Tag Archives: obama

Telegraph Op-Ed urges Obama to build thorium reactors

TweetFollow LJF97 on Twitter An op-ed article in the Telegraph, UK, last year urged President  Obama “to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project” and by so doing we could “reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.”  The article suggests we invent and commercialize nuclear reactors designed around radioactive decay of thorium.

The article concludes with the assertion that renewables can’t meet our needs. But that’s asserting a belief, not reporting scientifically observable data or a scientifically disprovable hypothesis. And the better question in that regard is not: “Can renewable and sustainable energy meet our needs?”

But: “How can renewable and sustainable energy meet our needs?”

Continue reading

Tiger Woods & Subprime Mortgages

Tiger Woods may be a great golfer. But I wouldn’t buy a mortgage from him. Here’s why.

(click to stream audio)

Economics II: Macroeconomics and Political Economy

The way for the government to stimulate the economy and to avoid or climb out of a Depression, as John Maynard Keynes wrote, and as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved with the New Deal, is to invest money and resources in infrastructure, not to lower taxes or put money in the hands of private businesses. This latter tactic, which New Jersey’s new Governor, Chris Christie1 is trying, was not proven to work by President Herbert Hoover and proven not to work by President George W. Bush.

Keynes’ basic analysis rests on two evident economic phenomena. One is the different effects on the Keynsian Multiplier of government revenues collected as taxes and government revenues not collected as tax-cuts. The other is the basic response of people to a “Deep Recession” or a Depression.2

If a Recession is a series of calendar quarters in which there is a decline in GDP, a “Deep Recession3” or a Depression is characterized by a recession in which there is a general reluctance to invest in new staff or new projects on the part of businesses and individuals. A portion of any income, tax refund, or tax cut is saved. Money is hoarded. Money spent by the government is obviously, spent. The Keynsian Multiplier of money spent directly by the government is greater than money provided to businesses by tax credits because the government spends money directly, while individuals and businesses spend what they must and hoard what they can. For example, for every $1 Million the government spends purchasing goods and services, $1 Million is added to the GDP. However, for every $1 Million of taxes the government cuts, there is $1 Million the government doesn’t spend, a chunk of that $1 Million is spent, and a chunk that $1 Million is hoarded.4 When the government spends directly, particularly on domestic infrastructure, the Multiplier is, in a word, multiplied.

Obama’s tax incentive to hire people, is partially neo-classical, supply-side economics of the type favored and proven ineffective by Hoover and Bush. However, to the extent that it generates jobs, it will help the people whos jobs are created, their families, and the economy.

Robert Reich, a Keynesian economist, said5,:

“The best and fastest way for government to prime the pump is to help states and locales, which are now doing the opposite. They’re laying off teachers, police officers, social workers, health care workers, and many more who provide vital public services. And they’re increasing taxes and fees. … We need a second stimulus directed at states and locales. “

Paul Krugman6 seems to agree. The only way to avoid a Depression is for the government to spend money. Lowering taxes doesn’t work when people are reluctant to spend. However, the government must create jobs that will reduce the deficit in the future.

Wars don’t do this. As President Bush demonstrated, wars create jobs that increase the deficit and deplete the economy by destroying capital, both human and physical. Investing in local clean, sustainable energy and rearchitecting the health care system in the United States, however, are ways to use government spending today to reduce future deficits.

Local Clean Sustainable Energy

Suppose we were to install a 50 kw photovoltaic solar array and a 2,500 liter (660.4 gallon) solar hot water heater system on every school in the United States. That’s approximately 100,000 of each.7 Suppose each solar electric system costs $7.50 per watt, or $375,000, and each solar hot water heater would cost $50,000. That’s $425,000 per school, at 100,000 schools that’s $42.5 Billion. .

Because these are powered by a natural process – sunlight – rather than non-renewable fuels, and because of relatively low maintenance costs and operating costs, these systems will pay for themselves quickly and last a very long time, they will pay for themselves over and over. The return on investment is between 10% and 16% for PV Solar and 20% to 33% for Solar Hot Water. This is outlined in Table 1, below.

Solar Electric and Solar Hot Water Heaters

Solar Electric

Solar Hot Water

Cost of each

$375,000

$50,000

Total Cost

$37.5 Billion

$5.0 Billion

Years to pay for itself

6 to 10 years

3 to 5 years

Useful Life

40 years

25 years

Annual ROI

10% to 16%

20% to 33.3%

Table 1.

The ROI is higher when you factor in the external benefits of clean, renewable energy – there is no pollution, and therefore are no health effects from pollution.

One way to use the deficit to stimulate the economy in a manner that is consistent with reduced long term deficits is thru the development of clean energy resources, such as solar electric and hot water systems on the nation’s public schools.

Health Care

In July, 2007, President George W. Bush said “People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.8” While Emergency Rooms are well suited for acute conditions – emergencies – such as the traumas of car accidents, gunshot wounds, and broken arms, they are ill-equipped for chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, cancer. If a person with diabetes was to go to the emergency room, the emergency room staff would say “We can’t help you. Come back when you’re in a coma, or you need your leg amputated.” Similarly, while the Emergency Room can’t manage hypertension, it can treat the heart attack or stroke suffered by a person with hypertension.

Assuming Pres. Bush’s statement is accurate, then the approximately 47 million, or one out of six, or 15.46% of Americans who don’t have health insurance only have access to health care in an emergency. This means that the Health Care System can handle non-emergency health care for five out of six Americans, but is not capable of meeting the non-emergency needs of one out of six, or 15.46% of Americans. This means we need about 15.46% more doctors, nurses, medical office staff, hospital staff, medical offices, and hospitals. For every 100 medical doctors practicing today, we need 115.46. For every 100 nurses, we need 115.46.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 661,000 physicians and surgeons in the US in 2008 and are about 2.6 million Registered Nurses, RN’s, today.9 If this is sufficient for the 357 Million Americans who have health insurance, then we need an addtional 102,191 physicians and surgeons, and an additonal 401,960 nurses, and they need offices, examining rooms and other infrastructure. However, we can’t just push a button and create 102,191 physicians and surgeons and 401,960 nurses out of thin air. It takes nine years to train a physician and three years to train a nurse.10

Selected Demographic Information

Americans

With Insurance

Without Insurance

Total

Americans

257 M

47 M

304 M

Medical Professionals

Have

Need

Total

Physicians & Surgeons

661,000

102,191

763,191

Nurses

2.6M

401,460

3.0 M

Table 2

Another way to use deficit spending today to stimulate the economy and invest for the future is to build the medical infrastructure for the 47 million Americans who can’t afford or are without health insurance.

Paul Krugman on Banking, Securitization, and The Canadian Model

In his recent columns in the New York Times, Paul Krugman11 has discussed the banking industry, the banking debacle, banking reform, and the Canadian model for banking regulation and banking risk management. He quotes testimony by Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. In hearings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Dimon basically said “this was business as usual.” Blankfein, however, said “it was an act of God.” While they disagreed about the cause of what happened, they agree with the solution: “Let bankers be bankers. If the government regulates banking, the economy will crumble.” It appears that we tried this deregulatory approach, and the economy crumbled.

“Securitization” of loans, in which bad loans are bundled with good loans and sold, doesn’t limit risk, it rewards risk. In terms Tiger Woods or a Wall Street banker should be able to understand, Securitization is like sexual activity and HIV AIDS. Suppose one person has 100 relations with 10 partners, 10 with each, one of whom is infected with the HIV AIDS virus. Suppose another person has one relation with each of 100 partners, one of whom is infected with the virus that causes HIV AIDS. Clearly the first person has a higher risk of infection. However, the second person is also at risk. In the case of securitization of “toxic assets” the bankers were rewarded to have relations with as many people as possible. They didn’t minimize risk. They spread it around.

The Canadian banking model limits risky loans, limits bank leverage, and limits securitization. This is what Obama must do. He must demand and enforce regulations that require transparency in banking, regulate derivatives, eliminate incentives for bankers to make bad loans, create incentives for bankers to make good loans; to practice what might be called safe banking

. Regulations, for example, like those mandated by Glass Steagal.

Patrick Henry once said. “Give me liberty or give me death,”

Today he might add, “Entrust my money with cautious bankers.

———— Notes ————-

1Faced with high unemployment and a lack of unemployment compensation funds, NJ Gov. Christie is proposing to cut unemployment benefits, and cut the unemployment tax used to fund unemployment benefits. Beth DeFalco, “Christie proposes to cut jobless benefits,” NJ Herald, 2/25/10, http://www.njherald.com/story/news/nj-jobless-benefits, and Athena D. Merritt, “Christie proposes fix for N.J.’s insolvent unemployment fund,” Philadelphia Business Journal, 2/25/10, http://www.bizjournals.com

2Discussed at length by Riddell, Shackelford, Stamos, and Schneider, Economics, Pearson – Addison Wesley, 2008, pg 365-368.

3I’m using the term “Deep Recession” in conjunction with “Depression” because there appears to be a general reluctance on the part of bankers, journalists, pundits, and others to use the term “Depression” in discussions of the state of the economy today.

4Acharya, Viral and Ouarda Merrouche, “Precautionary Hoarding of Liquidity and Inter-Bank Markets: Evidence from the Sub-prime Crisis,” July 3, 2009, at Stern.NYU.edu, http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~sternfin/vacharya/public_html/acharya_merrouche.pdf.

5Reich, Robert, “Obama Needs to Teach The Public How To Get Out Of The Mess We’re In, But He’s Not”, 1/29/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com

6Paul Krugman, the Princeton University Economist, and Nobel Laureate, writes a column for the New York Times.

7According to Statemaster.com there are about 94,260 elementary and secondary schools in the US. I rounded this up to 100,000 to simplify the math. http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_ele_sec_tot_num_of_sch-elementary-secondary-total-number-schools.

8On July 10, 2007, “Pennsylvania Progressive” reported then President Bush said: “People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.” http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/bush-on-healthc.html

Also reported on July 11, 2007 by Dan Froomkin in the “Washington Post,” in his column “Mock The Press”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/11/BL2007071101146_5.html

9Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition,

Physicians and Surgeons. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm#outlook,

Registered Nurses, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos083.htm

10I’m assuming a 6-year Biomedical program and a 3 year Medical Residency for physicians and surgeons and a 2 year practical nursing program with a 1 year Residency for nurses.

11Krugman’s Recent columns in the NY Times include, “Bubbles and the Banks”, 1/8/10, “Bankers Without A Clue”, 1/15/10, “March of the Peacocks”, 1/29/10, and “Good and Boring,” 2/1/10. These can be found on the Internet at http://www.nytimes.com.

Systems Thinking and Politics, or Rachel Carson and Donella Meadows meet The Frankenstein Monster

The Frankenstein Monster as interpreted by Boris Karloff may have been a big guy who didn’t know his own strength – again unbalanced reinforcing loops. As interpreted by Mel Brooks he was just misunderstood. Once those reinforcing loops were balanced – put the big lug in a tux – all hell didn’t break loose.

Frankenstein_monster_Boris_KarloffSystems Thinking

is a framework and a toolkit (check out Stella and i Think from I See Systems ) with which ecologists and ecological economists can model the real world of the carbon and hydrologic cycles, ecosystems and economic “bubbles.” But how do we model systems that are difficult to quantify? Is it science fiction, as in the psychohistorians of Asimov’s Foundation Series ( e-book )? The actions of the government of the United States have profound effects on this country and the world. Can we use Systems Thinking to model political movements? Did Bill Clinton and James Carville, George W. Bush and Karl Rove and Barack Obama, David Axelrod and Dan Plouffe use  Systems Thinking to create a balancing feedback mechanism and win an election? Could they have?

As we were taught in high school, the Constitution set up a system of government of three balanced branches. The “checks and balances” of the Executive enforcing the laws written by the Legislative and interpreted by the Judiciary. This is a system with balancing feedback mechanisms.

Continue reading

Cheney: Obama's Speech "Important."

Interview of the Vice President by Martha Raddatz, ABC News

Shangri-La’s Barr Al Jissah Resort & Spa

Muscat, Oman

10:20 A.M. (Local)

Q Mr. Vice President, I want to start with a speech Barack Obama gave. I doubt you’ve seen the entire speech, but he denounced comments by Reverend Wright, but he didn’t distance himself completely.Do you think he did the right thing?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Martha, one of the things I’ve avoided so far is getting in the middle of the Democratic presidential primary process. And I think I’ll stay there.

Q But it was an important speech.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was an important speech, …

Click here for the full transcript, on ‘WhiteHouse.gov’

Obama – in Context – A More Perfect Union

We The People, In Order To Form A More Perfect Union

Barack Obama, in Philadelphia, PA, Monday, March 18, 2008, excerpts.

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave-owners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.