Dear Senators Collins and Snowe,
First I would like to thank you for being such great Senators. You are fair, thoughtful and look out for the best interests of the American people and the people from the great August 6, 2009 State of Maine. I am very proud to be represented by the both of you.
Please give the Presidents health care bill a fair hearing. I'm on Medicare and am satisfied, of coarse I wish it was less expensive, but heck, I would be dead now if it were not for Medicare, so I'm not complaining. The Republican plan is great for the rich, but my wife has no insurance because she went from full time to one day a week. We can't even buy COBRA because she still works for the same employer. That's a hole that a lot of people must fall into, it's pretty deep.
This Cap and Trade stuff is not new. I'm sure you remember Reagan's first attempt at controlling acid rain and that a bill finally got passed under Bush I The Clean Air Act. The bill was a big success and the emissions are still traded.
An early example of an emission trading system has been the SO2 (sulfur dioxide) trading system under the framework of the Acid Rain Program of the 1990 Clean Air Act in the U.S. Under the program, which is essentially a cap-and-trade emissions trading system, SO2 emissions were reduced by 50 percent from 1980 levels by 2007.[50] Some experts argue that the "cap and trade" system of SO2 emissions reduction has reduced the cost of controlling acid rain by as much as 80 percent versus source-by-source reduction.[51][52]
In 1997, the State of Illinois adopted a trading program for volatile organic compounds in most of the Chicago area, called the Emissions Reduction Market System.[53] Beginning in 2000, over 100 major sources of pollution in eight Illinois counties began trading pollution credits.
In 2003, New York State proposed and attained commitments from nine Northeast states to form a cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions program for power generators, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). This program launched on January 1, 2009 with the aim to reduce the carbon "budget" of each state's electricity generation sector to 10 percent below their 2009 allowances by 2018.[54]
Also in 2003, U.S. corporations were able to trade CO2 emission allowances on the Chicago Climate Exchange under a voluntary scheme. In August 2007, the Exchange announced a mechanism to create emission offsets for projects within the United States that cleanly destroy ozone-depleting substances.[55]
In 2007, the California Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act, AB-32, which was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thus far, flexible mechanisms in the form of project based offsets have been suggested for five main project types. A carbon project would create offsets by showing that it has reduced carbon dioxide and equivalent gases. The project types include: manure management, forestry, building energy, SF6, and landfill gas capture.
Since February 2007, seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have joined together to create the Western Climate Initiative, a regional greenhouse gas emissions trading system.[56]
On November 17, 2008 President-elect Barack Obama clarified, in a talk recorded for YouTube, that the US will enter a cap and trade system to limit global warming.[57]
The 2010 United States federal budget proposes to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits. Under the proposed cap-and-trade program, all GHG emissions credits would be auctioned off, generating an estimated $78.7 billion in additional revenue in FY 2012, steadily increasing to $83 billion by FY 2019.[58].(Wikipedia)
This sounds like a program that both parties ought to vote for.
Thank you for your time.
If I can help you in analyzing an economic problem, I'd be glad to help. I have a big advantage over most analysts because I'm not an economist.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Bregman
York, ME
Just trying to help things along.
The Old Philosopher
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
A Possibility
Here is a possible picture as I see it. It aint necessarily so, but it gives me something to look for.
Stock markets are rising in the U.S., China and Japan plus all the lesser markets are also rising. Money is flowing in from all over the world, pushing stocks higher. Hedge funds, pension funds, mutual fund and to a smaller extent the public are all being forced to participate, because there is no other market big enough to handle so much cash. Now the only consumer in this group is the public and they are the smallest part, so the market rise does little to increase consumer spending. Therefore the economy doesn't expand as fast as the market and we have the final bubble!
The Fed is hoping that the rising market will lift consumption, and say that it does, but it wont rise as fast as the market is rising. The markets get way ahead of themselves, forcing the Fed to raise interest, because nobody wants to buy 3% bonds when the stock markets are roaring. In other words it isn't raising rates because there is a boom going on, it's raising them because it needs the money to finance the ongoing deficit, plus tax reciepts are the worst since the Great Depression. Tax collection are down because people are still out of work and corporations are not growing, earning aren't growing and they all have tax loss carryovers due to their giant losses.
With the market at a high, interest rates going up and the economy not yet out of the woods; any disruption, such as oil rising further, a small country getting into financial trouble, housing doesn't recover, autos can't get above 10 million unit/year,the dollar drops precipitously, interest rates start to ratchet up because of inflation fears, or interest rates drop because of deflation fears. Fear can raise its ugly head for no particularly good reason. The talking heads and empty suits will give plenty of reasons, but always after the fact.
Bottom line, if the market advances too far in relation to the economy's growth, and then the economy doesn't show any growth, the market has a big problem. At 1,000 the S&P 500 is selling at 18.2 X's projected 2009 earnings of $55. Projected earnings for 2010 are $74.75, an approximate 50% increase. If that happens the market is selling at 13.4 X's earning, not too bad. At 1,100 it's 14.8 X's 2010 projected earnings, still not bad, but if earnings don't grow, the rush for the exits will be horrendous. If earning look like they are going to be $55 or less in 2010, then the S&P 500 earnings ratio could be in the single digits. That would be HORRENDOUS!
My guess, if the economy starts down again, and I'm not saying that it will, but if it does buy some puts (70's ??), you'll need all the protection you can get.
Good luck and let's hope that the market is right about the future, and that all of the above is just something to think about.
Stock markets are rising in the U.S., China and Japan plus all the lesser markets are also rising. Money is flowing in from all over the world, pushing stocks higher. Hedge funds, pension funds, mutual fund and to a smaller extent the public are all being forced to participate, because there is no other market big enough to handle so much cash. Now the only consumer in this group is the public and they are the smallest part, so the market rise does little to increase consumer spending. Therefore the economy doesn't expand as fast as the market and we have the final bubble!
The Fed is hoping that the rising market will lift consumption, and say that it does, but it wont rise as fast as the market is rising. The markets get way ahead of themselves, forcing the Fed to raise interest, because nobody wants to buy 3% bonds when the stock markets are roaring. In other words it isn't raising rates because there is a boom going on, it's raising them because it needs the money to finance the ongoing deficit, plus tax reciepts are the worst since the Great Depression. Tax collection are down because people are still out of work and corporations are not growing, earning aren't growing and they all have tax loss carryovers due to their giant losses.
With the market at a high, interest rates going up and the economy not yet out of the woods; any disruption, such as oil rising further, a small country getting into financial trouble, housing doesn't recover, autos can't get above 10 million unit/year,the dollar drops precipitously, interest rates start to ratchet up because of inflation fears, or interest rates drop because of deflation fears. Fear can raise its ugly head for no particularly good reason. The talking heads and empty suits will give plenty of reasons, but always after the fact.
Bottom line, if the market advances too far in relation to the economy's growth, and then the economy doesn't show any growth, the market has a big problem. At 1,000 the S&P 500 is selling at 18.2 X's projected 2009 earnings of $55. Projected earnings for 2010 are $74.75, an approximate 50% increase. If that happens the market is selling at 13.4 X's earning, not too bad. At 1,100 it's 14.8 X's 2010 projected earnings, still not bad, but if earnings don't grow, the rush for the exits will be horrendous. If earning look like they are going to be $55 or less in 2010, then the S&P 500 earnings ratio could be in the single digits. That would be HORRENDOUS!
My guess, if the economy starts down again, and I'm not saying that it will, but if it does buy some puts (70's ??), you'll need all the protection you can get.
Good luck and let's hope that the market is right about the future, and that all of the above is just something to think about.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Humorous to some, sad to others.
This is hard to believe, but this is the way the U.S. and China do business.
Suppose that you made a nice product that I really wanted. So I come to you and say, "I'd like to buy 10 widgets at $100 a piece, so I'll give you a $1,000. OK?" You say, "That sounds good to me." Some time later you deliver the widgets and ask for payment. I give you a 10 year 4% note, instead of cash. You give me a funny look, but take the note because I tell that I'm going to buy a lot more of your widgets and other things you make. What a wonderful way to trade! Goods for 4% notes!
My own opinion here is that the Chinese are really not that stupid, so what is going on? I believe that the Chinese costs are inflated for the goods sold by two or three hundred percent. I say this because the very same good sold to America will sell on the street in China for 10 to 20% of the U.S. buying price. They can afford to sell widgets for 0% notes or even pay us interest on the notes. Not only that, but they get to scare the BeJesus out of the U.S. Congress and the public as well. Now that's a real bargain!
So, do you find this situation humorous or sad?
The Old Philosopher
Suppose that you made a nice product that I really wanted. So I come to you and say, "I'd like to buy 10 widgets at $100 a piece, so I'll give you a $1,000. OK?" You say, "That sounds good to me." Some time later you deliver the widgets and ask for payment. I give you a 10 year 4% note, instead of cash. You give me a funny look, but take the note because I tell that I'm going to buy a lot more of your widgets and other things you make. What a wonderful way to trade! Goods for 4% notes!
My own opinion here is that the Chinese are really not that stupid, so what is going on? I believe that the Chinese costs are inflated for the goods sold by two or three hundred percent. I say this because the very same good sold to America will sell on the street in China for 10 to 20% of the U.S. buying price. They can afford to sell widgets for 0% notes or even pay us interest on the notes. Not only that, but they get to scare the BeJesus out of the U.S. Congress and the public as well. Now that's a real bargain!
So, do you find this situation humorous or sad?
The Old Philosopher
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Comments on Bill Clinton's Economics
May 31, 2009 4:38 PM The New York Times
This was in response to an article titled, “Bill Clinton, on His Economic Legacy”
By David Leonhardt (May 27,2009)
“Given the range of issues Peter Baker covers in his article about Bill Clinton for the coming New York Times Magazine, there was not room for anything close to Mr. Clinton’s entire comments on his economic record. And they’re fascinating (as is the article). So we’re going to post, below, the transcript of that portion of the discussion between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Baker.
In several places, I have annotated it, in italics. I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of readers and other bloggers, too. (Update: Noam Scheiber, Mark Thoma and Matthew Yglesias weigh in.)……………..”
You can read the entire article by looking up the author in The NY Times archives. It’s about Bill defending his economic policies.
My comments:
I am a 79 year old ex-republican. Now an Obamaite. Mr Clinton left no economic legacy to be proud of.
Bill Clinton is possibly the luckiest President to ever hold office. Here is a man who was up for impeachment for lying. who took credit for a massive stock market rise, who did nothing to improve the lot of the working man and who helped perpetuate the turning of the American government into a giant corporation that was to be for the benefit of the wealthiest U.S. citizens. And now The Times is lauding him. The GOP propaganda machine( Spelled: Carl Rove ), which perpetuates the myth that, sleepy Mr Reagan, was the father of Capitalism for the People and saved our country from the Russian Bear, also kept Mr. Clinton at bay by using Mr. Reagan’s name and the Gallup poll ( which Mr. Clinton used to run the country ). Not many original ideas come from that quarter. I wish that President Obama had been in his place. He is a man with ideas to help the working man, and take the government back from the corporations and their lackeys, the lobbyists..
— Bob Bregman
This was in response to an article titled, “Bill Clinton, on His Economic Legacy”
By David Leonhardt (May 27,2009)
“Given the range of issues Peter Baker covers in his article about Bill Clinton for the coming New York Times Magazine, there was not room for anything close to Mr. Clinton’s entire comments on his economic record. And they’re fascinating (as is the article). So we’re going to post, below, the transcript of that portion of the discussion between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Baker.
In several places, I have annotated it, in italics. I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of readers and other bloggers, too. (Update: Noam Scheiber, Mark Thoma and Matthew Yglesias weigh in.)……………..”
You can read the entire article by looking up the author in The NY Times archives. It’s about Bill defending his economic policies.
My comments:
I am a 79 year old ex-republican. Now an Obamaite. Mr Clinton left no economic legacy to be proud of.
Bill Clinton is possibly the luckiest President to ever hold office. Here is a man who was up for impeachment for lying. who took credit for a massive stock market rise, who did nothing to improve the lot of the working man and who helped perpetuate the turning of the American government into a giant corporation that was to be for the benefit of the wealthiest U.S. citizens. And now The Times is lauding him. The GOP propaganda machine( Spelled: Carl Rove ), which perpetuates the myth that, sleepy Mr Reagan, was the father of Capitalism for the People and saved our country from the Russian Bear, also kept Mr. Clinton at bay by using Mr. Reagan’s name and the Gallup poll ( which Mr. Clinton used to run the country ). Not many original ideas come from that quarter. I wish that President Obama had been in his place. He is a man with ideas to help the working man, and take the government back from the corporations and their lackeys, the lobbyists..
— Bob Bregman
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Normal
This is just a little piece on how the statistics of normalcy can fool you. The normal of birth and death in the State of Florida is: It's normal to be born a Latino and die a Jew. How about that for a misleading statistic? My point, don't be fooled by what politicians and others say about percentage's of this and curves of that. The question you must always ask is, "Compared to what"? Everyone uses stats for their own purposes. The old saw, "Figures don't lie, liars figure" is more true today than ever. In the next few months as the President tries to get health care for everyone in this country, you will see some of the most extraordinary lies told by anti health care advocates, using statistics that can't possibly be proven. You will see particular comparisons of U.S. vs Canada or the U.K.. All the stories will be anecdotal rather than sold facts and figures. The Pres has a tough problem, but the bottom line is that this is the only advanced country in the World that doesn't take care of the health of all it's citizens. We can do it here without breaking the countries financial back. After all, the insurance companies have big buildings full of offices, computers, execs, workers plus stockholders who expect a profit and dividends. That's a lot of overhead that's not going toward our health care. Last I heard, we in the U.S. spend 2.7 trillion dollars per year on health care, and there are still 47 million people left out of the system. That's over $8,800/year for every man, woman and child in the country.
The End
Speak to you all soon.
The Old Philosopher
The End
Speak to you all soon.
The Old Philosopher
Thursday, June 4, 2009
New book
I just finished "The Horse Soldiers". It's about the first days of the war in Afghanistan, just after 9/11. I thought it was a great story, with an epilogue that doubled the value of the read. I recommend it to anybody who has been in the service and to all who want to keep American participation in war to a minimum, but still be victorious. Sounds like a tall order, but this is the way.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Luck!
Risk taking-Why do we do it?
We are blinded by the possible outcomes-Riches, power, love, notoriety,etc. What are the real odds of winning (getting rich)? Very, very high. The cemetery of failed enterprises is very silent. We hear about the grand successes, we don't hear much about the failures, grand or otherwise, even though they out number successes by a wide margin.
So, can success be ascribed to the casual relationship between specific traits and subsequent events? Trump is shrewd, tall, hardworking and cynical. Is that why he's rich?
Can failure be ascribed to the casual relationship between specific traits and subsequent events? Bob the Bear is shrewd, tall, hardworking, and cynical. Is that why he's poor? What truly separates Trump from Bob the Bear is a single factor-Luck. Plain luck. that's why you often see rich men and women become poor, they ran out of luck. Madoff investors, 401k owners at Enron, Lucent, World Communications, the list goes on and on.
Nobody deserves to be a millionaire and conversely, nobody deserves not to be a millionaire. So if you can deserve either rich or not rich, what is the difference? Again, Luck
Now it gets a bit scary as we go further along this road of fortune, good or bad. The bigger question becomes; how much do we have to do with our success or failure; wealth or poverty?
Think about it. Not very comforting to realize that luck is the difference!
The basic ideas for this blog come from "The Black Swan" by N.N.Taleb.
We are blinded by the possible outcomes-Riches, power, love, notoriety,etc. What are the real odds of winning (getting rich)? Very, very high. The cemetery of failed enterprises is very silent. We hear about the grand successes, we don't hear much about the failures, grand or otherwise, even though they out number successes by a wide margin.
So, can success be ascribed to the casual relationship between specific traits and subsequent events? Trump is shrewd, tall, hardworking and cynical. Is that why he's rich?
Can failure be ascribed to the casual relationship between specific traits and subsequent events? Bob the Bear is shrewd, tall, hardworking, and cynical. Is that why he's poor? What truly separates Trump from Bob the Bear is a single factor-Luck. Plain luck. that's why you often see rich men and women become poor, they ran out of luck. Madoff investors, 401k owners at Enron, Lucent, World Communications, the list goes on and on.
Nobody deserves to be a millionaire and conversely, nobody deserves not to be a millionaire. So if you can deserve either rich or not rich, what is the difference? Again, Luck
Now it gets a bit scary as we go further along this road of fortune, good or bad. The bigger question becomes; how much do we have to do with our success or failure; wealth or poverty?
Think about it. Not very comforting to realize that luck is the difference!
The basic ideas for this blog come from "The Black Swan" by N.N.Taleb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
