularity as news sources as well, and we don't subsidize them as a result. The remaining news media were tough and vibrant enough. And as the news becomes more digitized, distributed, and democratic it will continue to be so.
That's right. Democratic. Look, I don't believe for one second that there's a shortage of reporters. Rather, the reporters are turning to other media to get the word out. They no longer want to work in a big newsroom where the Editor is going to dictate to them the angle that the paper will support, choking off the reporter's life support if he doesn't toe the line. Instead reporters are free to report the news, as they see it, with no editorial interference. The large print newspapers are not now, nor have they ever been, the voice of democracy. They are the voices of the editors. As more and more papers have been purchased and folded into news conglomerates such as The Times Newspapers, these have been the voices of fewer and fewer editors. What they haven't counted on is that the reporters still want to change the world, though not in the direction the editors would prefer. And now that their empires are in jeopardy, these same media types are looking for their own bailout... or if you prefer, some payback from the folks they helped put in office.
Forget it. Put the newspaper in the museum next to the gaslighter's wick and a used buggy whip. Then turn on your computer and read its obituary on-line.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Cash for Clunkers: Behind the $24K per Vehicle Price Tag
The results are in. Edmunds.com is reporting that, according to their analysis, the government's "Cash for Clunkers" program cost the taxpayers a whopping $24,000.00 per vehicle sold. Twenty four thousand dollars per car is a pretty hefty price tag.
(Taking their cue from Prince, the government refers to the "Cash for Clunkers" program as "The program formerly referred to as the 'Cash for Clunkers' program." I kid you not. Its official name is "CARS", an acronym for "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save" program. As that's not confusing enough, other government sources simply ignore the name of the law and call it the Car Allowance Rebate System. Either way, who are they kidding? It's never been referred to by the general public as anything but "Cash for Clunkers". Nevertheless, I'll call it CARS from here on in.)
Unsurprisingly, the government disputes the report. True to the Obama White House's established form, Macon Phillips, Director of New Media for the White House, takes the low road to snipe at Edmunds.com, saying that the popular company released the a report that is "designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV." Phillips claims that the claim "doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny."
Except that it does.
Edmunds is no fly-by-night. They are highly reputable experts in the field of auto sales and shopper comparisons. They are so popular that if you type nothing more than "Ed" into Google, then Google will suggest Edmunds.com. They had a very reasonable approach to costing the CARS program... they took all the sales made under the program, subtracted any sales that would have been made anyway (for which CARS was not an incentive, but rather free money) and divided the result into the $3 billion cost of the program. Determining how many sales were as a result of the program was a scientific endeavor. They analyzed trends of cars not covered by the program, compared them to historical buying habits for economy cars as they relate to the other cars, and estimated sales based on those trends. Deviations would be caused by the CARS program. It seems pretty straightforward, and automobile market trends are Edmunds' bread and butter. They are market experts.
Their analysis concludes that only 125,000 cars were sold as a direct result of this program. The others would have been sold anyway... at best CARS simply accelerated a sale, or prompted an owner to trade in a car he would have otherwise kept or sold elsewhere. Given Edmunds.com's trend analyses, it's hard to argue with the estimate. Three billion dollars divided by 125,000 cars is equal to $24,000 per car.
The government prefers to use the figure of 690,000 cars sold under the program irrespective of whether they'd have been sold without the program. That would give you a figure of under $4,400 per car. Phillips also writes that Edmunds.com ignores the 4th Quarter GDP increases as a result of car makers ramping up production to replace the depleted inventory.
Well... in fairness, what the government ignores is that 565,000 of those cars would have had to be replaced anyway, which forces us to revise any estimate of the effect on the GDP wayyy downwards. So those are the facts, as reported.
There are a couple of things disturbing about the whole situation.
The first is the tone of the government's response. Seriously... the title is, "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers". "Covering Sales on Mars"? Do we really need that kind of snarky, condescending, unprofessional tone from the White House? I can get away with it here because I'm not a professional journalist and I'm not a government representative, but surely the President could do better than this. Macon Phillips needs to put down the can of Brawndo and take a course or two in professionalism. Granted, this is "New Media", but that's no excuse for an official representative of our executive branch to act like a nine-year old bully in public.
Secondly, why is the government even disputing the cost? This was an incentive to get people to act in ways the government wanted them to act. In that respect alone, it was successful. But the bigger question is, what were the people supposed to do, and why were they supposed to act that way?
Here's what the law provided: if you traded your old gas-guzzling car in on a new, more fuel efficient car, then you got a voucher to offset the price of the new car. A gas-guzzler is one that gets less than 18mpg, according to CARS. Basically, if you bought a car that had 4mpg better mileage (or a truck with 2mpg better mileage) you'd get $3,500. If you bought a car with 10mpg better mileage or a truck with 2mpg better miles per gallon, and your new truck gets 15mpg or better, then you'd get $4,500. Then there are a bunch of restrictions, etc. but you could read about those (as if it mattered... the program was effectively over mere days after it started). The fact is that they were chucking $3500 or more at customers for incremental improvements such as you'd get by using a better air filter.
So my first question is, "why were they giving away so much money for such small improvements?" If it was to reduce carbon emissions it was an Epic Fail.
Look... I drive a 1991 Toyota Camry. The posted fuel efficiency (at MPGFacts.com) is 23mpg city, 31mpg highway, and 26mpg combined. Since I do more highway than city driving and my engine is tuned accordingly, I get somewhat better, but we'll use those numbers. I wouldn't be eligible for CARS because my car gets significantly better than 18mpg. My car, in fact, gets better mileage than many of the new cars covered under CARS. But guess what? My car is 18 years old, and it shows few signs of wearing out.
Furthermore, if my 18 year old car were new, and you traded in your clunker for it, it would qualify for the $4,500 rebate! A query at Edmunds.com tells me that I can buy a car just like this, used, for $1,498 at Midlands Honda, just down the road (I bought mine for $2,000 cash). If the goal were as stated... that is, if the government truly wished to improve fuel efficiency, it would have made much, much more sense to extend this same offer to used cars. In fact, in this example, the government would save the taxpayers $3,002 just by GIVING AWAY a used Toyota Camry outright! You will not see any mention of this fact in the report of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. One more reason to trust Edmunds.com
Of course the government doesn't want to do that because they don't practice money management, they practice some pretty senseless economics, and we'll get back to that. Their ecological arguments are similarly flawed. The government gave people $3,500 to fire up a factory to build a new car to replace theirs for a measly 2 to 4mpg improvement, and only $1,000 more to increase that to 10mpg. This is in a time when cars getting over 30mpg are commonplace. What you won't see in the Council of Economic Advisors' report is the cost in energy expenditures and carbon footprint for the production of these new cars.
The fact is, by every measure - ecological and economic - it is more cost-effective and "greener" to buy a fuel-efficient used car than it is to buy a new car. I have a friend who leases a hybrid. He replaces it every two years, proud and secure in the knowledge that he has the latest and greatest green technology. In the meantime he's fired up a factory 3 times since I paid $2,000 cash for my car, for about a 6mpg advantage that will never recover the cost of constructing 3 vehicles. Who's greener? I am, hands down. But he sure feels good that he's "doing something about the environment".
To my mind, it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the CARS program is ecologically disastrous compared to the truly conservational approach of maintaining fuel-efficient older cars, getting them off of the used-car lots, and on to the roads to replace gas-guzzlers. The math is clear: the government was not looking for conservation, reduction in carbon footprint or anything of the sort. Those requirements were in the law for show. It's a bunch of feel-good posturing with no substance.
So we come to the other reason for the CARS program, which was to stimulate the economy. Or, as John Stewart points out, to stimulate the Japanese economy. Four out of Five of the top-selling cars under the CARS program were foreign imports. So in a time of economic crisis, our government took $3 billion of money it borrowed from the taxpayers to give away, mostly to foreign car makers. All to build 125,000 marginally better cars that would not otherwise have been sold. Sheldon Filger, in the left-leaning The Huffington Post, called it "Economics for Dummies," The right-leaning Wall Street Journal called it "Crackpot Economics." Finally, something everyone can agree on.
The government might have required that the cars be built in the US, but they didn't. They might have required that the cars have better mileage than they did. What they did do was practically force a bailout on US automakers, as a result of which the United States government now owns a large chunk of GM and Chrysler (Ford, being the only company to decline, is the only company to have come out ahead). The conspiracy theorist in me warns that Cash for Clunkers was a bit of meat tossed to one side to distract the dog... which, in part, it is. But there's no need to invoke a conspiracy when simple incompetence explains everything... what the program really does is provide one big tap-dance to show that, like my friend who fires up a factory every two years, the Government is "doing something". It's a way for people who really and truly have no idea what to do to act as though they do.
So we're back to the big question. CARS gave money away whether to people whether or not they were going to buy a car anyway; even if it made no economic sense; even if it made a negative ecological impact. The CARS program was to get people to do something: what was it? They were supposed to ask for money. People need to get used to that, because in the future toward which we're heading, begging the government for things is the only way people will get them.
What do I think?
I don't want that for our country and certainly not for myself.
(Taking their cue from Prince, the government refers to the "Cash for Clunkers" program as "The program formerly referred to as the 'Cash for Clunkers' program." I kid you not. Its official name is "CARS", an acronym for "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save" program. As that's not confusing enough, other government sources simply ignore the name of the law and call it the Car Allowance Rebate System. Either way, who are they kidding? It's never been referred to by the general public as anything but "Cash for Clunkers". Nevertheless, I'll call it CARS from here on in.)
Unsurprisingly, the government disputes the report. True to the Obama White House's established form, Macon Phillips, Director of New Media for the White House, takes the low road to snipe at Edmunds.com, saying that the popular company released the a report that is "designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV." Phillips claims that the claim "doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny."
Except that it does.
Edmunds is no fly-by-night. They are highly reputable experts in the field of auto sales and shopper comparisons. They are so popular that if you type nothing more than "Ed" into Google, then Google will suggest Edmunds.com. They had a very reasonable approach to costing the CARS program... they took all the sales made under the program, subtracted any sales that would have been made anyway (for which CARS was not an incentive, but rather free money) and divided the result into the $3 billion cost of the program. Determining how many sales were as a result of the program was a scientific endeavor. They analyzed trends of cars not covered by the program, compared them to historical buying habits for economy cars as they relate to the other cars, and estimated sales based on those trends. Deviations would be caused by the CARS program. It seems pretty straightforward, and automobile market trends are Edmunds' bread and butter. They are market experts.
Their analysis concludes that only 125,000 cars were sold as a direct result of this program. The others would have been sold anyway... at best CARS simply accelerated a sale, or prompted an owner to trade in a car he would have otherwise kept or sold elsewhere. Given Edmunds.com's trend analyses, it's hard to argue with the estimate. Three billion dollars divided by 125,000 cars is equal to $24,000 per car.
The government prefers to use the figure of 690,000 cars sold under the program irrespective of whether they'd have been sold without the program. That would give you a figure of under $4,400 per car. Phillips also writes that Edmunds.com ignores the 4th Quarter GDP increases as a result of car makers ramping up production to replace the depleted inventory.
Well... in fairness, what the government ignores is that 565,000 of those cars would have had to be replaced anyway, which forces us to revise any estimate of the effect on the GDP wayyy downwards. So those are the facts, as reported.
There are a couple of things disturbing about the whole situation.
The first is the tone of the government's response. Seriously... the title is, "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers". "Covering Sales on Mars"? Do we really need that kind of snarky, condescending, unprofessional tone from the White House? I can get away with it here because I'm not a professional journalist and I'm not a government representative, but surely the President could do better than this. Macon Phillips needs to put down the can of Brawndo and take a course or two in professionalism. Granted, this is "New Media", but that's no excuse for an official representative of our executive branch to act like a nine-year old bully in public.
Secondly, why is the government even disputing the cost? This was an incentive to get people to act in ways the government wanted them to act. In that respect alone, it was successful. But the bigger question is, what were the people supposed to do, and why were they supposed to act that way?
Here's what the law provided: if you traded your old gas-guzzling car in on a new, more fuel efficient car, then you got a voucher to offset the price of the new car. A gas-guzzler is one that gets less than 18mpg, according to CARS. Basically, if you bought a car that had 4mpg better mileage (or a truck with 2mpg better mileage) you'd get $3,500. If you bought a car with 10mpg better mileage or a truck with 2mpg better miles per gallon, and your new truck gets 15mpg or better, then you'd get $4,500. Then there are a bunch of restrictions, etc. but you could read about those (as if it mattered... the program was effectively over mere days after it started). The fact is that they were chucking $3500 or more at customers for incremental improvements such as you'd get by using a better air filter.
So my first question is, "why were they giving away so much money for such small improvements?" If it was to reduce carbon emissions it was an Epic Fail.
Look... I drive a 1991 Toyota Camry. The posted fuel efficiency (at MPGFacts.com) is 23mpg city, 31mpg highway, and 26mpg combined. Since I do more highway than city driving and my engine is tuned accordingly, I get somewhat better, but we'll use those numbers. I wouldn't be eligible for CARS because my car gets significantly better than 18mpg. My car, in fact, gets better mileage than many of the new cars covered under CARS. But guess what? My car is 18 years old, and it shows few signs of wearing out.
Furthermore, if my 18 year old car were new, and you traded in your clunker for it, it would qualify for the $4,500 rebate! A query at Edmunds.com tells me that I can buy a car just like this, used, for $1,498 at Midlands Honda, just down the road (I bought mine for $2,000 cash). If the goal were as stated... that is, if the government truly wished to improve fuel efficiency, it would have made much, much more sense to extend this same offer to used cars. In fact, in this example, the government would save the taxpayers $3,002 just by GIVING AWAY a used Toyota Camry outright! You will not see any mention of this fact in the report of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. One more reason to trust Edmunds.com
Of course the government doesn't want to do that because they don't practice money management, they practice some pretty senseless economics, and we'll get back to that. Their ecological arguments are similarly flawed. The government gave people $3,500 to fire up a factory to build a new car to replace theirs for a measly 2 to 4mpg improvement, and only $1,000 more to increase that to 10mpg. This is in a time when cars getting over 30mpg are commonplace. What you won't see in the Council of Economic Advisors' report is the cost in energy expenditures and carbon footprint for the production of these new cars.
The fact is, by every measure - ecological and economic - it is more cost-effective and "greener" to buy a fuel-efficient used car than it is to buy a new car. I have a friend who leases a hybrid. He replaces it every two years, proud and secure in the knowledge that he has the latest and greatest green technology. In the meantime he's fired up a factory 3 times since I paid $2,000 cash for my car, for about a 6mpg advantage that will never recover the cost of constructing 3 vehicles. Who's greener? I am, hands down. But he sure feels good that he's "doing something about the environment".
To my mind, it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the CARS program is ecologically disastrous compared to the truly conservational approach of maintaining fuel-efficient older cars, getting them off of the used-car lots, and on to the roads to replace gas-guzzlers. The math is clear: the government was not looking for conservation, reduction in carbon footprint or anything of the sort. Those requirements were in the law for show. It's a bunch of feel-good posturing with no substance.
So we come to the other reason for the CARS program, which was to stimulate the economy. Or, as John Stewart points out, to stimulate the Japanese economy. Four out of Five of the top-selling cars under the CARS program were foreign imports. So in a time of economic crisis, our government took $3 billion of money it borrowed from the taxpayers to give away, mostly to foreign car makers. All to build 125,000 marginally better cars that would not otherwise have been sold. Sheldon Filger, in the left-leaning The Huffington Post, called it "Economics for Dummies," The right-leaning Wall Street Journal called it "Crackpot Economics." Finally, something everyone can agree on.
The government might have required that the cars be built in the US, but they didn't. They might have required that the cars have better mileage than they did. What they did do was practically force a bailout on US automakers, as a result of which the United States government now owns a large chunk of GM and Chrysler (Ford, being the only company to decline, is the only company to have come out ahead). The conspiracy theorist in me warns that Cash for Clunkers was a bit of meat tossed to one side to distract the dog... which, in part, it is. But there's no need to invoke a conspiracy when simple incompetence explains everything... what the program really does is provide one big tap-dance to show that, like my friend who fires up a factory every two years, the Government is "doing something". It's a way for people who really and truly have no idea what to do to act as though they do.
So we're back to the big question. CARS gave money away whether to people whether or not they were going to buy a car anyway; even if it made no economic sense; even if it made a negative ecological impact. The CARS program was to get people to do something: what was it? They were supposed to ask for money. People need to get used to that, because in the future toward which we're heading, begging the government for things is the only way people will get them.
What do I think?
- If your concern is is for your personal finances then your most effective strategy is to get a fuel-efficient used car and keep it running as long as possible.
- If your concern is for your personal carbon footprint you should do exactly the same thing.
- If your concern is for "the planet", then you should do exactly the same thing, as you would have to conclude that creating more cars to replace those we throw away pollutes more than maintaining those we have.
I don't want that for our country and certainly not for myself.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Appliance trouble
Good gravy... I'm beginning to feel a bit like Job.
First it was my stove: only two of the eyes were working, then the thing started sparking whenever I turned on the left-front eye. So I replaced it. The toaster oven went bye-bye, too... I found that out when while the stove was out of commission. New toaster oven.
Then my kitchen faucet sprang a leak. New faucet, new sprayer, too, since the old one was too worn to move. Since then the new sprayer broke again and had to be replaced. Makes me glad I bought that faucet wrench.
Next it was my dishwasher: The door spring broke, the detergent dispenser broke, and one of the wheels broke on the basket. Rather than fix the multitude of problems, I replaced it. While I was at it, I bought a full-size freezer for my basement... the one I had gave up the ghost a year ago and I hadn't gotten around to doing something about it. These were used, so I felt I got a bargain.
The same day that I replaced the dishwasher, the spin cycle on my washing machine broke. I'm still waiting on a replacement to arrive.
Last night, my refrigerator sprung a leak. It was the reservoir for the water dispenser (located behind the crisper drawer). So, I went to turn off the water. Guess what? The shut-off valve broke, too! This was at 11:30 PM, so no repairman was available. I had to turn off water the the entire house. So I'm here with the appliance repairman today, wondering how fast we can get a replacement reservoir and have the plumbing fixed.
Now, I can ill afford to replace everything, and would rather repair than replace, but with the exception of the fridge, repair wasn't an option. With the exception of the stove, I bought used or refurbished appliances. So to recap, in the last 4 months I've had to repair my fridge and replace my...
There's not much left to replace. Oh, wait, there is. The overpressure that popped that reservoir was caused by a faulty valve. That's gotta get replaced. The repairman tells me that the reservoir on the refrigerator can be as effectively replaced with a coil of plastic tubing, and the tubing is less likely to spring a leak. Good news. But the accompanying bad news is that my icemaker needs replacing, as the Teflon lining is peeling off and sticking to the ice cubes. I figure, hell, while he's doing that we may as well put in a water filter under the floor, in the basement. That way I don't have to pull the refrigerator out every time it needs changing. At least he's replaced the shutoff valve and I have water again.
In the Bronze Age there were no appliances. Maybe Job had it easy.
First it was my stove: only two of the eyes were working, then the thing started sparking whenever I turned on the left-front eye. So I replaced it. The toaster oven went bye-bye, too... I found that out when while the stove was out of commission. New toaster oven.
Then my kitchen faucet sprang a leak. New faucet, new sprayer, too, since the old one was too worn to move. Since then the new sprayer broke again and had to be replaced. Makes me glad I bought that faucet wrench.
Next it was my dishwasher: The door spring broke, the detergent dispenser broke, and one of the wheels broke on the basket. Rather than fix the multitude of problems, I replaced it. While I was at it, I bought a full-size freezer for my basement... the one I had gave up the ghost a year ago and I hadn't gotten around to doing something about it. These were used, so I felt I got a bargain.
The same day that I replaced the dishwasher, the spin cycle on my washing machine broke. I'm still waiting on a replacement to arrive.
Last night, my refrigerator sprung a leak. It was the reservoir for the water dispenser (located behind the crisper drawer). So, I went to turn off the water. Guess what? The shut-off valve broke, too! This was at 11:30 PM, so no repairman was available. I had to turn off water the the entire house. So I'm here with the appliance repairman today, wondering how fast we can get a replacement reservoir and have the plumbing fixed.
Now, I can ill afford to replace everything, and would rather repair than replace, but with the exception of the fridge, repair wasn't an option. With the exception of the stove, I bought used or refurbished appliances. So to recap, in the last 4 months I've had to repair my fridge and replace my...
At the same time we've been accruing medical bills for my wife's stroke. Add in some labor, and even shopping frugally I tally an arm and a leg in replacements and repairs so far. Last year it was my bathroom plumbing, which left a rotted out floor that needed replacing. I'd have never known that had I not been replacing the tile. Turns out that the tile was the only thing holding the floor together.
- Stove/Oven
- Toaster Oven
- Kitchen plumbing fixtures
- Dishwasher
- Freezer
- Clothes Washer
There's not much left to replace. Oh, wait, there is. The overpressure that popped that reservoir was caused by a faulty valve. That's gotta get replaced. The repairman tells me that the reservoir on the refrigerator can be as effectively replaced with a coil of plastic tubing, and the tubing is less likely to spring a leak. Good news. But the accompanying bad news is that my icemaker needs replacing, as the Teflon lining is peeling off and sticking to the ice cubes. I figure, hell, while he's doing that we may as well put in a water filter under the floor, in the basement. That way I don't have to pull the refrigerator out every time it needs changing. At least he's replaced the shutoff valve and I have water again.
In the Bronze Age there were no appliances. Maybe Job had it easy.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Update on the Baucus Healthcare bill.
It's out. Here's the full text of the Baucus bill... not a summary.
Section 1301 describes how you will be taxed if you do not maintain health insurance (whether you need it or not) to the tune of $750 per "applicable individual". This will be phased in over time, and then adjusted with the cost of living. Interestingly, the government is not allowed to collect the tax if you fail to pay it. They can ask for or demand the money; they can refund anything you've overpaid; and they can apply any money they would otherwise owe you to the tax; but that's it.
Paying for the bill is problematic, at best, and it's as if Baucus went out of his way to find the worst possible way of doing so. For instance, there are additional fees and taxes as follows:
Now, if you were paying attention to this entire healthcare discussion during the Presidential campaign and since then, you'll certainly remember that the core issue was reducing costs to make sure that healthcare is affordable for all Americans. You DO NOT do this...
You know the tax on those "Cadillac Health Care Plans"? Section 6001 (page 1420) describes the "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage": 40% of the "excess benefit" for daring to opt for a better insurance comprehensive insurance plan than the government offers. This bill dismantles private insurance, to replace it with government-controlled "co-ops" which are private in name only. The reason they do this is simple: in order to make any health-insurance plan sustainable, you have to have many more healthy people signed up than sick people. You need this to be able to collect enough in premiums to cover your expense outlays. Rather than be up-front about the payments and costs, Senator Baucus has chosen to hide what should be premiums in increased costs throughout the healthcare system. The funny thing is that in taxing those things that should be covered by the system, it's effectively reducing the benefit. In so doing, it fails to provide the advertised benefit at all, and makes it more difficult for those people who would simply purchase services, medicines, and equipment outright to do so.
In short, it does exactly the opposite of what was promised.
At a glance it's not 100% bad, especially if you're one of the special interest groups marked for exemption, like illegal aliens. They can rest easy, knowing that they can continue to sponge off the system (page 201). We wouldn't want them inconvenienced. We save the inconvenience and expense for citizens and legal alien workers.
Keep in mind that this is simply the Senate plan. Any plan destined for the President's signature will be an amalgam of this and the House bill. IOW, the strong probability is that it will be even uglier.
As I mentioned a couple of times earlier, I'm still reading this. There may be portions which I mis-read or are revised by other sections. Some portions reference other legislation that's not part of the text of this bill. If I've gotten something wrong and I discover it or someone else brings it to my attention, I'll revise the info here.
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdfThanks to AudacityWatch.com for the link. Obviously, I haven't had time to read all 1502 pages... I've skimmed through some of it.
Section 1301 describes how you will be taxed if you do not maintain health insurance (whether you need it or not) to the tune of $750 per "applicable individual". This will be phased in over time, and then adjusted with the cost of living. Interestingly, the government is not allowed to collect the tax if you fail to pay it. They can ask for or demand the money; they can refund anything you've overpaid; and they can apply any money they would otherwise owe you to the tax; but that's it.
Paying for the bill is problematic, at best, and it's as if Baucus went out of his way to find the worst possible way of doing so. For instance, there are additional fees and taxes as follows:
- An excise tax on private plans that exceed the requirements of the government plan (Sec. 6001)
- Elimination of tax exemptions for private healthcare insurance and health savings accounts (Sec. 6002).
- A requirement that all covered drugs must be prescribed, even if they are available without a prescription (Sec. 6003).
- Doubling of the tax on distributions from your health savings account that are not used for "qualified" medical expenses (Sec. 6004).
- Limiting your cafeteria plan flexible spending arrangements. Savings plans will be ineligible unless your contributions are limited to $2500/year (Sec. 6005). By comparison, I priced a private healthcare plan for me and my family... it came to about $6000/year. This would seem to put health savings plans at a decided disadvantage.
- Heavy new annual fees on branded prescription drug manufacturers (Sec. 6008).
- Heavy new annual fees on medical device manufacturers and importers (Sec. 6009).
- Heavy new annual fees on health insurers (Sec. 6010).
Now, if you were paying attention to this entire healthcare discussion during the Presidential campaign and since then, you'll certainly remember that the core issue was reducing costs to make sure that healthcare is affordable for all Americans. You DO NOT do this...
- ...by artificially making drugs more expensive to produce;
- ...by making medical devices like glucose meters, walkers, and other paraphernalia more expensive;
- ...by making private health insurance more expensive;
- ...by taxing your health insurance by removing exemptions and punishing people for purchasing comprehensive plans of their own, thus making all plans incapable of competing with the subsidized government plan;
- ...and by forcing people to visit the doctor for prescriptions for over-the-counter medications
You know the tax on those "Cadillac Health Care Plans"? Section 6001 (page 1420) describes the "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage": 40% of the "excess benefit" for daring to opt for a better insurance comprehensive insurance plan than the government offers. This bill dismantles private insurance, to replace it with government-controlled "co-ops" which are private in name only. The reason they do this is simple: in order to make any health-insurance plan sustainable, you have to have many more healthy people signed up than sick people. You need this to be able to collect enough in premiums to cover your expense outlays. Rather than be up-front about the payments and costs, Senator Baucus has chosen to hide what should be premiums in increased costs throughout the healthcare system. The funny thing is that in taxing those things that should be covered by the system, it's effectively reducing the benefit. In so doing, it fails to provide the advertised benefit at all, and makes it more difficult for those people who would simply purchase services, medicines, and equipment outright to do so.
In short, it does exactly the opposite of what was promised.
At a glance it's not 100% bad, especially if you're one of the special interest groups marked for exemption, like illegal aliens. They can rest easy, knowing that they can continue to sponge off the system (page 201). We wouldn't want them inconvenienced. We save the inconvenience and expense for citizens and legal alien workers.
Keep in mind that this is simply the Senate plan. Any plan destined for the President's signature will be an amalgam of this and the House bill. IOW, the strong probability is that it will be even uglier.
As I mentioned a couple of times earlier, I'm still reading this. There may be portions which I mis-read or are revised by other sections. Some portions reference other legislation that's not part of the text of this bill. If I've gotten something wrong and I discover it or someone else brings it to my attention, I'll revise the info here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)