Showing posts with label Incentives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Incentives. Show all posts

Friday, April 10, 2009

Maybe others should follow their lead

I was really excited about this story, though there's still a lot of entitlement mentality reflected. Out in Kauai, in Hawaii, a group of citizens rebuilt a bridge in a state park. They had been waiting around for state funds of about $4 million to rebuild, and they eventually realized that those funds might be as much as two years away.

Led by a kayaking company that realized its livelihood was at stake, a group got together and built a bridge. Didn't cost them much. And now, instead of the park being closed for another couple of years, it should open in the next few weeks.

Still, some of what was in the article reflects a bit of entitlement and government dependence.

"We can wait around for the state or federal government to make this move, or we can go out and do our part," Slack said. "Just like everyone's sitting around waiting for a stimulus check, we were waiting for this but decided we couldn't wait anymore."

"We shouldn't have to do this, but when it gets to a state level, it just gets so bureaucratic, something that took us eight days would have taken them years," said Troy Martin of Martin Steel, who donated machinery and steel for the repairs. "So we got together -- the community -- and we got it done."


The "we shouldn't have to do this" tweaks me a bit. Should it even be a state park at all? Why not make it private. It's clearly a lucrative base of operations for at least the kayak company, and perhaps others. Get the state out and run it your way.

At any rate, good job for rebuilding that bridge. Our recession might just end a little faster if we quit waiting around for the government to tell us the answers and, instead, figured them out for ourselves.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

I'll know Tuesday if I should buy stocks

My friend Ania twittered recently that she bought her first stock. I thought, Good for her. I also got a little jealous because I hadn't done that yet (except for the ol' 401k). Given the bargain price of so many stocks, it's an enticing time to start investing. My plan has been to see where I sit at the end of the year and consider investing a bit of money in a few carefully selected stocks.

A thought occurred to me today, though, that says I'll probably know if I want to invest after the election on Tuesday. Barack Obama joked at one of the debates, in response to John McCain noting that Obama plans to raise capital gains tax, that no one was going to have capital gains this year. Cute, and true. For people who bought high, they probably won't have capital gains for a while. But for those of buying now, capital gains are going to come quickly if the stock market begins to rebound.

So should I put my money into a stock market when I know that, if I want to pull it out in a few years, I'm going to get hit with the government taking an even bigger portion than they already do? And for those who make more than $250,000 a year, the ones who would have to pay whatever the new top rate is (possibly as high as 28%, versus 15% now) and actually have the money to invest, won't this create either a disincentive for investment or a disincentive to trade?

By the way, if those realizing gains are not actively trading but instead sit on their gains to wait for a more favorable tax climate, the government isn't going to get the tax revenue anyway. And then you have to wonder where an Obama administration will go looking for funds...

The fastest way to food

I encourage you to read this post that has it all: hunger, obstacles, and the innovation that conquered them - and then the government that took it all away.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Did the combustion engine need subsidies?

A thought occurred to me during the constant discussion of energy in last night's debate, which prompted a tweet but is something I've continued to ponder: did the new industry forming around the internal combustion engine receive subsidies in the late 1800s-early 1900s?

Politicians want to throw so much money at growing "green" industries now to stop the evils of climate change but also to reduce our dependence on foreign energy (the Right's common argument) and to create thousands, nay, millions!, of "green jobs" (the Left's common argument). But couldn't compelling, and in some cases similar, arguments have been made one hundred years ago?

Versus walking, a car sure was tough to beat. Cover great distances in no time! And against horses? Horses are heavy polluters, dropping their business in the road or wherever they please. They smell and can be temperamental. Plus you have to feed them them corn and other important foodstuffs, and why would you want to put precious food in your mode of transport? (oh, wait, we don't care about that anymore? Well never mind.)

But the car! Great distances in no time flat, runs on abundant oil (more food for people!), and a car can probably hold more than one or two people. Plus the number of jobs that would be created by this growth industry is remarkable! Why wouldn't the government want to put its stamp on this wonderful new idea?

And yet, amazingly enough, my guess is the government restrained itself, and Henry Ford probably forgot to ask for free money. But I don't know that for certain, and I'd sure be interested to see. Does anyone have a spare intern they can put on finding this out?

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

The wife and I haven't been good about updating our wine blog, so I'm posting this interesting tidbit here: new research indicates that expensive wine really does taste better.

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology and Stanford's business school have directly seen that the sensation of pleasantness that people experience when tasting wine is linked directly to its price. And that's true even when, unbeknownst to the test subjects, it's exactly the same Cabernet Sauvignon with a dramatically different price tag.

I don't think this is going to have me shopping those dusty $90 bottles at the back of the wine store anytime soon - a little Fish Eye Pinot Grigio or Redwood Creek Cabernet Sauvignon suits me just fine, and for as little as $6 - but I will certainly keep this in mind next time someone else is picking up the tab.