The Red Cross has made it official, they have declared that Syria is now in civil war. The shops in Damascus are barer than usual and many have
taken down the photographs of President Bashar Assad that once presided
over every establishment in the Syrian capital. The regime has until recently held up the city as
proof of its control over the country, vast swathes of which are
controlled by opposition forces. The Free Syrian Army is making incursions into the city more
often and holding ground. It is becoming harder to find supporters
of Assad even in Damascus.
While many residents have not embraced the
political opposition—a bunch of exiles—nor the Free Syrian Army, the
groups of armed opponents whom many also fear. But they have turned away
from the regime that has spilled so much blood. “This violence can't go
on,” says a wealthy man who lives close to the presidential palace. A
mother of three echoes his thoughts: “We have no idea what could come
after this regime but you can't be a Muslim or a Christian and accept
this killing.” Protests, although small, break out more frequently. The
shelling and destruction of towns and villages across the country has
sent people fleeing to the capital, bringing terrible stories, anger and
unrest.
For some time I have contended that while the situation is indeed sad and very ugly, no easy answers exist. Other then continuing to bang away at those that are sending support to the Assad regime and helping refugees that flee the country little can be done to lessen the loss of life. Any programs that pour weapons into Syria risk escalating an already bad situation. More violence will desensitize the people and most likely destabilize the countries institutions, this will lead to a downward spiral and further violence.
This was seen coming: please review my previous post from February 12th, Syria uprising is past the point of Return!
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Huge Trade Deficits Unsustainable
It was reported yesterday that the U.S. trade deficit fell 3.8% in May to $48.7 billion largely because of lower oil imports. While a minor improvement America can not continue down this path at the same time it runs a huge government deficit as well.
This is part of a revised post I wrote on March 7th,
Record Imports Are A "Unsustainable" Problem
Many people that comment on Japans huge government deficit and debt fail to realize that for years Japan has offset that with large trade surpluses. This allows its citizens to buy bonds and allows Japan to control its destiny, this is unlike America that barrows from China to fuel its spending. The presidents spokesman was on Meet The Press a week ago and said, "The time for austerity is not today" he went on "we should look at cutting the budget as a long term goal but not today." As always, it is a case of kick the can down the road.
The idea that America needs to get through this rough patch before tightening the government purse strings has resulted in massive deficits. A country cannot run both a huge government fiscal deficit and also a massive trade deficit, this is unsustainable. For the whole of 2011, the US trade gap rose 11.6% to $558 billion, the highest since 2008. The economically important deficit with China for the year jumped to a record high $295 billion. Some blame China and the exchange rate that China sets for its currency against the dollar, the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, recently passed legislation to try to force China to raise the value of its currency.
But let us get to the crux of the problem, you cannot go on year after year spending more then you earn. When coupled with huge government budget deficits the trade deficits weaken the dollar and drive America in direction of bankruptcy. Let me say it again "this is unsustainable." It is a myth that we can "export" our way out of this mess, a myth spread by politicians preaching the "no pain" method of solving a problem. The simple answer is that Americans must begin to accept reality and cut back their purchases of foreign goods. A common claim is that if the dollar goes down that helps US exports so it is a good thing, but remember this is a double edged sword, a lower dollar means imports will cost more.
As long as the US dollar is the international reserve currency, the US can just export dollars to import things. While this remains true there is no pressure for the US physical exports to equal their imports, but if the dollar falls from grace, then the US will not just be able to export dollars, and real exports and imports will have to come into balance. Successful leaders give the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to bring a better tomorrow. America must begin to plan a way out of our explosive deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty and encouraging real and sustainable growth.
Footnote; People who think we will be able to create many new jobs and export our way out of this mess should read the post below,
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/01/trade-may-not-be-great-job-creator.html
This is part of a revised post I wrote on March 7th,
Record Imports Are A "Unsustainable" Problem
Many people that comment on Japans huge government deficit and debt fail to realize that for years Japan has offset that with large trade surpluses. This allows its citizens to buy bonds and allows Japan to control its destiny, this is unlike America that barrows from China to fuel its spending. The presidents spokesman was on Meet The Press a week ago and said, "The time for austerity is not today" he went on "we should look at cutting the budget as a long term goal but not today." As always, it is a case of kick the can down the road.
The idea that America needs to get through this rough patch before tightening the government purse strings has resulted in massive deficits. A country cannot run both a huge government fiscal deficit and also a massive trade deficit, this is unsustainable. For the whole of 2011, the US trade gap rose 11.6% to $558 billion, the highest since 2008. The economically important deficit with China for the year jumped to a record high $295 billion. Some blame China and the exchange rate that China sets for its currency against the dollar, the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, recently passed legislation to try to force China to raise the value of its currency.
But let us get to the crux of the problem, you cannot go on year after year spending more then you earn. When coupled with huge government budget deficits the trade deficits weaken the dollar and drive America in direction of bankruptcy. Let me say it again "this is unsustainable." It is a myth that we can "export" our way out of this mess, a myth spread by politicians preaching the "no pain" method of solving a problem. The simple answer is that Americans must begin to accept reality and cut back their purchases of foreign goods. A common claim is that if the dollar goes down that helps US exports so it is a good thing, but remember this is a double edged sword, a lower dollar means imports will cost more.
As long as the US dollar is the international reserve currency, the US can just export dollars to import things. While this remains true there is no pressure for the US physical exports to equal their imports, but if the dollar falls from grace, then the US will not just be able to export dollars, and real exports and imports will have to come into balance. Successful leaders give the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to bring a better tomorrow. America must begin to plan a way out of our explosive deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty and encouraging real and sustainable growth.
Footnote; People who think we will be able to create many new jobs and export our way out of this mess should read the post below,
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/01/trade-may-not-be-great-job-creator.html
Lie Of The Day
Yesterday an expert, who they called the "most bullish man in America" appeared on a financial show and proclaimed that the stock markets will see a huge rise by year end. He said this was due to the lowest interest rates in history. My response, then why has Japan had two lost decades since adopting its zero interest rate policies?
This brought to mind a post that I attached below. I wrote this note of irritation on March 27th it is called,
You Don't Know That!
Oh to the confident and suave television and news commentators, and the experts that speak with such authority, I include the pundits and so called specialist, to you I say, I'm skeptical and dubious. Even when you mask your bias and your agenda is hidden, I must often remind myself that, you don't know that. It is often not the message you put out, but how you project it. I can see you now, your head a bobbing and your arms moving all around, you state your case with such brilliance and force that often we are swept away!
This rant is in reference to all the pundits and so called experts, about all the words that spew from their mouths, about the reams of material they write, and the large quantity of often misstated facts they put forth. Sometimes these clowns even go as far as to tell us exactly what someone was thinking, for example if a commentator states, "when the man jumped he knew it was to his death", I ask, how do they know that? It is possible that the man was an optimist or the light never came on. Fact is that when it comes down to what someone is thinking these authorities are only speculating.
After they have used every line from "green shoots" and "edge of the envelope" they say, "that being said" and after "having said that" they often wow me with "just do the math" or "it is not if, it is when". But what sends me over the top is the line often used by politicians and our so called public servants to justify some unsavory action, "it would of been far worse if we had done nothing". How do they know that? I beg to differ, but on more then one occasion I wish they had done nothing.
It seems that people love to defer to the opinions and advice of so called experts so they don't have to think, of course I don't know that for sure. One thing I do know is that is not based on speculation or hearsay is that it would be a lot easier to tolerate these clowns if they were right at least every now and then.
This brought to mind a post that I attached below. I wrote this note of irritation on March 27th it is called,
You Don't Know That!
Oh to the confident and suave television and news commentators, and the experts that speak with such authority, I include the pundits and so called specialist, to you I say, I'm skeptical and dubious. Even when you mask your bias and your agenda is hidden, I must often remind myself that, you don't know that. It is often not the message you put out, but how you project it. I can see you now, your head a bobbing and your arms moving all around, you state your case with such brilliance and force that often we are swept away!
This rant is in reference to all the pundits and so called experts, about all the words that spew from their mouths, about the reams of material they write, and the large quantity of often misstated facts they put forth. Sometimes these clowns even go as far as to tell us exactly what someone was thinking, for example if a commentator states, "when the man jumped he knew it was to his death", I ask, how do they know that? It is possible that the man was an optimist or the light never came on. Fact is that when it comes down to what someone is thinking these authorities are only speculating.
After they have used every line from "green shoots" and "edge of the envelope" they say, "that being said" and after "having said that" they often wow me with "just do the math" or "it is not if, it is when". But what sends me over the top is the line often used by politicians and our so called public servants to justify some unsavory action, "it would of been far worse if we had done nothing". How do they know that? I beg to differ, but on more then one occasion I wish they had done nothing.
It seems that people love to defer to the opinions and advice of so called experts so they don't have to think, of course I don't know that for sure. One thing I do know is that is not based on speculation or hearsay is that it would be a lot easier to tolerate these clowns if they were right at least every now and then.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Light bulbs discontinued
A
popular song lyric from the 1960’s proclaims, “You don’t know what you
have got, till it’s gone”. That situation could indeed be the case for
many owners of obsolete, but still widely used T12 fluorescent lighting
systems.The "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" eliminates the common T12 linear fluorescent lamps
this month. Hundreds of millions of these bulbs still remain hanging above our heads and are used in small businesses and homes. I'm afraid many Americans will be literally left in the dark and face what can be expensive changes or retrofits because notice of the changes were so poorly communicated. What happened to the "public service announcements", notes and reminders, as well as stories in the media concerning the planed change?
This bulb will simply vanish and be unavailable as part of a law that eliminates from the market most of the
remaining commonly used types of T12 linear fluorescent lamps by July 2012. The reason is the relative
inefficiency of those T12 fluorescent lamps, compared to more
energy-efficient alternatives. The magnetic ballasts required to operate those bulbs lamps were phased out in July
of 2010. This legislation will directly affect many commercial, retail
and institutional businesses; it will even affect some residences where these lights are often used in places like basements and garages. The poor communication concerning the end of availability means little time for many people to take action and become prepared for the consequences of this
law that affects their daily life.
There are several alternative paths to addressing the issue of the pending unavailability of T12 fluorescent lamps. In the short term, having an adequate supply of new spare lamps on hand provides you with the ability to “keep the lights on”, until a long-term approach is selected. But the stock-pile ahead strategy is at best, only a temporary measure; since when the ballast expires, it is “game over”. You should also be aware that ballast failure can be accelerated by not replacing worn out fluorescent lamps promptly, usually in pairs, when they fail to light. The longer term approaches includes the expensive retrofitting of each existing light fixture with an electronic ballast and the same, or a lesser quantity, of T8 lamps,or replacing the existing light fixture with a new fixture containing these more energy efficient ballast and lamps The lawmakers, with the help of a group of self serving lobbyist from the lighting industry, when making the decision to stop T12 bulb replacement failed to consider that these bulbs often have a lifespan of over ten years. The T12 bulb is still far more efficient then what most people think of as the normal screw in light bulb. A more orderly phaseout would of been more sensible and caused less harm both financially and environmentally as millions of ballast and fixtures, some seldom used, will now, because of this law prematurely find their way into landfills. I want to point out that if a fixture is seldom used, being slightly less efficient becomes less important. While I advocate and support the goal of higher energy efficiency and had started several years ago to convert my buildings over to the more efficient T8 bulbs, I was blindsided by the phaseout and halt in T12 bulb manufacturing. I only found out about the planned phaseout weeks ago, for you that failed to notice, as my bio states I own and operate a large amount of real estate both commercial and residential. Please note; far better ways exist for government to move America towards more intelligent and efficient energy use then poorly crafted laws like this one that renders fixtures or appliances obsolete and offers next to impossible to use tax credits. . |
Thursday, July 5, 2012
GlaxoSmithKline Guilty Of Fraud
GlaxoSmithKline, one of the worlds largest healthcare and pharmaceuticals companies has agreed to pay 3 billion dollars in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in US history. The drug giant will be to pleading guilty to promoting two drugs for
unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a diabetes drug
to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The settlement will cover criminal fines as well as civil settlements with the federal and state governments. The case concerns 10 drugs, including Paxil, Wellbutrin, Avandia and Advair. The settlement was "unprecedented in both size and
scope" said Deputy US Attorney General James Cole. My question is, where is the jail time?
GSK, has admitted it promoted antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin for unapproved uses, including treatment of children and adolescents, this illegal practice is known as off-label marketing. The company also conceded charges that it held back data and made unsupported safety claims over its diabetes drug Avandia. It agreed to resolve civil liability for promoting asthma drug Advair and two lesser-known drugs for unapproved uses. In addition, GSK has been found guilty of paying kickbacks to doctors. It appears the sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of incentive, from Hawaiian vacations, paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, and distributing tickets to Madonna concerts.
As part of the settlement, GSK has agreed to be monitored by government officials for five years. GSK said in a statement it would pay the fines through existing cash resources. Andrew Witty, the firm's chief executive, said procedures for compliance, marketing and selling had been changed at GSK's US unit. "We have learnt from the mistakes that were made," Mr Witty said. "When necessary, we have removed employees who have engaged in misconduct" was another comment he made. This is all just fine, but again I ask, where is the jail time? This is no small deal, this company broke the law, and through fraud took "billions of dollars" from the American people, insurance companies, and the government. Why are those responsible not on the way to jail ?
"Per Mile Car Tax"
In another attempt to tighten the noose around the necks of Americans the Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization
bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax
automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive. The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, the White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft. “This
is not an administration proposal," said White House spokeswoman. News of the draft follows a March Congressional Budget Office report
that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven. Among
other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax
could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to
determine how many miles were driven, and that payment could take place
electronically at filling stations.
The proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems." The idea is supported by some in Congress who say fuel taxes won't keep paying for roads much longer. Americans are burning less fuel as the economy struggles and vehicles are becoming more efficient, at the same time the cost of maintaining or building roads has continued to rise. Currently the U.S. government sends about $35 billion a year to states and local governments for building highways, about a fourth of their total road-building costs.
The plan that was floated creates a new government "office" that would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017. This project would also require that government be expanded, rather then merely raising the existing gasoline tax that might further reduce demand for oil and reduce Americas dependency on imported oil. Having to create more government to monitor and collect such a tax would be expensive and somewhat redundant. Cost to business would have to be passed through to consumers. Before finished such a bill might even go so far as to contain exemptions for the poor or those required to drive for say religious or educational reasons. It appears the goal of this bill would not be to reduce traffic congestion, reduce pollution, or promote healthy lifestyles, but rather to collect more tax dollars and extent the culture of wealth transfer.
The proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems." The idea is supported by some in Congress who say fuel taxes won't keep paying for roads much longer. Americans are burning less fuel as the economy struggles and vehicles are becoming more efficient, at the same time the cost of maintaining or building roads has continued to rise. Currently the U.S. government sends about $35 billion a year to states and local governments for building highways, about a fourth of their total road-building costs.
The plan that was floated creates a new government "office" that would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017. This project would also require that government be expanded, rather then merely raising the existing gasoline tax that might further reduce demand for oil and reduce Americas dependency on imported oil. Having to create more government to monitor and collect such a tax would be expensive and somewhat redundant. Cost to business would have to be passed through to consumers. Before finished such a bill might even go so far as to contain exemptions for the poor or those required to drive for say religious or educational reasons. It appears the goal of this bill would not be to reduce traffic congestion, reduce pollution, or promote healthy lifestyles, but rather to collect more tax dollars and extent the culture of wealth transfer.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Utilities Owe Us Reasonable Service!
As a monopoly that is granted the right to serve an area, utilities owe consumers a fair deal. I do not think we are owed much in this world but this contract with society makes utilities a quasi-government agency that is guaranteed a profit. In exchange utilities are expected to give customers fair and reasonable service. When a utility does not treat its customers fairly it should expect consequences.
In the city where I live we are serviced by Indiana And Michigan power Company, also known as I&M. A hard blow ripped through the city Friday afternoon, the storm about thirty miles wide originated in Indiana and went all the way to the East coast. It left many without electricity as it tore down trees and wires. As I bang this out it is Sunday evening, well over sixty thousand in our city remain without power. I have traveled back and forth across town since the storm and have not seen one I&M work truck.
It seems our electric provider that recently asked for a 22% rate hike has decided to concentrate and "complete" restoring service in smaller and less affected areas in northern Indiana before moving repair crews to Fort Wayne. They are calling for work to be completed late Wednesday night. I consider this to be an unfair and downright stupid work plan. Fort Wayne, the second largest city in Indiana, is densely populated, we deserve the same service and priority treatment from this monopoly as its other customers.
I have to wonder if I&M allowed hard feeling towards the city and its administration to influence its repair schedule. It recently lost a court battle that cost the company millions. Is this pay back? My neighbors and I continue to swelter in our dark homes, the food in our refrigerator and freezers has began to spoil, and businesses remained closed. I would say to those I&M executives who have made this decision, you better be ready to defend it as questions will be asked.
In the city where I live we are serviced by Indiana And Michigan power Company, also known as I&M. A hard blow ripped through the city Friday afternoon, the storm about thirty miles wide originated in Indiana and went all the way to the East coast. It left many without electricity as it tore down trees and wires. As I bang this out it is Sunday evening, well over sixty thousand in our city remain without power. I have traveled back and forth across town since the storm and have not seen one I&M work truck.
It seems our electric provider that recently asked for a 22% rate hike has decided to concentrate and "complete" restoring service in smaller and less affected areas in northern Indiana before moving repair crews to Fort Wayne. They are calling for work to be completed late Wednesday night. I consider this to be an unfair and downright stupid work plan. Fort Wayne, the second largest city in Indiana, is densely populated, we deserve the same service and priority treatment from this monopoly as its other customers.
I have to wonder if I&M allowed hard feeling towards the city and its administration to influence its repair schedule. It recently lost a court battle that cost the company millions. Is this pay back? My neighbors and I continue to swelter in our dark homes, the food in our refrigerator and freezers has began to spoil, and businesses remained closed. I would say to those I&M executives who have made this decision, you better be ready to defend it as questions will be asked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)