It has been a while since I posted. I'm still amazed at what people do in politics or why they think what they do. And a number of issues have raised my hackles lately, but not enough to write a paragraph or more. Also life does come before politics as it should.
What issues are really bothering me.
Affordable Care Act. I think in a reasonable world, this is a no brainer. People need to have access to health care. In normal times, with decent employment, this is pretty easy to do. Or rather in the old days it was. You got a job, you got benefits, you had health insurance. Now, with no job or a no-benefit job, it ain't happening. I'm for it. I'm against everyone trying to figure out how to make money off the suffering of old.
Presidential Elections. Hey, I'm for President Obama, just for the record. But Governor Romney couldn't impress me if he was a Democrat or an Independent. He is very white bread. Rich white bread. Rich people can be president, that isn't the problem. But I think the upper 1% really should wonder why. Gov. Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and can't figure out why people are complaining about jobs and money? I think President Obama understands my life way better than Governor Romney.
Tea Party. Why do I wish for the old Tea Party? Back when it was guys in tri-corner hats and really cared about taxes and too big government.
Neo-Conservatives. I didn't like them when they ran the country under President Bush and I still don't. I want them out of my house, out of the health of my wife, out of way of progress and more.
Liberals. If I were elected to Congress (Hah), I would caucus with the democrats. Why? Because I might agree more than with the republicans. That and the republicans would kick me out. I happen to like Bernie Sanders, but I don't think he is a tried and true liberal, in the full sense of the word. I don't want the government to coddle my kids or anyone's kids. I don't want really big government telling me that I can't write left handed because it isn't good for people to do so and lowers the esteem of right handed children. I want right sized government. But I guess liberals and conservatives also think they want right sized government, except none of us agree.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Rising Gas Prices and Analysis of Why
The radical right has brought up gas prices and yup they are rising here. We are over $4.00 nearby. So putting my eye to the web to see what factors there are finds some interesting issues. One of the factors that the media downplays is the difference between winter gas and summer gas. So here are two sites that talk about the difference. All this leads me to 1) why does the EPA require these formulations and are they effective now with ethanol and MTBP and 2) why do gas refineries 'shut down' to change over and why isn't there enough winter gas on hand to make the transition smoother than it is. and finally 3) I wonder what effect speculators have on winter and summer gas knowing there is a potential 'shortage'
.
http://ask.cars.com/2009/02/whats-the-difference-between-summerblend-gasoline-and-winterblend-gasoline-does-it-affect-my-cars-pe.html
http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/PICS/winterGas/winterGas.html
A good friend altered the image from the first link and added took the chart of gas prices over the last 6 years, and overlaid the chart of the Dow for the last 6 years (the dark green line). His information seems to support the notion that gas prices are being driven far more by speculators than by natural forces of supply and demand. So that is factor No. 2 to me. (thank you Mark)
It isn't clear how much speculators have affected the prices of gas, but Senator Bernie Sanders has looked into home heating oil for his state of Vermont and found that up to 40% of the price of a barrel of oil is based on speculation. Sanders Letter
Another factor I've run into is gas refinery space. When you look into the quantity of gas refinery space in the US, you find that there isn't a lot of extra capacity. One reason given has been the regulations, except a quote I saw indicates that between 1975 and 2001, only 1 permit had come to the federal government to build a refinery. Even during the go-go Reagan years. There is speculation that gas refiners are 'slowing capacity' and closing refineries in the US in order to maintain a higher gas price. Why spend millions to only lower prices and lower your profit margin. Also it appears that larger refiners are pushing out smaller refiners thereby condensing the capacity and consolidating it to fewer players.
As my friend Mark said "At some point, conservatives need to acknowledge that the "free market" has been taken captive in many cases, and decide if they really support free-market capitalism or if they're just going to be collaborators with the econ-terrorists who are holding it hostage." It is true, the difference between a free market and a collusion isn't very obvious to the consumer. The drill-baby-drill concept is great if you can take that oil and make gasoline out of it. The refineries are running at or near capacity, so adding more oil seems out of the question. So the drill-baby-drill concept means more oil on the global market and therefore sold to foreign countries.
In the end, it is never that simple as drill more or de-regulate the industry. Like most things in business, government only knows as much as it can ask. This is called regulation. In a true free-market system, someone should get the idea to expand gas production at a plant so as to put more gas on the market, or reduce the costs so that they can get more profits. But no one is because no one wants to upset the great deal they have.
.
http://ask.cars.com/2009/02/whats-the-difference-between-summerblend-gasoline-and-winterblend-gasoline-does-it-affect-my-cars-pe.html
http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/PICS/winterGas/winterGas.html
A good friend altered the image from the first link and added took the chart of gas prices over the last 6 years, and overlaid the chart of the Dow for the last 6 years (the dark green line). His information seems to support the notion that gas prices are being driven far more by speculators than by natural forces of supply and demand. So that is factor No. 2 to me. (thank you Mark)
It isn't clear how much speculators have affected the prices of gas, but Senator Bernie Sanders has looked into home heating oil for his state of Vermont and found that up to 40% of the price of a barrel of oil is based on speculation. Sanders Letter
Another factor I've run into is gas refinery space. When you look into the quantity of gas refinery space in the US, you find that there isn't a lot of extra capacity. One reason given has been the regulations, except a quote I saw indicates that between 1975 and 2001, only 1 permit had come to the federal government to build a refinery. Even during the go-go Reagan years. There is speculation that gas refiners are 'slowing capacity' and closing refineries in the US in order to maintain a higher gas price. Why spend millions to only lower prices and lower your profit margin. Also it appears that larger refiners are pushing out smaller refiners thereby condensing the capacity and consolidating it to fewer players.
As my friend Mark said "At some point, conservatives need to acknowledge that the "free market" has been taken captive in many cases, and decide if they really support free-market capitalism or if they're just going to be collaborators with the econ-terrorists who are holding it hostage." It is true, the difference between a free market and a collusion isn't very obvious to the consumer. The drill-baby-drill concept is great if you can take that oil and make gasoline out of it. The refineries are running at or near capacity, so adding more oil seems out of the question. So the drill-baby-drill concept means more oil on the global market and therefore sold to foreign countries.
In the end, it is never that simple as drill more or de-regulate the industry. Like most things in business, government only knows as much as it can ask. This is called regulation. In a true free-market system, someone should get the idea to expand gas production at a plant so as to put more gas on the market, or reduce the costs so that they can get more profits. But no one is because no one wants to upset the great deal they have.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
My Radical Idea
I’m approaching the age where retirement comes up in conversation more and more. My wife would love to retire. She would like to do some traveling, relax and maybe get a part time job to get out of the house. The house is almost paid off and the kids are approaching being independent. She enjoys her job, but the commute, the hours, the stress get to her. So what stops us from retiring? Health Insurance. We literally could not afford to get it before Medicare kicks in. And that is a number of years away. And I’ve known other people who’ve said they are working because they can’t afford private insurance.
So my radical idea is this: by government action, a private or public health insurance be offered to people who are 55 to 65. This action would be managed so that anyone who is 55 can join. I’m calling it Pre-Medicare. The people who join would pay premiums to the system but they would be well under the current COBRA and private insurance plans for people at this age because of the pool size. This is a voluntary system, so if you are 55 and have access to insurance via work or some other means, you are not required to join.
So what is the radical idea? By offering this on a national level, many people 55 and older might be induced to retire early. In turn the jobs these people have would either be eliminated (and therefore save the company money) or replaced with younger people. So a high-level manager who is 58 would be replaced with a 40 year-old. That 40 year-olds job would be replaced with a 28 year-old and that job would be taken by a recent college grad. And frankly, the old job the grad left, such as Starbucks, could be taken by the recently retired person since they don’t need health insurance etc.
In the end, the workforce would be shifted downwards away from the current world, where companies have older employees that they would love to replace with younger people and the older employees would have a chance to retire at 55 with some kind of reduced retirement package.
The older people who are contemplating retirement are good workers. They have put in their time and see their kids not getting a good job and worry about it. I look at this as an adjustment in distribution because we are allowing the work force to redistribute. I don’t believe companies would lose critical people since this would be a voluntary operation, so companies can offer enticements to keep people that are needed. But in the end, the worker in the seat would be a little younger.
So my radical idea is this: by government action, a private or public health insurance be offered to people who are 55 to 65. This action would be managed so that anyone who is 55 can join. I’m calling it Pre-Medicare. The people who join would pay premiums to the system but they would be well under the current COBRA and private insurance plans for people at this age because of the pool size. This is a voluntary system, so if you are 55 and have access to insurance via work or some other means, you are not required to join.
So what is the radical idea? By offering this on a national level, many people 55 and older might be induced to retire early. In turn the jobs these people have would either be eliminated (and therefore save the company money) or replaced with younger people. So a high-level manager who is 58 would be replaced with a 40 year-old. That 40 year-olds job would be replaced with a 28 year-old and that job would be taken by a recent college grad. And frankly, the old job the grad left, such as Starbucks, could be taken by the recently retired person since they don’t need health insurance etc.
In the end, the workforce would be shifted downwards away from the current world, where companies have older employees that they would love to replace with younger people and the older employees would have a chance to retire at 55 with some kind of reduced retirement package.
The older people who are contemplating retirement are good workers. They have put in their time and see their kids not getting a good job and worry about it. I look at this as an adjustment in distribution because we are allowing the work force to redistribute. I don’t believe companies would lose critical people since this would be a voluntary operation, so companies can offer enticements to keep people that are needed. But in the end, the worker in the seat would be a little younger.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)