We saw some good economic news this week as GDP grew 2.5 percent in the third quarter of 2011 and around 100,000 jobs were added bringing the unemployment rate down to 9.0 percent. Certainly, neither number is thrilling. The reason?
Ideally, those trends could signal stronger growth, followed by more hiring. Yet until consumers consistently spend more, businesses are unlikely to hire enough to drive down unemployment.
What's that again, you say?
Many employers are hesitant to step up hiring until they see steady demand from consumers.
So it's not some phantom uncertainty that's being caused by President Obama's policies but the simple fact that consumer spending (70 percent of our economy) isn't where it should be for any real improvement. Why aren't they spending money?
They don't have any.
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Friday, November 04, 2011
The Empire Strikes Out
Bank of America has struck out with its controversial plan to charge debit card customers $5 a month just to use their money. When customers complained and started to cancel their BoA accounts, many in favor of local credit unions, Bank of America dropped the plan.
Bank of America had to do this, they insisted, because of a law Congress passed that limits "swipe fees," the fees the banks charge retailers when you use your debit card. The regulation limits the swipe fee to 21 cents; swipe fees had averaged 44 cents before the regulation went into effect last month. (The original proposal was a 12-cent swipe fee, but regulators were convinced that was too low.)
I can remember a time when banks actually paid me to keep my money there. These days interest rates are essentially zero and the banks have fees for every imaginable thing -- depositing money, withdrawing money, talking to a teller, using ATMs, having a checking account, and on and on. (Banks are charging more fees because they're not making money the way they used to, by making loans.) Most of these fees can be avoided by maintaining minimum balances that can range up to tens of thousands of dollars. But that means people who don't have a lot of money wind up spending a lot of money just to have access to a bank account.
People who can't afford a bank account often have to pay companies just to cash their paychecks. These outfits frequently charge a lot for the privilege, and often make shady pay-day loans at exorbitant interest rates. For all the bad things Wal-Mart has done, this is one area where they may well have helped people out: they charge just $3.00 for cashing payroll checks.
Fortunately, most local not-for-profit credit unions have some form of a free checking account. Credit unions are basically customer-owned banks. They're often formed for employees of big corporations, union members, or government employees, but many allow anyone to join.
Some critics of the Dodd-Frank bill, whose provisions resulted in the swipe fee regulation, are trumpeting BoA's backtracking on the debit card fee as a victory for the free market. It is, no doubt about it. But this free market win is a direct result of the swipe fee regulation -- without that law, the big banks would have continued to silently charge retailers more than twice as much as they're charging now. That's money that we wind up paying in higher prices at the grocery store, gas station and shopping mall. Money that goes not to the retailer, but to some big bank.
The free market can work very well, but only when customers are aware of what's really going on. When banks make their profits in ways that aren't apparent to their customers, their customers can't make informed decisions about which bank provides the best service for the lowest price. The high swipe fees were essentially an extortion racket that allowed the big banks to use their monopoly position to gouge local merchants for providing a convenience option to their customers. This caused invisible price hikes on everything you buy with your debit card. (People who pay cash get socked the worst, but that's a separate issue.)
BoA figured it was their right to maintain their current profit margin by charging their customers directly for something that they had been making money on through transactions hidden from their customers. Their customers disagreed.
In the short run we probably won't see any price cuts at the checkout counter. But in the long haul the cost of doing business will be lower for merchants and that will ultimately result in more money staying local, resulting in healthier local businesses and more local hiring. Which seems better than sending all that extra money off to the banks so that they can give their execs more outrageous bonuses.
Bank of America had to do this, they insisted, because of a law Congress passed that limits "swipe fees," the fees the banks charge retailers when you use your debit card. The regulation limits the swipe fee to 21 cents; swipe fees had averaged 44 cents before the regulation went into effect last month. (The original proposal was a 12-cent swipe fee, but regulators were convinced that was too low.)
I can remember a time when banks actually paid me to keep my money there. These days interest rates are essentially zero and the banks have fees for every imaginable thing -- depositing money, withdrawing money, talking to a teller, using ATMs, having a checking account, and on and on. (Banks are charging more fees because they're not making money the way they used to, by making loans.) Most of these fees can be avoided by maintaining minimum balances that can range up to tens of thousands of dollars. But that means people who don't have a lot of money wind up spending a lot of money just to have access to a bank account.
People who can't afford a bank account often have to pay companies just to cash their paychecks. These outfits frequently charge a lot for the privilege, and often make shady pay-day loans at exorbitant interest rates. For all the bad things Wal-Mart has done, this is one area where they may well have helped people out: they charge just $3.00 for cashing payroll checks.
Fortunately, most local not-for-profit credit unions have some form of a free checking account. Credit unions are basically customer-owned banks. They're often formed for employees of big corporations, union members, or government employees, but many allow anyone to join.
Some critics of the Dodd-Frank bill, whose provisions resulted in the swipe fee regulation, are trumpeting BoA's backtracking on the debit card fee as a victory for the free market. It is, no doubt about it. But this free market win is a direct result of the swipe fee regulation -- without that law, the big banks would have continued to silently charge retailers more than twice as much as they're charging now. That's money that we wind up paying in higher prices at the grocery store, gas station and shopping mall. Money that goes not to the retailer, but to some big bank.
The free market can work very well, but only when customers are aware of what's really going on. When banks make their profits in ways that aren't apparent to their customers, their customers can't make informed decisions about which bank provides the best service for the lowest price. The high swipe fees were essentially an extortion racket that allowed the big banks to use their monopoly position to gouge local merchants for providing a convenience option to their customers. This caused invisible price hikes on everything you buy with your debit card. (People who pay cash get socked the worst, but that's a separate issue.)
BoA figured it was their right to maintain their current profit margin by charging their customers directly for something that they had been making money on through transactions hidden from their customers. Their customers disagreed.
In the short run we probably won't see any price cuts at the checkout counter. But in the long haul the cost of doing business will be lower for merchants and that will ultimately result in more money staying local, resulting in healthier local businesses and more local hiring. Which seems better than sending all that extra money off to the banks so that they can give their execs more outrageous bonuses.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
The Turning Tide
I saw this recently and just about fell out of my chair.
A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.
Holy Shee-aht! My initial shock was that it was even published at all in the Wall Street Journal. After that wore off, I was pleasantly surprised to see that two thirds of the wealthy now think that raising taxes is a good thing. But why do they support this?
Explains George Walper of Spectrem: “What this tells us is that there are a number of wealthy folks who said: ‘Gee, we need to increase taxes to stimulate the economy. No one likes to be taxed more, but the reality is maybe it has to be done.’ ”
Yep.
Here are some of the comments from the supporters of this increase.
“When you have someone who made four and a half billion pay fifteen percent, and because it’s a hedge fund, I have a problem with that.”
“Quite frankly if Warren Buffett gets taxed an extra fifty thousand dollars or your typical investor of two hundred and fifty [thousand] or larger has to pay an extra thousand dollars in tax; It’s not gonna change his lifestyle. Whatever he or she was gonna buy, he or she is gonna buy.”
I have to say that I am fairly elated that wealthy people in this country are saying things like this. The tide is turning, folks, and it honestly can't happen too soon.
A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.
Holy Shee-aht! My initial shock was that it was even published at all in the Wall Street Journal. After that wore off, I was pleasantly surprised to see that two thirds of the wealthy now think that raising taxes is a good thing. But why do they support this?
Explains George Walper of Spectrem: “What this tells us is that there are a number of wealthy folks who said: ‘Gee, we need to increase taxes to stimulate the economy. No one likes to be taxed more, but the reality is maybe it has to be done.’ ”
Yep.
Here are some of the comments from the supporters of this increase.
“When you have someone who made four and a half billion pay fifteen percent, and because it’s a hedge fund, I have a problem with that.”
“Quite frankly if Warren Buffett gets taxed an extra fifty thousand dollars or your typical investor of two hundred and fifty [thousand] or larger has to pay an extra thousand dollars in tax; It’s not gonna change his lifestyle. Whatever he or she was gonna buy, he or she is gonna buy.”
I have to say that I am fairly elated that wealthy people in this country are saying things like this. The tide is turning, folks, and it honestly can't happen too soon.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Who Cares??!!!???
With all the problems we have in this country currently, does anyone really care what Herman Cain said to two women 20 years ago? I know I don't. A sex scandal? Really??!!? I'm more interested in debating his 9-9-9 plan than hearing about "harassment." I put that last word in quotes because I tend to take a decidedly anti-PC stance when it comes to this phenomenon.
I'm sure that there are people out there who are seriously harassed in one way or another but with all the new company rules and policies in place these days, most people don't get out of line. Thus, the cases we do see (and especially the ones from 20 years ago) largely originate from people who need to take a fucking chill pill. If you are that weak kneed about stuff like this, how on earth are you going to get anywhere in this world?
I'm hoping that this ends soon but the media has sadly begun their frenzy and fascination with a bright shiny object. Imagine where we would be if they put this much energy into education.
I'm sure that there are people out there who are seriously harassed in one way or another but with all the new company rules and policies in place these days, most people don't get out of line. Thus, the cases we do see (and especially the ones from 20 years ago) largely originate from people who need to take a fucking chill pill. If you are that weak kneed about stuff like this, how on earth are you going to get anywhere in this world?
I'm hoping that this ends soon but the media has sadly begun their frenzy and fascination with a bright shiny object. Imagine where we would be if they put this much energy into education.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Get To Work
"Men with guns will come to your house and take you to jail."
Between Pastor Ed and Doctor Sean at the gym as well as several of my regular commenters, this line has been beaten to death of late so I decided to dedicate a post to it and clear up some very serious misconceptions and (surprise surprise) childish dishonesty.
The whole thing really started with these verses from the Bible (2 Corinthians 9, 6-12).
Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. As it is written: "They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever."
Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.
This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.
These verses are pretty plain to me: share your wealth and God will reward you. It's basically up to all of us to engage in one, gigantic wealth redistribution system. This simple instruction flies directly in the face of Ayn Rand's enlightened self interest bull shit so I say that any of you who embrace Rand and Jesus have a serious ideological dichotomy to overcome.
The part of this verse that seems to cause all the frothing at the mouth is this one:
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Clearly, this means under compulsion from God, not the government. This jibes with everything else JC because it's all about coming to the Lord under your own free will, not being forced. But, as they often do, the right has made this there Biblical evidence for having very little or no taxes. This is especially true of (gasp!, horror of horrors) Social Security and Medicare taxes which help people every day.
Let's assume that Paul, who wrote 2 Corinthians, was also talking about the government. He wasn't but I'm going to say that he was for the sake of this discussion. At first glance, it does indeed seem like we have no choice. Those taxes come out without our permission and we are not cheerful givers. We are being forced to pay them and men with guns will come to our use and take us away if we don't. As is usually the case with right, they don't look beyond that first glance, tap into their inner rage, and create a fantasy world in which Mom and Dad (the government) won't let them stay out past midnight...give them the keys to the car...do what they want to do...blah blah blah...
Because when you start to look honestly at how taxes and social programs started, the majority of this country are, in fact, cheerful givers. The 16th Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states. Social Security and Medicare were passed by our elected representatives (see: TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION) and enjoy the support of the majority of Americans today. In fact, 57 percent of Americans think their taxes are fair while 43 percent and 4 percent consider the amount right or too low. Interestingly, 50 percent think their taxes are too high but many of these still think their taxes are fair and nearly two thirds want taxes raised to cover Social Security and Medicare which clearly illustrates the overwhelming support for both of those programs.
At worst, all of this shows that half of the country has no problem with taxes being taken out of their check. At best, closer to two thirds support this type of taxation. They continue to support elected representatives that would continue to collect all of these taxes. When they cast their vote, it means that they are all now cheerful givers. That includes myself. When I vote for Democrats, I am essentially saying that I want money removed from my check for federal taxes and social programs.
This still leaves a good chunk of people that do not support this type of taxation and bitch about it constantly. Adding insult to injury, they lost (and continue to lose) this debate (see: the worst ever, man!) hence the reason why they froth at the mouth about men with guns forcing them to do things and whine about their freedom being inhibited. My message to you is the same one I give to lazy teenagers:
Get off your ass and do something about it.
Your vote and, more importantly, the time you invest in support of a candidate with your views and getting like minded individuals to vote with you, means that you can change the situation so that no one is forcing you to do anything. By sitting on your ass, the majority ruled and you lost so I guess you'll have to lump it. The history of this country is filled with examples of people that worked hard to change the way things were done if they didn't like the status quo. They pulled themselves up by the bootstraps (hee hee:)) and put people in office that would govern differently.
This is what we have seen in the last couple of years with the Tea Party. I'm certain that anyone who complains about taxes can work with these groups locally to change how the system works. You may end up not getting enough support but, hey, that's how our country works. If you're not happy with it, you are always welcome to leave. Or redouble your efforts.
Rather than wasting your time arguing with me on this site, devote time to ending men with guns coming to your house and forcing you to fork over the fruits of your labors. Democrats have done it throughout history. They passed Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. It wasn't easy but they used their power of voting to elect people who would pass these laws. Don't be a lazy teenager who gripes about the rules from the comfort of your parent's basement. In short,
GET TO WORK.
Between Pastor Ed and Doctor Sean at the gym as well as several of my regular commenters, this line has been beaten to death of late so I decided to dedicate a post to it and clear up some very serious misconceptions and (surprise surprise) childish dishonesty.
The whole thing really started with these verses from the Bible (2 Corinthians 9, 6-12).
Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. As it is written: "They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever."
Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.
This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.
These verses are pretty plain to me: share your wealth and God will reward you. It's basically up to all of us to engage in one, gigantic wealth redistribution system. This simple instruction flies directly in the face of Ayn Rand's enlightened self interest bull shit so I say that any of you who embrace Rand and Jesus have a serious ideological dichotomy to overcome.
The part of this verse that seems to cause all the frothing at the mouth is this one:
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Clearly, this means under compulsion from God, not the government. This jibes with everything else JC because it's all about coming to the Lord under your own free will, not being forced. But, as they often do, the right has made this there Biblical evidence for having very little or no taxes. This is especially true of (gasp!, horror of horrors) Social Security and Medicare taxes which help people every day.
Let's assume that Paul, who wrote 2 Corinthians, was also talking about the government. He wasn't but I'm going to say that he was for the sake of this discussion. At first glance, it does indeed seem like we have no choice. Those taxes come out without our permission and we are not cheerful givers. We are being forced to pay them and men with guns will come to our use and take us away if we don't. As is usually the case with right, they don't look beyond that first glance, tap into their inner rage, and create a fantasy world in which Mom and Dad (the government) won't let them stay out past midnight...give them the keys to the car...do what they want to do...blah blah blah...
Because when you start to look honestly at how taxes and social programs started, the majority of this country are, in fact, cheerful givers. The 16th Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states. Social Security and Medicare were passed by our elected representatives (see: TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION) and enjoy the support of the majority of Americans today. In fact, 57 percent of Americans think their taxes are fair while 43 percent and 4 percent consider the amount right or too low. Interestingly, 50 percent think their taxes are too high but many of these still think their taxes are fair and nearly two thirds want taxes raised to cover Social Security and Medicare which clearly illustrates the overwhelming support for both of those programs.
At worst, all of this shows that half of the country has no problem with taxes being taken out of their check. At best, closer to two thirds support this type of taxation. They continue to support elected representatives that would continue to collect all of these taxes. When they cast their vote, it means that they are all now cheerful givers. That includes myself. When I vote for Democrats, I am essentially saying that I want money removed from my check for federal taxes and social programs.
This still leaves a good chunk of people that do not support this type of taxation and bitch about it constantly. Adding insult to injury, they lost (and continue to lose) this debate (see: the worst ever, man!) hence the reason why they froth at the mouth about men with guns forcing them to do things and whine about their freedom being inhibited. My message to you is the same one I give to lazy teenagers:
Get off your ass and do something about it.
Your vote and, more importantly, the time you invest in support of a candidate with your views and getting like minded individuals to vote with you, means that you can change the situation so that no one is forcing you to do anything. By sitting on your ass, the majority ruled and you lost so I guess you'll have to lump it. The history of this country is filled with examples of people that worked hard to change the way things were done if they didn't like the status quo. They pulled themselves up by the bootstraps (hee hee:)) and put people in office that would govern differently.
This is what we have seen in the last couple of years with the Tea Party. I'm certain that anyone who complains about taxes can work with these groups locally to change how the system works. You may end up not getting enough support but, hey, that's how our country works. If you're not happy with it, you are always welcome to leave. Or redouble your efforts.
Rather than wasting your time arguing with me on this site, devote time to ending men with guns coming to your house and forcing you to fork over the fruits of your labors. Democrats have done it throughout history. They passed Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. It wasn't easy but they used their power of voting to elect people who would pass these laws. Don't be a lazy teenager who gripes about the rules from the comfort of your parent's basement. In short,
GET TO WORK.
Monday, October 31, 2011
A Deficiency of Judgment
Since the real estate bubble burst, millions of people have lost their homes to foreclosure. Putting people through foreclosure is bad enough, but for some banks that just isn't enough.
After Ben and Lori Jensen lost their home in Idaho to foreclosure, the bank sued them for $140,000. You would think that giving the house back to the bank should settle the score. After all, the bank agreed that the house was worth that much by issuing the loan. If the bank didn't think it was worth that much, it should have never issued the loan. Right? As long as the house is in the same condition that it was in when the buyer bought it, giving the bank the house should be the end of it. Right? The bank knew it was taking a risk when it gave the loan, that's why banks get interest. Right?
Except in most states foreclosure isn't the end of the story. Banks can sue you for the amount they lost if the sale price is less than the loan. This is called a deficiency judgment. After they get your house, the banks can garnishee your wages go after your other stuff.
In normal circumstances this would not be unreasonable. If someone buys a house, trashes it and skips out on the loan, the bank should have every right to go after them. But the real estate bubble was not normal. By issuing loans to just about everyone regardless of ability to pay, banks either intentionally or unintentionally inflated the price of housing. Many people, especially in Florida and Nevada, were the victims of house flippers who sold houses back and forth between straw buyers to jack up the value, and then sold it to a sucker at some crazy price.
There's no question that banks should have detected these kinds of scams, but they were too busy raking in closing fees and selling the loans to mortgage bundlers. If the banks had done their due diligence on the thousands of scams, the excess demand in the market would have been eliminated and prevented the bubble from getting so totally out of control. Reducing demand by even a few percent when an economic system is running at full capacity can stop inflation cold.
The question is, why are banks bothering to go after people who lost their homes? Most of these people don't have any money: that's why they lost their homes in the first place. Are the banks just getting their jollies by forcing these people into bankruptcy?
Nope, they're trying to turn their deficiency judgments into a profit center. According to Terri Pickens, a private practice attorney in Boise, lenders are selling deficiency claims. "I do know some private investors who are coming in and purchasing up bank loan packages and have been paying literally pennies on the dollar; just sitting on the paper, waiting for the right time to collect on it."
This can be as long as 20 years in some states. That means that if you've lost your house to foreclosure, some collection agency could jump out of the shadows in 10 or 15 years and grab your next house, or your car, or your child's college education fund.
But despite the scary sounding numbers, some people do manage to come to some kind of reasonable agreement:
Which begs the question: how much would the bank would have gotten if they had renegotiated the loan with the Jensens instead of foreclosing?
At this point it seems pretty obvious that everyone -- banks, homeowners, the construction industry, and the economy in general -- would have been far better off if the banks had all just renegotiated all those loans down to reasonable values three years ago.
Yeah, everyone would have taken a minor hit, and some freeloaders would have gotten off. But now everyone is suffering. Oh, except for all those Wall Street bankers who are still pulling down those big bonuses for sticking it to the Jensens and the millions of other people just like them.
So why are people still arguing against Obama's mortgage refinance program, and why are banks stubbornly refusing to make deals with people who are stretched to the breaking point? Call it a deficiency of judgment.
After Ben and Lori Jensen lost their home in Idaho to foreclosure, the bank sued them for $140,000. You would think that giving the house back to the bank should settle the score. After all, the bank agreed that the house was worth that much by issuing the loan. If the bank didn't think it was worth that much, it should have never issued the loan. Right? As long as the house is in the same condition that it was in when the buyer bought it, giving the bank the house should be the end of it. Right? The bank knew it was taking a risk when it gave the loan, that's why banks get interest. Right?
Except in most states foreclosure isn't the end of the story. Banks can sue you for the amount they lost if the sale price is less than the loan. This is called a deficiency judgment. After they get your house, the banks can garnishee your wages go after your other stuff.
In normal circumstances this would not be unreasonable. If someone buys a house, trashes it and skips out on the loan, the bank should have every right to go after them. But the real estate bubble was not normal. By issuing loans to just about everyone regardless of ability to pay, banks either intentionally or unintentionally inflated the price of housing. Many people, especially in Florida and Nevada, were the victims of house flippers who sold houses back and forth between straw buyers to jack up the value, and then sold it to a sucker at some crazy price.
There's no question that banks should have detected these kinds of scams, but they were too busy raking in closing fees and selling the loans to mortgage bundlers. If the banks had done their due diligence on the thousands of scams, the excess demand in the market would have been eliminated and prevented the bubble from getting so totally out of control. Reducing demand by even a few percent when an economic system is running at full capacity can stop inflation cold.
The question is, why are banks bothering to go after people who lost their homes? Most of these people don't have any money: that's why they lost their homes in the first place. Are the banks just getting their jollies by forcing these people into bankruptcy?
Nope, they're trying to turn their deficiency judgments into a profit center. According to Terri Pickens, a private practice attorney in Boise, lenders are selling deficiency claims. "I do know some private investors who are coming in and purchasing up bank loan packages and have been paying literally pennies on the dollar; just sitting on the paper, waiting for the right time to collect on it."
This can be as long as 20 years in some states. That means that if you've lost your house to foreclosure, some collection agency could jump out of the shadows in 10 or 15 years and grab your next house, or your car, or your child's college education fund.
But despite the scary sounding numbers, some people do manage to come to some kind of reasonable agreement:
In the Jensens' case, their attorney was able to work out a settlement. They turned over their savings and agreed to pay $75 each month for three years. They say it doesn't make sense to them that the bank went through so much effort to recover a total of about $8,000, prolonging the nightmare of their foreclosure.That means the bank got less than 6% of the $140,000 they originally sued the Jensens for. But if you figure the amount of money they spent on lawyers and filing fees, it's hard to see how the bank could have broken even.
Which begs the question: how much would the bank would have gotten if they had renegotiated the loan with the Jensens instead of foreclosing?
At this point it seems pretty obvious that everyone -- banks, homeowners, the construction industry, and the economy in general -- would have been far better off if the banks had all just renegotiated all those loans down to reasonable values three years ago.
Yeah, everyone would have taken a minor hit, and some freeloaders would have gotten off. But now everyone is suffering. Oh, except for all those Wall Street bankers who are still pulling down those big bonuses for sticking it to the Jensens and the millions of other people just like them.
So why are people still arguing against Obama's mortgage refinance program, and why are banks stubbornly refusing to make deals with people who are stretched to the breaking point? Call it a deficiency of judgment.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these...
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Meet the 99 Percent (Part 1 of Many)
Now that the Occupy Wall Street is getting national attention and support from a substantial number of Americans, it's time for the douche bag propaganda machine to go to work. The 99 percenters are violent drug dealing fornicators bent on redistributing income and creating a socialist regime that will send us all to reeducation camps.
In reality, they are this.
ATLANTA
Oliver Beinlich, 29 | Unemployed
"There are a lot of issues in this country that need to be addressed. This is one way of voicing our concerns - there are many interests represented here, but I think the overarching message here is that we want to get our country back from the overwhelming power that corporations have."
Far more than they should, Oliver.
In reality, they are this.
ATLANTA
Oliver Beinlich, 29 | Unemployed
"There are a lot of issues in this country that need to be addressed. This is one way of voicing our concerns - there are many interests represented here, but I think the overarching message here is that we want to get our country back from the overwhelming power that corporations have."
Far more than they should, Oliver.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Well, Now We Know
It's always been a mystery how Mitt Romney can be so popular when no one actually likes him. Well, now we know why. He's buying them all off, at least in New Hampshire:
In September 2010, Mitt Romney invited all of the Republican candidates for the New Hampshire Senate to lunch in a conference room in Concord. He thanked them for running for office, then gave each of them a $1,000 check made out to their campaigns. “He did it in a very personal manner. It wasn’t an impersonal, get-the-check-in-the-mail type of thing,” recalls Jim Rausch, one of the candidates. “I appreciated it.”Will this make any difference to the voters? It's hard to say. But people generally like their own representatives, even when they hate legislatures and Congress in general. When they give Romney a personal endorsement paid for by Romney's contributions to their campaigns will it get their constituents to vote for Romney?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Most Excellent Quote
Conservatives always love to quote H.L. Mencken yet, given their penchant towards simplicity, I doubt they would like this one.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
No shit. I think the Democrats should use this in 2012 in simply (:)) describing the GOP platform.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
No shit. I think the Democrats should use this in 2012 in simply (:)) describing the GOP platform.
Good News and Bad News
Today brings a mixed bag of news, good and bad.
The good news is that the economy grew at a rate of 2.5 percent in the third quarter. This quarter of growth marks the ninth straight quarter of growth since July of 2009 when the president's policies began to take serious effect. The main reason for this growth is consumer spending and confidence which may give us an indicator that things are getting better.
The other reason cited made me laugh out loud.
A measure of business investment plans rose in September for the second straight month and by the most in six months, according to a government report Wednesday on orders for longer-lasting manufactured goods.
Wait...what? I thought there was all this uncertainty. Ah well, folks who were saying this will probably admit they were wrong and just be happy, right? :)
I'm happy to be somewhat wrong about consumer spending. I say "somewhat" because my initial glee at seeing that consumer spending was up was tampered by this:
Economists believe that growth in consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity, will be restrained until incomes start growing at healthier levels, which is unlikely until hiring picks up.
This brings us to the bad news. The CBO just released a report titled, "TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME BETWEEN 1979 AND 2007." It is yet another example of the detrimental inequality in this country. Here are some of the bullet points.
Somewhat surprisingly, income inequality stood out for the strength and robustness of its relationship with the duration of growth spells: a 10 percentile decrease in inequality (represented by a change in the Gini coefficient from 40 to 37) increases the expected length of a growth spell by 50 percent.
My enormous frustration lies in the fact that as soon as something like this is pointed out, screams of "Socialism!" are usually not far behind. This, from the very same people who claim to want to make more money and have more efficient economies. Defining the principle units of an economy (consumer spending being the main one) and working to improve those units functionality should be the goal towards which all of us strive, right?
We no longer have time to manage theological fantasies. If we want to fan the flames of this recent good news of growth, we need to tackle the issue of inequality. Now. Me being me thinks that this should fall to our elected representatives on a local, state and federal level. If you ask an Occupier, though, the government isn't going to help.
It's going to be up to us.
The good news is that the economy grew at a rate of 2.5 percent in the third quarter. This quarter of growth marks the ninth straight quarter of growth since July of 2009 when the president's policies began to take serious effect. The main reason for this growth is consumer spending and confidence which may give us an indicator that things are getting better.
The other reason cited made me laugh out loud.
A measure of business investment plans rose in September for the second straight month and by the most in six months, according to a government report Wednesday on orders for longer-lasting manufactured goods.
Wait...what? I thought there was all this uncertainty. Ah well, folks who were saying this will probably admit they were wrong and just be happy, right? :)
I'm happy to be somewhat wrong about consumer spending. I say "somewhat" because my initial glee at seeing that consumer spending was up was tampered by this:
Economists believe that growth in consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity, will be restrained until incomes start growing at healthier levels, which is unlikely until hiring picks up.
This brings us to the bad news. The CBO just released a report titled, "TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME BETWEEN 1979 AND 2007." It is yet another example of the detrimental inequality in this country. Here are some of the bullet points.
- 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
- 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
- Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
- 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
- The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
- Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
- All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.
Somewhat surprisingly, income inequality stood out for the strength and robustness of its relationship with the duration of growth spells: a 10 percentile decrease in inequality (represented by a change in the Gini coefficient from 40 to 37) increases the expected length of a growth spell by 50 percent.
My enormous frustration lies in the fact that as soon as something like this is pointed out, screams of "Socialism!" are usually not far behind. This, from the very same people who claim to want to make more money and have more efficient economies. Defining the principle units of an economy (consumer spending being the main one) and working to improve those units functionality should be the goal towards which all of us strive, right?
We no longer have time to manage theological fantasies. If we want to fan the flames of this recent good news of growth, we need to tackle the issue of inequality. Now. Me being me thinks that this should fall to our elected representatives on a local, state and federal level. If you ask an Occupier, though, the government isn't going to help.
It's going to be up to us.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
You Can't Squeeze Oil out of a Burning Turnip
Most of the Republican candidates for president are now criticizing President Obama for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. The gist of their argument is that by removing our troops from Iraq we will strengthen Iran's hand. Michele Bachmann even said:
To begin with, former President Bush is the one who signed the agreement with the Iraqis to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Obama has tried to modify the agreement to extend the stay of some American troops, but since our primary demand is that Americans who commit crimes in Iraq can't be charged under Iraqi law, the Iraqis won't agree. Could anyone blame them, given the history of Blackwater "contractors?"
The reason Iran is in a position to exert so much influence in Iraq in the first place is that President Bush invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein and his fellow Sunnis from power. These people were opposed to (and repressed) the majority Iraqi Shiites, who are now in power and are much more sympathetic to Iran, which is also a majority Shiite country.
When the allegations that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had huge stockpiles of WMDs were revealed to be false, Bush changed his tune about why we needed to invade. He said we needed to liberate Iraq, depose a dictator and establish a beachhead for democracy.
The people of Iraq have now legally elected a government run by Shiites, who are the majority. It is a democracy, however imperfect, and the United States doesn't invade democracies. Our troops are guests of one of our erstwhile allies, and we remain only at their request. And they're not asking us to stay.
When Bush and Cheney pushed the invasion of Iraq they claimed it would be a cakewalk and we would be welcomed as liberators. They made this claim because the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmed Chalabi, told them this would be so. It wasn't, and the war lasted years instead of weeks as Cheney and Rumsfeld promised. It now appears that Chalabi was actually an agent for the Iranians, something also alleged in a FOX News editorial from 2004, after the US had a falling out with Chalabi. It's now clear that Chalabi and the Iranians used Bush and Cheney's lust for revenge and oil to get rid of Saddam for them. Bush's invasion of Iraq is what actually strengthened Iran's hand. Bush has left Obama with empty coffers and a very poor poker hand.
Because the United States and the rest of the Middle East had long relied on Saddam and Iraq as a bulwark against Shiite Persian influence George H. W. Bush stopped short of invading Iraq after ejecting Saddam from Kuwait in the Gulf War. Allowing a dictator to stay on to fight our enemies is somewhat cynical and self-serving, it is true, but such is the calculus of Republican administrations. But then W and Cheney fell into the trap that HW and Cheney had avoided a decade earlier.
Iran and Iraq fought a long and bloody war in the 80s, during which the United States publicly backed Iraq, providing intelligence and weapons. In 1987 the USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles, killing 37 Americans. There were no repercussions for Saddam. The Reagan administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist sponsoring countries, allowing Saddam to obtain the chemical precursors for poison gas WMDs. These were ultimately used for nerve gas attacks against Iranian troops and Iraqi civilians in Halabja in 1988 (though at the time the Reagan administration tried to blame Iran). This crime against humanity was one of the charges that ultimately led to Saddam's execution. After the Gulf War we destroyed all those WMDs, scouring the country for years.
Earlier in the Iran-Iraq war, the Reagan administration sold TOW and Hawk missiles to Iran in exchange for Hezbollah releasing some hostages, using Israel as an intermediary. This was what Ron Paul was talking about when he shocked everyone in the last debate by saying that Reagan cut deals with terrorists. The Reagan administration then used that money to fund right-wing death squads in Central America. Oliver North went to jail because of this, but the higher-ups were all pardoned by George H. W. Bush while the case was still being investigated.
Finally, there have been credible allegations from a former National Security Council member and a Reagan White House staffer that Reagan had dealings with Iran as long ago as 1980, even before he was elected. To improve his chances of election, Reagan's minions worked to prevent the release of Americans taken hostage at the American embassy in Tehran so that Jimmy Carter would look bad. The Israelis sent equipment to Iran after William Casey (Reagan's eventual CIA director) cut a deal with the Iranians. Perhaps the most telling point was that Iran released the hostages on Reagan's inauguration day.
The Republicans have a long history of cutting deals with the Iranians or being duped by them. The current crop of Republican candidates -- with the exception of Ron Paul -- is either willfully ignorant of history, or lying about it. They have demonstrated that they would make exactly the same kinds of mistakes that Republicans have made on Iraq and Iran all the way back to the 1950s.
We've already spent a trillion dollars on Iraq. If we overstay our invitation to extract Bachmann's price from Iraq, the whole place will erupt in fire and war again. But you can't squeeze oil out of a burning turnip.
The United States needed a working democratic partnership in Iraq and we should have demanded that Iraq repay the full cost of liberating them given their rich oil revenues.So, we should just take their money if they don't think they should pay us for invading their country, destroying its infrastructure, sparking a civil war and killing a hundred thousand Iraqis?
To begin with, former President Bush is the one who signed the agreement with the Iraqis to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Obama has tried to modify the agreement to extend the stay of some American troops, but since our primary demand is that Americans who commit crimes in Iraq can't be charged under Iraqi law, the Iraqis won't agree. Could anyone blame them, given the history of Blackwater "contractors?"
The reason Iran is in a position to exert so much influence in Iraq in the first place is that President Bush invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein and his fellow Sunnis from power. These people were opposed to (and repressed) the majority Iraqi Shiites, who are now in power and are much more sympathetic to Iran, which is also a majority Shiite country.
When the allegations that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had huge stockpiles of WMDs were revealed to be false, Bush changed his tune about why we needed to invade. He said we needed to liberate Iraq, depose a dictator and establish a beachhead for democracy.
The people of Iraq have now legally elected a government run by Shiites, who are the majority. It is a democracy, however imperfect, and the United States doesn't invade democracies. Our troops are guests of one of our erstwhile allies, and we remain only at their request. And they're not asking us to stay.
When Bush and Cheney pushed the invasion of Iraq they claimed it would be a cakewalk and we would be welcomed as liberators. They made this claim because the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmed Chalabi, told them this would be so. It wasn't, and the war lasted years instead of weeks as Cheney and Rumsfeld promised. It now appears that Chalabi was actually an agent for the Iranians, something also alleged in a FOX News editorial from 2004, after the US had a falling out with Chalabi. It's now clear that Chalabi and the Iranians used Bush and Cheney's lust for revenge and oil to get rid of Saddam for them. Bush's invasion of Iraq is what actually strengthened Iran's hand. Bush has left Obama with empty coffers and a very poor poker hand.
Because the United States and the rest of the Middle East had long relied on Saddam and Iraq as a bulwark against Shiite Persian influence George H. W. Bush stopped short of invading Iraq after ejecting Saddam from Kuwait in the Gulf War. Allowing a dictator to stay on to fight our enemies is somewhat cynical and self-serving, it is true, but such is the calculus of Republican administrations. But then W and Cheney fell into the trap that HW and Cheney had avoided a decade earlier.
Iran and Iraq fought a long and bloody war in the 80s, during which the United States publicly backed Iraq, providing intelligence and weapons. In 1987 the USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles, killing 37 Americans. There were no repercussions for Saddam. The Reagan administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist sponsoring countries, allowing Saddam to obtain the chemical precursors for poison gas WMDs. These were ultimately used for nerve gas attacks against Iranian troops and Iraqi civilians in Halabja in 1988 (though at the time the Reagan administration tried to blame Iran). This crime against humanity was one of the charges that ultimately led to Saddam's execution. After the Gulf War we destroyed all those WMDs, scouring the country for years.
Earlier in the Iran-Iraq war, the Reagan administration sold TOW and Hawk missiles to Iran in exchange for Hezbollah releasing some hostages, using Israel as an intermediary. This was what Ron Paul was talking about when he shocked everyone in the last debate by saying that Reagan cut deals with terrorists. The Reagan administration then used that money to fund right-wing death squads in Central America. Oliver North went to jail because of this, but the higher-ups were all pardoned by George H. W. Bush while the case was still being investigated.
Finally, there have been credible allegations from a former National Security Council member and a Reagan White House staffer that Reagan had dealings with Iran as long ago as 1980, even before he was elected. To improve his chances of election, Reagan's minions worked to prevent the release of Americans taken hostage at the American embassy in Tehran so that Jimmy Carter would look bad. The Israelis sent equipment to Iran after William Casey (Reagan's eventual CIA director) cut a deal with the Iranians. Perhaps the most telling point was that Iran released the hostages on Reagan's inauguration day.
The Republicans have a long history of cutting deals with the Iranians or being duped by them. The current crop of Republican candidates -- with the exception of Ron Paul -- is either willfully ignorant of history, or lying about it. They have demonstrated that they would make exactly the same kinds of mistakes that Republicans have made on Iraq and Iran all the way back to the 1950s.
We've already spent a trillion dollars on Iraq. If we overstay our invitation to extract Bachmann's price from Iraq, the whole place will erupt in fire and war again. But you can't squeeze oil out of a burning turnip.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
William The Eloquent
Bill is really snarky and mean most of the time but he's quite eloquent here in describing exactly what most Americans now feel. His slides at the end of this piece ARE Americans. As Bill says (and I agree completely),
They don't hate capitalism. They hate what's been done to it.
Me too, Bill. Me too.
They don't hate capitalism. They hate what's been done to it.
Me too, Bill. Me too.
The Cheese is Slipping
The right seems to have an extra layer of froth on their mouth these days and I think I know why. Take a look at this poll. Here are some of the questions and responses.
Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?
VERY FAVORABLE 25%
SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%
SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%
VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%
DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%
That's over half with a favorable view and less than a quarter with an unfavorable view. But here are the real interesting results.
Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
A. WALL STREET AND ITS LOBBYISTS HAVE TOO MUCH INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)
AGREE 86%
DISAGREE 11%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 4%
Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
B. THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IN THE UNITED STATES HAS GROWN TOO LARGE
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)
AGREE 79%
DISAGREE 17%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 3%
Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
C. EXECUTIVES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN IN 2008 SHOULD BE PROSECUTED
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)
AGREE 71%
DISAGREE 23%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 6%
Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
D. THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)
AGREE 68%
DISAGREE 28%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 4%
Overwhelming majorities with all of these questions. What that tells me is the OWS movement is resonating with the majority of the public. Of course, this was the inevitable outcome because they are addressing the actual problem. People seem to be succumbing less to fear and anger while pursuing the real perpetrators of our economic woes. It's about time. It's also inevitable that the Tea Party message would erode with people. It worked in an off election year when the base cranked up their turnout and most Americans were absorbed in their daily lives. But now, with a presidential election a year away? Not so much. They simply don't have the numbers to go up against this. Thus, the desperate scramble to paint the occupiers as hippes/communists/fascists or whatever. Remember Alinksy's words in 1972?
The middle class actually feels more defeated and lost today on a wide range of issues than the poor do. And this creates a situation that's supercharged with both opportunity and danger. There's a second revolution seething beneath the surface of middle-class America -- the revolution of a bewildered, frightened and as-yet-inarticulate group of desperate people groping for alternatives -- for hope.
Their fears and their frustrations over their impotence can turn into political paranoia and demonize them, driving them to the right, making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday. The right would give them scapegoats for their misery -- blacks, hippies, Communists -- and if it wins, this country will become the first totalitarian state with a national anthem celebrating "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
We may be seeing the beginning of the shift away from that now in Zuccotti Park. This is why my comments section is becoming Bircher on Lysergic acid diethylamide. Expect it to get worse.
Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?
VERY FAVORABLE 25%
SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%
SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%
VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%
DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%
That's over half with a favorable view and less than a quarter with an unfavorable view. But here are the real interesting results.
Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
A. WALL STREET AND ITS LOBBYISTS HAVE TOO MUCH INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)
AGREE 86%
DISAGREE 11%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 4%
Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
B. THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IN THE UNITED STATES HAS GROWN TOO LARGE
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)
AGREE 79%
DISAGREE 17%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 3%
Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
C. EXECUTIVES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN IN 2008 SHOULD BE PROSECUTED
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)
AGREE 71%
DISAGREE 23%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 6%
Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
D. THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)
AGREE 68%
DISAGREE 28%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 4%
Overwhelming majorities with all of these questions. What that tells me is the OWS movement is resonating with the majority of the public. Of course, this was the inevitable outcome because they are addressing the actual problem. People seem to be succumbing less to fear and anger while pursuing the real perpetrators of our economic woes. It's about time. It's also inevitable that the Tea Party message would erode with people. It worked in an off election year when the base cranked up their turnout and most Americans were absorbed in their daily lives. But now, with a presidential election a year away? Not so much. They simply don't have the numbers to go up against this. Thus, the desperate scramble to paint the occupiers as hippes/communists/fascists or whatever. Remember Alinksy's words in 1972?
The middle class actually feels more defeated and lost today on a wide range of issues than the poor do. And this creates a situation that's supercharged with both opportunity and danger. There's a second revolution seething beneath the surface of middle-class America -- the revolution of a bewildered, frightened and as-yet-inarticulate group of desperate people groping for alternatives -- for hope.
Their fears and their frustrations over their impotence can turn into political paranoia and demonize them, driving them to the right, making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday. The right would give them scapegoats for their misery -- blacks, hippies, Communists -- and if it wins, this country will become the first totalitarian state with a national anthem celebrating "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
We may be seeing the beginning of the shift away from that now in Zuccotti Park. This is why my comments section is becoming Bircher on Lysergic acid diethylamide. Expect it to get worse.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Koch-Funded Researcher No Longer Climate Skeptic
Two years ago Richard Muller was a climate skeptic. He began a study, funded by the Koch brothers, to examine temperature data in a new way. The study is now complete, and Muller is no longer skeptical: he believes the the earth is warming as a result of human activity, pretty much exactly as other climate scientists have said it has.
Muller explains the reasons for his original skepticism in an article in the Wall Street Journal. Basically, he didn't feel that the data were of sufficiently high quality to support the kind of statements that climate scientists had been making about global warming. He thought the accuracy of the weather stations and their locations were not giving an accurate picture of temperature changes. Many weather stations had once been in rural areas, which had become urban areas. Cities retain more heat because they are paved with asphalt, have concrete buildings and lack trees (the "heat island" effect). He felt there was too much bad data, and didn't think the climate scientists had taken enough precautions to make sure that bad data didn't give the wrong conclusions.
Muller's new analysis, which hasn't yet been published in peer-reviewed journals, uses different statistical techniques to correct for errors he felt existed in previous studies. And he comes up with almost exactly the same results as his predecessors did, leading him to conclude that they had in fact taken the necessary steps to ensure the accuracy of their results.
Will this study change anyone's mind? That's highly doubtful. Muller never questioned the validity of the physics behind the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, the mechanism causing anthropogenic climate change. He doubted the effect was real because many of the weather stations had margins of error greater than the amount of warming measured. Also, about a third of stations measured temperature decreases, while two-thirds measured increases.
That's completely in line with climate change predictions, because the theory predicts shifts in temperature in both directions. Some areas will dry out and get hotter, while other areas will get socked with more rain and snow and get cooler. But it's a possible indication of a huge problem with the theory if the data isn't accurate. Basically, if the area drying out and heating up is larger than the area getting wetter and cooler, there is net global warming. Muller's study finds that to be the case.
Human-caused global warming is no longer a scientific issue -- it's settled science. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up about 0.5% every year because 7 billion people are burning billions of tons of coal, gas and oil, and deforesting huge swaths of six continents. But the right has made climate change into a political wedge, mostly because acknowledging its truth would mean significant costs for the moneybags that fund the Republican Party.
In 20 or 30 years Florida's coast will be seriously eroded by rising seas, Texas will be well on its way to becoming a fire-scorched desert, Arizona and Nevada will be a barren wasteland in the throes of a decades-long drought. On the plus side, we will probably have burned all the economically accessible oil and moved on to other sources of energy. I only hope that we manage to survive the drought, famine and wars that severe climate change has always caused.
Muller explains the reasons for his original skepticism in an article in the Wall Street Journal. Basically, he didn't feel that the data were of sufficiently high quality to support the kind of statements that climate scientists had been making about global warming. He thought the accuracy of the weather stations and their locations were not giving an accurate picture of temperature changes. Many weather stations had once been in rural areas, which had become urban areas. Cities retain more heat because they are paved with asphalt, have concrete buildings and lack trees (the "heat island" effect). He felt there was too much bad data, and didn't think the climate scientists had taken enough precautions to make sure that bad data didn't give the wrong conclusions.
Muller's new analysis, which hasn't yet been published in peer-reviewed journals, uses different statistical techniques to correct for errors he felt existed in previous studies. And he comes up with almost exactly the same results as his predecessors did, leading him to conclude that they had in fact taken the necessary steps to ensure the accuracy of their results.
Will this study change anyone's mind? That's highly doubtful. Muller never questioned the validity of the physics behind the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, the mechanism causing anthropogenic climate change. He doubted the effect was real because many of the weather stations had margins of error greater than the amount of warming measured. Also, about a third of stations measured temperature decreases, while two-thirds measured increases.
That's completely in line with climate change predictions, because the theory predicts shifts in temperature in both directions. Some areas will dry out and get hotter, while other areas will get socked with more rain and snow and get cooler. But it's a possible indication of a huge problem with the theory if the data isn't accurate. Basically, if the area drying out and heating up is larger than the area getting wetter and cooler, there is net global warming. Muller's study finds that to be the case.
Human-caused global warming is no longer a scientific issue -- it's settled science. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up about 0.5% every year because 7 billion people are burning billions of tons of coal, gas and oil, and deforesting huge swaths of six continents. But the right has made climate change into a political wedge, mostly because acknowledging its truth would mean significant costs for the moneybags that fund the Republican Party.
In 20 or 30 years Florida's coast will be seriously eroded by rising seas, Texas will be well on its way to becoming a fire-scorched desert, Arizona and Nevada will be a barren wasteland in the throes of a decades-long drought. On the plus side, we will probably have burned all the economically accessible oil and moved on to other sources of energy. I only hope that we manage to survive the drought, famine and wars that severe climate change has always caused.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)