Maintenance Work

In me, and perhaps in everyone, is a desire to keep life simple, you know, so we have time for the important stuff.

I frequently with equate "power" and "responsibility" when deciding what I want in my life. SURE, I'll take that 1 million dollar lottery ticket, but what would I spend it on? No an easy question.

Well, I admit part of my problem is I don't think like an aristocrat. Letting someone else clean my house, wash my clothes, that would be torture, even if it saved me some time.

In general I dislike paying someone else to do things for me. If I could do it myself, then I feel lazy, and if I can't do it I feel powerless. Spending unearned money to take care of things I don't need is not a fun idea for me.

Even owning a house hits me as extravagant, hitting me with countless repairs and little things that need attention. But overall houses "decay" slowly. Cars seem 10 times worse than houses for dependency and unpredictable and offensively large regular repair bills.

I imagine as a new energy crunch comes, we'll in some ways regain responsibilities for taking care of things - for repairing things now more conveniently trashed. On the other hand, it seems a good chance to simplify and consider the costs of a ROYAL lifestyle versus keeping things simple.

Lastly, I can see the art of being a good salesperson is to not let a person know how much time they are going to waste on maintaining their toys and tools. If they knew that, they might not buy as much.

Well, no great conclusions. Overall I think we all can benefit when each of us knows how to do a few things and perhaps there'll continue to be good people who like maintaining things. There is a satisfaction in it, as at least when it seems optional hobby. Maybe like exercise - good in moderation!

Better later than never

Big projects take big vision. It was 1961 when President Kennedy proposed the U.S. send a man to the moon and back before the end of the decade:
http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html May 25, 1961 speech [after April 12, 1961, when first Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin first man in space]

Well, that mission - focusing the economic and intellectual power of a nation of 180 million people and some 8 years, we reached our goal and landed on the moon, with Apollo 11, on July 16, 1969.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_oview.html

A magnificient triumph of the human spirit and ingenuity, even if it was funded primarily by a cold war competition with the U.S.S.R.

Well, we don't have the same cold war now, but there's a bigger world competition growing - for access to the last of the world's cheap oil, or at least that is the reactionary vision, the short term vision that defines our success.

In this new competition, the two biggest importers of petroleum are U.S. and China - both original oil exporters, and also both still big players on the production side, even if their internal demand has now exceeded their production.

It's not really a close competition. The U.S. consumes 21 million barrels of oil per day to China's 6 million barrels. WE PRODUCE about 7 mb/d, so we're IMPORTING twice as much as China's total consumption!

If China were to EQUAL our per capita oil consumption, they'd require about 80 million barrels/day, coincidentally about equal to current WORLD consumption.

Still, little old China is being blamed for causing the rising oil prices in the last year because it's rate of imports is increasing greatly. China's looking hard for market access for oil - from two of our big-5 suppliers - Canada and Venesuela. Elbowroom in the oil market is getting a little tight.

Given these events, you might think it would be in the best interest of the U.S. to use conservation efforts to reduce our consumption.

While our focus this year apparently is more on the Alaska reserves being put on the market.

Myself, I would welcome something more like the creation of a national mission - to create a oil-free community by the year 2015. A modern city that can function entirely on local energy resources, at least as a goal. I'm not sure how big the city might be, although I think it would include a wider community for local food production. And sense we don't exactly know what we're doing, I'd say we should make a number of such experiments. Each can optimize to their local advantages. Each will carefully measure "inputs/outputs" to qualify success and progress. HECK, perhaps the country should be divided into 12 regions, and have one such community per region.

There might be diversity within the communities - so some might go full solar power, and others might use local woods for fuel. It would seem many should seriously look into animals for labor, but not as a proven best solution, but as a proven solution to challenge more modern ideas.

These communities would be considered "universitities" of learning. While they are being subsidized, they can also take in money from student tuition. There would not be unlimited freedom for moving there. All land would be "community owned" and central planning would offer a framework for development and limitations against development that didn't meet their goals.

I know unfortunately it would seem I'm asking for communism, but not in the dictatorial sense, but in the community of survival sense.

The experiment would have to limit certain types of imports and exports because they would corrupt the internal balance of development. Bringing in propane tanks might seem a good decision, but it would need to be balanced with goals of reduced external dependence. Individuals would not have the right to buy from the outside directly.

Similarly for food. Experimenting in low-energy farming methods won't work if people can just go outside and buy as much food as they like, even if early on, the community might need to be subsidized with external food.

Overall it would seem the model of such a community is more like that of the military than civil communities. I mean in the sense that individual freedoms are limited, and the community can dictate to members what work is needed. On the other hand, leadership may not need to be a fixed hierarchy, except as a general early deference to existing experience and skills.

Well, this vision is mush, AND it MAY be too late, if too late means by the time such organization was attempted, there wouldn't be enough resources to fund it. Subsidy is a hard game. Those being subsidized fear daily how long it will last, and those on the outside are impatient the day they find other uses for the displaced money.

I suppose in the coming decades there'll be many such wild ideas of "communism" - of reallocating land to a collective organization. Maybe it'll be easy for some, and maybe impossible for others.

It would be nice to have a president who could imagine challenging our dependency by diversifying our communities into local support systems. What could it hurt?

Of course perhaps there'd be no volunteers? Perhaps the powerdown lifestyle stills seems too hard for us. I mean we're "advanced" now. We can't be bothered with "manual labor", right? There must be another way.

I'm not saying all experiments have to be powerdown types, but they do need to consider how we can grow food without fossil fuels. We don't yet have a clear industrial energy source that is a closed loop. Do we really think we can use nuclear power for everything?

Anyway, I think the experimental communities are the way to go - focused research on fundamental problems and the best local solutions that can be found. As-is, I'm not convinced we know what the "carrying capacity" of any region is because of our energy subsidy. Maybe we can figure these things without building them first. I don't know. Maybe my experiment itself is flawed?

I think it's late, but it can't yet be too late, can it?

A devil's choice

Given the fact that the world's oil production is running full tilt , and demand is now LIMITED by that supply, we have a fun situation.

If ONE producer has problems, we have short term shortages and price spikes. until demand retreats or supply recovers.

This what I might call a "paycheck-to-paycheck" mentality. There's nothing left over for emergencies.

Well imagine this scenerio. Let's create a new coalition called OPEC2. Countries on OPEC2 are all oil exporters of course, and generally have quite a bit of oil left still, but they don't NEED regular oil income.

So OPEC2 countries all agree to reduce their production in half of current levels, transitioned over say the next 12 months, longer if they're a big coalition.

Then OPEC2 countries all say "We will be the 'spare capacity' countries. Whenever prices rise above $180/bbl, we'll increase our production back up to as high as our original 100%, if need demands."

Of course it's not a particularly good price according to current standards, but it's an insurance policy for the world.

REALLY, this is a sweet deal, because they'll promise to sell this oil at EXACTLY $180/bbl even if world prices are higher. Sure, someday they might raise this, but they promise to give a 12 month warning on all price increases.

The OPEC2 countries at worse have half their income, but really not since their declining production will raise prices.

Higher prices will slow growth as we want, so we'll have more time for improving efficiency and finding competitive alternatives.

The world would have a nice "cap price" to compare alternative energy and surely SOMETHING must be competitive at such prices, hopefully something not more polluting, but one disaster at a time.

When will OPEC2 come and save us?

If we can't get a oil exporting nation who is NOT dependent upon oil income, we do have a problem I admit, but that's a problem they need to work on themselves - better sooner or later.

If OPEC2 is "too hard", then I'll settle for a little terrorism (Oops! I mean "Freedom fighters") who sabatoge oil production against repressive governments who keep their control by their oil wealth. (These are "nice" fighters - they don't kill civilians - just "infrastructure" that helps maintain the power of the state - you know, somewhat like our bombing and cruise missiles are SUPPOSED to do.)

We shall see!

For every price there is a season

I've read around here and there and the situation seems to be that higher oil prices are here to stay - or at least we're going to challenge the market and see if higher prices really can increase production.

For the U.S. oil industry itself, it benefits by higher prices. Higher prices may not increase how fast we can extract oil from the ground, but they will increase the money oil companies take in, and ultimately increase the total yield as our depletion falls into the sunset.

Apparently reserves are actually higher now than a year go. This makes higher prices counter intuitive, but perhaps oil traders are finally getting the picture.

Imagine last year your savings was hovering around $2000 and you felt pretty good. Now a year later your savings is $3000, but you're worried about your job and inflation and the economy and suddenly this reserve doesn't look so secure. We don't know which is more "reasonable" - low worry before or high worry now.

If prices stay high many will start blaming oil companies for their excessive profits.

In theory high profits means the oil companies have more money available for exploration. The same logic held back in 1974 and 1981 when prices skyrocketed. The big oil companies searched for all the new oil they could find, and succeeded, only to be hit by an oil glut that plummeted the price after 1985 or so.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OILPRICE/98/Max

That effort lead to nearly 15 years of excess supply, only running short after 1999.

So rather than taking the easiest oil first, harder nonOPEC oil was extracted for "independence", and we successfully delayed our "dependence" another 20 years. Now nearly all nonOPEC production by country is falling, and OPEC itself may not be able to meet new demand.

15 years of cheap oil prices encouraged more of the world to become dependent upon oil. Now prices are moving back where they should be perhaps. Who will be most hurt by higher prices?

Higher prices are supposed to reduce demand. This will be a test - in the coming months - if prices stay high ($45/bbl+), will the rate of demand growth slow? Obviously it must slow by market forces of supply and demand. If demand can't keep up, prices will rise until some decide they don't need it.

America, consumer of 25% of the the world's oil production, would seem to be most vulnerable to higher prices. I'm guessing the opinions of some economists are correct - that we can adjust to higher prices. How high? Obviously there are limits, but consider drivers. America is rich enough that people have long ignored fuel economy - and vehicles got bigger and bigger. I talk to people (not people on the bottom, but average older adults), and they say gasoline prices don't affect their driving. Thus, $3/gallon gasoline appears within the comfort zone of many americans, even if they complain.

Certainly Europe prices are much higher because of taxes - $4/gallon or more. They've accepted those prices too, and so can we.

I worry about people on the bottom side of the U.S. economy - those making under $10/hour. I've seen how such people "make it". They buy "junkers" for <$1000, and run them until a repair bill exceeds their budget, and then they buy another one.

Those on the bottom are "subsidized" by the wealth on the top - by those who appreciate the luxury of buying/leasing a new car every 3-4 years. So as long as people continue this, people on the middle and bottom will continue to have options to stay on the car track.

Overall I'm hopeful short term problems can be responded to, but when we go 15-25 years, I lose more and more hope. I hope we're lucky to face more hardship earlier than later. The taller they are they harder they fall, right?

We shall see!

Instant Runoff Voting: Is it the best election reform?

Instant Runoff Voting: Is it the best election reform?

The Minnesota Independence Party (IP) advocates the use of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for single seat elections in Minnesota:

http://www.mnip.org/platform3.shtml
SUPPORTING PLANKS: Require Instant Runoff Voting in all statewide and congressional district elections and suggest it at the county and local levels of government.

I believe that Instant Runoff Voting is a fair method, but that its implementation may unnecessarily overstep our needs for reform from plurality.

All partisan, single-seat elections in Minnesota - from U.S. Senate to Governor to State Representative use the plurality election method. Plurality means simply everyone gets one vote, and the candidate with the most votes win.

Plurality lacks a requirement that a majority of voters agree on chosen winner. In fact the last two Minnesota governor elections failed to confirm a majority winner:

See: ttp://www.sos.state.mn.us/election/result.html - Minnesota Governor - General Elections results 1998, 2002

• 1998: Ventura=37.0%, Coleman=34.3%, Humphrey=28.1%, Pentel 0.3%
• 2002: Pawlenty=44.4%, Moe=36.5%, Penny=16.2%, Pentel=2.3%

A plurality winner will usually win a runoff process as well, but we have no way to confirm that result.

Ventura's surprise win 1998 demonstrates that plurality doesn't always shut out "third parties" from a shot at winning, however the lack of any required support threshold for a winner mean two parties can often control election results by momentum of past success rather than truly advancing the best candidates. Any candidate who dares run outside this duopoly control, risks throwing the election to the candidate whom is least like themselves. This "spoiler effect" discourages independent-minded candidates from running.

To break this stranglehold we require majority rule. Traditional runoffs and Instant Runoff Voting both support this majority requirement. Traditional runoffs do it two or more rounds of voting. IRV does it by a allowing voter a rank preference ballot and it is counted by a simulated runoff process using the top remaining choice each round from each voter.

One year ago I was a part of a small group of volunteers with Fairvote Minnesota which lobbied at the State Capitol for the use of IRV in a special election in the City of Roseville. It was a great experience to take my personal research on the topic and talk with State Representatives.

The Roseville bill passed the State Senate, but failed in the House with a Republican majority voting it down. I was sad, but somewhat relieved. An experimental election method without much time or money available for educating voters risked problems and putting a bad name on a good idea.

I could understand a paternalistic concern from the state legislature, but I was disappointed the Republicans rejected it as undemocratic:

See: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/8195315.htm MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE: House rejects instant runoff, Mar. 16, 2004

• Republican leaders [...] said they simply voted against a bill that "defied onstitutionality."
• "The Constitution is 'one person, one vote,' " said House Speaker Steve Sviggum. "You don't get two or three or four or five votes. That's not what making choices is."
• House Majority Leader Erik Paulsen said "[...] People vote for the one person they think should hold office, and you live with the results. That's democracy."

Did Sviggum really believe what he said, or was it just the best wording he could give for his gut feelings against it? By the Speaker's words alone, I can equally claim that "Primaries are unconstitutional" since they allow people one vote in the primary and one vote in the general election.

In fact, this perspective was my first reaction against a claim of unconstitutionality of IRV. Partisan primaries specifically can be judged as undemocratic because they artificially force voters to pick a single party to support in the primary. Honest voters are trapped if they are interested in candidates from multiple parties. Dishonest voters can try to influence their competition.

In contrast primaries used for nonpartisan elections like city mayor are open top-two primaries. Voters are free to support any candidate and the harsh top-two elimination rule encourages everyone to vote honestly.

Returning to the IRV process, there is one subtle issue that sticks with me: How do IRV supporters justify a bottom-up elimination process? (compared to a top-two elimination)

Imagine an election with 7 candidates. Say the first round votes are, ordered from most to least: 40%, 21%, 15%, 11%, 6%, 5%, and 2%.

Eliminating one candidate at a time offers a thrilling underdog hope of the next-to-last candidate. Unfortunately this process also creates an unnecessary fear from all the higher candidates. This is what I suspect Speaker Sviggum is concerned about. Do we really NEED to give a 5% candidate a chance to win merely for avoiding last place?!

If we see an election is a "cooperative process" where we want to maximize support, like a party endorsements, then perhaps it makes sense to allow a more careful elimination.

In comparison in a competitive election, allowing the option for undue cooperation will be seen as a threat. Being first or second place among all competitors is an honor that must be worth some advantage. These top candidates (and supporters) will consider it unfair to allow lower candidates a chance to combine their votes. Majority rule itself doesn't demand this. There's no way within a runoff process for 3 strong candidates to compete as equals. Someone has got to go.

There are higher order election methods that allow comparison among three or more candidates without elimination (i.e. Condorcet's method), but limiting ourselves to runoffs where we can only choose a final two, only the plurality top-two candidates stand most worthy for this final competition.

Instant Runoff Voting is usually considered to be a "Bottom up" elimination, I consider it reasonable to use the same basic term qualified as a "Top-two Instant Runoff."

It is good to realize that IRV is not the only way to implement a top-two runoff.

In fact there's at least three options:

1. Top-two Primary (Replaces partisan primary)
   
2. Top-two Runoff (Requires an extra election sometimes)
   
3. Top-two Instant Runoff (Uses rank preference ballots - can be used for BOTH party Primaries and the General election)

Each of these has relative disadvantages to consider. A top-two primary does not allow parties to unify as now. A top-two runoff will cost more money with another election required. Lastly top-two IRV will require equipment upgrades and voter education.

Some will surely complain this "top-two" approach as seeming somehow unfair to smaller parties, but consider: A top-two process allows many parties to compete for these esteemed top-two placings and success will come from the strength of the candidates as much as their party name. Different parties will surely succeed in different times and places. The duopoly stranglehold of plurality will be broken, while the strength of party organization will remain to promote strong candidates.

My conclusion:

The simplest and fairest "one person, one vote" election method with a majority requirement is a top-two elimination process.

Let's agree majority rule alone our reform goal, and let's fight for it, whatever form it may take.

The Road to Hell

It's always fun to find a new way to destroy (or slow down) the human race.

The latest and greatest might be here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1215-24.htm

And the book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/050005116X/commondreams-20/ref%3Dnosim/103-2823341-1101440

When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Timeby M. J. Benton

This is a science fiction writer's dream subject - What would happen if human use of fossil fuels triggered a run-away green house effect that changed everything we know?

The fasination aspect for me is the idea that we're "sitting on a bomb" without realizing it.

And PERHAPS it isn't "just a disaster" in the waiting, but actually INTENTIONAL - okay by God if you must, or Gaia if you like, but by just another complex feedback mechanism of a complex world?

I know we're actually in a "glacial period" geologically. That is, more time than not, of the last some 5 million years has had glaciers covering much of the earth, MUCH more than now which is a short "interglacial period" (~20,000 years perhaps).

We don't know what changed to cause this transition to glacial conditions.

The question I wonder is "what stops the run-away greenhouse?" Could there be another mechanism that reverses course back to glaciers?

Well, I imagine so, but perhaps in human time scales, it won't much matter. I DOUBT such a natural disaster is irreversible, but maybe it just like a 100 million year toilet flush - taking a few million years for life to find a new equilibrium.

We'll see!

Mass Transit or Personal Vehicles?

Last night a member of my toastmaster club held a "round robin discussion" on supporting mass transit and the proposed Northstar Rail Line.

It was an interesting discussion overall, with a wide range of opinions from "I'd never use mass transit and it'd be cheaper to just give all the riders cars" to "We need an underground subway system with our cold winters" to "It's too expensive and too inconvenient".

Possibly the main arguments, if spelled out would be the self-centered "I don't think I should have to help pay for anything I don't use", and the noble-with-other-people's-money "Whether or not I'd use it I appreciate it's there."

I'm more in the second extreme. I'm largely happy with my free-exercise bicycle, but sometimes more happy when I can take the bus under bad weather (was that snow in the forcast tonight?!)

There's one argument that I can't easily oppose - the belief that it would be cheaper to buy cars for the small minority who now use mass transit. I remember seeing some sort of numbers like that. Personally I'm SURE if you substitute the word "bikes" for "cars", I'm sure it would be true. I also personally think "addicts" of any type always tend to think they've got the ideal solution for everyone.

I visited Washington DC in 2000 for 10 days and never put one foot inside of a car. I took the underground metro for 95% of my trips, even if I walked there a LOT more than at home, and took a bus a few times. Admittingly, even in DC, if I lived there, I'd be on my bike for largely speeder travel. Actually travelling underground is a little confusing - like teleportation. Often I'd come to the surface and not even know what direction I was facing - made doubly tricky since all the roads are diagonal from the cardinal directions.

Anyway, must go, but maybe I can spend some more time later.

Nonparticipation in a lie

I've always thought I'm above all circumstance, including the law if need be. Personal integrity is all there is.

On the other hand, I accept opportunism. When given a "free lunch", do I take it? Somtimes!

The whole modern financial system now revolved around a little number called a "Credit score". I don't understand how it is computed, mostly I know that "higher is better", and certain "virtueous" behavior (like borrowing and repaying what I borrowed) can raise and "viceful" behavior (like not following through on a promised payment) can lower it.

I also know that some virtueous behavior doesn't help. Living on savings doesn't do anything for my credit record. Giving to charity also offers nothing nothing.

I got my first credit card in college, but long never saw any use for it. Finally in the internet days I found it was sometimes convenient for internet transactions.

Anyway, overall I would say I think credit card companies are corrupt and unworthy of my participation.

Originally I remember turning down credit cards because they had annual fees. I didn't believe in "fees" for something I didn't need. Then so many silly people accumulated credit card debt that companies could afford to remove all the fees AND have a 30 day grace period to repay my accumulated debt.

How can you beat a free lunch? YET, I know my free lunch is paid for by others more foolish than me. The companies only care about me because they HOPE eventually I'll get over my head someday and they can earn back some of their postage from me at least!

Seriously not only do I get a free lunch as a no interest one month loan, but I get data on my credit history to make me look honest and responsible. IN FACT it was this credit history that allowed me to get a relatively low interest rate on my mortgage - which is a MUCH more serious form of debt than little monthly borrowing! Of course the house as collateral makes it less risky for lenders.

Overall I accept that credit card companies offer a valuable service, and they are relatively conservative. They give people low credit limits when they start, and increase it only when they're proven "virtuous".

Of course if they made no money, they wouldn't offer the service. I guess partly they make money through transaction fees. So when I use my credit card to buy something, there's a hidden charge paid to the credit card company.

Ideally I believe in transparency AND accountability. It would seem, my ideal credit card company would "help" by:
1) Charging me a yearly fee for administrative costs.
2) Charging me a transactional fee for administrative costs.
3) Ending the 30 day grace period, and charging interest starting the moment money is transferred from them and ending the moment they get my money.
4) Requiring "minimum payments" to repay all debt within 12 months, and "freezing" the card when the minimum is not paid on time.
5) Charging a "fair" interest rate.
6) No special deals for debt transfers, or special rates.

Under these terms I expect the result ultimately would be MUCH LESS credit card use, and MUCH LESS credit card debt.

Well this is just an outline of thoughts, incomplete, and largely unattractive. Still I'd seriously consider a card which would allow people to accumulate a credit history without making a deal with the devil.

I like to believe sometimes that I'm "paying my own way" through life. It's got some sort of karma points involved I'm sure.

Maybe there's something out there closer to what I want.

Anyway, I don't feel "addicted" to credit at all. I imagine I could go any 36 month period of your choosing without touching a credit card - sure annoying in ways, but survival.

What if charging interest was illegal?

Very silly thought, but seriously worth imagining a little perhaps.

This isn't about feared communism - redistributing wealth. It is just about offering a little restriction against the use of wealth for generating wealth.

What's the harm? What's the consequences? Can it be done?

Well, let me start on the "can" question. There'd be no general restriction on "giving" money away.

Let's say I borrow $1000 from you, we can sign a contract that I'll pay you back exactly $1000 after 1 year.

Well, after that year I don't have the $1000 to repay. What do we do? Well, the contract can say "Penalty of $100 to be added after 1 year." That's fair, right? But that is an effective 10% interest rate.

The only way to avoid this "side-step" is to also disallow "fees" as well.

So then what incentive do you have to loan money to me? Absolutely none. Less than an incentive, you have the disincentive that IF I eventually pay you back, inflation will make my money worth less than it was when we started!

Well, what else could I do with my money? I can buy things. Heck, I could by "stock". Stock isn't a loan because there's no guaranteed returns. Still a stock seller has to convince the buyer that good returns will LIKELY exist, using past history and a little bit of charm.

A stock in itself has no innate value. It is only worth something because someone else will buy it from me. Well, the company that created the stock could "buy it back" at any price they want.

So that defines the terms of a hidden loan. I'll buy "stock" from you worth $1000. In one year I'll offer to buy it back from you for $1100. That's a 10% return. It's just not a legal contract guarantee. I mean I can tell you that's my plan, but you can't make me follow through.

In some ways this is a more honest relation. I mean honest by no guarantees. You're taking a chance on me, and WHY should the law be able to enforce an agreement between us? The only basis for trust is my word and intention - supported from past history.

So even credit cards as known could continue to exist. I mean you allow me to "borrow" up to a maximum amount - actually "selling" you a "stock" which I layer buy back for something more.

Well, my original thoughts are how I dislike the "wealth-focus" of people with lots of money - EXPECTING profits - even as I accept so many people are foolish and borrow money on promises that hurt them and eventually they can't pay it back. I had thought "ending interest" as ending "easy money" for borrowing, but knowing it was impossible.

I've no real solutions, but mainly I'm left with questions of power. Once you have loaned me money, DO YOU HAVE RIGHTS to threaten me to get the money back with interest?

My conclusion is in the long past all agreements were made between individuals with no legal power of enforcement. A modern economy can't function with private agreements alone because we deal with too many people. A modern government makes laws that protect money lenders because it serves the interest of the government to increase commerse.

I suppose this is related to the bill for new federal laws which further restrict declaration of bankruptsy.

On the point of view of "goodness" I can't accept this. However much I BLAME people for taking on too much debt, I more BLAME money lenders who encourage people to borrow too much.

I'm sure restrictions on bankruptsy will INCREASE irresponsible lending practices. The "reason" given is that reduced bankruptsy will decrease costs for "honest borrowers", but I don't believe it. I mean I think ultimately bankruptsy won't be decreased - it'll just encourage further debt that won't get repaid.

Okay, I'm not sure of anything. I'm only sure I don't like capitalism. I can mostly protect myself, but it hurts me to see exploitation and do nothing.

Shortest route to Mars leads through classroom

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-wertheim7mar07,1,3640536.story?ctrack=1&cset=true Margaret Wertheim: Shortest route to Mars leads through classroom

A good commentary - she suggests we should invest in education rather than hundreds of billions to explore Mars now.

I quite agree, although I still see it as at least a 3-step process.

1. Invest in education
2. Use science to learn how to live on earth sustainably.
3. Then, consider the Moon, Mars and Beyond. (At least in terms of human travel)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-wertheim7mar07,1,3640536.story?ctrack=1&cset=true Margaret Wertheim: Shortest route to Mars leads through classroom

A good commentary - she suggests we should invest in education rather than hundreds of billions to explore Mars now.

I quite agree, although I still see it as at least a 3-step process.

1. Invest in education
2. Use science to learn how to live on earth sustainably.
3. Then, consider the Moon, Mars and Beyond. (At least in terms of human travel)

To Infinity and Beyond?

See
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/11074422.htm
And
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/explore_main.html

Today I read an article about a new NASA vehicle which will replace the Space Shuttle. It is a part of President Bush's Vision to send humans back to the moon and on to Mars.

I hold a deep appreciate for science and exploration, and missions like the Hubble Space Telescope (Despite the long delays and cost), and the latest Cassini mission to Saturn and Mars Rovers on on Mars, they truly astound me.

The fact that the HST will be abandoned in favor of dedicating the space shuttle missions to the completion of the international space station is a hard blow to me - seeing overall how nonmanned missions are so much cheaper and offer so much more in terms of discoverty.

I am against Bush's vision to Mars - not because I don't think we could do it - but because I'm not convinced it is a cost effective activity. SURE, I accept the expensive Apollo visits to the moon offered many great technical advances that could be applied else. AND I accept there is great potential for learning about survival - sending humans to mars - finding ways to use meager resources and closed systems that can support life. I really think those are areas of exploration that are of vital importance.

I'm just not convinced we have to "Go to Mars" to seriously learn about survival.

Some people ask questions like "If we can send men to the moon, how come we can't solve XXX".

Good question and the answer is usually that we can do lots of amazing things given enough dedicated people, money, and resources. I believe there are plenty of problems, but if you give NASA a $500-$1000 billion check today, I'm sure they can find a way to Mars within 30 years. That is, they can repeat the Apollo vision and get a couple of bold astronauts to land on the Martian surface, grab some rocks, and come home - all within a 50-50 chance of survival.

But we can do the "same" mission with robots for say $500 million. Same mission in the sense of "results" - rocks.

Why would we want to send people to the moon or Mars?

Because these worlds have something for us - something that can aid in our survival.

What is it that these worlds hold?

Well, if you compare to the needs on the Earth - nothing. We've got it all AND MORE right here.

How about "space for expansion?" Colonialism? Someplace to put our millions of people?

Not likely - it's a matter of energy and cost. In order to affect world population, we'd have to clear a sizable fraction of humanity into space. Let's shoot for 10%. The cost of sending a single person to the moon (energywise) might be say 100x the energy that person would consume staying on earth. So (if the guess is good) in order to send 10% of our people into space, we'll have to consume 10x more energy than we do already. AND I'm betting that 100x factor is even true for AMERICAN consumption, not world average consumption.

In order to "Colonize space", it'll have to be done by USING resources from space/other-worlds alone, and it'll be SMALL groups for the foreseeable future. AND those left on earth will be subsidizing their work.

So WHY would we (those who will never go into space) want to subsidize people in space?

Because we can learn about survival, right? But again, I hold to the idea that we can learn about survival right here. The challenges in space are far bigger, and yet we've not really mastered the earth as much as some may think.

Let's say we went to Mars and found quadrillions of tons of oil and coal in the ground from ancient life that used to be there. Wouldn't that be great?!

Oh, but unfortunately burning oil and coal takes oxygen. Where will get the oxygen on Mars?

Well, we can melt the ice caps and electralysize the water into hydrogen and oxygen. But that takes energy - heat. Where will we get the energy? We can can burn our oil or coal - but alas no, we can't burn our coal because we have no oxygen.

We can use solar power! We can create solar panels and generate electricity, and that can run our machines and heat and separate our water into oxygen - and THEN we can burn our coal, right? Well, maybe, but WHY waste all that energy just to burn coal? Why not just keep using the electricity directly for energy? Why indeed?!

So on Mars the best we can do is "live by solar energy", and on Earth, life HAS lived by solar energy (and some geothermal energy) almost exclusively since the beginning of life.

So we've learned something perhaps:

Until we can live on earth w/o fossil fuels, we CERTAINLY can't live on Mars.

This is quite obvious from a very simply thought experiment. We CAN go to Mars as soon as we figure out the technical challenges of LIVING ON EARTH!

So rather than spending $500Billion to send a couple of dudes to Mars, WHY NOT direct those resources to figuring out how to live on earth w/o fossil fuels?

Because we have been corrupted by cheap energy of fossil fuels and we are fools.

The problems of 6 billion people's demands living on earth are vast. The problems of 6 billion people living on earth AS AMERICANS live is intractible. Won't happen.

So what do we do about THIS problem? Our survival?

We imagine the SOLUTIONS exist in space, playing gods with our inheritance, HOPING our descendants will figure out where we went wrong.

Man to Mars is nonsense - at least now.

We may yet go much farther than I can imagine, but we're not ready.

We are children, camping in the back yard, imagining ourselves as great explorers. Imagination has its place, but only under the protective sphere of those that support us.

We don't know how to support ourselves as we are accustomed w/o burning fossil fuels.

Our mission is not UP, but down, into the dark hearts of our corrupted spirits. There are two infinities and we've got more learning to do in all directions.

Sure, play with Mars, Mr. President, if you can, but recognize it is a GAME. It is not about reality. It is not about our fundamental survival.

Mortgage debt and the housing bubble?

I am a homeowner - I am also a mortgage "owner" - an ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) at that.

I took a chance on a 5 year ARM in 2003 because I could get a full percentage point lower mortgage rate guaranteed over 5 years. After 5 years I expect my rate to increase, but I'll have saved quite a bit in interest over the 60 months and I have an incentive to make extra payment to my mortgage and I'll save even more money over the long run by these payments.

Good logic for a single adult, no dependents, a good job, and disposable income available for investment.

Well, then there's my 40 year old furnace that just needed replacing - along with an old A/C, and OOPS - there goes 4 months of my "disposable income". Plus I should be replacing a crumbling 110' asphalt driveway in the future, then there's the magical dancing washing machine, and so on. Money doesn't always go as far as I'd like, even if I've made financially conservative decisions and a little room mate income goes a long way in keeping the money flowing.

Well, we'll see, but overall I'm content to let this mortgage ride - at least as long as I've got my job, and hopefully in the future I'll have a paid for house as my little nest egg.
My situation can be compared to a more financially aggressive coworker - half a generation older, and with a family, but he sold his house 5 years ago, upgraded, and got a full new mortgage and invested his original principal into stocks - just about the time for the tech bubble to burst and the Enron scandals and all that. He says he came out even, and I'll not argue - just glad that I'm not so foolish.

Then another comparison, a cousin, half a generation younger. She wanted to buy into a house last year - even as a cobuy with her roommate, but alas her finances were not impressive for mortgage loaners apparently. She's got a masters degree in environmental education, yet can't find a job with health insurance, and between two jobs, her best income is working in daycare. She has a pile of student loans to pay off, and a negligent foolish credit card debt mostly gathered during her school days - maxed out, with months of fees and now her APR is DOWN to a mere 16%. For a long while she was making minimum payments and wondering why her balance wasn't going down much.

She would like to enter the world of home ownership. She wants to buy into the game BEFORE the housing costs go far beyond her meager income to afford. In her frantic mind it's "Now or never" to get a seat at the table of the upper class.

Surely she's not alone. The low interest rates and skyrocking home prices have convinced many people that they stand on a decision where if they don't (or can't) act now, they'll be permanently punished into a rented life and poverty.

Who am I to argue? Life isn't fair, and I feel lucky to "get my foot in the door" when I did. I'm not convinced I'd make the same decision now 20 months later. And I came from a point of no debt, low expenses, and good income.

What right do I have to tell my poor cousin that she's better off playing it safe now - live frugally - work hard - pay off her debt as fast as she can - and then re-evaluate. She's still 27, not over the hill yet. What's another 2-3 years for her?

Well, if you believe the hype, perhaps home prices will continue rising 10-20%/year over that time. HAD she been able to buy now, her value increase would perhaps more than make up for her debt. With the new assessed equity, she might even get a second mortgage and pay OFF her current debt - move it happily onto a interest-deductible mortgage and be on easy street 5 years sooner than my humble approach of saving first.

Well, it's all fine and good to be hopeful, but is it believable?

Sure - housing values might continue to rise like they have over the last 5 years.

However I'm still skeptical. First home ownership has many costs she doesn't experience as a renter, and her nonexistent savings won't be able to cover unexpected costs. Not to mention probably new debt trying to furnish her new home. If she can't pay much more than minimum credit card payments now, how is she supposed to afford a house?

Why would anyone put themselves in such a tight predicament? Why is it SO IMPORTANT that she immediately get into a house BEFORE she's seriously able to comfortably live in it?
Because of FEAR. Because of impatience.

I'm not trying to say she's wrong to want things, to want to get ahead. I accept it is unfair that she should have to struggle for another 10 years before she's ready for home ownership.
People who "take risks" are the ones who get ahead, BUT they are also those who get screwed when "visions of green" change into "seas of red."

To put it bluntly, SHE is acting like a herd animal, following the skittish masses. SHE can't see the cliff that the herd can't see. She only knows that she's WEAK and if she falls behind, the lions and jackals are probably waiting for her.

There can be lots of reasons why home prices are going up, but a primary one is that a large number of people have decided to run up the same hill. Once the charge begins, it's a positive feedback.

Demand raises prices. Prices raise fears for those not quite ready to buy a home to follow. That creates more demand, raising prices more.

Well, I accept there's a lot more than that. There's market manipulation by the federal reserves to lower interest rates - allowing more people to afford larger mortgages - encouraging more home owners to refinance, clear their maxed credit cards so they can have another 3-4 year to max them out once again.

In short there's a rush for the money and everyone is selling their future security in easy debt now in a believe further increased value will erase it all over and over again.

Well, I for one don't believe in it. I know rationally that money earned through work is worth more to me than money earned through investment.

If I have money I don't need, I'll invest it in my family, community first interest free, or better yet donate it to charity where others more dedicated to community than me can help others in more need than me.

Sure, I'll be happy if my home increases in value, but I'm not banking on it.

Sure, I'll be glad if my home can allow me to be more independent, more responsible, and more able to give back. But I just see the responsibility all the way.

I really feel for people like my cousin, and yet I know I can't save her. I can't convince her that sacrifice now is necessary or valuable.

As a home owner I should be glad for ever increasing home values, and as a mortgage owner I'm a little paranoid about dropping values faster than I can pay off my mortgage, but I accept ultimately it's better for prices to fall - so others can make honest decisions on when they're ready to own a home and take on the responsibility only then - not out of fear.

I can't predict the future, but in my mind, a 20%, or even 40% DROP in home values over the next 5 years would not be a terrible thing to me personally - I can take it as I must. It's easier to be generous from the top, right? Maybe?

Let's avoid a return of inflation though, ok? Already, I give up hoping.

Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera.

What the lord giveth, the lord taketh away.

I'm not even religious, but what perspective can there be for life each night but undying gratitude?

Instant Wealth - opportunity or corruption?

Whether we're talking expanded gambling or expanded exploitation of natural resources, there's a strong drive for development first and deal with the consequences second.

Both ultimately would seem to me to be transitory wealth. First any resource/opportunity you "develop" will likely face competition later which cuts into your profits. Secondly for nonrenewable resources once you've depleted your resource it'll be gone forever.

Neither of these risks are great enough to forego development, but they do suggest reason to make wise choices on development. They choice may not be "Should we develop?" but "How fast should we develop?" and "What should we do with the gained profits?"

It seems to me the most important problem with wealth is it's corrupting influence - especially when it is available for a generation or more. Even if the first generation of leaders sees the value of limitations, that position may not be continued.

Is it wise to "build up infrastructure" based on unsustainable wealth? How will it be maintained when the wealth is used up?

"If you built it, they will come." That was a line from the movie "Field of Dreams", but it applies as well to the modern world. Those most successful at exploiting current opportunities will grow and thrive while those opportunies last. What they'll do when opportunities chance, they may be less able to judge.

I accept the view that our modern economy is built upon the bubble of cheap energy. When that bubble bursts, we'll relearn our dependency real quick.

The WISE perhaps are those who get in the game early and get out before the end-game.

We've done well with fossil fuels. We've done things beyond the imagination of 200 years ago.

Is it time to jump ship yet?

Can entire countries jump ship or is unearned power simply too corrupting to imagine escape?

As an individual I can't imagine jumping ship however much I expect it is soon sinking. I can imagine "exploiting advantage" now while preparing for jumping, but it may be nonsense. It may be that riding our high economy simply takes too much time to devote a dual track future. Certainly for individuals, but possibly also for communities as well.

All I know is however difficult it is to plan for something different in the future, I'm sure it won't ever get any easier.

My unwillingness to seriously prepare suggests to me that power is too corrupting and some dark roads of power may be best untraveled.