Reactionary Businessman

Making Ends Meet Via the IRS

2012-02-07T16:31:00.001-06:00

People are always getting confused when I tell them that a lot of my tax preparation clients aren’t taxpayers. Instead, I classify them as taxfilers. The distinction comes from the reality that about 47% of American households do not pay income tax. Not only do they not pay into the Federal government, but they actually draw money out of the IRS. These are households that don’t pay taxes, but they sure do file, because otherwise you miss out on all that free government money.

The amount of money is significant, particularly when considered as a percentage of annual income. If you have two children, and earn $12,000 in wage income (pretty close to a full time job at minimum wage), the Federal government will give you $7000, or just over a third of your annual income.

Then you plug in the value of food stamps. The formulas are a little complicated, but in our example the annual benefit is around $5500 for a three person family, and $7000 for a family of four.

Using the family of four gives us earned income of $12,000, and total income of $26,000. So if you ever wonder how people make ends meet on a minimum wage job, the answer is that the 53% of us who pay taxes are picking up the slack.

GE's Superbowl Ads

2012-02-06T13:59:00.002-06:00

Like a lot of other Americans, I watched the Superbowl last night. And like a lot of other Americans, I paid as much attention to the advertising as to the game.

Some of the ads were terrific, like the Doritos ads. I would rate some as a swing and a miss, like the Audi commercial featuring the vampires. Sure it was a cute concept, but if I'm going to spend over $35,000 buying an expensive imported sedan, I sure want more features than LED headlights. Sadly, no other selling point of the car was mentioned.

But the ads that had me scratching my head were the spots from General Electric. One was an ad featuring employees at a Schnectedy turbine factory talking about how they love their jobs. What was really weird about this ad is that 2/3's of the way through it morphs into a Budweiser ad.

The other GE ad was similar, featuring interior shots and voiceovers from employees of Appliance Park, where they build appliances. Mind you, this ad wasn't pushing GE appliances, it was pushing GE factories.

The two commercials totaled a minute and a half of running time, which means somebody at GE headquarters greenlighted spending $10.5 million of the shareholder's money on this boondoggle. I find this decision absolutely inexplicable. If you're selling beer, it makes a lot of sense to try and reach 100,000 million Americans at the same time. If you're selling power generation turbines, there has got to be a more cost efffective way to reach the 50 or 60 people who will be making that purchase this year than advertising on the Superbowl.

But really, these ads weren't even selling GE's products. They were selling the concept of General Electric itself. This kind of corporate image advertising belongs on the Sunday morning news shows, or maybe CNBC. But the Superbowl? I just don't get it.

For God's sake, next time but a dog into the commercial, okay.

What % Are You?

2012-02-03T08:23:00.002-06:00

Here is a wonderful toy from the New York Times website. It is an interactive tool that tells you how high (or low) on the income distribution your household income places you. What I particularly like is that you can drill down geographically. So first, you get national ratings. Then you can go down to the state level, and even into local income distribution.

I'm doing better than I would have thought from the state of my bank account.

Adventures in Taxland, Part I

2012-01-31T09:41:00.002-06:00

As a sideline, I do taxes for other people. It is hard to make much money, since it is only a part time seasonal gig, but I enjoy the work, and the stories are terrific. I plan to share some of those stories on this blog (with identities suitably masked), and this is the first from this season.

Since I started with my current company, I have always heard bad things said about our largest competitor. There are a number of players in the paid tax preparation market, ranging from CPAs to cash advance stores to sole practicianers who work out of their homes. But our competitive focus is on the large, multi-office chains. The biggest of these shall remain nameless, but their initials are JH.

I have always heard it said that "we don't do things like JH" or "those guys at JH don't care what they put on a tax return." If we were a bar, we would make cracks like "you can't find a clean glass in that place." I have always taken that trash talking with a grain of salt. After all, we're not over there every day; how do we know what they are doing? Still, running down the other guy is a good way to build morale in your shop.

But this week a woman came in asking us to review the work she had had done at JH. According to the woman, they had prepared and filed her tax return using her last pay stub from 2011. Once she had received her W-2, she realized that it did not agree with what she had filed, and she asked us to take another look.

IRS regulations say you are not supposed to file a tax return without the W-2 in hand. If a client comes into our office without one, we try and find one online, or failing that, we turn them away until they get that all important document from their employer. Clients don't care about this, of course. In their rush to get their hands on a tax refund, they will say or do anything to try and short circuit the process. But the paid preparer is supposed to care.

In this case, the pay stubs had not shown all of the earnings and withholding from the woman's job. Because her withholding was not all reported, it reduced her refund. Since she received both Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit, those were undercalculated as well. All told, not following the rules would have cost this woman hundreds of dollars in her refund.

To get the rest of her refund, the new client will have to file an amended return. The amendment will have to be mailed in, and she will have to wait a couple of months to receive the balance of her refund. Since my office will get paid for reworking her return and preparing the amendment, she will end up with less money then she would have gotten if she had come to us in the first place.

So maybe there is a difference in tax preparation services after all.

Mitt Romney's Tax Returns

2012-01-25T16:14:00.002-06:00

Mitt Romney really took a beating over his failure to release his tax returns before theSouth Carolina primary. What I think he should have said was this:

"The Republican nominee traditionally releases his tax returns after he is designated the nominee, typically in April. If I am my party's nominee, I will follow that tradition. My opponents in this primary want me to release my tax return information now. They claim it is that is so that I can be 'vetted' by they and the media.

The real reason they want that information is so they can attack me for having more money than they do. I can understand that, but I'm not going to indulge them. As President, my policies will not be about attacking the rich (like the current administration), or about blaming the poor (like some of my opponents in this primary). Instead, my administration will concentrate on policies that create an economic environment where everyone's talents will take them as far as they can go. Americans aren't focused on envy of those who have more--they want the chance to do better on their own, without handouts from the government.

Yes, I'm wealthy. But nobody gave that money to me. I earned it by helping build businesses that returned money to their investors. I think that the Democrats are the party of class warfare and income redistribution. Republicans are the party of opportunity. So I'm not going to open the door for my primary opponents to attack me in that fashion."

Of course, he didn't say anything of the kind. He waffled on the issue, and it cost him. Big time.

Liquidity Preference, Opportunity Costs, and Arbitrage: Home Mortgage Edition

2012-01-11T10:08:00.001-06:00

I was at a social outing last week, and during the conversation the subject turned to mortgages. The host averred his strong preference for not carrying a mortgage. “Just pay it off, and then you don’t have to worry about making that payment every month. Besides, I can’t stand paying all that interest every year.”

Now, most Americans do not have the wherewithal to pay off their mortgage 100%. Indeed, for most people paying off a car loan would be a stretch. But I could, and yet I continue to carry both a car loan and a home mortgage. So I thought I would write about why it can be a good idea to continue carrying debt, when you have enough assets to pay it off.

First and foremost, cash keeps your options open. Let’s say you have $100,000 in debt. Also suppose you have $100,000 in cash. You could extinguish all of your outstanding debt. But then, you would no longer have any cash on hand. You better hope the transmission in your car doesn’t go out, or the roof doesn’t leak, or any of a hundred possible contingencies does not occur. Because then you’ll wish you had held on to more of that cash.

The desire to keep cash on hand to cope with life’s curve balls is what finance professors call liquidity preference. Personal finance experts recommend you keep three to six months worth of cash on hand for just that reason. Okay, but going back to our hypothetical example, unless you’re a member of the 1%, you probably do not need $100,000 on hand to fund your lifestyle for six months, or even a year. Why not pay down the mortgage?

You give up the chance to do something better with the money, what economists call opportunity costs. Let’s run a more complicated version of our original scenario. This time we’ll start from the same place: a $100,000 mortgage and $100,000 in cash. Now we decide to hold $50,000 in cash for emergencies. We can use our remaining $50,000 in one of two ways. We can either pay off $50,000 of our mortgage, or we can pay $50,000 of Verizon stock. Verizon currently has a dividend yield of 5.15%, so our fifty grand would give income of $2575 a year. There is a little risk with holding the stock, but unless people stop making phone calls it is a pretty safe bet.

For the mortgage, assume a 15 year fixed rate mortgage at 3.5%. If you borrow $100,000, you will pay $3418 in interest the first year, and have dividend income of $2575. The net cost of the borrow and invest strategy is $843.

If you down debt and only have a $50,000 mortgage, you will pay $1709 interest the first year. Paying down debt will cost you $866 over the alternative strategy. Since the interest payments will drop each year of the mortgage, but the dividend payment should remain constant, the borrow and invest strategy will outperform the pay down debt strategy by a greater amount every year. By the fifth year, you will be $1152 ahead with the borrow and invest strategy.

Borrowing at a low interest rate and investing at a higher rate is an example of arbitrage, and it is one of the ways that the big boys on Wall Street earn their huge bonuses. They add a lot more zeroes to their numbers, of course.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t pay down debt, and there is something to the psychological lift you can get from not owing any money. But being debt free is not necessarily the best strategy for maximizing your financial well being.

The EEOC muddies the waters.

2012-01-02T15:03:00.001-06:00

The New Year opens with a classic example of regulatory overreach. The EEOC has issued an opinion letter questioning whether employers who require a high school diploma for job openings are not violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC’s reasoning is that a blanket requirement would discriminate against individuals who have a learning disability that prevents them getting a high school diploma, but who could learn to do the job in question with reasonable accommodations.

Frankly, although I have not yet heard of a potted plant graduating from high school, I suspect anyone with a pulse who showed up every day could. A for effort and all that. I just have to wonder how severe a learning disability has to be if you can go to school every day and still not complete the requirements for graduation. Based on my experience hiring high school graduates, the requirements for graduation certainly don’t include literacy.

Businesses don’t require high school diplomas because of the intellectual content of the job. It is more of a determinant of character than anything else. If you can’t make it through high school, you have to suspect problems like lack of focus, disrespect for authority, or sheer laziness. All characteristics that don’t exactly endear you to first line supervisors. Maybe over time those problems get resolved. After all, almost everybody eventually grows up. But if that is the case, you can always go back and get a GED.

Approximately 10% of Americans between the ages of 16 and 24 are classified as high school dropouts. Maybe some small percentage of that group has learning disabilities that prevent them from graduation, but don’t prevent them from being good employees. My own highly unscientific survey leads me to think the number is higher with advancing age. Given enough time a river will rub all the rough edges off all the stones in the streambed. But in the meantime employers should be allowed to impose filters on the applicant pool, to narrow the choice of candidates for a job offering. A high school diploma is one that has stood the tests of time and experience.

It’s not clear to me why the EEOC is inserting the government’s snout into private relationships like the hiring decision without presenting any evidence that a large pool of applicants is being discriminated against. Or, for that matter, telling employers what would constitute a reasonable accommodation.

Loewe's and Religious Discrimination

2011-12-15T09:21:00.001-06:00

There has been a minor kerfluffle regarding the giant home improvement retailer Loewe’s this past week.

There is a show called “All American Muslims” on TV. This show, centered on the large Muslim community in Dearborn, Michigan (also home to Ford Motor Company’s headquarters), is designed to show American Muslims assimilating into American culture. Something along the lines of “See, we’re not all terrorists. We’re just like everyone else. We just don’t serve bratwurst at our backyard barbeques. Or beer.” I have to admit I’ve never watched the program, but apparently Loewe’s was a major advertiser.

So Loewe’s was contacted by a Christian interest group called FFA. These guys felt that “All American Muslims” was actually Islamic propaganda, softening us up for the stealth jihad agenda of imposing Sharia law on the United States. FFA began organizing a boycott of Loewe’s.

In response to their threats, Loewe’s decided to pull their ads from the program. This decision got them in hot water with a bunch of other people. Crying out “Religious discrimination” a number of other commentators are calling for a boycott of Loewe’s.

Of course, Loewe’s did not pull their ads because of religious discrimination. If they were concerned about Islam, they never would have run the ads on the show in the first place. Loewe’s in neither pro Islam or pro Christianity. What Loewe’s is in favor of is DIY home improvement.

What Loewe’s is opposed to is the same thing every giant corporation is opposed to: getting their brand identity tied up into controversy. A little buzz about the show that gets people to tune in and be exposed to your advertising: good. A little buzz about your running your ads on that show: bad.

So now Loewe’s is trapped in a classic no win scenario. Continue to run the ads, and risk angering the hard Christian right. Pull the ads, and risk angering the ACLU types and the not insignificant Muslim-American community.

I don’t feel sorry for Loewe’s, though. Nor do I have a lot of sympathy for the FFA, the Muslim-American community, or the ACLU types. My sympathy is reserved for the low level media buyer who decided to place the ads on “All American Muslims” in the first place. Because that poor schlemiel is the guy who placed a multibillion dollar retailer right in the middle of a no win scenario. And somebody is going to have to pay for that mistake.

It’s a dreary, sad thing, losing your job in the middle of the holiday season.

Illegal Immigration: Forever Guilty?

2011-12-08T15:21:00.000-06:00

I recently read a story in the news about a Mexican woman who had been deported after living in the US for 21 years. Both her children were US citizens, and she had left them behind. The immigration laws had effectively broken up her family.

Obviously the woman was cherry picked to put current immigration law in the worst possible light. But it does make you think about the nature of the crime she had committed.

Most crimes are crimes of commission, as in committing a felony. You steal an old lady’s purse. You assault someone. You burn down a house. Other crimes are crimes of omission. For example, if you fail to file a tax return, you have broken the law.

Illegal immigration, on the other hand, is neither a crime of commission or of omission. The reason we deport illegal aliens is not because they have entered the country, but because they are in the country. The crime is being here. Illegal immigration is an ontological crime. The only other ontological crime I can think of is DUI. Even if you are driving under the speed limit and obeying all posted traffic signs, if you get stopped by the cops and blow a high level, it is off to the pokey you go.

With DUI though, eventually you sober up. You never stop being an illegal immigrant. Even if you hold down a job for decades, pay taxes, and own property. There is something about that situation that offends my sense of fair play.

Any talk of amnesty for illegal immigrants is a hot button issue, sure to start a fight. But maybe we shouldn’t be using the word “amnesty.” Maybe we should be talking about a statue of limitations instead.

And Then There Were None

2011-11-30T17:00:00.001-06:00

AMR, the parent company of American Airlines, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization yesterday. I’m pretty sure AA was the last major air carrier to do so, having been proceeded in bankruptcy court by Continental, USAir, United, Northwest, and Delta, along with lots of smaller airlines.

Interestingly, AMR still had billions of dollars left in the bank. Looking into the future, the management of the company felt that they were better served by filing now, rather than waiting another couple of years and filing for reorganization after running out of cash. This was a preemptive strike.

Although the shareholders got wiped out, they didn’t lose much, since the stock price is down about 90% in the last year. Management’s stock options are worthless, but they’ll be issued a bunch of new shares when the company emerges from the bankruptcy process. Passengers are okay, since the company has already announced they will continue to honor prepaid tickets and frequent flyer miles. The big loser in this process is going to be the employees.

When a company goes through Chapter 11 reorganization, contracts, particularly union contracts, can be renegotiated. And by renegotiated, I mean that the company can dump the pension plan, drop healthcare for retirees, and cut wages and benefits unilaterally, shoving the changes down their unions’ collective throats. We know that the company can do this, because that is pretty much what every other airline has done in bankruptcy.

After all their major competitors went through bankruptcy, American Airlines was stuck in the unenviable position as the airline with the highest costs. And since prices in a market are determined by the producer with the lowest costs, that explains why American lost money in 15 of the last 16 quarters.

American has been trying to wring concessions from their unions to avoid the step they took yesterday, but without much success. You cannot really blame the unions for being intransigent. Having to accept permanent downward mobility is a bitter pill to swallow. Now the concessions they would not agree to will be imposed on them, and maybe more to boot. After all, management will want to emerge from bankruptcy court as the new low cost provider.

Meanwhile, low cost carriers Jet Blue and Southwest continue to expand and prosper.

Penn State: What would you do?

2011-11-20T21:15:00.001-06:00

I've been following the unfolding mess at Penn State for the last couple of weeks. For anyone who hasn't watched the news, a grad jury investigation has handed down indictments after investigations that went on for months. A retired defensive coach, who was still active on the Penn State campus, was charged with 40 counts (40!) of child molestation, over a period going back at least 12 years. Also indicted were the school's athletic director and the VP for Finance and Administration, charged with lying to the grand jury about an incident that occurred in 2002.

In the second act of the drama, Penn State's legendary football coach, Joe Paterno, as well as the university president, were both fired. The trustees felt they had not done enough to push the investigation of the retired coach, Jerry Sandusky. In 2002 they were given specific and credible allegations that Sandusky had been caught having sex with a minor on campus. They called him in and told Sandusky that he was not to bring any more children onto the campus. That was it. No police investigation, no attempt to identify the minor.

The third act of the drama has just begun. Lawyers have been parachuting into Pennsylvania, ringing doorbells in the search for more victims. The taxpayers of Pennsylvania are going to be on the hook for a big settlement by the time this is all through.

One of the more inexplicable aspects of the story was that not once, but twice, individuals walked in on a middle aged man clearly having sex with a young boy. In both cases, they did nothing to intervene, but merely turned around and walked out.

In watercooler conversations about this situation, the conventional wisdom is "I would have done something. I would have gone in there and torn that guy off the kid." I'm guessing that most of us would do no such thing. Why do we think we would behave in a more heroically active fashion than the 28 year old grad student who walked in on Sandusky and his victim in 2002.

History is full of examples of people not taking an active stand on behalf of their morals. In 1964 Kitty Genovese was knifed to death on a public street. At least a dozen people heard her cries for help, and no one intervened. In the sixties, sociologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of studies where subjects administered what they thought were serious electrical shocks to others, solely because a man in a lab coat told them to. Recently, in China, a small child was struck by a car on a busy street. A number of people passed by in vehicles and on foot without stopping to help.

We all like to think we would act to help others, step in to right a wrong, even if there was some risk to ourselves. Sadly, the evidence indicates otherwise.

Another Inspirational Story from Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-09T15:08:00.003-06:00

Really, you can't make this stuff up.

This is the lead of an article in The Nation, about an artist participating in the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York:

A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows
program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school
in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a
disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an
MFA in his passion—puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he
emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren’t exactly in high
demand, he went looking for work at his old school.

One scarsely knows where to begin. What kind of elementary school has full time drama teachers? What exactly do they do? Put on the school pagent? I think this was the plot of an episode of Modern Family last year.

Apparently UConn offers a Master's program in puppetry. Who knew? Maybe the program was endowed by Jim Henson: the Kermit the Frog chair in puppetry studies, with the Miss Piggy fellowship available to selected students.

"puppeteers aren't exactly in high demand" Nah, really? Ya think?

But here's the $64 question: What kind of person borrows $35 grand to get an advanced degree in puppetry? I can understand having a passion for puppets. People have passions for all kinds of things. It's part of what makes the world such a varied and interesting place. I can even understand the impulse to try and make a living at it. The idea of making your avocation your vocation is deeply appealing.

But this guy quit a full time job in order to invest three years and $35,000 of somebody else's money in a pursuit so ludicris that it reads like the punchline to a joke. And now he is protesting because "the system" is unfair. It's guys like Joe who give the Occupy movement the high standing it currently enjoys among the employed.

The Christmas Economic Stimulus

2011-11-03T15:40:00.000-05:00

Keynesian economists argue that when the economy is not providing enough jobs, the problem is a lack of demand. If more consumers were clamoring for additional goods and services, businesses would hire workers to provide them. If borrowers are tapped out, either overloaded with debt or saving more because of uncertainty, they cannot increase spending.

Governments, however, can usually continue borrowing even if individuals cannot. When the economy is in recession, the government can run a deficit, and spend the money to pump up demand. Once demand is higher, businesses will hire more workers. With more money in their pockets, workers will spend more, creating even more demand. Once the consumer demand recovers, government can then drop the deficit spending, as aggregate demand will have recovered. Keynes likened it to priming a pump.

This is the economic theory behind the various government stimulus packages that we have seen in the last few years. President Obama’s job program proposal was another along these same lines. It did not get off the ground, due both to partisan politics and a legitimate concern that the Federal government is already carrying too much debt.

It occurs to me, however, that the private sector is about to undergo a burst of increased demand. It’s called the Christmas selling season.

Goods are moving from the warehouses onto store shelves in anticipation of Black Friday. Retailers are hiring additional staff to handle the expected surge in buyers. And the increase in demand is not just limited to presents. At my employer, we are already making deposits for the caterer and DJ at our annual Christmas party. Folks are booking airline flights as they plan their holiday travel.

Viewed as a temporary increase in demand, the holiday season fulfills the same function of a government stimulus package. But we all know what happens after the first of the year. Seasonal workers get laid off. The inevitable credit card bills arrive, causing December’s free spending consumers to retrench in January. Economic activity drops back down again as people tighten their belts.

So when the private sector does a stimulus package, the effects are short term in nature. I wonder why we think it will be longer lasting when the government does it?

Occupy Wall Street Continued

2011-10-25T10:03:00.001-05:00

The Occupy Wall Street movement has more legs than I originally gave them credit for. The protests have spread to an increasing number of cities, including a number of international sites. There are clearly a lot of people out there who both feel disenfranchised from the current economic system, and have too much time on their hands.

But I still don’t see any evidence of a coherent program of policy demands coming out of the protests. The op-ed writer Tina Depuy has put out a column that claims there is a demand: economic justice. In fact, she repeats the term “economic justice” five or six times in the course of the column. To me, trying to figure out what “economic justice” means is like looking at a Rorshach blot test. You can read anything into it that you want to see.

If you have $100,000 in student loans, maybe economic justice is having the debt written off by the bank. But if you are a stockholder in a bank, why should you write off those loans? Wouldn’t that make you poorer? What if you are a pension fund that has invested in student loans? Don’t you need the students to repay their loans so you can continue making payments to retirees who are depending on those checks? Writing off the debts of 20 somethings and sticking it to 70 somethings doesn’t seem very just to me.

How about the money paid to Wall Street bankers? You could consider it economically unjust that they are making such huge bonuses. But is bankers are going to have their incomes cut, shouldn’t we look at other highly paid individuals, like movie stars and athletes? Take the Yankee player A-Rod, for example. His salary alone is more than the total payroll of half the teams in Major League Baseball, yet the Yankees got eliminated early this year. Paying somebody that much for losing doesn’t seem very just to me.

Then there is joblessness. People need jobs! Of course, the last time I checked, the military was still recruiting. But the folks of OWS probably don’t want those jobs. They want the jobs they want.

Now, if you want to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, I could see how that could be a useful policy to advocate for. But I would bet that not one in a thousand of the OWS protestors world-wide could tell you what the original Glass-Steagall Act did, so somehow I doubt that is driving the train.

The problem with fuzzy concepts like “economic justice” is that they mean something different to almost everyone, which is like saying that they mean nothing at all.

Occupy Wall Street vs. Tea Party

2011-10-12T14:18:00.000-05:00

Much comparison has been made between the Occupy Wall Street protestors and the tea party movement. The commentary is that even as the tea partiers are a grassroots movement espousing a varied, but generally conservative agenda, so the OWS crew is the left wing equivalent. The laundry list of desired policies from the Occupiers runs the gamut, from calls to intensively regulate the capital markets, to a push for some sort of government jobs program that will put large numbers of the unemployed back to work.

But I see far more structural and philosophical distinctions than similarities between the tea party and OWS, even taking their policy differences into account.

The tea party protests were geographically far flung, and were most effective by working within the democratic system. At literally hundreds of town hall meetings, all across the country, citizens came forward to meet with their elected representatives and express displeasure over government’s increasing reach. The same groups that showed up to protest went on to push for candidates who believed in limited government, and helped get a number elected.

The Occupy Wall Street protests are (so far) an exclusively urban phenomena, and do not seem to be spreading beyond a handful of cities. New York, Washington, Boston, Seattle and Chicago are the one’s I have heard of. No Occupy San Diego, or Occupy Indianapolis has made the news yet.

Also, while both Occupiers and tea partiers are activated by a sense that the government is no longer working for their interests, on the tea party side the theme is generally for a smaller government, and particularly an opposition to tax increases. Of course, many tea partiers are drawing plenty of government benefits already. A more nuanced statement of their position would be that the government is just big enough. Any benefit cuts should come out of programs they don’t use. The real desire is to oppose tax increases.

In a hyper-partisan political environment, saying no to taxes seems to be a strategy that is winning.

The Occupiers want a bigger government, or at least a government that is just enough bigger to give them something. Taken collectively, there would be quite a smorgasbord of increased spending to make all of them happy. To pay for their increased benefits, they want somebody else to foot the bill.

When the Federal government is already running a 40% deficit, expansion doesn’t seem like a good idea, even if you do get to soak the rich to help.

So you’ve got one movement that is geographically diverse, is focused on a primary objective, and is meeting the lawmakers in their districts. You’ve got another movement that is geographically restricted, wants lawmakers to come to them, and has a laundry list of demands.

Advantage, tea party.

Occupy Wall Street?

2011-10-05T10:41:00.000-05:00

I confess I am absolutely mystified by the Occupy Wall Street protests. There doesn’t seem to be any coherent theme or agenda behind the protestors.

Are they advocating specific regulation in the financial industry? I certainly can’t tell that from the news coverage. Are they attempting to disrupt operations on Wall Street? If so, the organizers flunked out of protestor camp, because it is business as usual.

Now the labor unions are getting involved. Several unions have announced plans to join the Occupy Wall Street protests. The unions appear to be supporting the idea that union members should be getting higher wages and better benefits. What this has to do with credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations is anybody’s guess.

The most recent stunt was for some of the protestors to wear zombie makeup and pretend to be zombie corporate workers. I’m just not sure what that is supposed to symbolize.

Lots of questions, and not very many answers. I know why the protestors are getting on the news every day. Protests make for great television visuals. But if you cannot articulate what you stand for, don’t be surprised when you don’t get what you want.

Unless you want to be an extra for the TV show The Living Dead. Because the protestors are getting great training for that.

How Do You Lose $2 Billion, Part II

2011-09-22T16:51:00.000-05:00

News has continued to trickle out regarding the UBS rogue trader in London who lost $2 billion of the bank’s money. But not much news. It has dropped completely off the top stories on my Google news feed. There is plenty of speculation out there, however.

One piece of the story that has been out from the beginning is that the trader in question worked at the “Delta 1 trading desk” in UBS’s London office. This is a standard department in all of the big global investment banks. What these trading desks do is engage in trades for securities that are supposed to move up and down in lockstep. A change (or delta) in one stock of 1%, should be matched by a 1% change in other stocks. Of course, with any actively traded security, the correlation is never perfect, which opens up opportunities to make money.

The Delta 1 desk is supposed to engage in arbitrage, not speculation. Speculation involves swinging for the fences. Bigger risks, but correspondingly bigger rewards. Arbitrage, on the other hand, is about engaging in risk-free transactions that still provide a positive return.

Let’s say you are speculating on the price of wheat. Based on your analysis of global weather patterns, you think the harvest will be bad, and wheat prices will be higher a year from now. You can go into the futures markets and contract to buy (a long position) 10,000 bushels of wheat a year from now, with a price of $1.60 per bushel. A year from now, if you are right, the spot price of wheat goes up to $1.90 per bushel. But your contract says you can buy at $1.60. Your contract is now worth 1.90-1.60, 30 cents a bushel. But there is no guarantee. If the price of wheat actually falls, you can lose money. That’s speculation.

Now change the situation. Imagine that someone will sell you 10,000 bushels of wheat today for $1.50 per bushel. They’ll store it for a year for $200. Your cost of capital to buy the wheat is 5%. You buy the wheat, and then you go into the futures market and contract to sell (a short position) the wheat a year from now at the same $1.60 per bushel. Your costs for wheat, storage, and interest are $15000+200+750, for a total of $15950. A year from now you deliver your wheat and collect $16000. You make a small profit of $50. But by buying and selling simultaneously, you have eliminated any risk. The weather can be good, bad, or indifferent. You are insulated from movements in the spot price. That’s arbitrage.

What Delta 1 traders are supposed to be doing is arbitrage. The net total of your buy positions and the net total of your sell positions are always supposed to be close together. That way your bets are hedged. You can’t make much money on any individual trade, but if something unexpected happens, you won’t lose a lot of money either.

What UBS’s rogue trader was doing was faking one half of the equation. He was placing large speculative bets, and then falsifying the paperwork on the offsetting hedges. Eventually, someone noticed that things weren’t lining up properly, and he was caught.

But $2.3 billion is a lot of misalignment.

UBS Loses $2 Billion: Part I

2011-09-18T20:59:00.002-05:00

The financial world was rocked by a scandal last week. UBS, the giant Swiss bank, announced losses of over $2 billion in unauthorized trades. The losses were generated by one trader in their London office.

The obvious reaction is "Two billion dollars! How does one guy lose two billion dollars?"

We don't know yet, and the details will only trickle out over the next few weeks. Already this weekend, UBS has revealed that the trades that generated the losses occurred over a period of about three months, and that the total losses came to about $2.3 billion.

"Two point three billion dollars! How does one guy lose two point three billion dollars?"

We have now seen enough of these "rogue trader" cases to make a few predictions about the story that will emerge as the investigation continues.

1. It started out much smaller. These guys don't start out placing $2 billion bets in the giant global casino known as our modern capital markets. Far more likely is that he screwed up some trades, maybe from something as mundane as a keystroke error. "Sell a million euros at the preset price. At most I'll lose a million. Holy crap, how did that extra zero get in there!" You lose a big enough chunk of money, and you will get fired. So now the thought process runs "I can't tell my boss about losing $10 million; I'll get fired. And my swanky bachelor pad costs $10 grand a month in rent. I have to earn that money back."

2. Risk controls were defeated. In the giant global casino known as our modern capital markets, the senior management of the investment banks is aware that it might not be the best idea to hand company credit cards with no limit out to a bunch of testosterone fueled 25-30 year olds who are amped up on Red Bull. So instead, they give them cards with credit limits. Essentially, every bank has systems in place to measure how much the bank could potentially lose from each trader's positions. In every case of a "rogue trader" those systems have been circumvented. Part of the problem here is that the big money is made by trading, and coming up with newer, ever more exotic financials instruments. The small money is made by working in risk management. The best and the brightest aren't clamoring to work in the field.

3. The problem got much bigger quickly. Once you've lost a bunch of money, decided to try and make it back, and figured out how to make bigger and bigger trades without senior management catching on, you start doubling down on your trading positions. Trading positions are what ordinary people would call betting, but we don't work in the giant global casino known as our modern capital markets. Let's say you start by losing $10 million. You place another $10 million bet to get it back. Once you lose that, now you've got to make $20 million back. The losses can grow geometrically at this point. If you double down and lose it all every time, it only takes 8 trades to get to the level of losses experienced by UBS.

The rest of this story will eventually emerge. When it does, I'm going to try and put the details into plain English.

Unemployment: We're On Our Own

2011-09-08T13:43:00.000-05:00

The President is scheduled to make a major address on jobs and job creation this evening. He is going to unveil his plan for reducing the unemployment rate below the 9% level where it seems to be stuck. I plan to be doing something else during the speech, maintaining my near unbroken, bipartisan record of skipping presidential addresses.

President Obama will probably propose a bold new program of infrastructure rebuilding. This will be combined with tax credits for companies that hire new employees and maybe a request for money to retrain displaced workers. This will be combined with lines like “let’s get this country moving again.”

The problem is that almost none of what he proposes is going to work. Tax credits have been tried before, and failed miserably, during the Carter administration. A $500 credit, or even a $1000 credit, simply is not enough incentive to convince employers to add on employees they don’t need. Conversely, if you do need to hire someone, you are going to do it whether tax credits are available or not.

Retraining sounds like a good idea, but community colleges are set up to produce entry level employees with no experience. Taking a couple of classes for six months to a year will not lead to a new career.

As for a massive Federal jobs program, that is going to run into fiscal realities. The government is spending 40% more than it is taking in tax revenue. A bipartisan super committee of Congressmen and Senators is currently doing the planning for a major round of spending cuts.

Besides, what does an infrastructure rebuilding program really consist of? A bunch of work crews filling potholes and painting bridges. Does anybody really think that an unemployed office worker who’s a hundred pounds overweight is going to take a job on a road crew? Those positions would probably be filled by illegal immigrants with fake social security numbers.

Nope, a big jobs program is an idea that would be dead on arrival. All that’s left is a bunch of high sounding phrases about how the government is no going to abandon the people who need help in this crisis.

Now, it is easy for me to be blasé about the unemployment rate. After all, I still have a job. But it seems to me that the best thing the President can do about jobs in this country is tell the truth: we’re on our own. It is not the Federal government’s responsibility to provide jobs. Even if it was, deficit spending has reached its limit and beyond.

Anybody who is waiting for the Feds to ride in like the cavalry and create a bunch of jobs is going to be sorely disappointed. The first step to solving a problem is to admit that the problem exists. Everybody agrees that high unemployment is a problem. But the second step towards solving a problem is taking ownership of the problem. As long as we think it is the President’s, or Congress’s, or the Federal government problem to solve unemployment, people will not take whatever necessary steps to reinvent themselves and find work.

You see, it is up to us, to get this country moving again.

The Wisconsin Recall Elections

2011-08-10T22:01:00.002-05:00

The results are in from Wisconsin's recall elections. Of the six state senate seats contested, four of them remain in the hands of the Republicans who won them in the 2010 regular election. This is considered a victory for the Republicans, who retain control of the state senate.

The concerted effort to undo the results of the last election was sparked last spring. The newly Republican legislature joined forces with the Republican governor to roll back benefits and limit union rights on benefit negotiations for state employees, including teachers. These moves sparked a firestorm or criticism, including massive demonstrations from union members.

The remaining Democratic members of the state senate actually left the state in an attempt to prevent the legislation from passing by denying a quorum. People are criticizing the tea party conservatives in the US House for not negotiating, but at least they stayed in town. Deserting your post to prevent the majority from passing legislation is bad enough. But then some chucklehead had the bright idea "hey, let's try and undo the results of the election."

It's important to remember the difference between a pure democracy, which we don't have at the state and Federal levels, and a representative democracy, which is our form of government. In a pure democracy, the populace votes directly the issues of the day. Think of a ballot referendum as an example.

In a representative system, we pick representatives for a set period of time. After their term is up, we get to decide if we want to keep them, or throw the rascals out and bring in a fresh set of rascals. If you're in the party that is on the outs, you organize, you fund raise, and you get ready for the next election. But you wait your turn.

The recall effort was the worst kind of cynical politics. The senators selected were not guilty of malfeasance. With one exception, they were not involved in scandal, and had won their elections fair and square. They were guilty of voting for the party platform they had campaigned for, and of having won by narrow margins in their districts.

The voters of Wisconsin wisely rejected this attempt at an end run around the electoral process. In a little over a year, the Democrats will get another, more legitimate chance to swing the pendulum back in their direction.

The Debt Ceiling: The Aftermath

2011-08-04T10:54:00.000-05:00

Proving that when the chips are down, our elected representatives can craft a deal that nobody likes, the debt ceiling was successfully raised before the government ran out of cash. So, unless you’re working for the FAA, let the good times roll.

I have been stunned by the outpouring of scorn that has been heaped upon tea party Republican freshman in the House of Representatives. One op-ed piece in the New York Times actually compared them to terrorists. They have been called irresponsible for creating a crisis in Washington. How dare they threaten the full faith and credit of the US? The insolent nerve, to demand spending cuts and refuse to increase taxes! Didn’t they understand how bad a default would be? If government spending had forced to be reduced by 40% overnight, that would have been like running into a brick wall!

The attitude of the tea partiers seems to have been that it was better to run into the brick wall with $14 trillion in debt than wait ten years and run into the brick wall with $28 trillion in debt. And by run into the brick wall I mean have the Chinese government impose austerity plans on us in exchange for continued access to credit, ala the IMF and Greece. Created crisis? Certainly. Crisis that needed to be created? Maybe.

Looking at the deal that finally got done, I’m not entirely sure that it would not have been better to hit the wall now. At least that would have forced some tough choices. As it is, the deal that got signed does nothing to address entitlements and transfer payments. And the increase in the debt limit pushes the issue down the road two years, until after the next election. In two years we are going to go through all of this all over again. Only next time, the national debt will be $17 trillion, not $14.3 trillion.

So after all the Sturm and Drang, what we ended up with is pretty much business as usual. So much for hope and change.

Debt Ceiling Talks: The Scale of the Problem

2011-07-27T11:44:00.002-05:00

We are less than a week away from hitting the debt ceiling, and there does not appear to be a bargain in sight. If both Houses of Congress and the White House do not get their act together, the US government will be limited in spending only what it receives in tax revenue. The result will be an immediate 40% cut in Federal spending.

I don’t think there has been enough said about that 40%. Congress has authorized spending for almost twice as much as they take in. Twice as much. The idea that we are going to close that gap, either by shutting down the national parks, NPR, and the State Department, as the right wishes, or by making the people in the top 10% of incomes pay another 4% of their income in taxes, as the left envisions, is ludicrous.

To close the gap on the revenue side would require the government to increase taxes by 67%. Since the top 5% of income earners pay 59% of total income tax, if you wanted to close the gap solely from that group, their taxes would have to double to about a 80% marginal rate. We would be telling people “if household income exceeds $200,000, 80 cents out of every extra dollar you earn is going to be taken away. If we did that, who would be left to contribute to politician’s reelection campaigns?

On the expense side of the equation, you would have to make huge cuts in the defense budget, along with eliminating all other discretionary spending to close the gap. No Federal prisons. No air travel, because no air traffic controllers. No repairs to the Interstate system. Nada.

Or, you could stop paying Medicare. Medicare accounts for about 40% of current Federal spending. Interestingly, most of the commentators I have been reading have assumed that Medicare spending would be a priority in the event the debt ceiling is reached, right after interest payments on the debt. But that topic is the subject of another post.

Another interesting thing about the current crisis is that it is completely made up. Created out of whole cloth. The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times in the last 50 years. It is simply a matter of Congress giving the Treasury Department permission to go out and dig the hole a little deeper. Congress could come back from lunch this afternoon and raise the debt ceiling on a voice vote. It is, as they say, merely a stroke of the pen.

The Republicans started the crisis going by declaring that the debt limit wasn’t going to go any higher until a deal was reached on spending cuts. Big spending cuts. The President then doubled down by threatening to veto any increase in the debt ceiling that didn’t include a “Grand Bargain” on spending cuts and revenue increases. The revenue increases to start right away, the spending cuts to take place sometime in the future. Preferably after the next election, when he is settling into his second term. Both sides think they can win the political game by being intransigent, and here we are.

At this point, there is not enough time left to put together major legislation on either spending cuts or revenue increases. This means that the most likely scenario is that at the eleventh hour both sides will toss in the towel and agree to increase the debt ceiling enough to get through the rest of this year, and part of next.

That only takes a stroke of the pen.

The Debt Ceiling: What happens if we hit?

2011-07-19T15:46:00.000-05:00

We’re getting closer to our self imposed limit on the national credit card. The current debt limit is around $14 trillion. According to pronouncements from the Treasury, the government is spending money so fast that we are going to hit that limit on August 2, about two weeks away. As things stand now, neither side of the negotiations on the budget is giving way.

Once we lose the ability to continue tacking on more debt to the debt we already have, the US will default on its debt for the first time in the history of the country. The financial Apocalypse will have arrived.

Sort of. Because many people in this country have hit their individual debt limits. It’s called getting your credit card refused, or being denied for refinancing. But for a lot of those individuals, maybe most of them, being unable to dig the hole deeper doesn’t in and of itself require a default.

After all, it’s not as if the government is not still taking in tax revenues. My employer will continue tax withholding. Self employed individuals will continue making quarterly estimated tax payments. There isn’t going to be a complete shutdown of the Federal government. What there will be is a partial shutdown of the Federal government and Federal transfer payments.

One thing for sure is that the top priority for the money coming in is to continue making interest payments on existing government bonds. After all, if you stop making interest payments, the lenders won’t be too keen on loaning you more money after the debt ceiling problem is straightened out. Actually, the government will continue to sell bonds even without an increase in the debt ceiling. The money taken in from those bond sales will be used to pay off older bonds that are coming due. So first demand on the revenue will be to the bondholders.

Now, if you are making interest payments and paying off maturing bonds, I’m not even sure you can call it a default at all.

On the other hand, the Federal government is currently spending 40% more than it is taking in. Hitting the debt ceiling may not cause a default, but the immediate cuts required would entail huge disruptions to the economy. Either way, I’m not anxious to try it.

Migrant Labor as Skilled Labor

2011-07-07T20:27:00.001-05:00

The inestimable Megan McArdle has a post on her blog over at The Atlantic where she argues that the work performed by illegal migrant workers requires more skill than we Anglos normally give credit for. Specifically, she writes about her experience at a pick-your-own raspberry farm. She noticed that a lot of the fruit was either missed or wasted, combined that with the aches and pains she felt for days afterward, and voila, picking fruit takes more skill than you realize.

Ordinarily I see Megan's point in everything she writes, and I agree with almost all of it. In this case, however, I believe the pain in her hamstrings has influenced her judgment. By her own admission, purple raspberries are an obscure, not widely grown fruit, which is more difficult to harvest than other varieties. That's probably why so few farmers grow them.

Even so, she lists only five rules for picking the fruit:

1. Get low to the ground.

2. Look under the leaves.

3. Go around to the back side of the bush.

4. A GO condition for the color--it must be purpler than some value of red, or it will be unripe.

5. A NOGO condition for gloss--the fruit cannot be too matte, or dull colored, because that means it is overripe and will mold.

By working with a skilled trainer, a sufficiently motivated trainee could learn these distinctions within about 500 iterations of the task. "That one is too dull. That one is too red. You forgot to look under all the leaves." That is a single basket of fruit. By sufficiently motivated I mean that is you cannot learn to get all of the acceptable fruit, and only the acceptable fruit off a bush, within a couple of hours, we fire you and you go back to unemployment. Once these quality control tasks are learned, the remainder of the job consists of physical conditioning and coming up to standard speed.

One week, or at most two, would be sufficient to master this job. Maybe a couple more weeks for other crops. This means the first farmer to hire an inexperienced picker suffers the losses during the learning curve, but the other farmers in the picking season will benefit thereby.

In my factory, it takes about a month to get signed off at the entry level machine operator position. With the current level of unemployment in our area, we are having no problem filling positions at a starting rate of $8/hour.

All labor is honorable, and some jobs are a lot tougher than others, but picking fruit is still unskilled labor.

Bristol Palin: Fortune's Child

2011-06-29T14:50:00.000-05:00

I may have to revise my opinion of Bristol Palin.

My initial impression of Sarah Palin’s oldest daughter was that she is a thirty watt bulb. There’s a spark, but it is pretty dim. After all, she let herself get knocked up by Levi Johnston, who by all appearances and public statements is a pretty reprehensible character. After having her baby, she didn’t seem to be in any hurry to get back to school and continue her education past high school. I figured Bristol for a loser, another unwed mother who is supported by her parents.

But the events of the last year have made me reconsider.

First, there was the US magazine cover story, where she and Levi announced they were back together and getting engaged. Okay, the engagement lasted about three weeks, right up until Levi Johnston realized she meant it when she told him there would be no premarital sex. The public humiliation did nothing to enhance Bristol’s reputation as a sharp operator. But her share of the fee paid by US magazine for the scoop was $125,000. Not bad for a day’s work.

Meanwhile, she was the national spokesperson for an organization devoted to preventing teen pregnancy. According to USA Today, her salary for that gig was $209,000 per year. That is enough to put her compensation into the top 10% of households in the US.

Then there was “Dancing with the Stars.” Now, she was certainly not the worst dancer that season, but I watched some episodes of the show, and she was nowhere near the best. But her mother’s fan base kept her in the running, right up until the final three couples. As I understand the compensation structure of the show, you get $10,000 for the first episode, $20,000 for the second, and so on. The payout escalates the longer you survive the elimination. By my estimate, by making it to finals, Bristol grossed about $2 million that season.

Now she has written her memoir. The sum total of her life experience to date has been: getting pregnant by Levi Johnston, backstage observer on a failed political campaign, and a stint on DWTS. And she got a book deal out of it. Can you spell P U B L I S H E R’ S A D V A N C E?

At this point the lifetime earnings of this 21 year old are somewhere north of mine, and I’ve been working as a college educated professional for 30 years. You can’t argue with success, and this girl has had a ton of it in the last three years. So like I said, I’m going to have to revise my opinion of her talents upward significantly.

But damn, who’s her agent?

The Greek Crisis

2011-06-17T09:29:00.000-05:00

The Greek capitol of Athens has been rocked by massive protests and civil unrest this week. The issue that has enraged the populace is the consideration by the Greek Parliament of a new round of tax raises and spending cuts. These “austerity measures” are the conditions placed on Greece by the IMF and the European Community Bank, in exchange for a second cash infusion that will allow the Greek government to continue to make payments on its existing debt.

At this point it looks like the politicians are going to vote in the austerity package in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, which is unusual in a democracy. Por qua? Well, the answer to that question is the politicians (or their senior advisors) can do basic math, and know what will happen is they turn down the IMF conditions. The protestors, on the other hand, are rioting for the privilege of continuing to live beyond their means, which they think is a right.

The protestors want the Greek government to cancel its debt, stiffing the mostly French and German investors who loaned the money. The dilemma the politicians face is that Greece’s current account deficit is just over 10%. For every euro the government takes in taxes, they are currently spending 1.1 euros. The austerity measures are designed to get that deficit down around a target of 3%. The IMF doesn’t require Greece to balance the budget. They just want the budget to be less unbalanced then it is right now.

If the Greek government defaults, the well founded concern is that they will be cut off from the international lending markets. Who is going to lend money to the guys who don’t pay it back? Without access to credit, there is an immediate, crisis-driven budget balancing, which means even more austerity than currently proposed.

Greece, although the cradle of Western civilization, is a small country with little industry and few natural resources. In today’s world, that is a recipe for being poor. Joining the Euro zone allowed Greece, for a few years, to live like they were richer than they really were. Facing the readjustment back to being poor is the root cause of the civil unrest currently wracking the country. But you can’t wish away the math by rioting in the streets.

Austerity? We don't need no stinking austerity!

2011-06-10T13:23:00.000-05:00

Paul Krugman has put out an op-ed piece in the New York Times accusing governments on both sides of the Atlantic of not doing enough to provide jobs for the unemployed. He believes that governments are sacrificing the welfare of their citizens because they are giving undue influence to the owners of capital. The interests of bondholders are being protected at the expense of ordinary people. He doesn’t quite use the phrase “sinister cabal of international financiers,” but he comes close.

I know the guy has a Nobel Prize in Economics and I don’t, but really, I think he’s overstating his case. Krugman argues that as long as the unemployment rate is high, governments need to do more deficit spending, even if printing money to pay the bondholders kicks off a higher inflation rate. And if a few governments have to default on their loans, well, that’s a small price to pay. Sure, the bankers will take losses, but look how much good they’ve done!

Maybe the politicians are reluctant to dig the financial hole deeper because they remember their grandmother’s telling them to always spend a little less than they earn. Maybe the politicians don’t want to saddle their children with huge debt payments. You know, principled arguments against taking on too much debt. Aw, who am I kidding, these are politicians I’m talking about. They probably are listening to the bankers.

Still, there is nothing sinister about not wanting to lose money. I’m not an international financier, but I’m not wild about losing money on bad investments. Let’s picture a conversation between an International Financier and a Liberal Politician:

LP: I know we’re borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend, but I’m thinking we need to increase our spending.
IF: If you continue to increase your debt, there’s a good chance you won’t be able to pay back the money you’re borrowing. If I don’t think I’m going to be paid back, I’m not going to loan you any more money.
LP: But you have to keep loaning me money. Even after this crisis is past, we’re still going to be spending more than we take in taxes.
IF: You’re very telegenic, and you’ve got charisma coming out your ears, but I don’t think you heard me. If I don’t think I’m going to be paid back, I’m going to stop loaning you money.
LP: But people need jobs!
IF: Not my problem. My problem is getting paid back with interest. If I loan you too much money, you won’t be able to pay it all back.
LP: You will get paid back! I own a printing press, and I can just print off more money. Problem solved.
IF: *sigh* If you print more money, than you set off inflation. If you have 8% inflation, and my bonds are drawing 4% interest, that is a negative 4% return. I don’t loan people money in order to lose it.
LP: So you’re telling me that if I increase our deficit spending, you’re going to cut me off.
IF: In a nutshell, yes.
LP: Well, I guess I can’t increase the amount of deficit spending then, even though I want to.

There is no great conspiracy here. Just a lot of people pointing out that even great nations have to eventually pay back the money they borrow, and that it is a bad idea to dig that hole deeper then you can climb out of.

It doesn’t really take a Nobel Prize to figure that out.

Libya: Mission Creep

2011-05-26T09:42:00.000-05:00

As part of the “Arab Spring,” the Libyan uprising against the government of Moammar Gadhafi was supposed to be over in only a few weeks, especially after NATO forces used airpower to enforce a no fly zone over the country. It is now almost summer, and there are very few signs of the regime folding its tents and going away. Instead, it now begins to look like NATO is supporting one side in what is shaping up as a civil war between the western and eastern halves of the country.

Of course, NATO’s military involvement has been about much more than just grounding the Libyan air force, right from the get go. Under the guise of a humanitarian mission, NATO aircraft (mostly from France and Britain) have been striking at Gadhafi’s military whenever targets present themselves. However, the fighter aircraft deployed are not the most effective weapon to use for close air support of the rebellion’s ground forces. It is hard to hit scattered artillery pieces when you are moving 500 miles an hour at a height of 2000 feet, even with precision guided munitions. So this week France announced that a force of attack helicopters would be sent to Libya to support the rebellion.

But it would only be twelve choppers. That’s not much of an investment, is it?

Well, not so fast. The twelve helicopters and their crews represent NATO’s fist. But it takes a lot of muscle to drive that fist. First of all, they have to be refueled after every mission, so you need fuel handlers and fuel storage. Second, when the choppers break, you’ve got to fix them, so you need a complement of aircraft mechanics and avionics technicians at the air base. On hot missions you fire off weapons, so you need ordinance personnel to store ammo and reload the guns. And because you need to house and feed all these guys, military units almost always carry their own logistical capability with them when they deploy.

Bottom line, when the politicians talk about sending twelve helicopters, they are really talking about sending a whole unit, a squadron. This means that the French will have about 250 of their airmen involved in the conflict. Once they are on the ground, they become legitimate military targets for Gadhafi’s forces. How much do you want to bet that as soon as the squadron commander sees the half trained militia providing security for his unit, he’ll start lobbying for more troops to protect his air base?

NATO is escalating its forces in Libya. From a US perspective, the only good thing about the situation is that the Obama administration has pushed this mess off onto the Europeans. Because once you start escalation, each incremental step gets easier and easier. And we still have our hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan.

High Gas Prices: Who's to Blame?

2011-05-17T10:53:00.000-05:00

I spent over $65 filling up the gas tank of my car the other day. Six months ago that would have cost me less than $50. Gasoline prices have shot up over the past year, and are well over $4.00 a gallon in many parts of the country.

The rapid rise in prices is putting a squeeze on many household budgets. Inevitably, people tend to hate on the big oil companies, blaming them for the increase in energy costs. And those companies are reporting high profits. Rather than blaming the oil companies for high prices, however, we need to look deeper to understand what is driving the costs of a barrel of oil upward. After all, when oil prices drop, so do gasoline prices. Not always as fast a drop as when they go up in lockstep with cost increases, but if oil prices were to fall substantially, gas prices would eventually follow.

The first of the forces pushing upwards on the cost of oil is the Federal Reserve’s program of Quantitative Easing. In order to try and stimulate the economy, the Fed has been printing money and putting it in circulation. $600 billion on this round, and this is QE II. The theory is that flooding the economy with money will jumpstart spending, because people will have more cash to spend.

Another term for quantitative easing is devaluing the currency, but that would be politically incorrect to say, so no one in Washington is using that term. Devaluation does help expand exports, so in that sense it does stimulate the economy. But it also makes imports more expensive. As the dollar becomes worth less, because there are more of them around, commodities that trade on global markets, like oil or gold or cotton, go up in dollar terms. Printing money is a big chunk of why gas prices ascended to the stratosphere in the last six months or so. But it’s not the whole story.

The other piece of the puzzle to higher gas prices is financial speculation. There is a very active market in oil and gas futures. These are contracts where you can lock in a price for future deliveries of oil at a specified price. If you don’t need to take delivery of the oil, you can resell the contract and pocket a gain or loss, depending on what direction oil prices have moved since the original contract was purchased.

There are bona fide purchasers of oil futures, companies like airlines and large trucking companies. These guys like the stability of knowing what their fuel costs are going to be six months down the road. There are also speculators trading in contracts for profit. They never intend to take delivery of the oil, but merely to resell the contract. Traders perform an important market function. They provide the liquidity that makes the market function.

But when speculative trading outweighs bona fide purchases, then the market is driven by speculation, and not the underlying fundamentals of supply and demand for the actual commodity being traded. Fueled by borrowed money, Wall Street hedge funds are now buying and selling more oil contracts then bona fide oil users.

We are seeing straightforward momentum investing driving oil prices these days. Rising oil prices make futures contracts more valuable. Other investors see the profits, and leap into the market as well, driving the price higher. The higher prices make the new contracts profitable, pulling more money into the market. The result is a price spiral that continues as long as money pours into the market, and with borrowed funds, money can pour in for a long time.

The villains at the gas pump are not the oil companies. It is a combination of government debasing the coinage, and Wall Street speculation that is pushing up prices at the pump.

In the face of large impersonal forces beyond my control, I’m not shaking my fist and cursing at the oil companies, or even at the hedge funds running the game. I’m trading in my gas hog for a small car that gets better milage.

Raising Taxes on Oil Companies

2011-05-11T09:22:00.000-05:00

All the signs of spring are here. The grass has started growing again, the birds are singing, and the sap has started rising in Washington.

As a response to high gasoline prices, legislation has been proposed to increase taxes on the five largest oil companies. It is being billed as the removal of tax breaks, which strikes me as terribly disingenuous. If you are raising revenue, that is a tax increase.

The news reports I have read are short on details about what specific subsidies are being changed or lifted. Apparently some of the provisions under review have been part of the tax code since the 1920’s.

The biggest piece of the puzzle, however, is undoing a change to the tax code that was made in 2005. This change lowered the maximum income tax rate from 35% to 32% for companies in certain manufacturing industries. The proposed legislation raises the income tax rate for these five companies from the current 32% to 35%. This tax increase provides $18 billion of the total $21 billion increased tax revenue of the whole package.

First off, when the government changes your tax rate from 32% to 35%, that’s not eliminating a subsidy, that is a tax increase. The next point of contention I have with this is why single out the oil and gas industry? Why not increase taxes on the car companies, or paper products manufacturers? And then there is the question of what makes these five companies so special? That proviso has Supreme Court challenge written all over it.

The most amazing thing about this proposed legislation, however, is that it will do nothing to reduce gas prices. High gas prices are what made these companies a target in the first place.

So let’s take a concern of the citizenry, use that as an excuse to raise taxes by scapegoating the largest players in an industry. Ignore the reality that what you propose is probably unconstitutional. Sell it by claiming you are eliminating subsidies, instead of calling it an increase. And finally, the actions you propose will do nothing to address the original concern of the citizens. That’s our Congress for you!

There are times when I despair for the future of the republic.

Osama Bin Laden Sleeps with the Fishes

2011-05-03T15:06:00.000-05:00

Well, it took ten years, but justice finally caught up with Osama Bin Laden. Chalk one up for the good guys.

I’m intrigued by what appears to be unseemly haste in disposing of the carcass. I understand the desire to appear responsive to the Islamic world’s sensibilities, but it was less than twelve hours after the news broke that the first deniers and conspiracy theorists began making pronouncements that the whole incident had been faked. I would have dumped the body in a freezer until an independent authority could verify the identification process. Then weight the corpse and deep six it.

For me, the revelation that Bin Laden wasn’t hiding out in a cave is the most fascinating and disturbing part of the whole story. Abbottabad is only forty miles outside of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. One of the interesting wrinkles is that the entire operation was a massive violation of Pakistani territorial sovereignty. This was not a drone missile strike in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, where the central government’s control is honored more in the breach than the observance. We flew multiple helicopters deep inside Pakistan for a smash and grab operation. I would like to see more reporting on the Pakistan reaction to our unilateral military action inside their borders.

The big news is that it really calls our Afghanistan strategy into question. We invaded Afghanistan nine years ago for two purposes: bring Bin Laden to justice, and prevent al Qaeda from using the country as a staging ground for terrorist attacks on the US. It now turns out that for the last few years, all of our efforts in Afghanistan seem to have been wasted in advancing those goals. Bin Laden wasn’t in Afghanistan to find, and the locus of terrorist planning has shifted to other countries, such as Yemen.

We are involved in a hugely expensive exercise in state building in Afghanistan, working at the end of extremely long supply lines, and after nine years we have little to show for our efforts to build up Afghan institutions. If we stopped propping up the Karzai government with both money and troops, I have little doubt it would collapse like a house of cards. We may be accomplishing small incremental gains in nation building over there, but from what I read, there is nothing like self sustaining development occurring in Afghanistan.

We have achieved our war aims in Afghanistan. It is time to declare victory and go home.

Not working, and not looking for work

2011-04-26T13:35:00.002-05:00

Whenever I read anything about the unemployment rate in this country, it usually includes the caveat that the official statistics for unemployment only include people who are looking for a job. There follows a comment to the effect that the true unemployment rate is actually higher, because people who have gotten discouraged and quit looking for a job are not counted.

I can never quite figure out how that works. If you've "gotten discouraged" and "quit looking for a job," the implication is that you have no income, and you are not actively seeking income. The implication of the articles I read is that there are a lot of these people.

What do they eat?

I wake up hungry every morning. Furthermore, approximately six hours after my last meal, I can predict that I will be hungry again. As far as I can tell, we are all in the same boat.

Now, there may be some hunter-gatherers living out in the bush in Alaska who provide all their subsistence from foraging, but the rest of are getting our calories in the form of groceries from the supermarket. That takes money.

I'm also addicted to electricity. When I turn that switch, I for sure want the lights to come on. Okay, maybe I can get by without the lights, but by God that TV better come on. Now the discouraged people without jobs might be able to get off the electrical grid. All it takes is adopting the lifestyle of a medieval peasant. But I can't think of any way that somebody can beat their own metabolism.

And yet we are supposed to believe that large numbers of people are dropping out of the labor force. I just wonder how they make that work.

The Shores of Tripoli

2011-04-19T15:47:00.000-05:00

Remember the Powell Doctrine? This was the set of principles to guide the use of military force, developed by General Colin Powell out of his experience in Viet Nam. There were basically three tenets to the doctrine; actually more like three tests to be met before using military force.
1. Can the mission be accomplished with military force? Don’t look for political solutions to be imposed by soldiers.
2. Are we going in with overwhelming force? Once the shooting starts, you better have enough guns to finish the job.
3. Is there a defined exit strategy? Once you have committed to the use of force, how are you going to extricate your troops? Democracies make poor occupying powers.

The first Gulf War was a classic application of this doctrine. We kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and then we went home. The countervailing examples are Iraq and Afghanistan, of course. Nine years later we are still trying to build stable democratic societies so we can get out.

To show that we never seem to learn from our mistakes, consider the military involvement in Libya. Part of the mission seems clear enough, and militarily feasible: our war aim is to end the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. But who do we want to end up in charge over there? Our policy is a little vague on that score, since we don’t seem to be able to identify exactly who the rebels are.

As an aside, in a classic bit of Orwellian Newspeak, our military intervention has been labeled “a humanitarian mission.” Sure, because nothing says you are overflowing with the milk of human kindness like firing off 160 cruise missiles.

Although the NATO forces have complete air supremacy, the Gadhafi regime has not obliged us by folding up their tents and moving into exile. We control the skies, but the regime is reextending its hold on the ground. So we’re in a shooting war, but we haven’t committed the forces required to win.

Finally, what is our exit strategy? Since we don’t have any ground forces committed, we could just end the mission and send the planes and ships home. But after shooting at Gadhafi, what do we do then? If we leave him still in charge, doesn’t that make the humanitarian problem worse? After all, now that the rebels have announced themselves, I don’t think he’ll be satisfied with a live and let live policy.

The time to think about these issues is before you commit military force. Instead, our policy was based on optimistically assuming that the regime would quietly surrender, or go into exile, or some undefined happy outcome. Happy for us, that is. Not so great for Gadhafi or his family.

From where I’m sitting, the situation in Libya looks like a fiasco unfolding in slow motion.

Government Shutdown Averted!

2011-04-11T10:21:00.002-05:00

I didn't look at the news much this weekend. As I matter of fact, I pretty much ignored outside events from Thursday afternoon until Sunday night. So I jumped directly from headlines about an imminent government shutdown to headlines that the crisis had been temporarily averted. The Republicans and Democrats had come up with a compromise to keep the Federal government running, at least on a short term basis. My thought was "Crisis? What crisis?" In my average day, I don't interact with the Federal government. It could have been shut down over the weekend, and I would not even have noticed. It makes me wonder: how long could I have gone without the Federal government in operation before it impinged on my life? One way to answer that question is to hope that it would be a good long time before I noticed the lack. In the week of brinkmanship leading up to the final compromise, the media was full of stories about how bad it would be if the shutdown happened. In the television coverage I saw, the unanimous position was that a shutdown would be a Very Bad Thing. But when you really examine the stories, they mostly boil down to this: the National Parks would have to close down for the duration. Oh, the humanity! I went to Yosemite National Park last summer. It was terrific. Not going back this year, though. I don't want to argue that we don't need a central government, and we need to fund the operations of that government. But in determining the level of that funding, there is some instructional value in realizing that it would take awhile to miss it if it was gone.

Japan's Nuclear Nightmare

2011-03-17T09:46:00.000-05:00

It takes a lot to overshadow a natural disaster that kills 10,000 people in a First World country like Japan. The specter of a nuclear reactor melting down, with a corresponding massive release of radiation will do it, however. The prospect of five nukes blowing up will really focus your attention.

At this point it is impossible to say just how bad the situation at the Japanese nuclear power plant will end up being. The best guess is that it will be somewhere between the US experience at Three Mile Island (small radiation release, no public harm documented), and the Russian experience in Chernobyl (massive radiation release, thousands of deaths attributable to the accident).

Clearly, the contingency planning on the part of Tokyo Electric was fatally flawed. It looks like their earthquake preparation actually worked as intended. At the first tremor, the reactors shut themselves down. The problems seemed to have a root cause in the tsunami that accompanied the earthquake.

Once a reactor of the type in question is shut down, it still needs circulation of cooling water for days afterward to carry away the residual heat of the nuclear reaction. The circulation is done by big, electrically powered pumps. But when the reactor shuts down, it stops generating power for the all important pumps. The design solution is to install diesel powered backup generators on-site. These generators automatically kick in when the reactor shuts down. In the case of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, these diesel generators were located in a low lying area. They, and the switches that route the electricity, were flooded out by the big wave.

In the aftermath of this crisis, we will face a fork in the road with regard to the peaceful use of atomic energy. One path is to decide that nuclear power is too dangerous to use, that the risks are not worth the rewards. People who follow this path will say “See, we listened to the experts, and they were wrong. They promised us it was completely safe, and now there has been a radiation release. We have to shut down all the nuclear power plants right now.”

This appears to be the position of the German government. This week they shut down seven reactors, and plans are afoot to close another ten. Since nuclear power provides about 25% of Germany’s electricity, that will leave a large gap to fill. The Germans are acting as is there is an imminent failure risk, in spite of the fact that Germany is tectonically stable, and has never been known to suffer from tidal waves.

The other path is to learn from this situation, and apply those lessons going forward. There is an old saying that experience is what you get when things go wrong. Plenty has gone wrong at the Fukushima Daiichi power station. But we can learn from the mistakes, whether they be mistakes of planning or of execution.

In light of concerns with global warming and oil depletion, due to the uncertainty of wind and the inability to store solar energy for nighttime use, nuclear power is one of our best bets for a secure, reliable energy future. We can close the systemic gaps revealed by the current Japanese disaster, and strengthen the safety systems going forward. But we have to have the will to face the problems, instead of turning our backs to the technology.

We have Democratic and Republican parties. We have Green parties and Tea parties. I’d like to see a Let’s Keep the Lights On party.

Strategize This!

2011-03-11T13:52:00.001-06:00

Embedded into our notion of what “character” means is the concept of consistency. When we talk about a person’s character, to some extent we mean predictability. Your character shapes your response to a changing situation. By knowing someone’s character, we can have confidence in how that individual will react to circumstances. If we speak of someone as brave, we would be surprised if they ran from danger. If we speak of someone as cowardly, the surprise would be if that person stood up to danger.

I bring this up because the Obama administration is behaving out of character with regard to the recent rise in gas prices. The President has made statements indicating that he is considering opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and selling oil to bring down gasoline prices.

These comments make me think that the administration is having a hard time with the concept of a “strategic” reserve. Strategy implies a long term orientation. In the case of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it was established to ensure a US based source of oil in the event of a major supply disruption, like the OPEC oil embargo.

There is no evidence of any supply interruption occurring in today’s situation. There are no shortages of gasoline being reported. Instead, smoothly working market mechanisms have driven up oil pricing in response to the Federal government printing money (the Fed’s quantitative easing II), and geopolitical instability, particularly the civil war in Libya.

I like low gas prices as much as the next guy. But when gas prices go up, I tend to try and find ways to drive less. When pump prices cracked past $3.25 per gallon, we cancelled that tractor pull set up for next week. This is normal market behavior. When the price of a commodity increases, buyers begin to use less of that commodity. Long Sunday drives: bad; long Sunday crossword puzzles: good.

The reason I find the Obama administration’s reaction to high gas prices inconsistent is because they want us to use less gasoline. Internal combustion engines are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. If you’re opposed to the prospect of global warming, you should celebrate increases in gas prices. Every nickel rise in gasoline prices moves another thousand hybrid vehicles off showroom floors. Pumping oil out of the Reserve to lower gas prices works directly against that situation. So you can see why it appears out of character for this administration.

Unless the true character of the administration is to pander to the voters in every possible way. The President’s statements are perfectly in character with that end.

Politicians on the Lam

2011-03-03T14:16:00.000-06:00

Wisconsin’s Democratic state senators are still missing in action. They fled the state a couple of weeks ago to deny a quorum, preventing the incoming Republican majority from passing legislation that would eliminate the right of state employees to bargain for fringe benefits. Since a large chunk of the union dues paid in the state flow directly into Democratic campaign coffers, The Democrats’ desperation to defend their power base, as well as the Republicans’ determination to reduce union power are both understandable.

When the Dems first bolted across the border to Illinois, I appreciated the free entertainment. I enjoy a good piece of political theater as much as the next man, and it was good of our fellow countrymen in the great white north to provide a terrific piece of grandstanding. It reminded me of professional wrestling. The same histrionics. The same larger than life conflicts. And ultimately, the same preordained conclusion. After all, the Republicans had the votes.

By going on the lam, the Democratic senators focused a lot of media attention on the issue. They also bought time to try and swing public support to their side. All well and good, and for the first few days, entertainment value aside, I thought the desertion a legitimate delaying tactic.

That changed when the Democrats realized they could stay away indefinitely, and began issuing demands for their return. They would return to the state capitol, but only if the offending legislation was removed from consideration. That is not only profoundly undemocratic, but it sets a dangerous precedent as well.

Representative democracy is primarily a matter of majority rule. If you get 50% plus one vote on an issue, the gavel comes down, and it is the law. 100% of the citizens must comply. There are two types of exceptions to the rule of the majority. First are rights that are built into the state or Federal constitution. These rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, are unalterable by a majority, no matter how large. A minority of one gets to practice his right of free speech, no matter how repellent that speech is, and 100% of the citizens must allow that. An independent judiciary acts as the safeguard of those rights.

You can also have preset procedural rules requiring a greater than 50% plus one majority for certain purposes. Three quarters of the states have to ratify an amendment to the US constitution. In the US Senate, 60% of the Senators must agree to stop debate before a measure can be voted on. California has a rule that two thirds of the legislature has to approve a tax increase before it can take effect. The key to these procedural safeguards against change are that they must be put in place before they take effect.

What the Wisconsin Democrats are doing is demanding a power be ceded to them, the power to block legislation they don’t like, even though they are in the minority. Regardless of your stand on their objections to the law in question, this tactic is a power grab, plain and simple. It goes beyond partisanship into a tribal level of identity politics.

It also provides a dangerous precedent. Until recently, Wisconsin was a majority Democrat state, with the Republicans in the minority. If, during the Republicans time of ascendency, this refusal to participate actually bears fruit for the Democrats, they will find the taste of that fruit bitter indeed, and sure to prove indigestible.

After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Should the current Democratic tactics work, then the Republicans will surely adopt them when next the political pendulum swings to the other party.

We will have moved from principled disagreement and potential compromise to the political equivalent of hostage taking.

Better Living Through Tax Credits

2011-02-21T11:29:00.001-06:00

Middle class and upper middle class people are always astonished when I tell them that the battle to redistribute income is over, and they lost decades ago. The Federal government does a massive amount of income redistribution, and has for a long time. Nobody is even talking about limiting this.

I’m referring to the Earned Income Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credit, which are two of the big tools the government uses to hand out money to the lower class. Consider a single mother with two children, making $19350 a year as a nurse’s aide. Assume she pays $1935 in withholding a year.

First, her standard deduction as Head of Household, combined with three personal exemptions, reduces her taxable income to $0. Most people don’t have a problem with this. If you don’t make much money, we’ll give you a pass on paying income tax. After all, everyone else gets those same opportunities to avoid taxes, based on their household scenario. So this woman will get a full refund of the money withheld from her paychecks, $1935.

But we’re not anywhere close to done. She has two kids, which is a tax advantaged situation. If she had owed taxes, she would have been eligible for the Child Tax Credit, a nonrefundable credit of $1000 per child. Since she doesn’t owe taxes, instead she qualifies for the Additional Child Tax Credit, a refundable credit of $1000 per child. This boosts her refund by $2000. Her refund check is now up to $3935.

Now let’s look at the Earned Income Credit. The amount of the credit varies with the number of children (up to three) and the amount of earned income. As income goes up, so does the credit, until it reaches a plateau. As income continues to go up, the credit begins to phase out. In our example, with earned income of $19350 and two children, the amount of EIC will be $4427.

As the piece de resistance, let’s not forget to add in her Making Work Pay Credit. This $400 credit is part of the Obama stimulus package, and will not be part of the tax code next year. It is essentially a refund of the Social Security taxes you pay on the first $6000 of earned income.

Let’s add it all together:
Withholding $1935
Add’l Child Tax Credit $2000
Earned Income Credit $4427
Making Work Pay $ 400
Total Refund $8762

In our example, our hypothetical tax filer got $6427 from the government, in addition to $2335 returned to her from paycheck withholding. That’s a wage increase of 33%. Where does that 33% increase in pay come from? Why, it comes from the taxes that higher income taxpayers put into the system. Or even from the taxes that lower income taxpayers without minor children pay into the system. Or from the taxes that married couples that both work pay.

But however you slice it, the government is taking money away from some individuals, and handing it over to other individuals, without asking anything in return. That is the income redistribution that is at the heart of socialism.

Adventures in Taxland

2011-02-17T13:36:00.000-06:00

True conversation with a tax client:
“How come I’m not getting as big a refund? Last year I got almost $6000, and you’re telling me that this year I only get $1000.”

“Well, sir, last year you claimed your daughter and granddaughter as dependents. The child entitled you to the Additional Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Credit on your wife’s earnings. That made the difference.”

“Why can’t I claim my daughter and granddaughter this year?”

“Your wife told me that they moved out after living with you for only five months last year. They have to live with you at least half the year to claim them as dependents.”

“I’m just going to make a call to my daughter, and then we’re going to get that changed. She’ll tell you she lived with us all year long.”

“Sir, I’m not going to change this return. Before you got here your wife gave me this information, and you can’t unring a bell. If I knowingly falsify a tax return, I could lose my license.”

“Then I’m just going to get my return done somewhere else.”

Here is where we deviate from what actually happened. What I would have liked to have said:
“Sir, sit your ass back down. I have your social security number, and your wife’s social security number. I also have the 800 number the IRS uses to report tax fraud. Unlike you, I actually pay taxes, and I’m offended by your attempt to defraud the system. Now, we’re going to file your tax return as it stands, and you’re going to sit there and sign it.”

Of course, blackmailing your clients probably isn’t a good business model in the long run. What I actually said:
“It’s your prerogative to get your taxes done anywhere you want. Here is your wife’s W-2 form.”

You can’t always get what you want.

Egypt

2011-02-16T12:54:00.000-06:00

Watching the events unfold in Egypt over the last couple of weeks puts me in mind of the old saying that the written Chinese character is the same for both “crisis” and “opportunity.” This peaceful revolution, fueled by massive discontent at all levels of Egyptian society, has swept away the Mubarek administration. Whether this is the start of true regime change, or merely a shuffling of faces at the top remains to be seen.

It was interesting to watch the waffling and sail trimming of the Obama administration as events unfolded. If you don’t have any influence on a situation, and you don’t have a clue as to how it is going to turn out, it is probably best if you keep your mouth shut about things, for fear of inserting your own foot. Aside from philosophical support for democracy in general, and the basic human right of peaceable assembly in particular, US policy should have been that this was an internal Egyptian matter, end of comment.

Much of the discontent with the Mubarek regime was driven by economic issues, both of the middle class and of the poor. By some estimates, half of the recent college graduates in the country are unemployed. Among the poor, the desperation and despair are even sharper.

Egypt does not produce enough food to feed its 79 million people. As a food importer, the country has been buffeted rises in commodity prices over the last year. In America, when wheat prices double, a family’s grocery bill goes up five or six dollars a week. In Egypt, when wheat prices double, people who were spending 50% of their income on food are now spending 100% of their income on food. When a large percentage of your population goes to sleep hungry at night, that is a recipe for political instability.

My take on things is that the mandate of the new government will be to create huge numbers of new jobs, while simultaneously lifting incomes and guaranteeing subsidence for the bottom 30% of the populace. And, oh yeah, you’ve got to do this fast, before the euphoria wears off and things turn ugly again.

Sometimes the crisis outweighs the opportunity.

Cut and Run

2011-02-08T10:42:00.001-06:00

Jane Harmon has just announced that she will be resigning from the US House of Representatives to take over as the head of the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank specializing in international relations. Harmon is a nine term Democrat holding the seat for California’s 36th District, a swath of coastal Los Angeles.

Excuse me, but didn’t she just get reelected, like, three months ago? What happened? Did she get to Congress after the last election, realize that the Democrats weren’t in charge of the House anymore, and immediately put her resume on the street?

Hers was apparently a pretty safe district, but she didn’t run unopposed, which meant that she probably spent at least a million bucks on her reelection campaign. That’s a lot of money. Other people’s money. I doubt her conversation with major donors included a line about her needing their cash, because she needed a paycheck while she was searching for a better gig. How about the campaign staff? Not the professionals, but the volunteers. “I need you to give up your time to support me, at least until I hear back from the search committee.” And don’t even get me started about perpetrating a fraud on the voters, who now get to foot the bill for a special election to replace her.

I don’t know all the ins and outs of her situation, but it’s hard not to be contemptuous of someone who runs for office, and then bails out upon receipt of a better offer. Of course, in all fairness, I feel pretty much the same way about Sarah Palin.

Bundling versus Unbundling

2011-01-30T14:30:00.000-06:00

I ran into a terrific example of the concept of economic bundling last week.

Every year I go on a ski trip, arranged by a ski club. When I started going on club trips (a long, loong time ago), the process was remarkably simple. You wrote the club a big check, and you were told when to show up at the airport. Once there, the trip leader handed you an airline ticket. You deposited a massive amount of gear at the gate (skiers travel with more equipment than your average Himalayan expedition), and got on the plane.

When the plane landed, you got on a bus that took you to the resort. After check in, you got your lift ticket for the week. Invariably, several dinners were included in the price of the trip, so you would get together with other members of the club and swap lies about how adventurous you had been.

The dominant feature of the pricing was that it was all inclusive. That is, you paid one fee, and everything was included. Put another way, all of the various services had been put together in one bundle by the club.

This year's trip provides quite a contrast with those earlier experiences.

First, I had to make my own airline reservation, separate from the payment for the club trip. I also had to pay an additional fee to cover the bus transfer from the airport to the resort. Several years ago, the lift ticket had been broken off from the rest of the trip package. You select the number of days you want to ski, and pay for those apart from the main trip fee.

When I bought my airline tickets, I thought I had a pretty good deal. That illusion stood until I got to the airport with all my luggage, and had to pay baggage fees, which were equal to 30% of the original ticket cost. Since the airlines no longer serve food on the flights, we bought something at the airport to eat on the plane. The trip price also included only one final dinner at the end of the week. There were other group activities planned, but they were pay as you go.
All of the discrete pieces of the original trip package had been separated, or unbundled, from each other.

The advantage of unbundled prices is the additional freedom and flexibility it offers the individual. When prices are bundled, you pay for everything, whether you use it or not. You don't like airline food? Tough, you still have to pay for it. Renting your equipment to ski? You don't get to use all of the baggage allowance built in to the ticket price. You like to rent a car and drive yourself to the resort? The other people who are riding the bus appreciate your subsidizing their ride. So unbundled prices give you a chance to save some money.

Bundling prices offer a couple of advantages, however. First of all, it is less complex, both for the buyer and the seller, and complexity costs money. If you use bundled prices, you only have to pay one time, and there is only one revenue collection point for the seller. In the context of my ski vacation example, bundling has another, even larger benefit. By grouping together a number of individuals, the club was able to get discounts by buying in bulk. A batch of wholesale purchases bundled together are going to be cheaper than the same set of purchases made at the retail level.

For my trip this year, I had more options, but the sum of my individual choices cost me more than what the old group price would have been. For once, I can actually put a price on freedom.

Tax Tales

2011-01-26T10:21:00.000-06:00

If you ever want to know how loose the average American’s connection to the concept of honesty is, you just have to do taxes for a while. Most folks will say anything to get a bigger refund. What’s even more amazing is that they expect the person preparing their taxes to collude with them. Some examples:

“Off the record, I did air conditioning repair work last year. But I had to buy my tools all over again, because somebody stole them, so I didn’t hardly make enough money to talk about. We don’t have to report that, right?”
That would be a Schedule C business, and the excess of revenue over expenses has to be reported as income. And yes, you do have to report it, especially when you have just told the tax preparer that you have a side business.

Or another:

“I was separated from my husband in 2008 and 2009, so I filed as Head of Household. But my husband I got back together a few months ago.”
So you were married on December 31. You and your husband will have to file as Married, either Jointly or Separately. If you choose Married Filing Separately (MFS), you will lose the Earned Income Credit, along with most of the refund you got last year.
“We only got back together a few months ago, and he doesn’t want to file with me. Can’t we just forget I mentioned him?”
You can’t unring a bell. You can’t change your story after learning the tax consequences. The good news is that you get the share the joys of connubial bliss again.

Or this one, taken over the phone:

“I get $8000 a year in disability payments. Someone else claimed me on their tax return. How much of his refund belongs to me?”
If he provided more than 50% of your support, he can claim you as a dependent, in which case his refund belongs to him. If he did not provide half your support, and you knew he was going to claim you as a dependent, you have both committed tax fraud. What did you say your name was?
“*click*”

Martin Luther King Day

2011-01-17T22:13:00.003-06:00

Watching the news this morning, there was a story about school districts that are not taking off Martin Luther King Day as a holiday this year. Because of unusually heavy snowfall's this year, these school districts are using MLK Day to makeup for snow days they have had to take.

Outraged over the lack of reverence shown to the memory of Dr. King and the civil rights struggle, it was reported that there were calls for parents to pull their children out of school for the day. These calls for a boycott were led by...wait for it...Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. There's a shock for you.

Somehow, I don't think that the legacy Dr. King wanted to leave was that it is okay to skip school. Much of the civil rights struggle was about gaining access to education. You know, the whole Brown v. Board of Education thing.

The Reverends Al and Jesse could have campaigned for special class sessions on civil rights on MLK Day for schools that were in session. Instead, they argued for a boycott of education. Maybe it is just me, but the priorities seem a little screwed up.

Hit the Ground Running

2011-01-13T15:57:00.002-06:00

I read an article on the Motley Fool website the other day that referred to the “Red Queen” economy. In Alice in Wonderland, the Red Queen is the one who says you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in place. If you want to get anywhere, you have to run faster than that.

In the Motley Fool article, the phrase “Red Queen economy” was used to describe deleveraging in the face of falling asset values. Normally, deleveraging, or paying down debt, increases your net worth, because you still own your assets, there is just less of a claim on them by the bank. If asset values are falling, however, you can pay down debt and still go under water, with your equity less than the remaining debt. You have to run as hard as you can just to stay in place.

I thought it was such a good metaphor that I’m going to try and use it in the area of work skills. When I started my career, back before globalization had taken hold, and at the start of the information technology revolution, it was possible to learn one set of skills, and use those skills for an entire career, oftentimes at the same company.

Early in my career, I met a man who was a draftsman. In his fifties, he had spent his entire adult life making drawings on a drafting board. When times were slow, he was laid off. When business picked up, he went back to his drafting board.

He had done basically the same job for the last thirty years. In the 20+ years since then, he would have had to reinvent his skill set twice to stay employed. First, he would have had to master computer aided drafting. A few years later, mastery of three dimensional modeling software. That's two reinventions of the job, for a field that had been the same for the previous fifty years.

In today’s economy, whole industries are created and wiped out in near record time. To stay ahead of this wave of creative destruction, you have to be upgrading your skills all the time. This requires a couple of judgment calls on the part of the skill seeker. First, you have to place a bet on what skills are going to be in demand. Second, you have to acquire those skills.

Formal education can only get you so far. You also need to find ways to sharpen and deepen new skills acquired in the classroom. To keep yourself employable, a necessary step is to pick up some experience, as well as education.

In the meantime, you have to continue performing in your current position. Run as fast as you can just to stay in place.

Like the survivors in the movie Zombieland, there are rules for surviving the Great Recession. Rule number 1: Cardio.

Sarah Palin and Gabrielle Giffords

2011-01-11T15:55:00.001-06:00

Everyone has heard the classic definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. But sometimes insanity expresses itself by doing something wildly different than what has been before.

The mass shooting in Arizona is a case in point. Interviews with the shooter’s former college professors at Pima Community College have indicated pretty clearly that he was barking mad, but not violent. He was unstable, but there was no evidence of being a danger to self or others. The fact that he was obviously off his rocker was a necessary, but not sufficient prerequisite for what he did. That is to say, he had to be crazy to do what he did, but there are plenty of people who run the spectrum from mentally ill through to pure looney tunes, and most of them don’t bring a loaded Glock to a political meet and greet event.

So we are left with the question: what drove the shooter’s behavior? In these cases, the insanity of the action is defined by the fact that it defies rational analysis. We’re never going to know why he shot all those people, beyond the fact that he was crazy.

There has been considerable commentary expended on trying to connect this tragedy with Sarah Palin. On the web site of her political action committee, there was a graphic that showed a bulls eye over the Arizona congressional district of Gabrielle Giffords. It has been claimed that this somehow incites or condones violence.

This is absurd. I have seen the graphic in question. It is actually a map of the United States with all of the states outlined. There are cross hairs drawn on districts considered vulnerable, because they voted for McCain/Palin in 2008, but elected a Democrat to Congress. If it was a photo of specific congressmen taken through a rifle scope, the idea might have some traction, but it is a graphic of the entire country.

I would say trying to connect Sarah Palin to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was crazy but I don’t believe that it is. After all, the commentators airing this theory are, as far as I can tell, diametrically opposed to her on the political spectrum. Trying to discredit a political opponent’s rhetoric by tying her to a dangerous, violent lunatic’s attacks on innocent people? It doesn’t take much rational analysis to understand that course of action.

2011 Goal Setting

2011-01-05T12:32:00.000-06:00

I let other people make New Year’s resolutions. I do goal setting. I had a lot of success with my goals for last year, hitting the mark on eight out of nine. My targets for the year ahead will be pretty similar to last year’s, with some tweaking around the edges. The objectives fall into three rough categories: personal finance, professional development, and private life.

Personal Finance
Save 20% from earned income. The heavy lifting on this goal is done by salary contribution to a 401K, with accompanying company match. That combination gets me to 15%, with the last 5% done the old fashioned way—not spending all of my take home pay.
End the year with less than $70K in debt. The deleveraging that started in 2010 will continue in 2011. Working against that is my plan to buy a new car before the end of the year. Since I pay off my current car loan in March, every month I defer that big ticket purchase allows me to build a bigger down payment on the new vehicle. Meanwhile, I will continue to make extra equity payments on my home mortgage. The goal of $70 K is actually $10 grand more than 2010’s goal, but I’ll be trading a fully depreciated asset for a new one.
Earn $2000 from outside sources. Last year the target was to earn $2 grand from tax prep with H & R Block. I was only able to get halfway there. If tax preparation isn’t enough this year, I will have to find some other kind of moonlighting gig to take up the slack. Needless to say, my day job comes first.

Professional Development
Take 9 credit hours of graduate accounting classes. With the classes already taken, accomplishing this goal will get me 2/3 of the way towards finishing the prerequisites for a Masters degree in accounting.
Build two new Access databases. One of the classes taken last year was a course in database programming. The student project is up and running, although it still needs some tweaking. The goal here is to deepen and extend that knowledge by building two new projects.

Private Life
Run 60K of road races. I’ve upped this from last year’s goal of 50K. At least one race will be at the longer 10K distance.
Entertain at home at least once a month. This encompasses everything from private dinner parties to blow out barbeques with thirty guests.
Read Proust’s “Remembrance of Things Past.” I’ve only got 3700 pages left to go. In addition to Proust, I’m going to continue with my Shakespeare reading group for at least another six plays.

I keep these goals written on a Post-It note on my desk, to keep them present for all year long. I’ll post on my progress around the mid year mark.

Refund Anticipation Loans

2010-12-28T16:37:00.000-06:00

There has been interesting news in the tax preparation world this week. The Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC) announced on Christmas Eve that it was directing HSBC Bank not to fund any refund anticipation loans for H & R Block in 2011. Accordingly HSBC cancelled their contract with HRB, leaving Block without a provider for the coming tax season.

Since the ability to provide refund anticipation loans (RAL) to tax clients was a major marketing tool for Block, this is considered a body blow to the company. Shares of HRB dropped almost 8% when the news was announced.

A RAL is a short term loan made at the time a tax return is filed. The size of the loan is usually the calculated amount of the refund, less tax preparation fees, interest, and charges. Basically, the tax client signs over their IRS refund to the bank making the loan. When the IRS sends the refund to the bank, the loan is repaid. With electronic filing, the time the loan is outstanding averages about 10 days.

H & R Block bent over backwards to prevent this from happening. The company even offered to cover any credit losses that HSBC would have had, making the loans essentially risk free. Since the OCC did not change their position, I have to conclude that protecting the integrity of the banking system was not driving the regulatory action. This looks like a politically driven decision, based on consumer protection arguments.

Consumer protection activists dislike RAL’s, because the loans have very high calculated interest rates. This is because the $29.95 charge to process the loan is added to the actual interest charges, then divided by the length of the loan to determine the APR. For an example, let’s suppose you borrow $2000 at a 24% interest rate for 10 days. The interest charge would be about $13. A high interest rate, but the overall bite of $13 bucks isn’t too bad.

Now, add in the $30 loan processing fee to the $13, and work the calculation backwards. That calculation is $43, divided by $2000, times 36. That comes out to just over a 77% annual percentage rate.

Your outrage over this depends a lot on how you look at the transaction:
Outlook I
“I’m going to loan you money and charge you 77% interest.” “That’s usury! You’re no better than a loan shark!”

Outlook II
“I’m going to loan you $2000 for one to two weeks, and it will cost you $43.” “That doesn’t sound so bad, and I’d like to get the money as soon as I could. I’ll take the deal.”

In point of fact, millions of tax clients took the deal every year. Now they will be “protected” from making this choice by the OCC.

Qualitative Easing Explained...Twice

2010-12-15T09:45:00.002-06:00

There is a service that takes text and converts it to simple animated video. Here is one that has been making the rounds. It is quite critical of the Fed's move towards quantative easing (AKA pumping money into the economy). The deadpan delivery of the computer generated voices makes it hysterically funny.

The video above got enough play to cause somebody to generate a response in the same format:

It is not as funny as the first one, but probably a little more balanced. I still think the Fed is playing with fire by running the printing presses.

A Bad Deal All Around

2010-12-12T22:49:00.000-06:00

Sometimes compromise means taking the best from both sides of an issue, creating a consensus that leads the way forward.

That’s not what happened with the recent tax deal put together between the White House and the Republican leadership, however. In that case, the worst of both sides was adopted. The deal panders to the short term interests of the principals, while creating the conditions that will lead to more long term pain further down the road.

The Republicans campaigned on the twin themes of rolling back ObamaCare and enforcing fiscal discipline. The White House wanted to raise taxes to combat the deficit spending they created. So, to compromise, let’s do neither of those things.

The White House agrees not to raise anyone’s taxes. In exchange, the Republicans will support extending unemployment benefits for another 13 months, along with two more years of not applying social security taxes to the first $6600 of earned income. Oh yes, we’re continuing heightened payouts on the earned income credit as well.

The net effect of this deal is that government spending will exceed revenues by almost a trillion dollars next year and the year after. We will continue to provide a reverse incentive to find work, allowing people over two years to stay on the dole. The long term sustainability of the social security program is made worse, because we are starving the program of revenues from a vast cross section of the employed.

This is the reverse of leadership. This is kicking the problem of fiscal deficits down the road two years, while entrenching an entitlement mentality ever more firmly into a large section of the populace.

In every game of musical chairs, eventually the music stops. In this game of political musical chairs, what scares me is that by the time the music stops, we’ll find that all of the chairs have been taken away, and we’ll all fall down.

'Tis the Season ...

2010-12-06T11:10:00.000-06:00

This is my annual Christmas diatribe. I can’t keep up my reputation as a “Bah, humbug” kind of guy without one.

This is the time of year when we are encouraged to give more. Everywhere you turn, someone has their hand out, asking for a donation. Bell ringers at the grocery store. Angel trees at church. At work we are running a cash drive to raise money to buy Christmas presents for a number of families.

I think we should all just go out to eat instead. Take the twenty bucks we could give away to buy presents for somebody else’s child, and buy a steak dinner with it.

“Oh, that’s horrible.” “Have you no Christmas spirit?” No, not much. Still, even if I had the Christmas spirit, my method makes more economic sense.

First, consider multiplier effects. In economic terms, a multiplier is when you spend a dollar, and the business where you spend it pays their employees and their suppliers. Those suppliers, in turn, spend their share of that dollar on their suppliers, and so on. Economic activities with a high multiplier give you more bang for the buck. A low multiplier means that the impact of a dollar spent is damped out pretty quickly. So if you want to spread Christmas cheer as widely as possible, you should seek out ways of spending your money with higher multiplier factors.

Think of throwing a stone into a pond. The ripples spreading out from that event are a function of the multiplier. The higher the multiplier factor, the further the ripples spread before dying out.

Consider buying toys with your money. Almost all of the toys in the stores are imported from China. Even if the retail markup on those toys is 50%, the immediate impact on the American economy is less than a dollar. If the first stage of your calculation is .5, it is very difficult to see how your multiplier can get over 1.0. Instead of throwing a stone into a pond, imagine throwing a stone into mud.

Now consider dining out. When you buy that steak dinner, the employees of the restaurant get paid. But all of the purveyors to the restaurant also get paid. And those purveyors are sourcing Colorado beef, corn fed with Iowa grain. All of the money you spend stays on shore, and get respent by Americans. The multiplier effect is much higher than if you buy toys at Wal-Mart.

Also, if you’re feeling generous after your steak dinner, you can give a bigger tip to the server. After all, it’s Christmas time. That way, the server can go out and buy presents for her own kids, instead of having strangers buy for them. Maybe it is just me, but I’d rather support the working poor than the non-working poor. At least the working poor are in the game, trying to support themselves and their families. Between Section 8 subsidized housing, food stamps, and Medicaid, I feel like my tax dollars are providing enough charity. I want to use my uncompelled donations to give extra benefits for extra effort.

And finally, if you give cash to the annual Christmas drive, you don’t even get to see the results of your giving. When you eat out, you get to enjoy your meal, deriving a real and tangible benefit from your expenditure. All in all, it makes a lot more sense to dine out more than to give to charity this time of year.

Oh, who am I kidding? I put twenty bucks in the envelope along with everybody else.

Full Body Scanners

2010-11-21T17:36:00.002-06:00

There has been a ton of foofarah surrounding airport security procedures this last week. The TSA has rolled out the new full body scanners at terminals across the country. These are the machines that use a low level of backscatter x-rays to produce a picture that looks like a shadowy outline of you without any clothes on. Installing the scanners was put on a crash basis after last Christmas' underwear bomber. He only managed to set his own genitals on fire, but his aborted attack revealed a weakness in the current security system.

People are complaining that it is too invasive, that the new scans violate privacy. Others claim that it is an unwarranted government intrusion into our lives. I have read some people urge that we boycott the air travel system until these scanners are pulled.

Worse, because there is a low level of x-ray exposure that is cumulative, frequent fliers may choose to opt out of the scans. If they do, the alternative is a "pat down" inspection. I've got to admit, I have no desire to have a TSA representative prod my genital area, checking to see if I have strapped explosives to my inner thigh.

But you know who I really feel sorry for? The TSA employees.

You want to see what I look like with no clothes on? Bring it, but I can't promise you'll be able to sleep at night. You need to "touch my junk?" Go ahead. You'll be the one to wake up screaming, not me.

It's not just me. A third of all Americans are obese, with another third in the category of overweight. I can just imagine the daily meeting at the airport where jobs for the day are assigned. "Joe, you'll be working the body scanner today." "Oh geez, no! Can't I x-ray bags instead, please!"

Seriously, I can't imagine a more thankless task than trying to stop terrorists from blowing up random flights.

The Pnedulum Swings Back

2010-11-11T15:11:00.000-06:00

A week after the election, and the changed realities in Washington are still settling in. The electorate has decided to throw the rascals and scoundrels out, and bring in a new crew of rascals and scoundrels.

The results are not really too surprising, given the partisan overreach of the first two years of the Obama administration. After all, slapping the label “liberal” on a candidate carries significant negative connotations with the public at large. Even the liberals agree with that, which is why they’ve tried to rebrand themselves as “progressives.”

Two years ago, the picture looked quite different. There was plenty of talk about a new New Deal, the assumption that Democratic Party gains signaled a mandate for a gigantic expansion of the power and reach of the Federal government. America was finally going to take its rightful place among the nations of Europe.

It turns out that most Americans don’t want to live in France, even if they could find it on a map. If they did, Massachusetts would be a lot more crowded.

Even more shocking were the pronouncements made about the Republican party. One pundit wrote that the GOP was doomed to be a “rump party of southern white males.” Astonishingly, just two weeks ago editorial writer DeWayne Wickham wrote:
"Don't be fooled by the political gains Republicans are expected to make in the midterm elections. The GOP is on the critical list. The wins it will score, possibly enough to give it control of the House of Representatives, will be short lived. They are the dying gasp of a political party that has become too intolerant and too white in a nation whose population soon will be dominated by Hispanics, blacks and Asians."

Sure, because if you think massive expansions in government programs, along with tax rates to match, it must be because you are racist. The last time I checked, to gain a majority in the House of Representatives, the Republicans had to have more than half the voters choose their candidate in more than half the Congressional districts in this country. That seems pretty egalitarian to me.

But I think the best riposte to the claim that to be a conservative is to be exclusionary is this: New Mexico elected a new governor this week. Susana Martinez is the nation’s first female Hispanic governor. She’s a Republican.

Election Day

2010-11-02T10:11:00.000-05:00

If the polls are correct, the Republican Party is poised to retake control of the House of Representatives. The outcome in the Senate is more in doubt. Although the Republicans will certainly pick up several seats, they will probably not gain the majority.

The most likely result will be divided government and gridlock, to which I say: Long live gridlock!

As a proponent of limited government, I am quite pleased at the prospect of a government that can’t get anything done. A government that can’t get anything done will not expand. A government that can’t get anything done will, of necessity, leave the citizens to their own devices. There is a technical term for that state of affairs. It’s called freedom.

The Republicans don’t need control of the Senate to resist the threat of encroachment into private concerns by the power of the state. Under Senate rules, they only need enough votes to prevent cloture and continue debate. The filibuster is a powerful tool for conservatism.

In the US Senate, it requires 60 votes to be an irresistible force. But it only takes 40 votes to be an immovable object.

Not Long Before the End

2010-10-26T09:30:00.002-05:00

The fact that we only have one more week before the election makes we want to shout "hurray!" I think we should all have a celebration on Election Day. No, not because we get to see the awesome power of democracy in action, as we and our fellow citizens get to exercise our basic right to choose our political leaders.

The celebration is because after the election, they'll finally stop running campaign ads on television. Thank God for small favors.

Here's an attack ad:
"This politician supports amnesty for illegal aliens and increasing the income tax. He wants to export jobs to China. Do we really want a leader who thinks it's okay to give our jobs to illegals?"

That's an ad attacking a Republican!

Then there are the ads put out by the candidates themselves:
"I'm a gun-totin', truck drivin', Bible reading conservative."

That's from a Democrat!

Then there are the robocalls:
"We have a quick two question survey. 1. Do you support the rise of the anti-Christ, like our opponent? 2. Do you support having good jobs, like our candidate?"

Yes, I'm looking forward to the day after Election Day. Nothing like a little piece and quiet.

Foreclosure Moratoriums

2010-10-17T22:42:00.001-05:00

You can look at the mess in the mortgage banking industry, and the current foreclosure moratorium, from two different directions. Looked at from one side, it a mess of terrible complexity and ambiguity. Uncertainty clouds the outlook. Looked at from the other side, there are no issues, and everything is as clear as a summer’s day.

The current moratorium is being imposed by the banks that process mortgage payments. In almost every case, these banks do not actually own the mortgage in question. The bank may not even have been the original lending institution for the mortgage. In today’s housing market, most mortgages are resold shortly after the real estate closing. Thousands of mortgages are pooled together into securities, which are then sold and resold. What the bank is doing is servicing the mortgage on behalf of the investors who actually own it. So in a foreclosure, the bank has to submit paperwork to prove that it has standing to foreclose on an individual. That is complication number one.

The systems for processing mortgage payments are highly automated, which keeps the cost down. Because almost all of the work is done by computer, it only takes a few people to handle thousands of mortgages. But the legal system is not automated at all. In a foreclosure proceeding, paper documents have to be submitted for every case, covering every aspect of the procedure. That is complication number two.

In the past, only a few mortgages were in foreclosure at any one time, compared to the number of mortgages outstanding. After all, is the borrower couldn’t make the payments, they were encouraged to sell the house to get out from under the mortgage. As long as home prices were rising, this worked. With the collapse of the housing bubble, millions of homeowners are underwater, owing more on their house than it can be sold for. Combined with high levels of unemployment, that means the number of houses being foreclosed upon has grown by leaps and bounds. There are vastly more houses in foreclosure than just a couple of years ago. That is complication number three.

In a foreclosure proceeding, the bank has to submit paperwork to back up their position. In the absence of the original loan documents, bank employees sign affidavits attesting that they have reviewed all of the documents connected with a case. It turns out that, faced with a crushing backlog, some of the document signers were filing up to 400 packages a day. They could not possibly have been reading all of the documents to ensure accuracy.

Now that this has come to light, some attorneys who represent homeowners facing foreclosure are arguing that not only are current foreclosure proceedings invalid, but that many past foreclosures are also questionable. That’s the background for the current moratorium. Lots of heat, not much light and clarity.

But as I mentioned before, there are two sides to the story. The other way to look is at the homeowners. These are people who borrowed the money to buy houses, and aren’t paying it back. I think even the attorneys representing them will admit that these guys have stopped paying the mortgage, sometimes years ago.

To me, this seems pretty simple. You stop making payments, you get your butt thrown out onto the street.

Right now, the squatters keep possession of the house until the bank can prove it has right of ownership. All of the delays are on the bank side of the equation. But it strikes me as unjust, that some people can get away with not paying back a loan without consequences. My solution: throw the deadbeats out, but don’t allow the bank to resell the property until they can catch up on the appropriate paperwork. In the meantime, the bank has to pay to maintain the properties, which they have to do anyway, until they can find a buyer.

This way, the squatters don’t get to make chumps out of the majority of homeowners who continue to pay their mortgage every month. At the same time, the banks have a powerful incentive to get their paperwork straightened up. Case closed.

A Right to Fire Protection?

2010-10-10T21:41:00.001-05:00

Much has been made of the recent new story in Obion County, Tennessee. This was the story about the rural trailer that caught fire. When the fire department arrived on scene, they realized that the homeowner had failed to pay the annual $75 fee for fire protection. Accordingly, the firemen were ordered to back off, allowing the trailer to burn to the ground, a total loss.

The chief of the fire department has been roundly castigated for his decision. Apparently the trailer owner had paid the fee in years past, but this year he “forgot.” But I don’t see how the fire chief could have made the decision any other way. If the fire had been put out, not only would they have no guarantee that the homeowner would pay up next year, but as word spread, surely other homeowners would also choose to make the payment optional. “I just don’t have the money this month. Besides, what are they going to do, just let the place burn? They won’t do that.”

Here’s what I would like to see reported: in the week or so since this story broke, how many $75 checks have arrived at the Obion County courthouse, from other homeowners who had “forgotten” to pay for fire protection? “Holy crap, ma, they’re serious! They just let the Jones place burn to the ground! We gotta come up with the money, just in case.”

Many people, including me, had not realized that purchasing fire protection insurance was optional. It seems that this situation applies in many rural areas. When you think about it, this makes sense. In cities, and even in the suburbs, built up densities are high enough that a fire that starts in one structure can easily spread to surrounding buildings. Accordingly, fire protection becomes a common good. Everyone bears the risk, and the costs are covered through tax revenues.

In this case, the risk was isolated to the individual property owner. He could have pooled his risk with the other property owners by paying the fee, but whether on purpose or through negligence, he bore the risk alone.

He chose to roll the dice on needing the fire department. This time the dice came up snake eyes.

2010-10-06T08:08:00.002-05:00

This does not bode well.

In 2009, Frito Lay started selling their Sun Chips brand in a new kind of packaging. They began using a biodegradable polymer made from corn in their plastic bags. The corn based plastic bags would break down much, much faster in a landfill than the traditional bags, which will probably still be recognizable as snack food packaging when the Sun expands to a red giant star.

A giant corporation is taking a step to protect the environment. Yay!

There was only one problem. The new bags were much noisier than the old ones. Noisier? Yup, a lot noisier. The corn based bags made a crinkling sound, kind of a cross between cellophane and tin foil being crumpled up. That is, if a jet engine was being fueled by tin foil and spitting out cellophane exhaust.

Well, the increased amount of noise was sufficiently irritating that customers began calling up and complaining. Apparently the folks stuffing their pie holes with salty snacks want the chips to be crunchy, but not the packaging. Frito Lay has listened to their customers, and has pulled the new biodegradable plastic from production on all but one flavor of Sun Chip. They’ll probably switch that line over as well in a year, once they’ve used up the corn-based plastic resin they are contractually obligated to buy.

They’ve probably already contracted for oil tankers to bring in the petroleum for next year’s plastic. No doubt from some despotic Middle Eastern country where the only other export is hatred for America. “We would spit on you decadent, chip loving Americans, but we have no water, so our bodily moisture is precious to us.”

What strikes me about this situation is that this one small step towards sustainablility is being retracted for the most miniscule of reasons. Some poor sap at Frito Lay headquarters made the gutsy decision to try out the biodegradable packaging material. Don’t you know that guy’s career is in the toilet now. It’ll be a long time before anyone else suggests changing the packaging to improve the environment.

“You’re a bright guy, Jones, and you’ve got a bright future with the company. So let me give you some advice. See that poor, shambling wreck of a man? The ruined giant pushing the broom around the offices? He was the man who championed the Sun Chips packaging change back in ’09. Don’t go pushing the ecology thing. It won’t be healthy for you.”

To deal with resource depletion, global warming, and dependence on imported oil, we will all have to make changes in our lifestyles. Here we have an example of a positive change that was rejected by the consuming public because the bags were too noisy. That gives you an indication of how far the average man in the street will go to protect the environment.

No, it doesn’t bode well at all.

The Democratization of Indolence

2010-09-30T11:04:00.000-05:00

The modern industrial state has created a phenomenon that I call the democratization of indolence. That is the expansion of the number of people who do not work for a living, but instead have their economic support provided by others. Once the preserve of the wealthy, freedom from the need to work has now grown to cover large numbers of every socioeconomic class is our society.

Historically, almost everyone labored for their sustenance, almost until the hour of their death. If you were too old and broken down for physical labor, you were taken in by your children to support. Almost the only exceptions were the landed gentry, whose lifestyles were supported by the possession of large estates. The cash flow from that capital base enabled a lifestyle freed from the requirement to hold down a job.

Two factors have enabled enormous growth in the number of people who are exempted from the need to work. The first factor has been the institution of social security, disability, and pension programs. If you are old enough, sick enough, or have worked at one place long enough, these programs guarantee you monthly cash payments for life.

The second factor has been the dramatic advances in medical knowledge of the last few decades. It used to be that retirement would last only a few years, if you reached that point, before some degenerative disease would take you out. But nowadays our medical abilities have advanced to the point that diseases can be arrested, or symptoms managed.

Clogged arteries? We can put in a stent, and you’ll have more energy than you’ve had in years. Cancer? Catch it early enough, and we can cure it, or at least put it into remission for years. Joints worn out? We can replace them, giving you decades of increased mobility. I even know some folks who are “disabled,” yet give few signs of it. After all, once you get on the free money train, why would you ever get off?

Consider the case of a 55 year old schoolteacher who retires after 30 years on the job. A reasonable expectation is a life expectancy of 85 years, meaning she will be supported without having to work for as long as she actually worked. And for much of that time she will be able to sustain a high level of vigorous activity. Or not. After all, I call this the democratization of indolence. The key is, our hypothetical schoolteacher now has the cash flow to support a life of leisure, and the health to pursue whatever interests tickle her fancy. An enviable position.

The problem is that the promises to pay were made before the advances in life expectancy came about. The system is in danger of breaking down, because it is financially unsupportable. In France, the government is proposing to increase the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62. The result has been large scale protests and a general strike. Everyone wants a life of financial freedom, even if someone else has to pay for it.

The economist Herbert Stein once famously remarked “if something cannot continue, it will stop.” Despite the amazing advances in productivity of the last century, our society will not support half the people working while the other half does not. So we can either find a solution to the problem and coast to a stop, or stop by hitting a brick wall. It’s like jumping off a tall building. It is not the fall that kills you. It is the sudden stop at the end.

Education: Risk versus Reward

2010-09-24T12:33:00.000-05:00

All investment entails risk. It is built into the very nature of the activity. You cannot expend resources, hoping for the promise of a reward, without accepting the possibility that the resources will be lost, and the award not achieved. After all, we cannot predict the future.

Anytime you make an investment, there is a chance that it will not pan out. As so many of us have discovered during the last couple of years, that is certainly true of our financial investments in our 401K’s. But it also true of the capital we invest in ourselves.

I’m talking about the money and time spent on higher education, specifically about post-graduate work. It’s not cheap. I’m taking graduate level classes in accounting at a local university. This is after completing an executive MBA a couple of years ago. Tuition and fees run about $1500 per class. I’m trying to get 18 credit hours (six classes) under my belt, because that is the minimum required to teach at the college level. I’m not quitting my day job, but I would like to teach at the adjunct level, part-time.

So I’m spending around $9 grand, along with hundreds of hours, plus the gas money to get to class, plus the opportunity costs of giving up what I could be doing with my time and money instead. In exchange, I get the potential to teach junior college students entry level classes, for about $1500 per class taught.

Strictly from an economic perspective, it is hard to make the numbers line up on this endeavor. Even ignoring the time value of money, it will take more than a few years to recoup the cash investment alone, disregarding the time invested. And what if I try teaching a class and discover that, contrary to my hopes, I hate teaching? There’s a technical term for that experience: it would suck.

From the risk-reward perspective, it is hard to make a valid case for continuing to go to school. The obvious question is: why do I continue to make this dubious investment?

First of all, I have a deep seated belief that continued acquisition of new skills is vital, both to expanding career opportunities and to enhancing job security. The more versatile and up-to-date your skill set is, the better able you are at withstanding the vicissitudes of an uncertain job market.

But ultimately, I have discovered that I love being a student. Oh, I’m not so fond of it when a paper is due, or I’m struggling with a problem set. But overall, I truly enjoy the educational process.

Basically, I’m an education junkie.

A Modest Proposal: National Park Pricing

2010-09-19T19:22:00.003-05:00

I just got back from a week in northern California, including three nights in Yosemite National Park. The admission fee for the park is one of the best things going. It costs $20 for a carload. The problem is that the price is too low. The Park Service is underfunded, and has a backlog of maintenance projects that aren't getting completed. The other problem with underpricing admission to the National Parks is that it leads to overuse and overcrowding.

One thing you will notice almost immediately when you visit a National Park is that a lot of the visitors are not Americans. I would guess that half of the people at Yosemite when I was there were Europeans or Japanese.

I wonder if anyone has ever studied the idea of increasing the price of admission, then offering a discount to US citizens. Lets say the price goes up to $40 dollars a carload (still cheap), but drops in half if the driver presents an American driver's license. You could even include Mexican and Canadian driver's licenses, on account of NAFTA.

This type of differential pricing would raise a lot of additional revenue for the Park Service. The potential downside is that it might dissuade some foreign visitors from coming, and with car rentals, lodging, and meals, foreign tourists pump a lot of money into the US economy. You certainly don't want to injure that golden goose.

Because we have a lot of National Parks, we could conduct an experiment. Several of the parks could be selected for a trial run of this idea. The makeup of the attendees could be monitored both before and after the price change to see if it makes a difference. If there is no change, the new pricing structure could be rolled out across the entire system.

There may be existing international agreements in place prohibiting such a scheme. If that is the case, we still should increase the price charged for entry into the parks. That way the people who use the parks will be paying to maintain them. And I don't think there is any argument against maintaining the National Parks, so that future generations will also be able to enjoy them.

Anyone who has visited the wonders of one of our National Parks will agree with that.

If the Inmates Run the Asylum

2010-09-01T15:08:00.000-05:00

Even though I am a conservative, even I have to admit there is a loony right wing fringe:
“Obama is a Muslim.”
“The income tax is unconstitutional.”
My personal favorite:
“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare.”

But there is also a loony left:
“The previous administration should all be shipped off to the Hague to face war crimes charges.”
“It’s the government’s job to provide everyone with a minimum income. And unlimited healthcare. And housing.”
“We should unilaterally disarm and shut down the Pentagon, then take the money we save and give it to the poor.”

The thing is, the right wing is the side of the debate that argues for limited government. The left wing proposes more government intervention as the solution to almost every problem.

You can be as crazy as you want in your own home, and I’ll still sleep well at night. But give the crazies access to the machinery of the state, and a license to expand the state’s power and reach, and that’s when I get scared.

Great Moments in "Duh!"

2010-08-25T15:13:00.001-05:00

The New York Times put out an editorial this week regarding Tom Delay, the former House majority leader. It included this breathtaking assertion:

But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen
not to criminalize them.

This is the New York frigging Times, for cripes sake! I do not often agree with their political positions, but I always respected their smarts, at least till now. I know they have spell checkers, and I know they have fact checkers. Maybe they need thought checkers. Repeat after me, guys: “I will not print tautological statements above the fold.”

The statement does reveal an interesting mind set, however. Apparently, if the editors of the Times don’t like something, that means it ought to be illegal. It is clear that the Times thinks Tom Delay is a Very Bad Man, and must be punished even though his actions were all legal.

This is kind of like the left wing version of the current complaints about the Fourteenth Amendment. “I don’t like it when the children of illegal immigrants become citizens, solely because they were born in this country.” Really? What do you propose as an alternative? And while we’re on the subject, on what do you base your claim for citizenship?

Gridlock in government keeps looking better and better.

Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-19T17:13:00.000-05:00

At the center of the controversy over the proposed “Ground Zero mosque” in New York City lies a dichotomy between two opposing concepts: you can have an absolute right to pursue a course of action, and yet it is absolutely wrong to pursue said course of action.

The backers of the mosque have a right to build a house of worship anywhere zoning allows. The First Amendment, and over two hundred years of case law, establishes that fact quite clearly. However, I can see how some people could find it offensive to site a mosque only two blocks from the site of a massive attack upon America that was committed in the name of Islam.

I don’t often say things like this, but I do feel President Obama has struck the correct tone in his comments regarding this issue. You can defend the right to build the mosque, without being in favor of the project. In any case, this is a local issue, not a national one.

The Republicans howling about this project are doing the worst kind of demagoguery. They’re throwing stones, knowing that they don’t have to accept responsibility for actually taking any kind of action. If they were the party in power, they would be defending First Amendment rights as well. If Democrats were pointing this out, instead of calling Republicans bigots, they would have a more effective argument as well.

On the other hand, commentators who claim this is only a “cultural center” and not a mosque are deluding themselves, and attempting to delude the public as well. I don’t care that the plans for the fifteen story building include gym and an auditorium. There is a large Southern Baptist church only a couple of miles from my home. On their campus is an events center, an athletic center with four basketball courts, a school, and meeting rooms. Nobody is deceived that all of that is not ancillary to the real purpose, which is a church.

Ultimately, those offended by the presence of the Cordoba Center will have to make their peace with the project, for the concept of freedom of religion trumps all of the objections. And I think that is the best argument for allowing the project to proceed. The World Trade Center was attacked by extremists whose world view called for very little tolerance. What could be a greater repudiation of that world view than to promote tolerance by shutting up and allowing the project to proceed.?

Federal vs. Private Employment

2010-08-10T14:59:00.001-05:00

The Cato Institute had an interesting analysis on their web site. They aggregated the compensation of all Federal employees, and compared that to the aggregated compensation for all private sector employees.

The first figures presented were for average cash compensation:
Federal Employees: $81,258
Private Sector Employees: $50,462

Federal employees average much higher wage and salary than the private sector. However, the difference does not become eyepopping until you include the public versus private benefits packages:
Federal Employees: $123,049
Private Sector Employees: $61,051

Well, the Feds get better pay, and they get much better benefits. But they have to put up with higher risk of getting fired or laid off, right? Oh, wait, no, it’s the other way around. The annual risk of getting laid off or fired:
Federal Employees: 7.7%
Private Sector Employees: 24.1%

Not only is the private sector (i.e. the taxpayers) footing the bill for this disparity, but the gap in all of these measures has increased over the last ten years.

You can’t call them civil servants. Better to call them civil masters.

Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C

2010-08-08T23:13:00.002-05:00

One theme that has been consistently sounded throughout the saga of the BP oil spill has been that “BP didn’t have a plan.” The idea is that it is irresponsible to drill for oil in deep water without knowing how to turn the well off if things go wrong. The proof that BP did not have a plan is that it took over 100 days before they were able to devise a method of capping the well, and that several of the approaches they tried (the top shot, and the large containment cap) did not work as planned.

Now, I’m no petroleum engineer, but I suspect that characterization is unfair. BP did have a plan for what to do if things went wrong with their wellhead, a mile under the water. That plan was to use the blowout preventer to seal off the well in the event of problems.

The blowout preventer is a large, expensive piece of equipment that is installed at every wellhead. Its function is to automatically seal off the well if pressures inside the well exceed specified levels. Indeed, the pressures inside the well are used to drive the mechanical rams that pinch shut the opening inside the well pipe. Failing an automatic shutoff, the blowout preventer also has a manual shutdown mode as well.

Blowout preventers are a well proven piece of technology, having been originally developed in the 1920’s. Used worldwide, there are many instances of their stopping oil gushers from occurring in multiple environments throughout the world.

Of course, the blowout preventer installed on the Deepwater Horizon rig failed to work on the day of the accident, allowing the explosion that sank the rig. That was as bad as it had ever gotten on an oil drilling site. A couple of days later BP sent down a deep water submersible, to manually close off the blowout preventer. That’s when things got worse, because turning the manual valve had no impact on the gusher of oil spewing into the Gulf.

When Plan A fails, you go to Plan B. If the combination of Plan A and Plan B has always worked, you don’t need to prepare a Plan C ahead of time. That is the situation the BP engineers found themselves in a little over 100 days ago.

The building where I work, like almost all commercial buildings in this country, is protected from fire hazard by a sprinkler system. In addition, we have fire extinguishers strategically located throughout the building. The experience of BP in handling the Deepwater Horizon disaster would be like having a fire break out in our building, and the sprinklers failed to pop. Then, when we rushed to the fire extinguishers, we found that they were all empty.

If we then had to invent the Fire Department, while simultaneously trying to capture all of the smoke to control air pollution, that would be analogous to what BP has tried to do in the last three months. The miraculous thing is that they have eliminated three quarters of the spilled oil while using a mix of proven and invented techniques to close off the broken well.

There was plenty of opportunity for negligence in the operation of the Deepwater Horizon rig. But the real question will be why did Plan A and Plan B not work, not why was there no Plan C on tap. The central issue will be: why did the blowout preventer fail?

Maybe this incident shows the need for a Plan C. Perhaps equipment recapping undersea wellheads needs to be stockpiled, ready for use if an incident like this ever happens again. But that wasn’t obvious in advance, and I’m not sure it is obvious even now.

One thing I do know: experience is what you get when things go wrong.

Where did the oil go?

2010-08-04T16:00:00.001-05:00

A panel of experts from the Interior Department and NOAA has released a report today estimating that 74% of the oil that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico from the damaged BP oil well is already gone. About 20% of the spill was skimmed from the surface, or collected by BP and burned off in “flaring” operations.

Where did the rest of the oil go? Apparently a lot of it simply evaporated. A large portion of the oil was “bioremediated.” That’s a fancy word that means bacteria in the water are eating the oil, breaking it down into water and carbon dioxide. This is a natural process that has been greatly accelerated, both by summer storms moving through the Gulf, and by the enormous amounts of chemical dispersants dumped on the oil slick by BP. The dispersants break up the oil into teeny tiny droplets. The more surface area, the more the bacteria can get at the oil.

It is not a bad idea to be skeptical about these kinds of announcements. How did they get to 74%? Why not 71%, or 76%? Still, this is not BP’s estimate. This is a theoretically independent government panel. They’ve got no reason to low ball the amount of oil left to be cleaned up.

If this is true, it is an extraordinary claim. The implication is that in light of what is widely claimed as the worst environmental disaster in the nation’s history, three quarters of the problem was cleaned up in real time. They haven’t finished cementing the well shut yet, and 74% of the oil is already gone.

If the efforts of both man and nature continue at this rate (unlikely), the oil spill will be gone by the end of hurricane season. The oil that has already hit beaches and marshes will still have to be cleaned up, and I’m sure that somebody is going to have to scoop up tar balls that float ashore for years to come. However, it begins to look like the worst of this mess is already behind us.

BP has been widely excoriated for not having a plan in place to deal with the situation ahead of time. I think people have been selling the company short. They have brought enormous resources to bear in a remarkably short time, and that huge effort seems to be working. The media has underestimated what the can-do attitude of Americans can accomplish, when faced with an emergency, and backed up by a butt load of money.

2010 Goals: Progress Report

2010-07-29T11:10:00.000-05:00

We’re a little past the halfway point of 2010, so I thought it would be a good idea to review the progress so far towards my personal goals for the year. It is an axiom of management that you don’t get what you want, you get what you measure. This is as true in one’s personal life as it is in business.

Goal: Run 50 kilometers of road races.
Status: Complete.
A heavy race schedule in March, April, and May, including one 10K, let me complete this goal by early in June. No races are set for the hot part of the summer, but they will pick up again in September/October time frame. I clearly low-balled this goal. Next year I may have to commit to a half marathon.

Goal: Complete three authors from The New Lifetime Reading Plan.
Status: Complete.
I tackled the English Lake District poets first: Wordsworth and Coleridge. Then I jumped forward forty years and read selected works from the American essayist and philosopher Emerson. Having plucked the low hanging fruit, I have started in on The Story of the Stone, a massive Chinese novel of the late Ming period. At 2500 pages in four volumes, this will keep me occupied until the end of the year. If I get through that this year, next year I may decide to take on Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past, all seven volumes of it.

Goal: Entertain at home 12 times throughout the year.
Status: Ahead of schedule.
Man does not live by money alone. A recent study showed that people who had a bigger network of friends tended to live longer. Within my experience, I would argue that they also live better. We are social animals, happiest in a group setting. So far this year we have entertained at home eight times. These have ranged from intimate dinners with another couple to outdoor barbeques with 30+ attendees. Party on, dude!

Goal: Save 20% of earned income.
Status: On-track.
Due to a larger than expected income tax refund, I was able to fund my Roth IRA with the equivalent of 5% of estimated earnings in the first quarter of the year. Between my contribution to the company 401K and the corporate match, another 15% is being added to my retirement funds. Now if only the stock market would recover and start growing again.

Goal: Reduce total debt to less than $60 K.
Status: Ahead of schedule.
Including the payments made at the end of July, I am now down to $62 K in debt from mortgage, car loan, and line of credit. I am paying down principle at the rate of $800 per month, including tripling the equity payment on the monthly mortgage. Debt reduction and savings rate are linked. I could apply a higher percentage to savings, and slow down on debt reduction. But I get a guaranteed 6.5% return on capital by drawing down my mortgage faster, and in today’s market that looks pretty good.

Goal: Earn $2000 at H & R Block.
Status: Failure.
I only made about $1000 during tax season this year. Including the training hours I put in, my hourly rate was very little better than minimum wage. After peak season was over, walk in traffic dropped down to zero, and I dropped my hours down to zero. No point in coming in just to sit in the office. I need to take certification tests to increase my compensation rate, but even then I don’t see myself hitting this goal next year. On the other hand, doing taxes does provide good blog fodder, so I’ll give it at least one more year.

Goal: Take 9 credit hours of graduate level accounting classes.
Status: On track.
My original plan was to take one class (3 credit hours) in Spring, Summer, and Fall semesters. After completing one class in Spring semester, I wasn’t able to find a summer class that fit my schedule. So I have doubled up, and am signed up for two classes starting in September. This is about half a standard academic load, and is more than I have ever taken since I started working. So we’ll see how this goes in the fall.

Goal: 60+ blog posts.
Status: On track.
Seven months into 2010, and I have kept my average of 5 posts a month. I need to focus on posting at least once a month for the balance of the year.

It is easy to focus on goals, and lose sight of the reality that the milestones and measurements are intended to represent. So, to put this progress report into a different perspective: I am healthy and fit, and enjoying time with a wide circle of friends and family. I am continuing to grow both intellectually and professionally, while storing up resources against the vicissitudes that inevitably come to everyone. Life is good!

Title IX and Cheerleading

2010-07-23T17:36:00.002-05:00

An interesting legal decision regarding Title IX came down this week. Title IX is the civil rights legislation that governs women’s collegiate sports, and is widely credited with dramatically expanding athletic opportunities for women in college. Basically, the legislation says that you cannot discriminate against woman’s sports in favor of men’s sports.

This is the sticky point. How can you tell if women’s sports are being discriminated against? The most commonly used test is called the proportionality test. What this means is that the percentage of women on the school’s sports teams should equal the percentage of women enrolled in the school. If your student body is 55% women, 55% of the athletes at the school must also be women. If not, you are guilty of discrimination: you better hand out more scholarships to girls, and by the way, you can pay the lawyers on your way out of court.

Since they have to pass the proportionality test, colleges play games with their sports programs, either adding women’s sports or dropping men’s sports. This brings us to the current case.

Quinnipiac University in Connecticut wanted to drop their women’s volleyball team. To make up for the number of slots lost, they claimed that cheerleading counted as a varsity sport. Making the substitution, the proportion of woman athletes was within 4% of the percentage of woman in the student body, which the University claimed was close enough. These claims were not unique to Quinnipiac. Other colleges have made the same assumptions.

Anyway, the volleyball team sued the school (with the help of the ACLU), and the judge ruled that cheerleading was not a sport. In a world where synchronized swimming is an Olympic event, how the hell do you rule out cheerleading as a sport?

What are the criteria to determine if an activity is a sport? I think we can all agree that it should be an organized physical activity, with coaches and competitions. Cheerleading seems to fit the bill in all of those particulars. Just go to YouTube, and you will find videos of astonishing athleticism and teamwork, taken at cheerleading competitions. If Quinnipiac decided that cheerleading was more cost effective (11 slots for volleyball vs. 30 slots for cheerleading), or more popular, than volleyball, what right has a court to interfere with that decision? After all, we live in a world where synchronized swimming is an Olympic event.

Apparently, the judge’s decision turned on the fact that the cheerleading team competed against several different types of other cheerleading teams. They competed against other colleges, but also against club teams not affiliated with any school. Also, the rules were different for different competitions.

Another part of the judge’s ruling dealt with how the school counted team membership. The college had women’s teams for cross-country, indoor track, and outdoor track. They counted the athletes who participated in all three sports three times. The judge cried foul on that practice. Interestingly, the school dropped men’s outdoor track last year. How much do you want to bet they will drop the women’s track team next year? After all, you don’t get any credit for it. Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Ultimately, Title IX has become a form of affirmative action for women’s athletics. However, unlike affirmative action in college admissions, in the case of sports, quotas are not only encouraged, but required to meet the dictates of the law. Although it has unquestionably opened up more opportunities for women, it also leads to gaming the system and restricted opportunities for men. These are the results we would expect from any quota system.

Unemployment Benefits

2010-07-16T15:06:00.001-05:00

I have friends among the ranks of the unemployed. I know one guy who has not had a full time job for almost two years now, and not for lack of trying. He has been to several out of state interviews, as well as numerous phone interviews, and he just can’t close the deal. This is probably largely due to his age (60+), but it also an indication of how tough the job market is these days.

However, I also know and have written of individuals who are working on the black market while continuing to draw unemployment (and food stamps, and welfare). In those circumstances, unemployment compensation is clearly a disincentive to taking on a regular job. So while I have some sympathy for those who struggling to find employment in today’s economy, I come down in favor of cutting off unemployment compensation after 75 weeks.

The Obama administration recently tried to push through another extension of unemployment benefits. It was stopped in the Senate by Republicans, concerned about the level of deficit spending. In the next six months, a number of the long term unemployed will lose their benefits as they expire.

I was reading the Freakonomics blog today, and I noticed an earlier post on this subject. As part of his post, one of the things Daniel Hamermesh said was

The original, and I believe continuing, purpose of unemployment insurance is to
maintain consumption of the unemployed—to prevent hardship.

I think the author has combined two different rationales in that sentence. There are two separate arguments for continuing unemployment benefits, and the Freakonomics author has folded them together. The easier argument to follow is to prevent hardship. It sucks to be unemployed. Having a little money coming in keeps food on the table and the lights turned on while looking for the next position. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, and then those paychecks are cut off, you are in deep trouble. With the current high level of unemployment, there are no jobs, so the need for the safety net is still there. In essence, this argument is “extend unemployment, because you could be next.”

The more complicated argument is that unemployment benefits maintain consumption. This is really a macroeconomic argument, as opposed to easing hardship at the microeconomic level of the household receiving benefits. The idea is that consumption drives demand, which drives production, which drives employment. Put another way, the argument is that if laid off people have no income, their spending drops to zero. When customers stop spending, businesses lay people off. If those laid off people also stop spending, the cycle will continue until no one is left standing. Basically, this boils down to “extend unemployment, or you will be next.”

After 18 months, however, both arguments begin to wear thin. Being an American citizen is a guarantee of certain inalienable rights. But it is not a guarantee of a standard of living, or even of a job. It is not the responsibility of the government to borrow money from the Chinese in order to send people checks in perpetuity. Enough is enough.

Disability Claims

2010-07-11T21:20:00.001-05:00

We had one of our employees quit last week. She worked half a shift on Tuesday, left for a doctor’s appointment, then called in Tuesday afternoon to say she was quitting with no notice.

Here’s what was reported to me:

At the woman’s doctor appointment, she had reported symptoms so severe, that her doctor had declared that she should be on permanent total disability. He told her he would support her in her disability claim. The woman promptly went down to the local Social Security office and filed for disability. After filling out the paperwork, the first question the officials asked her was: are you still working? When she told them she was going to give two weeks notice, she was told not to give notice, as it would screw up her claim, by continuing to work after filing for disability status.

Additional information: The woman’s husband just started receiving his disability checks, after waiting almost two years for his claim to wend its way through the system. It usually takes at least a year for Social Security disability claims to be processed. However, it turns out that you get back pay: once your claim is approved, payments are made back to the date of first filing.

A few questions: Why are the bureaucrats at Social Security coaching applicants for disability? I would think that at best, part of their job would be root out attempts to defraud the taxpayers. At worst, they would maintain strict neutrality. If you want to go back to work after filling, who are they to advise against it. Let the chips fall where they may.

This leads me into my next question, and central point. If this woman was able to work two weeks notice, then how disabled could she be? For that matter, she worked a full shift Monday. I saw her do it. There was no evidence that I could see of a disabling medical condition. Not last week, or the week before, or the week before that. She never came to management and asked for an accommodation to any medical condition.

Here’s where I speculate: Our employee worked her job, supporting herself and her husband while his disability claim was processed. Now it’s his turn to support her. His back disability will support them while her claim is processed. Furthermore, now that he has learned the ins and outs of the system, he will be able to coach her while she goes for a second helping from the same pot.

This leads to one more question: How many people on disability have another member of their household also drawing disability? Once somebody in the house figures out how to get free money, how often does another member of the home decide to go for more free money?

Okay, that was two final questions.

A Favorable Omen

2010-07-05T20:35:00.002-05:00

After the backyard barbeque and fireworks on the Fourth, I had a holiday today to recuperate. Later in the afternoon, I decided to go to the gym and try and work off some of the bratwurst and baked beans.

Walking up to the entrance of the gym, I noticed a small pile of change sitting on one of the platforms holding the faux columns that frame the entry. Three quarters, two dimes, and four pennies. Thinking that it could be some kind of trap, I restrained myself from grabbing the money on my way in the door.

After finishing my workout, I saw that the money was still there when I came out. Well, you don't have to tell me more than twice about free money before I go and see for myself. Half expecting some kind of hidden camera stunt to materialize, I snatched up the coins and pocketed them.

No one jumped out and accused me of stealing their money. So far, so good. Not only that, but as I walked across the parking lot, I spotted more change: a quarter here, a nickel there, a couple more pennies. My mama not having raised no fool for a son, I pocketed them as well.

Due to the long weekend, the coming week is going to be a short week at work. And now I'm up $1.31. Is this going to be a great week, or what?

Headlines in the News

2010-06-24T15:55:00.003-05:00

You absolutely have to wonder who writes the headlines sometimes. Here is a headline from today's Washington Post: "Top Defense Officials Say They 'Fully Support' Obama on Removing McChrystal."

Well, duh! Given that McChrystal was removed from command of US forces in Afghanistan because of interviews where it sounded like he did not 'fully support' the administration and every member of the civilian staff, what would you expect them to say? They may think it was a terrible idea to fire the guy, and they would publicly say they fully support the decision.

You have to wonder what the troops on the line think about this kerfluffle. Actually, I can guess. I bet their thinking runs something like this: "The general screwed up and criticized the civilians, and they punished him by sending him home to the States. If I screw up like that, can I get punished the same way?"

The more things change ...

2010-06-15T09:10:00.001-05:00

Recently I have been reading some of the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the nineteenth century philosopher and writer. In his essay titled Self-Reliance, I came across the following passage:

“…do not tell me, as a good man did today, of my obligation to put all poor men
in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee thou foolish philanthropist that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity I am bought and sold: for them I will go to prison if need be; but your miscellaneouspopular charities; the education at college of fools; the building of meeting-houses to the vain end to which many now stand; alms to sots, and the thousand-fold Relief Societies; -- though I confess with shame I sometimes succumb and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar which by and by I shall have the manhood to withhold.”

Written in the 1840’s, this hit me like a thunderbolt. There really is nothing new under the sun. The only change to the terms of the debate in the last 160 years has been that now Emerson’s philanthropist would argue that it is the government’s job to “put all poor men in good situations,” and Emerson must give his money in taxes to support this worthy goal.

BP Oil Spill: What Not To Do

2010-06-08T14:23:00.000-05:00

Although BP is having some success capturing the oil from their undersea well, some is still escaping into the Gulf, adding to the enormous amount of oil already spilled. As the oil slick continues to spread, and oil begins to come ashore in coastal communities, the sense of frustration in the general populace continues to mount.

I have been reading a lot of wild proposals coming from both op-ed writers and the commenters on news sites. I thought I might react to several of the most preposterous.

Boycott BP
This has got to be the dumbest idea yet put forward. Let’s “punish” BP by not buying their gasoline. Even if it were possible to get enough people acting in concert to impact BP’s sales, this would be a bad idea. Cleaning up this spill is going to take years, and a ton of money. If BP is going to be held responsible, they are going to need a continuing stream of cash flow to pay for this mess. They are going to get that money by continuing with their on-going business of producing and selling oil and gas. Starving your cash cow is never a good idea.

Turn the situation over to the armed forces
What are they going to do? Defend the beaches by shooting the oil as it tries to come ashore? Launch air strikes against an oil slick? I was in the army, and I was actually in a Corps of Engineers unit that had earthmoving and construction capabilities. One thing we were not trained or equipped to do was clean up spilled oil. Even more ludicrous is the idea that the military will take over efforts to shut down the leaking well. All they can do is provide unskilled labor. The know-how, gear, and systems for cleaning up will have to be provided by someone else.

A variant of this is the plea for the government to take over the effort to plug the leaking well. Nobody in the government knows jack-all about undersea well drilling operations. There is no evidence anywhere that BP’s management and operating personnel aren’t doing everything they can to plug this well, and they seem to be throwing all their resources into trying to solve the technical problem.

Criminal prosecutions against BP executives
I read a news story earlier this week that said people being polled wanted to see criminal prosecutions by a ratio of two to one. To even conduct the opinion poll is an example of mobacracy at its worst. I am hard put to imagine what the crime is supposed to be that the senior executives committed. Did they knowingly buy defective blowout preventers because they were cheap? Did they direct personnel to falsify test reports and bypass safety protocols? No evidence of any such activity has come to light.

Stop drilling oil wells
The fantasy here is that screwing in compact fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars will drop our energy usage to the point that we can stop using petroleum. Even if we cut our energy usage in half, we still need to face the fact that all of our transportation systems are totally dependent on liquid fuels. Unless we want to outlaw air conditioning and airplanes, and put everyone on a bicycle, we’re going to continue to need oil to make our civilization function.

Frustrating as it is to watch the live video feed showing oil continuing to pour out BP’s well at the bottom of the Gulf, they will eventually solve the problem and seal off the leak. Containing, and then cleaning up all of the leaked oil will take years, maybe decades, and BP should have to pay, both for the clean up efforts and for the losses other people are going to suffer as a result of this disaster. As a going concern, BP has the size and scope of operations to compensate the victims of this colossal accident.

But striking out at the company as a result of built up frustration won’t solve anybody’s problems.

Helen Thomas: Did she really say that?

2010-06-06T20:43:00.002-05:00

At 89 years old, Helen Thomas is both the oldest, and the longest serving member of the White House press corps. As the longest serving member, she not only gets a front row seat at the daily press briefings; by custom, she has the right to throw out the first question at the President's press conferences. By virtue of her longevity, she has transcended her position to become an institution.

She also appears to be a raving anti-Semite.

Last week she was captured on camera giving her opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian problems in the Middle East.

Now, you can deplore Israeli policy towards the occupied West Bank. You can call Israeli military actions against the Gaza strip completely disproportionate, compared to the provocations offered by Hamas. You can even make the argument that Israeli has ceded the moral high ground of a democratic society, and created an apartheid regime.

What you really can't do is state that Jews living in the Middle East should "Go home...to Germany and to Poland...and to everywhere else."

You might be able to make the excuse for Ms. Thomas that she has suffered enough microstrokes in her frontal lobes that it has seriously affected her judgement. Maybe she really doesn't mean, or even understand, the implications of her statements.

Be that as it may, it's time for her to go. When she recites what is basically the Hamas party line, she demonstrates that she is unfit for any position as a responsible journalist. The Hearst newspaper syndicate needs to fire her.

And people bitch about Rush Limbaugh.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

2010-06-04T12:54:00.000-05:00

In high school (a long time ago), I took a class in Science Fiction as Literature. One of the themes of the course was the Frankenstein story.

Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant scientist, builds his creature without considering the consequences of creating artificial life. Once animated, Frankenstein is unable to control his monster, which goes on to destroy everything that Frankenstein holds dear. Finally, Frankenstein himself perishes in the attempt to destroy his creation.

At the heart of the Frankenstein myth is the fear of the unintended consequences of new and developing technologies. The Terminator movies are a version of the myth. Jurassic Park, and most of the other novels of Michael Crichton, merely ring changes on the theme.

I’m put in mind of Frankenstein by watching news coverage of the BP oil spill disaster. Seeing live video of that dark, mysterious cloud billowing out of the pipe, a mile under the surface. Watching satellite photos of the spreading oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico, spreading its tentacles further and further. The oil pouring up from the bottom of the sea is the monster.

Filling the role of mad scientist, BP’s drilling crews created the monster. And with every failure to stem the flow of oil, the lack of control over what they have created becomes more apparent.

In every good horror story, the real fear comes from the anticipation of what is going to happen, not the action itself. Life copies art in this respect as well. As of this writing, no one knows how much oil is eventually going to leak into the Gulf, or what the final environmental tally will be. We just know that it is going to be bad.

The biggest sinkhole ever.

2010-06-01T21:07:00.002-05:00

Holy Cow!

This is an image of the sinkhole that opened up in Guatemala City over the weekend as a result of a tropical storm.

It looks like something out of a science fiction movie. Like the one where aliens burn a hole in the crust of the planet from space. Or maybe like the one where the supervillain activates his seismo ray device and chews up the heart of a city. Or maybe like the one where the hero realizes that all of what he thinks is real is actually a computer generated illusion.

Astonishingly, no one was killed when the sinkhole opened up, although it did swallow part of a building.

Violence vs Non-violence

2010-06-01T15:21:00.001-05:00

I just watched the video of Israeli commandos rappelling onto one of the ships of the Gaza relief convoy. It looks like the commandos and the passengers on the ships are working off two different scripts. The Israelis are working off the standard non-violent resistance script. The Israeli role is to play the heavy, intercepting a peaceful humanitarian mission in international waters. The “activists” on the convoy, by peacefully resisting, establish the moral high ground, and focus international attention on the justice of their cause.

The folks on the convoy were apparently not working off that script. They were attempting to repel enemy boarders. There is nothing non-violent about clubbing someone to death with a metal bar, which is clearly what the passengers were attempting to do.

The Israelis were clearly surprised by the ferocity of the reaction to their boarding. Near the end of the video you can see one of the commandos pointing a paintball gun at the passengers. I’m thinking they wouldn’t have been carrying paintball guns if they had planned on things turning as ugly as they did.

Of course, at some stage of the proceedings the commandos declined to be swarmed and beaten to death. They pulled out the real guns they were carrying and used them. The escalation of the violence caused ten times the international reaction that a non-violent incident would have engendered.

This has become an public relations disaster for Israel.

Turning the Cards

2010-05-27T08:50:00.000-05:00

At work we are still in hiring and training mode. The hiring is now not being driven by an expansion of our business, or even the turnover of experienced personnel from retirement or relocation. No, we are now hiring trainees to replace the trainees who washed out.

One guy found a better job, and we determined that a couple of others were not going to work out long term. From management’s point of view, it is always best to cut ties as early as possible, once you have decided that you have an unsatisfactory candidate. Why continue to invest training dollars in someone who is not going to make it?

Despite our best attempts at interviewing and upfront testing, hiring is largely a blind process. I know of no way to determine is someone is truly going to perform in a job, prior to having them start in our unique environment. With some people, it is apparent early on that they will excel, going far in our organization. Sometimes it’s an absolute disaster: the person who creates a quality problem, or breaks equipment, or gets someone hurt. But they all look pretty much the same coming in the front door.

It is also a linear process. When I say that it is linear, I mean that we can only try out one candidate at a time for a position. It would be tempting to hire multiple candidates simultaneously, and then select the best one at the end of training. You retain the star, and drop the others.

A Darwinian selection process would probably be more cost effective than working with one candidate at a time. But that approach strikes me as fundamentally flawed and unfair. We make hiring decisions in good faith. Hiring multiple people, with the intent of cutting some of them, breaks that faith. If a person can do the job, they get to keep the job. I will forego the possibility of finding someone even better.

So, hiring is both, blind, and linear. The metaphor I use to describe this process is playing solitaire. You can shuffle the deck all you want, but eventually you’re going to have to turn over a card. Most of the time you get a number card, a three, or an eight, or a ten. And that’s how many days they last. Then you have to turn over a new card, and try again.

You’re hoping for an ace, you’ll settle for a face card, and you’re praying you don’t get the joker.

Cell Phones for All

2010-05-24T16:02:00.000-05:00

I discovered a fresh outrage this weekend. Unusually for me, I was glued to the tube, watching the series finale of Lost. Four minutes of show, three minutes of commercials. Anyway, from sheer repetition, commercials for Assurant Wireless began to penetrate my consciousness.

Assurant Wireless offers a free cell phone, along with 200 minutes of free nation-wide calling every month, as long as you qualify. The primary qualification is to be receiving food stamps, or to have income below 135% of the Federal poverty level.

The first problem with this is that the “free” cell phone service is not free, of course. It is being paid for out of the taxes attached to the paying customers’ phone bills every month. So I’m being taxed, not to pay for a common good like police or fire protection, but for someone else’s specific good. But the irritation doesn’t stop there.

I can kind of wrap my mind around the concept of food stamps. No one should starve in a nation full of food. But when was it decided that cell phone service is a right, not a discretionary expense?

Then there’s that 135%. The whole point of having a Federal poverty level is that is supposed to be the line demarcating the poor (who presumably need help from the government), from the not-poor, who should be able to fend for themselves.

Those are all bad enough to give me dyspepsia. The part that really frosts me, however, is the television commercials. The contract to provide the “free” cell service is so lucrative that the company (a division of Virgin Mobile) can afford a primetime TV ad campaign. They want to reach anyone who might be qualified, and get them to sign up. There used to be at least a little bit of a stigma associated with government assistance. You were supposed to have enough pride to take care of yourself. Not any more. Don’t be embarrassed to get free cell phone service. You’re entitled to feed at the government trough.

This whole situation irritates me, but in reality, it is only an irritant. The taxes that pay for this program are not unduly onerous. But I wonder how the folks who earn 140% of the poverty line feel. If they want cell service, they have to choose what to sacrifice to afford the luxury of a cell phone. I’ll bet this makes them just wild.

Synthetic Life

2010-05-21T15:11:00.001-05:00

This was a big week for molecular biology geeks. Craig Venter and his team at the Venter Institute in Maryland announced that they had successfully created what they call “synthetic life.” Like Dr. Frankenstein, we have now created life from non-living material. Surely designer organisms that eat carbon dioxide and secrete oil are not far away, thereby solving both global warming and the energy crisis!

Well, maybe not.

When you get beyond the hype of the press release and examine what Venter’s team really did, it boils down to three things. 1) They completely decoded the DNA of an existing bacteria. This is known as sequencing the genome. 2) They artificially created a copy of the sequenced DNA, starting with the nucleotide bases that are the building blocks of the DNA molecule. As part of that process they modified some of the nonfunctional sections of the DNA to insert what are called “genetic watermarks.” 3) They took a different bacteria, removed the genetic material that was native to the germ, and implanted their prebuilt DNA. The newly implanted DNA then took over the machinery of the cell and began making copies of itself in the normal process of cell division.

These are all neat tricks, to be sure, and incredibly difficult to boot. But I think they fail two key tests for the claim of truly creating artificial life. First, true artificial life will have a genetic code designed from scratch. Venter borrowed the genetic code from an organism that had developed over a billion years of trial and error evolution.

Second, to be truly synthetic, they would have to combine their novel DNA with both a lab grown cellular membrane and built from scratch cellular metabolic machinery. If that assembly then began to grow and reproduce, then they could truly claim to have built an artificial life form.

We’re still a long way away from gleefully cackling “It’s alive! My creature lives!,” as we rub our hands together with glee. Consider: the bacterial DNA Ventner synthesized consisted of a little over one million base pairs, combined to make a single chromosome. Human DNA includes over three billion base pairs, spread out over 46 chromosomes. That’s three thousand times more genetic code.

Those caveats aside, it is still an astonishing technical achievement. Clearly with some fine tuning, they will soon be able to use their techniques to do the kind of design work mentioned above.

Educational Qualtiy Control

2010-05-20T15:29:00.001-05:00

I want to build on my concept of testing as educational quality control that I started in my last post.

Quality control, or quality assurance, as it is sometimes called, is a core function in every manufacturing plant I’ve ever seen. We continuously check product at every stage, from incoming raw material to assembly to final audit before shipping. The question is always the same: does the product meet specifications? Put another way, what we are doing is verifying that the manufacturing process is generating the desired result.

If you check parts, and find you aren’t getting the correct result, then there is a problem with the process. But until you do your quality checks, you don’t know what you are producing. Also, one of the key guidelines of quality control is to check your quality as early in the process as possible. It makes no sense to wait until after you have finished final assembly to test the product and discover there was a problem with the first step in the assembly process. Finally, a good quality control program relies on objective evidence. If a good part has to be round within .004”, everyone agrees on that, and everyone agrees on how to measure the part. There is never any discussion of “the parts look round enough to me.” It is either round within .004”, or it is not. If not, then there is a problem, and we have to fix the problem.

In education, standards and standardized testing take the place of quality control. That’s why I can never understand why the educational establishment fights so hard against standardized testing. Actually, that’s not true. I completely understand why teachers fight so hard against testing. If I had a complete lack of accountability for producing the desired result in my job, I would want to protect that too.

What I don’t understand are the lame excuses offered as to why we shouldn’t use standardized tests to evaluate the performance of our education processes. For example, “all we do is teach to the test.” If the test is a representative sample of what we want students to know, than test scores should accurately show the students’ mastery of that body of knowledge.

Conversely, without testing, there is no way to establish that the student has learned anything. And based on my experience trying to employ a number of high school graduates, many of them really haven’t learned anything.

Training the Trainer

2010-05-17T14:24:00.001-05:00

We’ve gone into hiring mode for the first time in a couple of years. This is due to two factors. First, business continues to strengthen, necessitating more workers to get the job done. Second, some of our people have moved on to greener pastures. When somebody leaves, it creates an opening for somebody else. The end result is that we’re not just calling back former employees who were laid off. We’re bringing new people into the organization.

Since it has been a couple of years since we have done that, we are relearning lessons on training new people. Our usual method of training is OJT or job shadowing. We assign the trainee to follow an existing employee for a few weeks. In theory, the trainer shows the trainee all of the ins and outs of the job. Anything the trainer doesn’t teach, can be picked up from the work instructions and operating procedures.

At least, that’s the theory.

We had one guy training for five weeks at one position. When we gave him a written test at the end of that time, he failed miserably. It turns out he couldn’t read the questions, either on the test paper or the work instructions that contained the answers. We had to let him go. Oh yeah, we’re supposed to test for literacy on the front end. So now we’ve reinstalled that part of our hiring procedures.

Another lesson we’ve relearned is to provide milestone tests to be administered during the training period. We fell into the lazy trap of waiting until the very end of training, and then testing everything at once. We had one person fail all of the tests. It turned out the trainer had used the “monkey see, monkey do” technique to have the trainee go through the motions of the job. But the trainer had never bothered to explain what the individual actions meant, or why they were included in the job.

It’s possible that the trainer had tried to explain these things. But this was the first time that particular trainer had ever trained anyone, it is very loud out on the shop floor, and the trainer was not particularly articulate in the first place. However, we realized that by virtue of hindsight. The bottlenecks to successful training could have been removed weeks earlier if we had enforced a testing regimen on both the trainee and trainer.

In our training model, testing performs a quality control function. If you want to know if your training is effective, than you devise a test that covers the material being trained. If the trainee can pass the test, then the training is effective. If they cannot pass the test, then your training is ineffective.

Obviously, if your training is going to be ineffective, you want to know as early in the process as possible. That way you can take steps to improve your training (maybe replace the trainer, maybe replace the trainee) before too much cost has been expended.

Because the testing is a pain in the butt, the trainers tend to push it off as long as possible. It’s up to management to enforce the testing regime. And as this whole incident has shown, everybody needs refresher training every now and again.

A New Passion: Off Topic Post

2010-05-13T20:20:00.002-05:00

In the last couple of weeks a have discovered a new area of interest: molecular biology.

It started last year when I bought The Teaching Company course on Big History: The Big Bang, Life on Earth, and the Rise of Humanity. Fourteen billion years condensed into 48 lectures on CD. Woo-hoo!

One of the critical thresholds discussed in Big History was the origin of life on Earth. So a couple of months ago I bought the course The Origins of Life. To talk about the research into the origin of life, you have to talk about biochemistry. There is also a chicken and egg type of problem with the origin of life. To be recognizable as life, the organism has to have both metabolism, a way of extracting energy from the environment, and inheritable reproduction, a way of making copies of itself. Which came first, and how did they combine? Nobody knows ... yet.

One of the lectures in The Origins of Life course covered the basics of genetic coding, how RNA is built out of DNA, and how proteins are assembled by RNA. I was hooked. I know we can splice DNA, and I know we have sequenced the human genome, but I don't know what that means. So I'm on a journey to find out.

My current Teaching Company course is on fundamentals of biology, which includes a number of lectures on cellular mechanics. After listening to a couple of lectures, I went online and did some searches for molecular biology. I found a Berkeley molecular biology course, and listened to a couple of lectures. Different perspectives, but not as well structured as The Teaching Company course.

Then, on a whim, I went to YouTube and typed in "DNA Replication." I hit the mother lode. It turns out there are tons of animations for all kinds of biological processes: DNA replication, translation, and transcription. Under metabolism, there are animations for glucolysis, the Krebs cycle, the citric acid cycle, and ATP synthase.

The animations run the gamut from block diagrams to real time scale reproductions of cellular processes. What is most amazing to me is that we now actually know the shapes of the various large molecules in these processes.

This is a whole new area of human knowledge for me to explore, and I can totally get my geek on doing so. I foresee hours of fun chasing down the minutiae of various biochemical processes.

Yeah, I'm a nerd. You got a problem with that?

Greece's Problems

2010-05-10T14:40:00.000-05:00

Greece’s fiscal problems have been much in the news recently. Essentially, the country is bankrupt. They have bond payments coming due this month, and they don’t have enough euros in the treasury to pay back the bond holders.

There is nothing unusual about that. Most governments don’t actually pay off their bond holders when the note comes due. What they do is issue new bonds, and just keep rolling the debt over. Greece’s problem is that they have hit their credit limit. The international financial markets are so nervous about how much debt has already been issued that they don’t want to allow Greece to continue digging the hole deeper.

This is not the first time a sovereign nation has run into this problem. Nations can’t handle their credit cards any better than the average American. The nation state playbook says that in a circumstance like this, you devalue your currency. Devaluation makes your exports cheaper, imports more expensive, and pays back the bond investors with a cheaper currency than they loaned you. The inflationary effects make everyone poorer, including the bondholders, who have to take a haircut on the value of their investment.

This isn’t an available option for Greece, because the Greeks don’t have their own currency anymore. They use the common European currency, the euro. If Greece defaults on its bonds, all of the countries in the Euro zone are in the splash zone. Hence the incentive for the other European Union countries to bail Greece out.

The other European nations, notably France and Germany, along with the International Monetary Fund, have agreed to be the lender of last resort to the Greek government. But there are conditions. They are requiring Greece’s government to reduce the government budget deficit from 13.9% of GDP to 3.9% over the next three years.

With their back against the wall, the Greeks are agreeing to the plan. They are cutting pensions, cutting salaries of government employees, and raising the retirement age. On the revenue side, consumption taxes are being increased one tenth, from 20% to 22%.

How big a cut is this going to be? Government spending makes up about 43% of the total Greek economy. The proposed austerity package of tax increases and budget cuts aims to get that down to about 35%. The government in Greece is going to have to shrink by about 20%. Overall, the average man on the street is going to get 10% poorer over the next couple of years, but the effect will be concentrated for government employees and retirees.

No wonder they’re protesting.

Social Utility

2010-04-28T17:00:00.000-05:00

Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former governor of New York, has written a piece attacking the investment bank Goldman Sachs for the on-line magazine Slate. In the column Spitzer raises the concept of “social utility.” He challenges Goldman Sachs to prove that the firm is socially useful by answering a series of questions regarding their internal trading operations.

The clear implication of the article is that Goldman Sachs is not “socially useful,” and therefore, should be eliminated, or at least reduced, by government fiat.

What a load of rot! That Spitzer can pronounce this pernicious twaddle with a straight face establishes that he hasn’t the faintest conception of how a free society functions.

You can deplore that the casino-like trading activities of Wall Street firms have swamped their traditional capital raising and capital allocation functions. You can be concerned that the lack of regulation of credit default swaps and other arcane financial instruments allowed some financial firms to pile up so much risk that they almost crashed the worldwide financial system. You can even argue that Goldman Sachs should not be allowed to sell securities that they have taken short positions against.

But banning or prohibiting activities because they lack “social utility”?

You would have a hard time providing an argument for the “social utility” of baseball cards, or beanie babies, Hummel figurines, but markets exist for all of those. The essence of a free market is that sellers offer something for sale, buyers offer payment, and a bargain is made between two willing parties. At no point does anyone have to meet a standard of serving a hypothetical greater good.

The essence of a free society is that you don’t have to justify your actions. You do have to take responsibility for them. If I wanted to light my farts on fire, and post the video on YouTube, I could do it, and I can’t think of anything of lower social utility than that.

And yet, a surprising number of people have chosen to spend their leisure in exactly that fashion.

Beware the Ides of April

2010-04-15T17:03:00.001-05:00

April 15 is Tax Day, the last day for filing your income taxes withourt incurring a penalty. The media has been full of stories about the run up to today. The thrust of most of the stories has been don’t be late, the deadline is looming.

The implication is that there are hordes of people out there who have not yet filed their taxes. The funny thing is, I worked as a paid tax preparer for H & R Block this year, and I was finished doing taxes in early March. As a matter of fact, 75% of the customers are handled during the first peak, from mid-January to early February.

After the first peak, the balance of the clients fall into three categories:
People with insanely complicated tax returns, who take months to get their paperwork in order.
Congenital procrastinators, the kind of folks who would be late to their own funeral.
People who still owe money to the IRS, over and above any withholding or prior payments.

If you’re going to get a refund, you will want to file as early as possible. After all, why leave a pile of money sitting in the government’s hands when it could be sitting in yours? And the vast majority of filers do get a refund.

First of all, almost half of all households pay no Federal income tax. The tax arm of Deloitte and Touche estimated that a married couple with two small children would have to have an income exceeding $50,000/year before they generate the first dollar of income tax liability. They will get all of their withholding back.

Many of those in the lower half of the income scale not only owe no money for taxes, but they also get significant income from the government, due to refundable credits such as the Additional Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Credit. Of the returns I processed, most fit into this category. Only a handful actually paid income tax, and even those had a tax liability less than their withholding, so even they got a refund.

In the interest of full disclosure, I also got a tax refund, due to overwithholding on my part. I didn’t do a single return this year where the taxpayer had to send additional money to the IRS.

I guess my point is that the media shouldn’t make such a big deal about what the last day for filing your taxes is. Instead, they should run stories on February 1, the due date for employers to send out the W-2 forms needed to file your taxes. For most households, that is the primary, or even only, document they need to get their refund.

Now that would be news you could use.

Changing the Rules of the Game

2010-04-12T12:45:00.000-05:00

Obamacare has been passed into law and signed. Despite fulminations from conservatives, it is unlikely to be repealed or found unconstitutional. All we can do now is wait for the unintended consequences to show up. Yet, like a moth to the flame, I am still drawn to write about the intertwined issues of health care and health insurance.

At the root of Obamacare is a profound shift in the understanding of what health insurance (or any insurance) is designed to do. The core concept driving any insurance plan is risk management. Basically, the lucky are subsidizing the unlucky.

If a tornado blows away your house, your neighbors who were missed are paying for your rebuilding through their policy payments. “Wow,” they think, as they write out the check, “that tornado just missed my street.” Or let’s say you beat the actuarial odds and die young. Your beneficiaries are taking advantage of all the other policy holders who didn’t die that year. “Gosh,” they think, sitting at the funeral, “that could have been me that got hit by that freak meteorite strike.”

The thing about the lucky subsidizing the unlucky is that you can never know in advance in what category you’re going to end up. So you pay your premiums, and you’re grateful if you never have to use the insurance.

At the heart of Obamacare is a radical conceptual shift. Instead of the lucky subsidizing the unlucky, the basic principle is now going to be the healthy subsidizing the unhealthy. Hence the push to require younger, healthier people to buy insurance, at the same time lifetime limits on care and exclusions for preexisting conditions are dropped. If you are sick, you are going to get all of the medical care your doctors want to give you, and the people who are well are going to have to pay for it.

The thing is, lucky or unlucky is pretty much a random event. For healthy versus unhealthy, there is not so much randomness involved. If you see someone who smokes, it is predictable that heart disease and breathing problems are in their future. Looking at someone who is grossly obese, you know they can plan on developing type II diabetes, followed by back pain, followed by joint replacement surgery. These tend to be chronic conditions. They can be managed, but somebody’s going to have to pay for them. The healthy are being asked (well, actually told) to foot the bill.

The thing about most insurance is that it is inherently fair. That’s why I willingly pay the premiums. But as someone who likes to eat, but has the self discipline to push away from the table, as someone who sweats it out at the gym several times a week, as someone who has never taken up smoking, I look at many of the unhealthy and question how fair it is that I’m being asked (well, actually told), that I am responsible for paying for the consequences of other people’s behavior.

Those of us who work hard at managing our risks should not have to subsidize the reckless. Frankly, I’ve got better ways to spend my money.

Positive Problems

2010-04-06T14:45:00.002-05:00

Last January, late in the month, it was like somebody turned a switch. All of a sudden the phone started ringing with customers expediting their orders and increasing their release quantities. Ever since we've been playing catch up. The biggest issue has been getting enough raw material in house to support the increase in production.

This is an example of what I call "positive problems." These are the problems caused by growth in your business. Although stressful, they are drastically superior to the other kind of problem. For example, I'd rather spend my day wrestling with the question "how I am going to get raw material here to keep production going?" as opposed to the question "what am I going to do with all of the workers and not enough orders?" Or worse yet, "where is the cash coming from to meet payroll?"

The turn in the economy is beginning to look like a broad based phenomena to me. I spoke with one of our customers today, and she told me that her whole day had been spent expediting suppliers to cope with increases in customer demand. Upstream in my supply chain, lead times are moving out from both the steel mills and brass mills with whom I do business.

This increase in activity probably won't show up in the official government statistics for another quarter, but from where I'm sitting it looks like the growth cycle has picked up steam. I'm even hiring a couple of new people. In the meantime, we're considering working some overtime. That hasn't happened for well over a year.

Starbucks Begins Paying Dividends

2010-04-01T23:01:00.001-05:00

Last week Starbucks announced a big change in their financial policies. For the first time, the Seattle based company will begin paying dividends to stockholders. The company is touting this as proof that their turnaround plan is working. I’m skeptical. The management team may be turning the company around, but the fact that they are starting to pay dividends indicates to me that the company may have its best days as an investment behind it.

Think of it this way: Imagine that you have a business that is profitable. You have a decision to make. What are you going to do with the profits? You basically have two choices. One choice is to take the money out of the business, and give the profits back to the owners of the company. The alternative is to take the profits, and reinvest them back in the business. With the alternative of reinvestment, your hope and plan is to grow the business, and thereby make future profits even larger than they are now.

As an investor, a growing company provides a better return than an equally profitable company that is not growing. Picture two businesses. One business is going to earn a dollar a share this year, next year, and the year after that. The other business is going to earn a dollar a share this year, $1.50 next year, and $2.00 per share two years out. Which business would be worth more to you? You pay more today to capture the larger future cash flow.

The anticipation of larger future profits results in a higher multiplier between the current earnings and the price of a share of stock. Growing companies command a higher price/earnings ratio. As the manager of a business, you want to grow your earnings, because that makes the business more valuable, providing the highest return to the owners, the stockholders. Besides, most senior corporate execs have a large chunk of their compensation in stock options. Increasing the value of the shares benefits them personally.

But there is a risk with this model. What if you reinvest your profits in the business, but you fail to grow your earnings? Well, the technical term for this process is “pissing your money away.” The market hammers you for that.

If you think you have lots of opportunities to grow your business, you should reinvest your profits back into the business. If you don’t think you have as many chances to grow your earnings, then it becomes time to start pulling money out and giving it back to the owners.

The fact that Starbucks is going to start paying a dividend, returning profits to the stockholders, indicates to me that the management of the company thinks the days of their fastest growth are behind them. Which means as an investment, it is time to look for the next company that has the potential to grow quickly.

Starbucks. I love the coffee, but I’m not so wild about the investment.

No Jobs to be Had?

2010-03-25T15:35:00.000-05:00

An interesting situation has developed at the company where I work. Sales have picked up, though not yet to the pre-recession level. At the same time, one of our machine operators gave his notice this week. He’s moving on to a better job, and we wish him well.

But the impending vacancy means I have to go out and hire someone to take his place. The first place we decided to look was people who had worked for us in the past, but who we had laid off in the last year. After all, they would be known quantities.

Here’s where the interesting part starts. The first two people we called were working for $6 an hour, considerably less than what we would pay. It’s also less than the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Both of these women were working cash jobs. Their employee was either treating them as subcontractors, but not submitting Form 1099 to the IRS, or else taking unreported cash income and paying their employees out of that stream of money.

Either one is tax fraud, of course, pure and simple. But no one is surprised that people cheat on their taxes. That’s dog bites man stuff.

What struck me is that both women turned down the job offer, even though the aftertax money from our position was greater than the $6 per hour. Why would you turn down a job that pays more than your current position? It turns out I had left out a factor in my calculations: extended unemployment benefits.

Although both women had been laid off from our company over a year ago, both were still drawing unemployment checks, courtesy of the Obama stimulus package. The combination of their unemployment benefit and their $6 an hour job exceeded the amount we were willing to pay. As rational economic actors, they were maximizing the utility of their work.

Conservatives will tell you that continuing to extend unemployment benefits provides a disincentive to work. Why take a job if you can continue to draw a check? Liberals will tell you there are no jobs available, so we have to keep providing benefits to people who have been laid off.

Based on my sample of two, I would argue that the conservatives are winning this argument.

Health Care: What Now?

2010-03-24T14:20:00.003-05:00

Well, Obamacare was signed into law today, so I guess we just have to react to the new reality. The first thing we did on Monday was to ask the obvious question: "How does this affect our insurance program?"

Bona fide wellness programs are still allowed, so we can continue to provide incentives to our employees who control their weight, cholesteral, blood sugar, blood pressure and smoking. That's good.

The amount that can be contributed to Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA's) is limited to $2500. We're not sure if that includes the employer's contribution or not. Right now, the company matches the employee's pretax contribution on a dollar by dollar basis, up to a maximum of $3000. Most of what I've read so far indicates that I'm going to lose that $500 of tax benefit.

Our company uses a high deductability health insurance plan. The first $5000 of medical care is the responsibility of the employee. Blue cross/blue shield doesn't cover any of the bills until that limit is reached. I like it that way because it keeps the premiums low, freeing up money for other purposes (like bonuses), and I don't consume much in the way of healthcare. After 2014, it is not clear if that type of plan will continue to be on the market. Based on the rhetoric, I'm afraid that high deductible plans will be outlawed once this legislation gets ramped up.

It's interesting that children can be carried on their parent's health plans until age 26. Tax law says that you lose the dependentcy deduction at age 24, and even then you lose it at age 19 unless the child is a full time student. With our current premium structure, adding family coverage to the employee's coverage adds less to the premium than the cost of adding another employee to the policy. It's easy to see how people will begin gaming the system under those rules. Once this becomes widespread, look for dependent coverage to rapidly rise in price to compensate.

I wonder whose idea it was to remove the lifetime caps on medical spending. Because, you know, going through a million dollars of medical care wasn't enough. Maybe if you get another million dollars of someone else's money, they'll find a way to cure you.

You can't help noticing that the unpopular parts of this legislation, like the requirement to buy health insurance, and the fines for not doing so, are timed to all take effect after the next presidential election is over in 2014.

I haven't yet seen when the surcharge on unearned income (interest and dividends) starts up, but from what I have read so far, that only impacts high income individuals. Like the people who decide whether to pay my bonus or keep the money for themselves. I'm probably going to be stung on that one.

Break Out the Bulldozers

2010-03-16T15:25:00.000-05:00

The Obama administration and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are determined to shred every procedural roadblock standing in the way of their massive restructuring of the health insurance industry in this country.

At first, it was only reconciliation. Normally, the House passes legislation. Then the Senate passes their own version of the same bill. Then a conference committee of Senators and Representatives negotiates a compromise version of the bill, that is voted on again by both Houses of Congress. When that passes, it goes to the President for signature to be enacted into law.

The problem with that system (at least from Obama and Pelosi’s point of view), is that the compromise legislation has to pass the Senate again. With the election of Scott Brown from Massachusetts to fill the seat of the late Edward Kennedy, there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate. With a united front, they can filibuster the bill until it dies a natural death.

Hence the reconciliation maneuver. Under Senate rules, passage of measures affecting the budget can have the compromise, or “reconciled” version passed through the Senate on a vote requiring only a majority of 51 votes. Since the filibuster does not apply, sixty votes are not required to cut off debate.

Pelosi’s reconciliation plan then becomes to push through a House vote on the original Senate version of the health insurance restructuring. The House will then pass a series of amendments to the Senate version, making it more to their liking. This package of amendments will then be presented as a budgetary reconciliation, which can avoid the filibuster. The fig leaf covering this end run around the rules is that Obamacare is intended to reduce the deficit.

I have been watching television for well over forty years. I have been exposed to millions of commercial messages. I have become quite adept at knowing when I’m being lied to.

I know that the fast food hamburger will not be plump and juicy like it shows on screen. I know that if I spray on a cheap cologne, women will not leap out of the woodwork, seeking to have their way with me. And I know that the current package of health insurance reform will not reduce the deficit.

Obamacare is not a budget reconciliation bill, it is a policy bill, and using the process of reconciliation to get a around the procedures of limited government stinks to high heaven.

Rising Productivity

2010-03-08T13:37:00.000-06:00

I don’t expect reporters to have much in the way of business literacy. Strategic planning and discounted cashflow analysis are difficult subjects, and it doesn’t surprise me that they aren’t part of the normal journalism curricula. But algebra? I had algebra in the 8th grade.

The source of my ire is a report that has been put out by the Labor Department, and the interpretation thereof by the media.

The gist of the report is that productivity grew at an unusually rapid rate in the fourth quarter last year. Labor productivity grew at an annual rate of 6.9% during the last three months of the year. At the same time, the report stated that unit labor costs dropped t a rate of 5.9%.

The commentary I have seen on this report so far makes it out to be bad news. The viewpoint seems to be that rising productivity means income is dropping. Also, if employers can increase output without hiring more workers, that doesn’t help the unemployed. This ignores the reality that increasing productivity is what increases standards of living. Without increasing productivity, we’d all be stuck at the hunter-gatherer stage, which doesn’t strike me as too much fun at all.

But what really gets me is the assumption that when labor costs fall, that means households have less money to spend. This is a complete misreading of the statistics.

What the report actually says is that unit labor costs have fallen. That does not mean workers are getting paid less. It means that workers are producing more product for the same amount of money. In point of fact, falling unit labor costs are just the same thing as rising productivity, expressed in a different way.

Let’s take an example. Assume that in 2008, a worker getting paid $10 per hour produces 100 units of product in an hour. The unit labor cost of that product is $.10, the $10 the worker got paid divided by the 100 units produced.

In the fourth quarter of 2009, the same worker would have produced 107 units of product in the same hour of production. To figure out the increase in productivity, we divide the 4th Q 2009 output by the 2008 output to get 1.07. Productivity increased by 7%. In this same example, the unit labor cost drops to $.0935. This is a 6.5% drop in unit labor costs. But the worker still gets the same $10 income he got before.

The real news is that productivity growth of over 6% cannot be sustained. That red hot pace is an artifact of starting from a lower base level, due to the recession induced drop in demand. Once demand started to pick up, the workforce that businesses kept on in anticipation of an upturn went from coasting along to serious work. A big jump in production was the result. It probably doesn’t hurt that most businesses, given any kind of a choice, will keep their most productive workers on the payroll, dropping the less than stellar performers.

This sharp jump in productivity is a sign that demand is picking up again. Once businesses have wrung all the benefit out of the existing workforce that they can get, the next step is to start hiring more employees.

Increasing productivity is good news, not bad news.

Chile's Hour of Need

2010-03-03T22:27:00.003-06:00

The government of Chile is still restoring order after the magnitude 8.8 earthquake that struck the southern half of the nation last week. After some initial confusion, they have requested international aid. According to an interview with the US ambassador to Chile, the confusion was because Chile does not have a history of receiving international aid. In fact, Chile is a donor nation.

Still, the devastation is widespread, and they could use a hand.

So I'm going to go out and buy some grapes, and grape by-products.

Located south of the equator, Chile's seasons are the reverse of ours. Their summer is just ending, and their winter takes place during our summer months. This shift in growing seasons means Chile is in an ideal position to supply fresh fruit and vegetables when fresh produce is in short supply from our own growers. Ordinarily I try to buy American to the greatest extent possible, but due to the emergency I'll make an exception and stock up on Chilean grapes for the next few weeks.

And the grape by-products? I plan on picking up a case of Chilean cabernet.

I just figure it's better to help the Chileans by trading with them, then by giving them some kind of handout. If we help Chile's businesses, those businesses will take the lead in rebuilding the country. If we give handouts, we only encourage dependency.

Of course, I feel the same way about charitable giving in this country as well, and for the same reason.

Graph of Long Term Unemployment

2010-02-28T21:14:00.003-06:00

Okay, this scares me. here's a graph from an article in the New York Times last week concerning long term unemployment:

The number of long term unemployed is spiking about three times higher than it has been for the last thirty years. It is much higher than the recession of early eighties, and that one was rough. As a percentage of the workforce, it works out to be about 2.5%.

The economy is beginning to show signs of improvement, but not quickly enough for these folks. Many of them are subsisting on unemployment benefits, and those benefits are starting to run out.

The old saying is that necessity is the mother of invention. A lot of people are going to have to be very creative to eke out a living for the next few years.

The CARD Act or Building a House of Cards

2010-02-24T17:16:00.000-06:00

The Credit CARD Act went into effect this week, changing the rules for banks and other credit card issuers. One of the changes is that they will now have to put a statement on the front of your monthly bill, telling you how long it will take you to pay off your outstanding balance if you make only the minimum payment. I imagine that some people will get a notice that reads something like this:

“Your estimated life expectancy is 24 years and 7 months from your statement date. Four months later will be your last payment on the outstanding balance.”

Seriously, one of the major provisions of the legislation is that it prohibits the practice of universal default. Under the old rules, if you made a late payment on one bill, your credit card could raise your interest rate on the existing balance you had with them.

Universal default is one of those things that really hack people off. “I’ve never made a late payment to you guys,” the cardholder would cry out. “Why are you raising my interest rate?”

“Simple,” the bank would respond. “A) If you skipped a payment on one bill, we could be next. That puts you into the riskier class of customers who get charged higher interest rates. B) Because we can.”

I’ve never quite figured out the logic behind universal default. Oh, I get that once you start delaying payments, you are a riskier customer. The thing is, it looks to me like raising rates on an existing customer sets up a feedback loop. If you’re strapped for money, cranking up the interest you’re paying makes you more likely to default, not less. “Every month I pay, but my balance keeps getting bigger. Fine, I’ll just stop paying altogether. You want to hurt my credit rating, go ahead.”

I assume that the credit card companies have run the statistical models that tell them that even if they push some customers into default, the higher interest charges on the remaining customers more than make up for it. Or maybe their experience is that once the average customer misses a payment on any card, they only make a couple more payments on the other cards before they file bankruptcy, no matter what the interest rate is. In that case, you better make your money while you can.

Regardless, universal default is now banned. The credit card companies cannot raise your rate on existing balances just because you are late on another card. What they can do, however, is drop your credit limit with no prior notice.

To me, this looks like a fight over allocating risk management duties, between the guy who borrows the money, and the guy who loans it.

In the history of credit, there have been swings over time in terms of who bears the risk of default. For example, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, default risk was more evenly spread between borrower and creditor. Sure, if you stopped paying on your debts, your creditors had to write off the loss. But they in turn could stick you in debtor’s prison. That seems like a pretty fair tradeoff to me.

With the advent of modern credit cards, more of the default risk was shifted over to the creditor. All that backs up a credit card is your promise to pay it off. If you are an honest man, your word is your bond. When I meet one of those guys, I’ll let you know. Seriously, I don’t know too many people who would forego using a credit card to get something they wanted, just because they might have trouble paying off the debt. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? Your credit rating might get dinged. Most people will enjoy the good stuff now, and worry about that tomorrow.

With all of the risk on the part of the creditor, credit standards were naturally higher. It used to be much more difficult to get a credit card. As the pool of available credit expanded to include riskier borrowers, the banks undertook tactics designed to shift some of the default risk back onto borrowers. Tactics like universal default.

Now that Congress has pushed the pendulum back in the other direction, look for credit standards to tighten up again. Also, some of the benefits given to good credit risks, like rewards points and no annual fee accounts are probably going to fall by the wayside.

For our society as a whole that’s probably a good thing. Learning to live within your means isn’t a bad idea. In the meantime, I’m going to keep paying off my cards in full every month.

Two Views of Dysfunction

2010-02-18T13:35:00.003-06:00

I ran across the Werking Gerl blog the other day. It's like staring at the scene of an accident. You know you shouldn't look, but you just can't pull your eyes away. The blogger is a free lance writer based in Brooklyn. Starting last November she lost her regular job, and decided that the solution to her problems was to rely on the New York City public assistance system (AKA welfare). Unsurprisingly, the city's bureaucrats have not leapt to provide the woman with the assistance to which she believes she is entitled.

If you start at the beginning, and read forward in time, it is like watching a descent into madness. Her tone gets increasingly strident with every encounter. One of the things that interests me is that even when she was gainfully employed, she was already drawing food stamps. That tells me that from the very beginning, the blogger has been drawing more off the system than she has been paying in taxes.

Of course, it is her right to draw food stamps, and it is also her right to have her rent paid by the city. Once you've grasped that basic concept, her outrage becomes much more explicable.

Then there's Filthy Richmond. Now this is just hilarious. This blogger puts the fun in disfunction. As a matter of fact, I think I did this girl's taxes.

Adventures in Tax Preparation, Part II

2010-02-13T16:08:00.001-06:00

At my day job, people know I do taxes for H & R Block. The number one tax question they ask me? “How does that other guy we work with get such big tax refunds? He said he got over $7000, and he makes less than I do, even with my side job.”

The short answer to this question is that the other guy has kids, but it is actually a little more complicated than that. To try and explain it, I run out some numbers for people.

Let’s assume that the other guy (we’ll call him TOG for short) is married, with two small children. We will further assume that Mr. and Mrs. Tog have a combined income of $26,000 between them. We’ll enter that $26K onto the front page of their Form 1040. So far, so good.

Now we’ll turn the Form 1040 over to page two, which is where all the real action is. First, the Tog’s will probably take the married filing jointly standard deduction of $11,400. Then the two adults and two children generate four personal exemptions of $3650, or a total of $14,600. You subtract the standard deduction and personal exemptions from their gross income to arrive at the Tog’s taxable income, which is $0. The Tog’s do not owe any Federal income tax.

So now, let’s start calculating the size of their refund. Right off the top, they get back any withholding taken from paychecks throughout the year. For the purposes of this illustration, we will use a figure of $1700. It could be more, could be less, depending what they set up with their employer. Whatever they withheld, they’re getting 100% of it back. Remember, they owe no taxes.

Next, we add in to their refund the Making Work Pay credit. This was part of the Obama stimulus package for 2009 and 2010. The Tog’s are married, so even if only one held a job, they still get $800.

Now we’re to the part where the children really come into play. If they actually owed taxes, they would be eligible for the Child Tax Credit of $1000 per child, which would wipe out the first $2000 of taxes owed. Since the Tog’s don’t owe any taxes, they don’t get the Child Tax Credit. Instead, they get the refundable Additional Child Tax Credit of $2000.

But, as the infomercials say, wait, there’s more! The Togs are a low income couple, qualifying for the Earned Income Credit. The EIC is a phase-in, phase-out credit, increasing to a plateau as you earn more income, than gradually reducing to zero as you earn a higher income. At $26,000 of earned income (note, the EIC works on earned income, not taxable income) you get about $3000. Fully refundable, of course.

That just about does it. Let’s tote up the board, shall we?
Withholding: $1700
Making Work Pay Credit: $ 800
Add’l Child Tax Credit: $2000
Earned Income Credit: $3000
Total: $7500

See, it wasn’t that hard to figure out how the Tog’s got such a big refund after all. Processing the paperwork is a different matter, of course which is why there is a market for paid tax preparers.

The thing that jumps out at you is how much of that money wasn’t the Tog’s in the first place. Even with no withholding, they would have received $5800 from the Federal government, a 22% boost in their income. These are straight transfer payments, going from people who actually pay taxes into the pockets of people who do not. Classic redistribution of wealth.

There are those of us who are concerned that the US is going to turn into a socialist state. But from the point of view of someone who prepares taxes, it has already happened.