Travel

Travelling is a fairly grueling endeavor these days thanks to the TSA and the bevy of rules they impose. All of us come up with pithy, clever, and occasionally salient questions about the procedures the TSA/FAA/airlines put us through. Seth Godin's new post asks many of the best of them, and does so in his usual way of honest challenge that makes you believe (realize?) that these changes really are possible.

He also comes through with a bitter pill at the end that made me think that with the things I do at work, I've probably also forced customers to, in whatever way, remove their shoes or turn off their safe electronics before take off. You?

But WWMFD?

Terrifying:

A truly Keynesian rescue plan should do more than bail out foolish investors. How might the pieces fit into a larger design? Well, if the taxpayers are going to acquire a stake in the nation's largest insurance company, perhaps that company can be the cornerstone of a new system of universal private health coverage. If the taxpayers are going to acquire $700 billion in real estate assets, perhaps the eventual profits can fund new investments in infrastructure or energy technology.

That's from David Ignatus at the Washington Post today. Thanks to Don Boudreaux for pointing it out.

Maybe the new Harrison Bergeron film adaptation will open a few eyes to what's at the bottom of this slippery slope...

The Bailout

The more I read about this bailout, the more terrified I become. I mean, this is a lot of money and not a lot of accountability. Obviously no one fully understands this thing, but from various things I have read, the bill:

• allows for spending about $150 billion above what is actually necessary,
• allows for $700 billion in spending at any given time - but that is not the total cap on all cumulative spending, and
• places the undetermined (uncreated?) agency administering the bailout above the law and not answerable to anyone.

All this for a bill that may or may not be necessary (see the various discussions on Marginal Revolution and Cafe Hayek about current lending continuing to go strong).

I do commend the GOP for finally getting up gumption to ask some questions about this bill and to slow the process down some. And I do commend Barack Obama for admitting that if this deal goes through it may cause him to limit or delay some of his own far-reaching proposals (which ought to give you some idea of just how much strain those big-government proposals will put on the American economy and should make any thinking person ponder the economic sense of voting for Obama).

Into the mix I throw an idea - instead of all of us bailing out a few companies, how about we let all companies give less to the government? Let's pass a two-year suspension of the corporate tax, which is currently either the highest or the second-highest in the industrialized world - take it to 0% effective immediately and retroactive for all of 2008 and through 2009. Then corporations can then use the money to grow and bail themselves out instead of being given a handout and tacit assurance that no matter how bad it gets, they'll be ok.

I'm not a tax expert so I don't know how much that actually goes toward the $700 billion mark, but I feel like it's a much more practical way to help corporate America. It helps everyone and allows an unaccountable government to touch less hard-earned money.

NB: My friend tells me that this really doesn't do much for the liquidity problem the banks are facing. Fair point. My hesitation here remains the government buying all those assets is a risky bet in the short term and a dangerous precedent for our free-market economy in the long term.

Not all bad

Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the U.S. House's Republican Study Committee, is one Republican who's ready to stand atop history yelling stop. On Friday he released a statement about the impending bailout of corporate America. Here's the crux of it:

At this point, Congress is being asked to support an uncertain entity, costing
an uncertain amount of dollars, for an uncertain duration – a decision that will
have implications for generations to come and requires absolute certainty. We
are being asked to go ‘all in’ with taxpayer dollars, and once our government
and the taxpayer is on the hook, there is no fallback option. My fear is that
taxpayers will be left with the mother of all debts, the federal government
becomes the lender and guarantor of last resort, and our nation finds itself on
the slippery slope to socialism.

I'm beginning to hear more and more chatter from conservatives who are waiting anxiously for the elected leaders to stand up for this. Democrats are ready to stand up - and request more regulation. Who is brave enough to say maybe less government intrusion is a better way?

One post (against the bail-out) noted that there is significant risk to the markets and the economy without the bailouts as well. So the choice is between pain now but a clear message that the government will not save corporate America (or individual Americans who make bad decisions) or pain down the road spread lightly on those who caused this mess and burdonsomely on those who had no hand in it at all.

It may surprise you, but $700 billion is quite a bit of money

One headline on CNN right now reads, "Democrats push back." It's in regards to the massive federal bailout of Wall Street proposed over the past few days.

Why aren't the Republicans pushing back?! We have to be done with giving a blank check to the Bush administration to do crazy things. We don't get to be the party of fiscal responsibility if we don't at least just ask the question of if this is the right move - or the right amount of money.

Now, maybe there are Republicans in Congress who are questioning and CNN isn't looking at them. The article mentions Shelby of Alabama at least noting the size of this thing. If anyone sees any members of the GOP asking tough questions and avoiding the blank check, please let me know.

Would Obama hire conservatives?

It's something I've pondered for a while and generally I come to the answer of yes, he would.  Not a lot of them, but a few.  Doing so actually goes along with his message of audaciously hoping for change.  What's more different than a White House built with a diversity of views, particularly ones the administration doesn't believe in?

The other side of the question is, would conservatives serve in an Obama White House?  My sense is very few good ones would be willing to stand up and go into the lion's den to defend free markets and individual responsibility against so many others who would be hostile or semi-hostile to those viewpoints.  

The question would become where the conservatives could make the most significant marginal value.  Could ten or twenty strong conservatives in the administration be able to stop or temper the absolute worst ideas - universal health care, increased regulation of the economy, raising capital gains, etc. - more effectively than the plethora of center-right think tanks and companies they'd be leaving?  I don't know if the answer is yes, but it's something to not reject outright.

Today's news...oh the humanity

Bush admin and Congress team up to put taxpayers on the hook for other people's mistakes. The Wall Street Journal notes, "President George W. Bush warned that a "significant" amount of taxpayer funds will be put at risk with the government's plan to bolster shaky markets." At least he's being honest.

Voters would rather watch football with Obama. Women prefer Obama, likely assuming he wouldn't be watching the football game either. Hope he'll bring chip in for the arugula tray.

"Redistribution of wealth - it's the American way!" - Joe Biden

Economy troubles force...FORCE...people to cook for themselves. Cookbooks appear on shelfs as though guided by some invisible hand...

Making right

An article on CNN today actually maybe the gas station owners weren't gouging after all; maybe they were just succumbing to this whole "supply and demand" rumor...and we were being "irrational."

Gas station owners earn only a few pennies of profit on each gallon of gas, Laskoski said, explaining that proprietors essentially use gas to lure consumers into convenience stores to buy cigarettes, beer and potato chips -- items that draw better profits.

When supply is low and retailers are uncertain when they'll receive their next gas shipment, some proprietors actually raise their gas prices so they can keep their gas supply longer and maintain profits from their snacks and sundries.

Read the whole article, because it is actually sound and logical.  It's what use to pass as news. Poor Eliott C. MacLaughlin, you won't last long there at CNN but at least you gave honest reporting a try!

Twitter

A problem I have long faced is that my best comments come in the randomness of daily life, but almost never a time that is convenient to blog.  This leads to the blog falling into disrepair, and then the inertia of idleness carries me to continued avoidance of posting.

I thought I'd found the answer when I realized I could email blog posts to the blog directly, or send a picture from my phone straight to the blog.  That excitement dissipated when I realized both my blackberry and cell phone put extraneous, self-promoting nonsense at the end of my posts, and I either have to live with it or go in and clean it up later.

And then along came Twitter, my new obsession.  The wife's been using it for a bit and then a friend was in town over the weekend who used it, and so I felt compelled to sign up.

How lovely and satisfying it is to throw out random comments into the void for people to see.  I get the satisfaction of sharing in my moment of zaniness or dullness and someone, maybe, will quietly appreciate having shared in that moment with me.

Now, to keep the blog lively, I've added a Twitterings box to the sidebar, allowing for always-new content on the website.  This remedies two problems: 1) the disrepairedness of the blog and 2) becomes a compromise to the stubborn buggers whom I call friends that won't join Twitter but may still have an interest in what I'm saying (even if I can't find out what they are doing).

But if you do want to sign up for Twitter, do it!  

(Unless you're my parents because that's just weird.)

Pay in time or pay in cash

An article on CNN today discusses fears of higher gas prices in the wake of the hurricane have caused runs on gas stations in places, many of them far from the eye - or even the winds - of the storm.

Let the prices go up.

Here's the key passage: 

Canadian Ian McIntosh said gas prices jumped 57 cents per gallon overnight in Milton, Ontario.

"This stuff's in the tanks, it's just sitting in the gas stations, they're using this as a windfall event," the retired teacher said.

It's in the tank because the price went up, meaning you don't have cars stacked 15 deep to get undervalued gas.  But it does mean that if a fire truck or an ambulance or a man whose wife is having a baby three hours away and needs to fill up right now needs that gas then it will be there.

Increased prices in CANADA are a result of the fact that that gas is more valuable for now elsewhere - or more scarce because of events beyond anyone's control.  The prices go up to try and avoid what's happening in the places where the prices is staying the same - panic.  People getting gas they don't currently need because of the fear of paying twenty cents more for a few days.

Are there proprietors who cheat the system?  Of course, but no more than you see in the non-profit or government sectors.  Instead of always trying to cast blame, let's see some folks making a few more rational choices.