Technology to Change the World

We have more than enough energy to satisfy our greatest needs and desires.  It's out there in the environment -- in the sun on our faces, the wind on our back, the vibration of the freeway, the rattling of trains, the surf eroding the shore, the atoms we split, the garbage we rot, and the coal we burn.  The only problem is that it's not where we want it, when we want it.  Our goal for the 21st century should be to fix that problem

Mobile technology, computing technology, communications technology and related items have really changed the world over the last 20 years.  What's the next step?

Batteries.

If we can develop dramatically more efficient, less expensive, and (ideally) more eco-friendly battery technology, we can change the world again in the next 20 years.

Improved battery technology can drive electricity costs down. Imagine being able to charge your home's batteries at night when powerplants are underutiltized.  Power can be cheaper in the off hours, and we can eliminate a lot of the Brown-Out and rolling Black-Out problems parts of the country face on hot summer days.

Electric vehicles, like the Nissan Leaf and Tesla family of cars are giving us a viable alternative to gasoline, but they still are limited in range to about 100 miles for the Leaf and under 300 miles for the Tesla. Imagine battery technology that's good for 1000 miles.

Combine those vehicles with off hours charging and household batteries and we get world changing benefits.  Even charging cars with electricity from coal powerplants produces less greenhouse gas  than driving on gasoline.

These two battery solution gives us even more benefits, though.  Storing power locally gives us better disaster preparedness.  When powerlines go down due to wind, rain, or hurricane, household batteries can keep the lights bright and the refrigerator cold.

Alternative energy solutions at the local level, whether those solutions are roof top solar panels or home sized windmills become much more viable with the right battery technology.

Large scale alternative energy solutions, again, whether they are hydro-electric, geothermal, solar, wind, or wave action are all more viable when we can efficiently store they energy.

And back down to the small scale, as we migrate more and more to cloud computing, keeping those laptops and smart phones charged is critical.

I'm not sure if it's just a question of more efficiently scaling our current technology -- of making refinements to what we already have -- or if we need massive conceptual shift in areas of chemical and electrical engineering that I know nothing about.

The company that can master battery technology -- the country that can master battery technology -- will own the economy of the future.

Battery technology isn't sexy.  It's not exciting.  It rarely makes headlines.  But it should.  

Our nation's infrastructure and ecnomy depend on it and demand advances in battery technology.

The question is, how do we capitalize on it?

High Corporate Taxes can Spur Innovation

One solution often suggested to start growing the economy is to slash corporate taxes.  When business taxes are too high, the argument goes, businesses lay people off and scale back on their research expenses and everything stagnates.


But what if the opposite is true?


In an early October, the Pacific Northwest Magazine (part of the Sunday Seattle Times) published a story about how Boeing came to dominate the commercial jet market following the Korean War.  High taxes were one reason Boeing succeeded.  Essentially, taxes were so high, that it made a significant research and development risks much less risky.  Had taxes been lower, the risk would have been much greater, and Boeing might not have chosen to invest in jet aircraft in the way they did.

Actually, Allen, the lawyer, had discovered something very interesting about the question of whose money the company would be spending. During the Korean War, Congress had put an "excess profits tax" in effect, intended to prevent military companies from making out too well because of increased demand during a war. As it happened, the law essentially defined "excess profits" as anything above what a company had made during the peacetime period of 1946-1949. For Boeing, of course, peace had been a sock to the pocketbook; it had hardly made anything in that time. Therefore, as orders ramped up for the war, Boeing stood to face the "excess profits" tax on virtually every dollar of its profit, while a company such as Douglas, which had had its hands full rolling out propeller-driven airliners after the war, wouldn't face the higher trigger until its military sales equaled the bonanza it had made on commercial sales.

What Allen clearly saw was that now was the perfect time to plow a huge amount of company money into an audacious new development project. All of it would be a legitimate business expense, reducing the "profits" for the coming years, but so what? That was all money that would have basically gone to the government. As long as he could persuade the board that he was putting the company in a long-term position of leading the field with a jetliner, its members were unlikely to object. Yes, it was a huge gamble, but for every dollar of the dice roll, only 18 cents of it would have been Boeing's money to keep anyway.

...More

I'm not sure that this taxes this high are the answer to all our problems; I go back and forth on the appropriate level of business taxes. 

But this is a scenario I hadn't considered before.  High tax rates may not be a way to generate revenue for the government.  They may be a away to encourage other spending, however on innovation, research, and other risky projects.

Spend money on infrastructure now

Seattle is getting ready to start work on the replacement for the SR99 viaduct through Seattle.  We're still not sure if it's going to be a bridge, a tunnel, a boulevard, or a wormhole.  As soon as a plan is locked someone decides we need to talk about it some more.  Come on people.  I don't care if it's not the best solution, as long as it's good enough.  Just shut up and dig!

But that's a rant for another day.  Today I want to highlight some good news from the Seattle Times last week.  It concerns the first phase of the construction.

The low bid for the Sodo section of the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement came in Wednesday morning nearly $40 million lower than the state's estimate.

Skanska USA, of Riverside, Calif., was the apparent low bidder at $114.6 million. The project, from South Holgate Street to South King Street, features a large interchange that connects the two sports stadiums to the planned tunnel, as well as tourist and shipping destinations on Elliott Bay.

The project will create about 600 construction jobs, the state says.

There were six bidders for the work, all of whom were below the state engineers' estimate of $153 million, a reflection of the recession making construction companies hungry for business.

...More

I continue to see calls from various activists to reign in government spending because of the recession.  That is exactly the wrong thing to do.  I made a similar point just over a year ago.

We should spend money on durable infrastructure NOW.  Why now when budgets are strained and people are out of work?

• Interest rates are low so financing is cheap.
• Steel and construction materials are less expensive now than in a booming economy.
• Construction companies want more work are willing to build for less.
• Labor is readily available.
• Land acquisition is cheaper.

That's why it's cheaper to build now, and that means better long term savings for the tax payers.  We can get a bargain on stuff that will last us decades.  That's what we see in the first phase of the SR99 replacement and in a few other construction bids that have gone out.

Why else should we do it? 

Well, it's a great way to get people working -- to get money into the economy for the benefit of all of us without increasing the welfare roles.  When construction workers make money, they spend money so those dollars don't just stop at the city/state spending it.  Additionally, we also have to remember that we get a chunk of that pay and construction costs back in tax revenue.

Why shouldn't we just wait until the economy improves and "we can afford it?"

First of all, we'll need the infrastructure once employment and commerce are back to their roaring pace.  If we don't start building until then, the projects will all come on line just in time for the next recession.

Second, it's bad for big business.  When the economy is strong and big business is building its own infrastructure, it makes less sense for government to compete with business for materials and labor.  Trying to do major public infrastructure and major private infrastructure at the same time just drives up the costs for everyone.

Building major public infrastructure in the recession and at the tail end of a recession is good for the city/state, it's good for the unemployed, and it's good for big business.

The economy is improving.  The window on this recession opportunity it closing.

Start digging now.

Nuclear power and Thorium

I've long been a fan of nuclear power.  It deserves a significant place in the future of America's energy policy.  Any overall energy portfolio that we pursue should rely on a variety of sources, including geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, waste-to-energy, clean coal, and nuclear.

Our infrastucture needs an overhaul in design, to support the large scale power generation design of today, and the home or neighborhood power generation technologies of tomorrow. 

A diverse portfolio of electric strategies is essential to the environment, national security, disaster preparedness/recovery, and economic leadership in the coming decades.

Traditional nuclear power scares a lot of people.  While no one has died in the US as a result of any nuclear power plant problems, there are concerns over waste and the remote possibility of a major failure.  On balance, the benefits of nuclear power do outweigh the risks, and new nuclear technologies make nuclear an even better option.

Wired has a fascinating article about a new (actually old) type of nuclear power plant that relies on Thorium instead of Uranium to produce power.  They explain that the reason plants use Uranium today is that when designs were being created in the 50s and 60s, the plutonium waste was considered a benefit.  The material could be recycled into nuclear weapons.  Thorium doesn't allow for that possibility and was there for over looked.

There are a number of advantages to the material cited in the article:

After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.

...

Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab’s finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.

...More

It's a fascinating article and if you are a fan of nuclear power, or a foe of its current incarnation, check it out.  As we look for new energy solutions, this could be one avenue we would be foolish to ignore.

Stimulus spending in Seattle

The Capitol Hill Seattle Blog reported on Tuesday that King County Metro Transit is using $46 million in federal stimulus money to purchase new hybrid electric busse to replacing aging diesel busses.

It sounds like sensible purchase for Metro. Metro will spend less on fuel and maintainence, and these new busses will be replacing busses that are already at the end of their service life.

Previously, I advocated stimulus spending on infrastructure, and mass transit is a great place to spend it. We have a unique opportunity to improve our infrastructure at a discount while we keep people working.

After the stimulus spending, people will have had more work and cities will have improved infrasrtucture that will last for years to come. These are all good things.

But these busses will not be built in King County. They are made by Daimler Chrysler, so I imagine they are being built somewhere in the US. At least I hope they are.

I would rather Metro spend stimulus money not on replacement busses, but on other infrastructure to keep people working in King County. That may inlcude construction work to speed up Sound Transit's Light Rail, enhanced Park and Ride facilities, improved HOV access for transit, or other items.

Buying additional busses to expand service on exisiting routes would also be a good use of stimulus money.

It looks like the stimulus money is going to meploy people in the US. And ultimately that does benefit us all. I would just prefer the King County Metro stimulus money be spent to employ folks in King County.

Healthcare Reform 03: Follow up to the plan

Considering the depth of some of the comments I saw to my Monday post, I thought it would be good idea to respond to them in their own post.

As I respond to the comments below (and thank you very much for making them) I am not trying to dispute things. I am, however, using them as a jumping off point to further explore my thoughts on a topic and it's related ones.

When it comes to health care (and many other issues) I tend to be a radical moderate. Which means each time I think I have an answer to a question, it simply leads to 5 more questions.

I guess I'm trying to devise a system that is fair, compassionate, competitive, efficient, and effective.

The proposal I layed out a couple days ago is not intended to be the answer but it is intended to be an improvement. It won't solve all the problems for all people. But it may solve many of the problems for many people.

Sandy said...

Wow...I was with ya on the first half of your article. I think it's a terrible that the US, the most civilized country in the world does not provide for it's own. I do agree we currently have (though most would disagree) socialized medicine. The welfare system provides care for those who abuse the ER, which costs us all dearly and provides bad medical care management...but the working poor have zilch. They don't have care and thats wrong on so many levels.

Having worked in the medical field for 22 years, I can say Insurance Companies and the Medical field need to change. Doctors are paid far more than a decent wage, and so are Insurance companies. Drug companies have tremendous waste. Their employees are highly paid, and have lots of perks. Some of the fat from these 3 entities needs to happen. I have no problem with people who are working hard making a good living, I do have a problem with the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer.

We need Doctors, Insurance Companies, and Drug Companies to be more accountable. And employers who pay their Executives far more than they're worth, but cheat their regular employees ought to spend some time in their shoes. I do not think the burden they have of insurance is what you describe. I do know many companies who alter hours, and conditions of employment to get around the duty and responsibility of providing insurance for their employees. Firing employees, then hiring them as temps for example. Cutting their hours just a few hours a week to keep them under the radar on legally needed to pay for their insurance. This is wrong, and very unjust. These same companies provide private jet service to the management people for trips that are not business related, vacation homes, expensive cars etc. etc.

I say trim the fat, there's plenty of it, and then providing medical insurance would be a piece of cake.

I might also add, I have 2 family members who work in the insurance industry, and 1 for a drug company...this just isn't my opinion, but opinion based on personal information and experinces.

Sandy
Everytime we treat someone in the ER for the flu or a cold, or sore throat prices go through the roof. And everytime someone ends up having emergency surgery for soething that might have been caught had they been able to visit a family doctor...same thing. Current system is way too costly, both in lives and in $$

I appreciate the detail here. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say doctors are overpaid (though I may be reading too much into your comments). Theoretically, people are paid just enough to get them to keep doing the job. With doctor in private practice it gets more complicated because they are not necesarily salaried like many workers are.

And we want to draw the best people to the profession. That's one reason the system can produce such high-quality care. But obviously, salaries at all levels of the care system contribute the rising costs.

While I don't believe you are calling for salary caps for highly paid medical professionals, it is an idea that may merit some discussion. I think it makes more sense to discuss salary caps in a broader discussion of tort reform. Generally, I am not a supporter of legislative limits to pain and suffering award or punative damages for medical malpractice. While there have been some outlandish awards, I don't think they are representative of the broader malpractice issues.

However, if we were to impose limits on those awards through tort reform, then we also need to limit compensation for professionals shielded by those limits. It's about balancing the high-risk=high-reward equation.

Outside of that, when we talk about cutting pay and perks, do we risk driving professionals into other fields? Or discourage the next generation from pursuing those professions?

The broader picture of executive compensation merits a closer look. Although those highly paid executives are paid that way because that's what the company owners (the shareholders) want to pay them. The trick is to align highly paid executive pay more closely with both short and long term company performance.

It's interesting that you cite the cutting of employee hours as immoral while also citing profligate waste within the organization. I think most would agree that paying more for a product than it should cost is a form of waste. We see that in stories of aspirin and other things that cost pennies at retail and dollars in a hospital. Overpaying is typically regarded as a bad thing.

If a company is overpaying someone that means a couple things. First, they could get the same work done by someone else for less money. Second, the value that person brings the compnay does not exceed that person's cost to the company.

Reducing the number of overpaid people is cutting waste. When that standard applies to executives, people cheer. When that same standard applies to the lower ranks, people protest.

Cutting hours to reduce the number of full time employees and the need to pay for insurance is a way for a company to reduce waste. If they can get the same work product done at lower cost, that is a good thing for the owners.

While the ideal of living wage and full benefits is important to society overall, providing it, for many companies, is a form of waste.

I like the idea of trimming the fat, and I agree there is a lot of it, but defining the fat is where we get into trouble.

The costs and support structure in the industry need to come down somehow. It's not only a tremendous outlay of money, but the more people we have in the healthcare industry means there are fewer available to other industries.

One more note on the idea of wasted money: the money isn't being burned or destroyed. And getting even bigger than health care reform brings us to the broader issues facing the economy. Money wasted in healthcare isn't really wasted, as long as it gets spent elsewhere. The extra people employed there, or overpaid there, can spend their money in other aspects of the economy.

I certainly don't have all the answers, and my views are sometimes self-contradictory on this matter. That's one of the reasons I'm throwing these ideas out there.


Sharkbytes said...

It's all pretty broken, and those of us with just enough money to be poor but not destitute are left out in the cold.

That's the problem our modern welfare system faces, that need-based college financial aid faces, and that many programs that help the poor face. Programs that help the poor often do nothing to help those who are teetering on the edge. With a little help, perhaps fewer people would teeter off into serious problems and get past their current struggles. But when faced with limited resources, the general choice is to hlep the person that is starving today, and not the person who has been just a hair away from starving for the past few months.

And those who are struggling, and haven't given in to collapse, are the ones that we should be supporting more. The challege is to build social safety nets that don't encourage failure.



Mike Golch said...

the thing that worries me is will the plan become as bloated with ripoffs atrists like medicare has become.some of the reinbursements that are paid out of medicare are just gross.

My plan isn't the best solution out there. There are definite flaws; it's goal is to make the situation better, not to make it perfect.

There will always bee some ripoffs. The question is how much is too much? What is an "acceptable" percentage of fraud in a program? 2%? 5%? 10%?

In order to design a truly fraud proof plan, you will spend more money preventing fraud than you would have lost to fraud to begin with. And that makes no financial sense. The other option is to put such rigorous controls in place to prevent fraud that you end up making the program too difficult to be used by those it was orginally designed to benefit.

I'm not giving fraudsters a free pass. Inded, they should be vigorously prosecuted. But there comes a point where it's just not worth it. Right now, I'm thinking a 5% fraud rate is acceptable. But that's not set in stone.


grayspirit said...

I think the concept is a reasonable one, but my concern is that there is really nothing in place to manage the cost of healthcare. As long as the government provides reimbursements for healthcare, the industry tends to keep costs high because there really is no competitive pressure to bring prices down. Just my opinion. :)

And figuring out how to limit the costs without getting in the way of proper care is the challenge. HMOs are designed to do exacly that, and yet they are often considered one of the most evil aspects of the health care industry.

Time and again, we hear that bureaucrats should not be interfering in decisions between doctors and patients, and yet, that's exactly what limiting costs will require. Someone with the purse strings has to be able to say, "No." But that is not something most people want to see incorporated in the law.

I think the same problem faces colleges and universities today. Tuition and fee increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for well over a decade. One reason for this may be the proliferation of financial aide. If the government cut back the college financial aid programs by 75% or so, would we see a comparable drop in the number of students? Or would we see a much smaller drop in students and a larger drop in college costs?

College costs can rise as high as they have because the taxpayers are willing to give them more money through the financial aid system.


Pricilla said...

You forget in your plan people who are sick with chronic conditions or who have pre existing conditions. They (ie: ME) cannot get private insurance in the marketplace for any price. No insurer wants the risk. So my husband HAS to work. I am disabled and medicare does not begin to cover my medical costs.

Until there are viable options for sick people in the marketplace the system will not be viable. There are a lot of people with minor pre existing conditions that get them bumped from insurance plans. Major problems like what I have really cause issues.

The system is broken and needs serious fixing. I think you are right about corporate America though since they are paying for it now and basically paying for congress..

This is part of the problem with the idea of even offering health insurance. And here I am going to choose my words carefully. While there should be a way to cover those with preexisting conditions, it shouldn't be insurance.

Insurance exists on the basis of a gamble. People purchase insurance gambling that they will receive more in benefits than the pay in premiums. Insurance companies offer insurance gambling that they will collect more in premiums (and interest) than they pay out in benefits.

If I was guaranteed I would never need to file a claim, I would be an idiot to purchase insurance.

Likewise, if an insurance company sees a situation where they are guaranteed to pay out more than they are likely to collect in premiums than they would be idiots to offer that coverage.

Which make insurance a poor model for providing healthcare coverage to those with preexisitng conditions.

Once insurance is not a viable option, the question becomes who should pay? If the costs are outlandish, the person with the condition can't reasonably be expected to pay so someone else has to. Should that person be the tax payer? In many cases, the answer is likely,"yes," due to lack of alternatives.

This raises another issue then. (Note: I am not saying this has anything to do with your conditions.) The issue is one of lifestyle choices.

As a taxpayer, maybe it makes sense for me to pay for the medical care of someone who can't pay if they are sticken with cancer. But what if that person is a smoker? Should I now have to pay for the care of someone who has lung cancer when that person caused the disease themselves?

What about someone who is obese and suffers from diabetes or heart disease? Should I have to pay for that person's care when the reason they require care is because of poor life style choices?

If I get injured in a car accident that's not my fault, can I expect the tax payers to cover that cost? Maybe. But what it 90% of the costs are because I wasn't wearing as seatbelt? It is still fair?

What about child birth? Should I as a tax payer have to pay for pre-natal care and the birth process someone choose to undergo in what, again, is a lifestyle decision?

These are questions we will need to struggle with in any program that ultimatley gets implemented. Do we cover everything regardless of cause?


Kerrilee said...

Hi
I would like to share with you a Best Blogs Award, thank you for sharing. You can check it out at http://www.LazyBearBlogs.com
Have an awesome day :-)

Blessing
Kerrilee

Thanks, Kerrilee. It's always nice to be recognized.

Healthcare Reform 01: Government sponsored health care

A key initiative of the Obama administration is to bring health insurance to the uninsured in one form or another. Whether this is the US finally coming out of the dark ages or the beginning of an apocalyptic slide into communism is a more complicated discussion than I have the energy to get into tonight.

But that won't stop me from opining on the topic.

Here are some assumptions I am starting with, and I think many people are likely to agree.

We already have socialized medicine.

Between Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, workers compensation, the VA, Federal employment benefits, and assorted other programs, the Federal, State, and local governments already provide millions of people with health care.

A person in need of immediate medical attention won't be denied care at an emergency room. Millions of people already use hospital emergency rooms for primary health care because they can't/won't pay to see a regular physician.

Socialized medicine is here today -- it's just delivered with terrible inefficiency.

We have some of the best medical technology in the world.

The medical schools and technology we have in the US create some of the best procedures, medical instruments, and medication. We have fantastic physicians and they are typically well compensated after years in their profession. Many other health care providers (RN's for example) are not as well compensated as we would like, but are still extremely talented.

The US pharmaceutical industry is a technological leader.

The US drug companies come under fire for their prices and for their defense of patents around the world. But the reason they are so often attacked for not sharing their products with the poor of the world is because they make such fantastic and innovative products.

Employers in the US have an extra burden they don't share with the rest of the world.

The primary provider of health care coverage in the US is the employer. Large companies provide coverage for employees. This cost, which is measured in the thousands of dollars, either depresses cash wages, or it reduces profits. Companies in other countries do not have to pay for health care for their employees.

Any health care plan we implement in the US must meet the following standards:

1. Preserve the health care technology leadership the US has
2. Keep and fairly compensate the skilled people in the industry
3. Make the system more efficient and less wasteful than the current system
4. Make health care affordable for those who currently can't afford it
5. Reduce the burden on employers

We don't have to get there in one step. And I've always doubted that health care reform will come from the Democrats. Not because I question their commitment, but because there are too many industries opposing it, and too many varied constituencies within the party to reach consensus on one plan.

The true impetus for health care reform in the US will not come from the left. It will come from the corporate interests on the right. Health care reform in the US will come when big and medium business decides it is time to shift the burden of paying f0r health insurance to someone else.

In the meantime, the tragic stories of individuals will provide headlines, but are not likely to result in a significant changes to the system.

A small proposal

In the interim, here's a way to tweak the system that may help lower individual costs and increase coverage. I am making up the numbers out of thin air, so bear that in mind.

Everyone should have a government provided health insurance program that features a $50,000 annual deductible. Above that amount, the Feds (taxpayers) would cover the costs.

This will mean the private health insurance providers can lower their rates to make health insurance more affordable since their losses will be capped.

This will also lower the costs for employers.

Most people don't spend more than $50K per year on health care, so there is still an incentive for individuals to look for ways to minimize their costs.

The pharmaceutical and hospital industry can continue to operate as they currently do. Doctors and pharmacists don't suddenly become government employees, so the local hospitals don't become the local DMV.

This plan addresses some of the concerns above, but it's not comprehensive. It's a simple plan that provides a step forward. And maybe it will break the current political log jam.

GM and the PUMA

GM just announced a partnership with Segway and is now showing a prototype of a two-person, two-wheeled electric vehicle capable of 35 MPH with a range of 35 Miles.

According to the Seattle Times:

The Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, or PUMA, project also would involve a vast communications network that would allow vehicles to interact with each other, regulate the flow of traffic and prevent crashes from happening.

"We're excited about doing more with less," said Jim Norrod, chief executive of Segway, the Bedford, N.H.-based maker of electric scooters. "Less emissions, less dependability on foreign oil and less space."

The 300-pound prototype runs on a lithium-ion battery and uses Segway's characteristic two-wheel balancing technology, along with dual electric motors. It's designed to reach speeds of up to 35 miles-per-hour and can run 35 miles on a single charge.

... More

A reporter from CNN got to ride in one as a passenger.

During a test ride - for now, only trained drivers are allowed to operate the prototype vehicle - the PUMA transporter felt perfectly stable. Other than the fact that it can rotate while standing in place, it felt similar to riding in a small car at slow speeds.

As he pushed the steering wheel, the vehicle leaned gently forward and trundled off to the end of a blocked off section of Manhattan's West 18th street. When we reached the end of the street, the driver pulled back on the steering wheel and the car stopped, staying balanced on its two wheels. He then turned the wheel rotating the booth-shaped car 180 degrees and off we went in the other direction, steering to avoid hitting our CNN cameraman.

Only when the vehicle prepared to park did it feel a bit unnerving, as the vehicle leaned forward to settle onto its extra set of small front wheels.

...More

I can't help but wonder if things like this are the reason GM is about to go bankrupt, or if failing to do this kind of things over the past 20 years is why they are on the brink of bankruptcy. It's probably some combination of the two.

This kind of vehicle does sound like it can have a plac3e in the modern transportation infrastructure. The question remains, though, whether the buraucracy of GM is even capable of bringing something like this to market, of it is all just some last ditch PR effort.

New times

Today the European Union standards agency announced a new initiative, as part of the ongoing G20 summit. Building on the nearly world-wide success of the metric system for weights and measures, they are ready to take the metric system to the next level.

The system will be phased in over the next several years. By 2016-04-01, all member states will need to complete the switch over to metric time. “The current calendar is a relic of Pope Gregory and the medieval Catholic Church. It builds on the Roman calendar developed by Julius Caesar. And just as we no longer use Roman Numerals to count, and we no longer use Feet and Hogsheads to measure distance, it’s time to get away from the chaotic math of the current clock,” said the chairman of the Greenwich Mean Time committee.

The new system will make it easier to tell and calculate time.

The base unit of the system will still be the day. The new day will be 10 hours long. During the transition, the metric day will be called an “mDay” in English. Once the transition is complete, the “m” prefix and archaic name will be replaced permanently with the new metric name. To make the conversion, 1 hour will equal .416667 mHours.

The term “hour” will be replaced with the “deciday.” There will be 100 minutes in an hour (or 100 Millidays).

The new week, the mWeek (after 2016, the Decaday) will equal 10 mDays. Each mMonth (or Hectoday) will equal 10m weeks (or 10 Decadays), or 100 mDays.

The mYear (or Kiloyear) will equal 10 mMonths (or 100 Decidays), or 1,000 mDays.

This chart may help:

New Term	Definition	Obsolete Term
1 Milliday	.001 Days	Minute
I Deciday	.1 Days	Hour
1 Day	1 Day	Day
1 Decaday	10 Days	Week
1 Hectoday	100 Days	Month
1 Kiloday	1,000 Days	Year

The problem here is obvious, and was discussed extensively in committee. The current year is 365.25 days. The new Kiloyear is equal to almost 3 current years (which total 1,095.75 current days). Naturally age restrictions in laws, licensing, retirement, and other documents will need to be adjusted.

It also means each year will have three summers and three winters. We will need more Holidays to adjust for the annual events.

The dates for each season and equinox will have to float. Protesters argued this is unnatural. “Comment peuvent-ils indiquer la Terre quand incliner?” shouted protesters in Paris. The committee chairman shrugged it off. “The dates on the calendar have always been arbitrary. Some years we adjust the year by as much as 15 seconds because of the inconvenient nature of the Earth’s slightly irregular orbit. This is the same thing.”

“We can’t let the arbitrary holidays interfere with the science of measurement,” he continued.

Nineteen of the 20 member of the G20 issued a joint statement praising the shift:

Not only will this change simplify time, it will provide a significant aid to the world economy. Manufacturing and scientific organizations will have a cleaner and more efficient measurement system. And it will be a significant boon to the watch and clock makers around the world during these troubled times.

President Obama declined to join in the statement. The President released his own statement later.

While we are pleased to see our European partners working so closely together to come up with new solutions to old problems, we don’t plan to impose this change on the American people. The American people have no trouble with the 60s and 7s that make up our calendar. Further, we don’t need to mandate this program.

The American people have always worked with partners around the world to build a world class economy and to help people from all walks of life achieve their true potential. The American people are thrilled to buy their soda in 2 liter bottles and their milk by the gallon. The power of American business is that it works with and respects the traditional culture of America, while still working with the rest of the world in the different measures they use. The people will use the units they prefer as we move into the next global age of economic revitalization.

Some European editorialist scoffed at Obama’s suggestion that this won’t be a problem for the US. “Didn’t the Americans lose a space ship because they don’t understand metric?” suggested the editor of the London Financial Times.

The Director of the US Bureau of Weights and Measures stated the US would work with others on the new calendar, but beyond providing conversion tables, would take few initiatives. “We still plan to keep our speed limit signs at 65 MPH. We don’t plan to change them to 249.6 KMpdD (kilometers per deciday).”

After the press conference, was overheard talking to a colleague about the issue. Apparently he didn’t realize his microphone was still open. “Not this crap again. What is this? 1977? I’m getting too old for this.”

The second will remain at 9,192,631,770 Cesium atom vibrations for now. The seconds in a Milliday will be defined by conversion tables. The standards body will discuss alternative definitions for the “second” over the next year.

There is still a great deal of debate over what to do with the yet to be implemented Decimilliday.

President Harrison house

I had a few hours available this afternoon, so I asked my trusty Neverlost Lady where I should go (though lately we've been having problems -- I think she suspects there's something going on between me a Judy Garmin).

Since I was in Indianapolis, she suggested the President Benjamin Harrison house. Actually she suggested several museums, the brickyard, the state house and a few other things, but I figured parking would be easier at an attraction designed around a President most people have never heard of.



The house is a 16-room mansion. President Harrison bought it before he ran for president, and paid $4,000 for the land. Building the house cost another $25,000.

It looks a lot bigger on the inside than it does on the outside. The two main floors have 14' ceilings, and the top floor was a ball room. Inside, the property is beautiful and looks quite comfortable. What I find interesting is that houses that have been built in the last few years take up the same or bigger foot print, yet have fewer rooms or less effective use of space on the inside.

The volunteers do a nice job of showing off the various parlors, bedrooms, the library, kitchen, and other spaces. I wouldn't mind having President Harrison's home office (though they called it the library back then). It was filled with Harrison's actual books. He was a fan of other presidential administrations and of classics.

The house had two staircases. One was for the family and guests. The other one was for the servants in the back. The main one was large and easy to climb. The servants were not so lucky. They had a narrow, steep staircase with shorter stairs. It was a bit nerve wracking descending it.

I didn't take any pictures inside the house because it was all on a guided tour. The tour costs $8, and there were only two other people in the group. I felt awkward stopping to take pictures so i passed. The other weird thing is that the middle of the tour includes a visit to the gift shop, in what used to be the butler's pantry. The guided stops to give people the opportunity to shop. After you browse and make purchases, the tour continues.

The guide was informative, and I learned a lot on the tour, but I would have preferred the option to take a self guided tour, so I can wander at my leisure as I read every placard.

If you get the chance, stop by. It's an hour and a half well spent.

The guide talked to us about some of the key events in Harrison's presidency and campaign.

The one-term Republic served from 1889 to 1893. He served between President Cleveland's two terms, and was the only president to interrupt two terms of another president. He was also the only President to have a grandfather who also served as President. He came to office after losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral vote.

The campaign was quite different than the recent, 15 year long 2008 campaign we just survived. Harrison didn't seek out the nomination. He wasn't even in the same city as the Republican convention when they nominated him on the eighth ballot. He accepted the nomination in between two of the rooms we saw on the tour.

His campaign was one of the first front porch campaigns. Rather than travel among the 40 states, he entertained visitor and delegations on his front porch. At larger events, people would steal parts of his fence as souveniers.

During the campaign on 1893, his wife died of tuberculosis. He didn't campaign after that. Once he heard about it, his opponent, former President Grover Cleveland also stopped campaigning, rather than take advantage of the President's wife's death. Harrison did lose reelection.

His White House biography, and his Wikipedia entry highlight some of the key events of those four years Harrison spent in the White House.

He was the first President to have a Christmas tree in the White House.

He was the first President to advocate flying the flag on a regular basis.

He wrote the first version of the Pledge of Allegiance.

During his administration, for the first time ever, the US Federal Budget exceeded $1 billion. At the beginning of his administration, the budget showed a significant surplus, but he and the congress spent that down, in part by expanding pensions for Civil War Veterans.

One of the biggest political challenges was the question of what to do about tariffs. From Harrison's Wikipedia page:

The issue of tariff levels had been a major point of contention in American politics since before the Civil War, and tariffs became the most prominent issue of the 1888 election.^[66] The high tariff rates had created a surplus of money in the Treasury, which led many Democrats (as well as the growing Populist movement) to call for lowering the rates.^[67] Most Republicans wished the rates to remain high, and to spend the surplus on internal improvements as well as the elimination of some internal taxes.^[67]

Representative William McKinley and Senator Nelson W. Aldrich framed the McKinley Tariff that would raise the tariff even higher, including making some rates intentionally prohibitive.^[68] At Secretary of State James Blaine's urging, Harrison attempted to make the tariff more acceptable by urging Congress to add reciprocity provisions, which would allow the President to reduce rates when other countries reduced their rates on American exports.^[66] The tariff was removed from imported raw sugar, and sugar growers in the United States were given a two cent per pound subsidy on their production.^[68] Even with the reductions and reciprocity, the McKinley Tariff enacted the highest average rate in American history, and the spending associated with it contributed to the reputation of the Billion-Dollar Congress.^[66]

That's right. The Democrats were calling for lowering taxes and the size of government. The Republicans were resisting those initiatives, and supported using the surplus to expand social programs. The Republicans pushed for protectionist tax measures; the Democrats supported free-er trade.

He signed the Sherman Anti-Trust act and expanded the US Navy in the Pacific. He had major foreign policy initiatives with other countries in the Americas, and nearly got the US into war with Chile.

It may have been a short 4 years, but the legislation and initiatives Harrison pursued have had a significant impact on today's economy. The impact of the Harrison administration is much broader than I recalled from high school.

As we deal with the economic challenges the country faces today, it may be time to take a closer look at what happened during Harrison's administration and the Panic of 1893 that followed his administration.

And it's all because the Neverlost Lady showed me a quirky option.

Retirement is just around the corner?

At least according to T Rowe Price.

I got this notice in email today.

Now, I understand the importance of saving for retirement. I've been doing that since I was 25. I know I shouldn't plan on Social Security being around. It probably will be, but there's no guarantee. And I can easily see myself working past 65 or 70, not by necessity, but by choice.

But even so, I'm only 27 37 today. And retirement is just "a few years away?" Really? Do they think people retire at 40? Or maybe 45?

Seriously, these people at T Rowe Price have my age and time with the company on record. What are they thinking? Do they know something about my career prospects that I don't?

In the best of times, you can't assume that 99% of those under 40 are just a few years from retirement. But now? With more people losing their jobs with minimal savings, they think people in my age bracket are about to retire?

With 401Ks and traditional pensions taking huge hits in the stock market free fall do they really think retiring on these nest eggs makes any kind of sense? Have they checked the market lately?

Is someone at T Rowe Price just trying to artificially create opening for their own college graduate kids who are now looking for jobs?

Retirement is not just a few years away. It's a few decades away. I think that's a reasonable assumption to make for most people in their thirties. And, yes, we should all be planning for it, but that is long range planning.

If T Rowe Price has such shoddy financial planning that they think the majority of those under 40 are just "a few years away" from retirement, then perhaps I shouldn't trust them with my retirement savings.

Or perhaps someone needs to teach them how to filter and appropriately direct their broadcast emails.

"retirement just a few years away." Yeah. I have my doubts.

Bonuses and taxes

I've been listening to the story about the $165 million in bonuses AIG is about to pay out. And the accompanying outrage.

If these bonuses were going to one of the divisions that is profitable, and they were significantly less than the profit, then I wouldn't have a major problem with it. But they're not.

According to CNN, they are going to one of the very groups responsible for the shambles they current AIG is:

In a letter to Geithner, obtained Saturday by CNN, AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy said his company was taking steps to limit compensation in AIG Financial Products -- the British-based unit responsible for issuing the risky credit default swaps that have brought the company to the brink of collapse.

In the letter to Geithner, Liddy said the unit's 25 highest-paid contract employees will reduce their salaries to $1 this year and all other officers in the unit will reduce their salaries by 10 percent. Other "non-cash compensation" will be reduced or eliminated. But he told Geithner that some bonus payments are binding legal obligations of the company, and "there are serious legal, as well as business consequences for not paying."

...More

I understand that the new AIG CEO may be in a bit of a bind here. If they are contractually obligated to pay the bonuses, and the recipients are not willing to renegotiate those contracts, then they should pay them.

But that doesn't have to let them off the hook.

It occurred to me that the simplest way to deal with it -- without breakin any contracts -- is with the tax code. There's no reason Congress can't craft an income tax provisions specifically for bonuses like this, and tax them abt 99.9% or something like that.

This way, people still recieve their bonuses.
AIG doesn't have to break the contracts.
And the Treasurey recovers funds.

Fortunately, Senator Chris Dodd is already on it.

Later, Dodd told CNN he is considering an unusual approach to get the bonus money back.

"One idea we're kind of thinking about is a tax provision," the Connecticut Democrat said. "We have a right to tax. You could write a tax provision that's narrowly crafted only to the people receiving bonuses. That's a way maybe to deal with it."

Dodd said the notion is in the "earliest of thinking" and has not been settled on as a way to resolve the issue that has set off outrage in Washington and across the country.

...More

We may not be able to allow AIG to fail. But we can make sure we don't reward failure.

The power of limits

In the recent issue of Wired (17.03) they included a spread focused on design. Wired has often been know for its design -- some hailing it, and some condemning it, especially for white text on neon orange pages. For many years I avoided the magazine because I was simply not cool enough to read it.

Either I got cool or they got lamer, but regardless, I've been reading it cover-to-cover for several years now.

The design spread talked about how good design comes from limits.

At Wired, our design team sees this constraint as our daily bread. On every editorial page, we use words and pictures to overcome the particular restrictions of paper and ink:

...

The idea of operating within constraints—of making more with less—is especially relevant these days. From Wall Street to Detroit to Washington, the lack of limits has proven to be a false freedom. With all the economic gloom, you might not be blamed for feeling that the boundless American frontier seems a little less expansive. But design teaches us that this is our hour of opportunity.

...More

I've been tossing that idea around in my head lately. Effective design comes not from a lack of rules, but from creatively using limited resources. Whether that limited resource is space on paper, time, bandwidth, or even money, the best ideas come from people doing extraordinary things within those limitations and transcending them.

And while the challenges facing the economy today are serious, these limitations we face are what will take us into the next great period of growth and strength. I'm not minimizing the pain people are going through. Nor am I saying there is no reason to be afraid for the immediate future.

But right now, the economy is going through a purge. We are facing limitations unimaginable just 2.5 years ago.

Those limitations will reinvigorate the American entrepreneurial spirit.

New companies will be born from people who lose their jobs. There is a need for companies to save money and resources through new processes and ways of doing business. Entrepreneurs will find new ways to address those problems.

While we face severe limitations, we also have more tools available than anytime in the past. The country is filled with dark fiber left over from the dot.com bust. Cloud computing and server farms offer huge IT resources at low cost. People have more ways to connect with like minded people than they ever had before. And, unfortunately, millions of people have more time on their hands than ever before.

Economic limitations mean we all face new constraints. Panic and fear from companies and consumers that are afraid to spend money, even when they have it, create even more limitations. Success in the coming years will depend on how successfully we can manage those constraints and use the new tools to transcend them.

We have a blank page in front of us. Now the only questions is, "How do we fill it?"

Life in the Garden Part 12: Gardening to save money?

I started my garden because it seemed silly to spend $3 or $4 for fresh basil whenever I wanted it. I thought I could buy a plant for that same amount and keep harvesting it.

In the end, instead of spending $50-$60 a year for fresh herbs and vegetables, I've committed nearly $4,000 to the garden over the past 6 years.

It's been fun.
It's been educational.
It's been delicious.

It definitely hasn't saved me any money.

Perhaps if I had an acre or so, I could achieve some economies of scale, but that's not the case.

This is a lesson other people are just starting to learn.

According to a recent article in the Seattle Times, there is a run on seeds. People who have lost their jobs, or who are afraid of losing their jobs, are turning to gardens to grow food and save money.

Sue is the one who answers the phone at the couple's Irish Eyes Garden Seeds, which produces more than 400 kinds of seeds (mostly vegetables), as well as 70 different kinds of potatoes and 25 kinds of garlic.

By some of the questions they get from customers, the couple know these are first-time gardeners.

"We had one person ask us which way the seed goes in the ground," says Sue.

These days, she's handling 100 customer calls a day, and the family business expects to gross $1 million in sales this year. Business is up 20 to 30 percent over last year, both in seeds under its own label and seeds it packages for companies such as Burpee and Park Seed.

...

A retail garden store like Sky Nursery in Shoreline says seed business is up "at least 20 percent."

And Burpee, the Pennsylvania-based world's largest seed company, says business also is up by that much.

Although it came up with the idea too late for this year's print catalog, on its Web site Burpee sells a "Money Garden" that for $10 puts together $20 worth of pea, tomato, pepper, bean, lettuce and carrot seeds.

It says the seeds will produce "over $650 worth of vegetables!"

"People are belt-tightening, particularly on large-ticket items," says George Ball, chairman of Burpee. "It results in an almost Depression mentality."

...More

The article also discusses how some people are moving to gardening for purer, organic, non-GMO food, and others are taking up gardening to gain some control over their lives.

Those may be viable reasons, but without significant space, saving money through gardening is not likely to be a viable option for most new gardeners.

I don't want to discourage gardening and growing herbs, vegetables, fruit, etc. It's a great feeling to eat something you grow. But it takes practice or knowledge. And while you can start for low cost, it's tough to compete with low cost/high volume food available at the supermarket, farmer's market, or even specialty grocery store.

I am worried that new gardeners will start their crops to save money, and be discouraged by from continuing by the costs. And that would be a shame.

Tax cuts are a bad idea

A stimulus package should encourage spending. In that respect, it's ironic to rely on this tool, since an orgy of debt heavy consumer spending on credit cards and silly mortgages is what got us here in the first place. A mild, several year long recession would likely be good for the economy in the long-term.

What it needs is a controlled burn in the forest to clear out the dead wood. That's what a mild recession would do for us, and we probably should have had one a couple years ago. But we didn't, and that controlled burn has now turned into a massive conflagration set to level a major metropolis. It's too severe to just let it burn. Thus, I am resigned to a massive stimulus package.

That package should focus on infrastructure -- transit systems, roads, new power transmission lines, enhanced nationwide broadband access, new energy technology, new materials, bridges, space exploration, and other items of that ilk. Some of these projects may be pork, but that's okay. The point is to put people to work -- get those private construction companies moving again. Make sure their employees spend money in their communities and employ even more people.

At the end of the stimulus period, either the economy will be moving again, or it won't. If it is, that's great. If not, well, at least we will have all this new infrastructure which we desperately need. And people had work. The money will not be wasted.

An additional benefit of the massive infrastructure spending is that not only will we get this cool new stuff, we'll get it cheap. People will work for less money. Steel, oil, and other raw materials are cheaper than they have been for years.

Plus, if we make these investments only when "we can afford it" in a strong economy we are also stealing labor and resources from the private sector's own growth initiatives. Let's get the infrastructure done now when we don't have to compete with the private sector. The country will be stronger for it and already have the key blocks in place when the next boom begins.

Of course this is all money the government is borrowing and we have to pay back, but that is also cheaper than it has been for years.

If you have the capacity to borrow and spend money this is now the best, cheapest possible time to do it.

There was a lot of stuff like that in the House version of the bill.

My concern is the tax cuts. The $800 billion package include more than $200 billion in tax cuts and rebates. The latest details are a bit challenging to nail down.

The problem with tax cuts and government stimulus checks in a bad economy is that they don't encourage spending. Responsible people will not spend that money on new stuff. Instead, it will go to pay down bills. Or it will go into savings for the hard times ahead.

And that's exactly what people should do with those savings. That demonstrates great personal responsibility.

But it won't stimulate the economy. It won't get other people employed. It won't bring more manufacturing on line. It won't drive increased investment by technology companies.

In short, it won't move things forward.

But I don't see anyone opposing middle class tax cuts anytime soon. As much as I hate to say it, the best compromise will be to leave the tax rates alone. Don't send out a "stimulus" check. Instead, provide tax credits for purchases.

I normally don't like tax credits and deductions. They make completing tax forms more complicated than they should be and are one of the reasons our tax code is such a mess.

But the point of the tax reductions in the bill isn't to save people money. It's to stimulate the economy.

So let's replace those tax cuts with rebates for buying things. For education. Or for buying a new, energy efficient car. Or for making substantial home improvements (spend $10K on your kitchen? Get a $5K tax credit). Or for paying for child care. Or for moving to a part of the country that needs a specific set of skills.

By putting those tax reductions in the form of tax credits, we take the money out of the savings accounts and put it to working creating jobs for people. The people in those jobs can now, in turn, make their own purchase.

Saving money doesn't move the economy forward. Spending does. Whether that spending is private or tax payer funded doesn't matter. Nothing happens until someone buys something. And that's what a stimulus package needs to encourage.

Tax credits for buying stuff will do that. Tax rate cuts and generic stimulus checks will not.