Anyone flying recently knows how annoying carry on luggage has become. Why is everyone carrying on? Because the airlines are charging for even the first checked bag.
Today, the USA Today rightly opined that the airlines should charge for carry on luggage rather than the first checked bag. Darryl Jenkins, an airline economics analyst, wrote in his opposing opinion that the airlines charge for checked luggage in order to lower the weight of the plane and reduce fuel costs.
Nonsense. Unless my physics professor lied to me, whether that first bag is in the cabin or the cargo hold doesn’t change the weight of the plane. What charging for the first checked bag does is increase boarding and deplaning times, raise the stress level on the plane, and encourage passengers to act rudely toward each other and the flight staff. Oh, and charging for the first checked bag allows the airlines to lay off baggage handling staff.
The airlines don’t mention the human resource part of the equation, but it’s the major factor. The largest cost of most any endeavour is labor. The more people you can lay off the greater the corporation’s profit. If their customers are outraged, but not enough to forego buying the next plane ticket, that’s ok.
Call your airline. Tell them you want to check your bag, that you want a level of decorum on your next flight, that they need to correct this outrage before the next bag-hurling fight breaks out.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Capitalism is Socialism
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism …. isms everywhere. We frequently use these terms to denigrate each other, but do we really understand what they are? Were the Soviets communists? Are we capitalists? Before we start yelling at each other, we need some definitions we can work with.
Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism, but rather a form of socialism.
It’s easiest to explain this through a comparison with political systems. First an important distinction: Political and economic systems should not be defined by their goals, but by their methods. We’ve seen many leaders who came to power with altruist goals, but ended as brutal dictators. A dictator is a dictator no matter his goals.
Political and economic systems must be defined by decision making; who makes the decisions. Using the commonly held concept of left and right, we will look the ends of the scales. The ends of the scales are just theoretical systems, but we need to understand the limits.
The left end of the political scale is Democracy: All political decisions made by the people as a whole through an equal ballot. The right end of the scale is the king, a Monarchy: One man makes all of the political decisions.
Under Democracy, everyone in the United States would vote on whether to repair the pot hole at Sixth and Green streets in Champaign, Illinois. At the other end, the king would decide. Neither of these ideas could really work, so we have modified systems. In the United States, we’re a Republic: The people, as a whole, elect a small number of leaders who make the political decisions. The Soviet Union was a Plutocracy: A small self-perpetuating group of leaders who made all the decisions.
Economic systems are analogous to political systems. They’re based on who the decision makers are.
The left end of the economic scale is Socialism, the economic form of Democracy: All economic decisions are made by the people as a whole through an equal ballot. The right end of the economic scale is the same the right end of the political scale, the king: One man makes all of the economic decisions.
Again, the ends can’t really work. We can’t rely on the population to decide on what automobile to produce, how to price it, how to market it, etc. So, we have modified systems. The Soviets had a Plutocratic Central Control Economy: A small number of self perpetuating leaders making all the economic decisions. Of course, when this small group is wrong, the results can be catastrophic. The Soviet Union collapsed, in large part, due to horrible decisions made by a few people that destroyed the entire economy.
In the United States, we nominally use a self perpetuating economic system we call Capitalism: Economic decisions are made by the people as a whole through an unequal ballot. Unlike pure socialism, each person has as many votes in capitalism as he has dollars, with each dollar representing one vote. If a product is popular and at the right price, people will pay (vote) more for it, and the product perpetuates. A lack of purchases causes a product to disappear.
Under capitalism as in socialism the people make decisions as a whole. As properly defined by the methods of decision making, capitalism is a form of socialism.
Communism (Marxism) is a marriage of democracy and socialism: All the people, through an equal ballot, make all the political and economic decisions. Of course, such a system can only work for a small cooperative group such as a monestary.
Fascism (Totalitarism) is just like the king. Fascists act like kings, but come to power through revolution rather than succession.
There is a danger lurking in our capitalist system. Central control economies inevitably fail. Too few make decisions for too many, so when the decision makers are wrong, their decisions have too great an affect on the economy.
When insufficiently regulated, power in a capitalist system coagulates. A few develop overreaching decision-making power. The system converts from capitalist to a Private-Sector Central Control Economy. An unelected, self perpetuating, group make the critical decisions. Private-sector central control can be just as dangerous as public-sector central control.
The auto industry is a great example of central control. The basic theories of capitalism mandate hundreds of auto manufacturers, rather than the few that we have. Functional markets must have so many players that decisions made by any one cannot affect the market as a whole. Poor decisions made by the few players in this market have the auto industry on the brink.
If the people want greater regulation, such regulation fits with capitalism. On the left side of the scale the people determine what form their economic system should take.
Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism, but rather a form of socialism.
It’s easiest to explain this through a comparison with political systems. First an important distinction: Political and economic systems should not be defined by their goals, but by their methods. We’ve seen many leaders who came to power with altruist goals, but ended as brutal dictators. A dictator is a dictator no matter his goals.
Political and economic systems must be defined by decision making; who makes the decisions. Using the commonly held concept of left and right, we will look the ends of the scales. The ends of the scales are just theoretical systems, but we need to understand the limits.
The left end of the political scale is Democracy: All political decisions made by the people as a whole through an equal ballot. The right end of the scale is the king, a Monarchy: One man makes all of the political decisions.
Under Democracy, everyone in the United States would vote on whether to repair the pot hole at Sixth and Green streets in Champaign, Illinois. At the other end, the king would decide. Neither of these ideas could really work, so we have modified systems. In the United States, we’re a Republic: The people, as a whole, elect a small number of leaders who make the political decisions. The Soviet Union was a Plutocracy: A small self-perpetuating group of leaders who made all the decisions.
Economic systems are analogous to political systems. They’re based on who the decision makers are.
The left end of the economic scale is Socialism, the economic form of Democracy: All economic decisions are made by the people as a whole through an equal ballot. The right end of the economic scale is the same the right end of the political scale, the king: One man makes all of the economic decisions.
Again, the ends can’t really work. We can’t rely on the population to decide on what automobile to produce, how to price it, how to market it, etc. So, we have modified systems. The Soviets had a Plutocratic Central Control Economy: A small number of self perpetuating leaders making all the economic decisions. Of course, when this small group is wrong, the results can be catastrophic. The Soviet Union collapsed, in large part, due to horrible decisions made by a few people that destroyed the entire economy.
In the United States, we nominally use a self perpetuating economic system we call Capitalism: Economic decisions are made by the people as a whole through an unequal ballot. Unlike pure socialism, each person has as many votes in capitalism as he has dollars, with each dollar representing one vote. If a product is popular and at the right price, people will pay (vote) more for it, and the product perpetuates. A lack of purchases causes a product to disappear.
Under capitalism as in socialism the people make decisions as a whole. As properly defined by the methods of decision making, capitalism is a form of socialism.
Communism (Marxism) is a marriage of democracy and socialism: All the people, through an equal ballot, make all the political and economic decisions. Of course, such a system can only work for a small cooperative group such as a monestary.
Fascism (Totalitarism) is just like the king. Fascists act like kings, but come to power through revolution rather than succession.
There is a danger lurking in our capitalist system. Central control economies inevitably fail. Too few make decisions for too many, so when the decision makers are wrong, their decisions have too great an affect on the economy.
When insufficiently regulated, power in a capitalist system coagulates. A few develop overreaching decision-making power. The system converts from capitalist to a Private-Sector Central Control Economy. An unelected, self perpetuating, group make the critical decisions. Private-sector central control can be just as dangerous as public-sector central control.
The auto industry is a great example of central control. The basic theories of capitalism mandate hundreds of auto manufacturers, rather than the few that we have. Functional markets must have so many players that decisions made by any one cannot affect the market as a whole. Poor decisions made by the few players in this market have the auto industry on the brink.
If the people want greater regulation, such regulation fits with capitalism. On the left side of the scale the people determine what form their economic system should take.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Update: Serbs Ordered to Pay for the Mosques
Bosnian Serb authorities have been ordered to pay Muslims $42 million for the destruction of 16 mosques in the city of Banja-Luka during the 1992-1995 war.
As posted earlier, (Karadzic's Destruction of Bosnia Lasts Long After War), Bosnian Serbs destroyed every mosque in the Serb controlled city of Banja-Luka. Banja-Luka is now the capital of the Republika Srpska autonomous region of Bosnia-i-Hercegovinia.
The Srpska Republika News Agency quoted the Islamic Community's lawyer Esad Hrvacic as saying that "For us, what is far more important than material compensation is that for the first time Republika Srpska has taken complete responsibility for the destruction of the mosques."
The most prominent of the mosques, built in 1579, the Ferhadija Mosque was on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites and is being rebuilt.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Against the War in Afghanistan? Are You High?
Afghanistan is NOT Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a tantrum by a group of megalomaniacs. The invasion of Afghanistan, however, was not by choice. It was necessary to protect the United States and the united nations. This war against the Taliban needs to be concluded even if it means extending the war into Pakistan.
A recent CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. We’re nearing the isolationist fervor we exhibited between the world wars, which ended in the disaster of the Nazi aggression and genocide in Europe. Afghanistan is not altogether different from Europe of the 1930s.
------
Since we seem to have forgotten, let’s start with a brief history of modern Afghanistan.
Following centuries of possession by foreign powers, Afghanistan finally emerged with a progressive secular, but pro-soviet, government in the 1970s. The United States decided to covertly fund the Mujahidin to annoy the Soviets. In 1979, the Soviets invaded to prop up the Soviet-leaning Afghan government. The United States then funded and trained the Mujahidin to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. After nine years of occupation, the USSR pulled out. Unfortunately, the United States similarly pulled out, leaving behind a horrific civil war. The Taliban came to power in 1996.
The Taliban government created an extreme Wahhabi version of Shariah law where women were to be illiterate baby producing machines. Women who were educated, showed any part of their bodies (even their eyes) in public, or were even found outside of the home without their husbands were publicly executed.
The Taliban supported and were supported by Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. When Bill Clinton managed to kick Bin Laden out of the Sudan, the Taliban gladly gave him room for his training camps. The ‘9/11’ hijackers were all trained in Bin Laden’s Afghan camps.
Although Al Qaida has been in hiding since the beginning of the Afghan war, the Taliban is reemerging as a power in the Waziristan regions of Pakistan.
-----
The Taliban, one of the worst regimes in modern history, is regrouping; the weak (if not dysfunctional) Pakistani government has the bomb; opium production is at an all-time high; and civil war rages in the Khyber wastelands. The Asian people are as desperate as the people of 1930’s Europe and they have a leader: Bin Laden. Pakistani militants assassinated Benozir Bhutto, seiged Mumbai, and protect Al Qaida. Al Qaida and the Taliban intend to take down western civilization ….
So, how in the hell can you be against the war?
A recent CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. We’re nearing the isolationist fervor we exhibited between the world wars, which ended in the disaster of the Nazi aggression and genocide in Europe. Afghanistan is not altogether different from Europe of the 1930s.
------
Since we seem to have forgotten, let’s start with a brief history of modern Afghanistan.
Following centuries of possession by foreign powers, Afghanistan finally emerged with a progressive secular, but pro-soviet, government in the 1970s. The United States decided to covertly fund the Mujahidin to annoy the Soviets. In 1979, the Soviets invaded to prop up the Soviet-leaning Afghan government. The United States then funded and trained the Mujahidin to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. After nine years of occupation, the USSR pulled out. Unfortunately, the United States similarly pulled out, leaving behind a horrific civil war. The Taliban came to power in 1996.
The Taliban government created an extreme Wahhabi version of Shariah law where women were to be illiterate baby producing machines. Women who were educated, showed any part of their bodies (even their eyes) in public, or were even found outside of the home without their husbands were publicly executed.
The Taliban supported and were supported by Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. When Bill Clinton managed to kick Bin Laden out of the Sudan, the Taliban gladly gave him room for his training camps. The ‘9/11’ hijackers were all trained in Bin Laden’s Afghan camps.
Although Al Qaida has been in hiding since the beginning of the Afghan war, the Taliban is reemerging as a power in the Waziristan regions of Pakistan.
-----
The Taliban, one of the worst regimes in modern history, is regrouping; the weak (if not dysfunctional) Pakistani government has the bomb; opium production is at an all-time high; and civil war rages in the Khyber wastelands. The Asian people are as desperate as the people of 1930’s Europe and they have a leader: Bin Laden. Pakistani militants assassinated Benozir Bhutto, seiged Mumbai, and protect Al Qaida. Al Qaida and the Taliban intend to take down western civilization ….
So, how in the hell can you be against the war?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
I Love When Professionals Pick Up On My Posts
I Love When Professionals Pick Up On My Posts
This morning's USA Today includes an editorial called "In Defense of Earmarks - 'Pork' in Congress feeds the people," written by Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.
Nice pickup Ross.
This morning's USA Today includes an editorial called "In Defense of Earmarks - 'Pork' in Congress feeds the people," written by Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.
Nice pickup Ross.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
There’s Nothing Wrong With Pork
Many rail against ‘pork’ and ‘earmarks’ in government spending, but there’s just nothing wrong with either one. They say pork is wasteful spending and earmarks hide spending. Not true. The problem is in the definitions.
‘Pork’ is nothing more than Federal spending on local projects, or more to the point, spending on projects that have a location. There aren’t many projects that don’t have a location. All spending on bridges and roads, military bases, hospitals, etc. have a location. Even spending for the IRS has a location; they’ve got to put their personnel in an office, after all.
An ‘earmark’ is a directive, instructing a state how to spend congressionally appropriated money. Congress can’t get a bridge repaired unless it tells a state to use money for the project.
What is wrong with pork is when congressmen use undue influence or cave to lobbyist pressure in allocating money for projects. Complaints about earmarks surfaced when congressmen began inserting earmarks into comprehensive spending bills at the last moment, hiding the spending until it’s too late.
Even lobbyists are valuable and necessary when kept in their place. No congressman can actually be an expert on every issue before Congress. Lobbyists inform and educate. How could any person, on his own, understand the complexity of providing our world with energy while protecting it from energy? The problem is when congressmen stop listening to both sides of an issue. But when excessive campaign contributions push a congressman to take direction from a lobbyist or even allow the lobbyist to write legislation, lobbying must be curbed.
Now let’s stop flying off the handle over misused terms. Pork is necessary; earmarks are necessary; and even lobbyists are necessary. We should call congressmen on their misuse of legislative tools, not their necessary use.
Posted on CNN today: Earmarks: Myth and reality
Rational discussion of earmarks from President Obama: Obama calls for overhaul of earmarks
‘Pork’ is nothing more than Federal spending on local projects, or more to the point, spending on projects that have a location. There aren’t many projects that don’t have a location. All spending on bridges and roads, military bases, hospitals, etc. have a location. Even spending for the IRS has a location; they’ve got to put their personnel in an office, after all.
An ‘earmark’ is a directive, instructing a state how to spend congressionally appropriated money. Congress can’t get a bridge repaired unless it tells a state to use money for the project.
What is wrong with pork is when congressmen use undue influence or cave to lobbyist pressure in allocating money for projects. Complaints about earmarks surfaced when congressmen began inserting earmarks into comprehensive spending bills at the last moment, hiding the spending until it’s too late.
Even lobbyists are valuable and necessary when kept in their place. No congressman can actually be an expert on every issue before Congress. Lobbyists inform and educate. How could any person, on his own, understand the complexity of providing our world with energy while protecting it from energy? The problem is when congressmen stop listening to both sides of an issue. But when excessive campaign contributions push a congressman to take direction from a lobbyist or even allow the lobbyist to write legislation, lobbying must be curbed.
Now let’s stop flying off the handle over misused terms. Pork is necessary; earmarks are necessary; and even lobbyists are necessary. We should call congressmen on their misuse of legislative tools, not their necessary use.
Posted on CNN today: Earmarks: Myth and reality
Rational discussion of earmarks from President Obama: Obama calls for overhaul of earmarks
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Political Math and the Stimulus
The Media is giving the Republican Party a pass on its arguments against the ‘stimulus’ package. Instead of accepting the Republican arguments, the Media should look at the political math behind the Republican’s apparent push against the stimulus.
The political math shows that the Republican argument against the stimulus is a sham. Republicans have a laser focus on the 2010 elections and their approach to the stimulus is based almost entirely on regaining the majority in the Congress
There are basically two possible votes on the stimulus coupled with two possible outcomes of the package. The package will either succeed or fail. Republicans can either vote for it or against it. Thus, assuming Democrats for the stimulus, there are four possibilities for Republicans:
1. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds
Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets credit and the balance of power remains as it is.
2. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus fails
Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets blame and the balance of power remains as it is.
3. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds
Result: Democrats pick up a few more seats. This is risky, but if it fails, the Republicans merely start campaigning for 2012.
4. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus fails
Result: Republicans pick up seats. Enough to retake control?
Voting for the stimulus package cannot possibly help the Republicans regain control of the Congress. Thus the political math requires Republicans to vote against the package no matter what’s in it.
Please contact your favorite media outlet and ask them to cover the political math.
The political math shows that the Republican argument against the stimulus is a sham. Republicans have a laser focus on the 2010 elections and their approach to the stimulus is based almost entirely on regaining the majority in the Congress
There are basically two possible votes on the stimulus coupled with two possible outcomes of the package. The package will either succeed or fail. Republicans can either vote for it or against it. Thus, assuming Democrats for the stimulus, there are four possibilities for Republicans:
1. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds
Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets credit and the balance of power remains as it is.
2. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus fails
Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets blame and the balance of power remains as it is.
3. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds
Result: Democrats pick up a few more seats. This is risky, but if it fails, the Republicans merely start campaigning for 2012.
4. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus fails
Result: Republicans pick up seats. Enough to retake control?
Voting for the stimulus package cannot possibly help the Republicans regain control of the Congress. Thus the political math requires Republicans to vote against the package no matter what’s in it.
Please contact your favorite media outlet and ask them to cover the political math.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
