I voted for it before I voted against it..

From the New York Times: A US Senator from California has put the kibosh on a large scale solar plant in the Mojave desert.

"Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region."

This is symptomatic of the NIMBY syndrome---Not In My Back Yard.  How are we to take steps to energy independence and and reduce carbon emissions if we dont actually take a stand and physically do something about it.

"Her intervention in the Mojave means it will be more difficult for California utilities to achieve a goal, set by the state, of obtaining a third of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020; projects in the monument area could have supplied a substantial portion of that power. "

 Entreprenuers want to be a part of the solution, but when a single Senator can squash a project at the behest of a small interest group (relative to the whole who would benefit) then, well, that says something about our system of representation.

Developers of the projects have already postponed several proposals or abandoned them entirely.

An interesting aside is this comment by a Kennedy:

"This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist and a partner with a venture capital firm that invested in a solar developer called BrightSource Energy. In September, BrightSource canceled a large project in the monument area."

Please see this link for another lesson on NIMBY related to this statement by RFK Jr.

(Got idea for this post (and many others from Division of Labour...I have to get better at citing sources for entries)

Attention, English, teachers, commas, are, IMPORTANT...,

Here is a real-life story that will make English teachers smile.  A comma (yes, the punctuation mark) gave delegates at the Copenhagen summit fits.  I suppose it would be a great article to show classes the importance and power of simple punctuation...

Scrooge should had NOT listened to the 3 Ghosts!!! They were not engaging in the "Economic Way of Thinking"...

I just saw the Jim Carrey version of "A Christmas Carol" this week. Very dark and not really suitable for young children. The animation was quite incredible. However, I always felt Scrooge was getting a bad rap but could not place my finger on why. This column reminds me why...Worth a read if you like to see things from a differnt angle than most people.

Taxes, Taxes, I dont need no stinkin' taxes...

A comparison of FEDERAL TAX RATES.  These  do not include other taxes we pay, as I mentioned in class, such as sales tax, school tax, county tax, city tax, Tarrant County Community College District, Tarrant County Hospital District, gas tax (State and Federal), tariffs embedded in products/food you buy, etc...You can easily see how these would get you up to the $40,000 to $50,000 range in taxes you pay on $100,000.  Keep in mind, some of these taxes you can deduct from your Federal Taxes  (property taxes) IF you itemize your deductions (gets complicated, doesnt it??)...In the US, your employer "contributes" (not optional) the same amount, dollar for dollar, you do in Social Security taxes AND Medicare taxes.  I am not sure this is included in the calculations for the graph.

World Hunger Drops Significantly Since 1970...Is this GOOD NEWS???

World hunger has dropped significantly since 1970.  From what I understand in reading comments from the Economist site I got this from, a significant portion of the drop came in India AND the data may actually support an increase in malnutrition rather than hunger.  I suppose that makes sense since it is ground zero for the "green revolution" in agriculture.  The dramatic increase starting in 2004-05 is a curiosity.  I believe there was a convergence of things that caused this.  The price of food increased dramatically during this period, not as a result in decreased supply (the usual suspect), but because of increased demand from emerging economies (China et al) for better quality food items, and the mandates for ethanol production from the Congress (and European countries too) to add to the nations fuel supply to make it cleaner.  I am open to other ideas as to why hunger/malnutrition decrease so dramatically during this period....:)

Gas Taxes High in the US? Relative to what/who?

A gallon of gasoline in Texas has State and Federal Gasoline Taxes already embedded in the price of gas at the pump.  The State tax is $.20 and the Federal tax is $.184 (read that as "18.4 cents").  The retailer of gas adds a half  cent so we get that funky ".9" for every gallon.  So the total tax burden is $.389 cents per gallon.  The accompanying chart shows the tax rates on gasoline (petrol, as they call it) in Europe.  They price it in Euro cents so let me do an example.  Look at France (it is almost on the 60 Euro Cents line).  There are 3.78 litres in a gallon so at a tax of 60 Euro Cents per litre, the tax in Euros is 2.27.  At todays (12/20/09) exchange rate that would be $3.25!!.  Remember, that is just the tax, not including the price of the gas.  They do not necessarily pay more for the wholesale price of gasoline that US retailers pay, but the retail price you might pay at the pump is going to be MUCH higher than you pay.  This is an example of using taxes as a way to change economic behavior.  The Europeans use this as a way to discourage gasoline consumption, hence as a way to reduce carbon consumption.  I referred to this tax as a Pigovian Tax in a previous post. A tax designed to reduce/eliminate a "negative externality" (a "bad" that is not desirable by society).  Do you think we should levy a large tax on gasoline at the pump in order to change our consumption behavior towards this carbon-based fuel?

This Health Insurer Denies MORE Claims Than Any Other Insurer by FAR! Must be bad, Right??

There is a health insurance entity that denies claims at nearly twice the average rate of all other insurers...It is called Medicare.

"According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%"

There has been some improvement by Medicare, but it still trails behind the private providers denial rate...

"In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.:

My question is simple, why can't politicians fix what they are already responsible for before tackling a whole industry? If they could reform just ONE major social program (Medicare?) and get some credibility then perhaps they could get the trust of the American people to press for more reforms. Too much to ask for?

Cap and Trade---Easy illustration of how it works....

Here is a very short, simple explanation of the "Cap and Trade" solution to carbon emissions. If you are taking Microeconomics this is something we will look at in detail. Cap and Trade seeks to put a numerical quantity of allowable carbon emissions by industry. It is different from the other solution to reducing carbon emmissions, which is a direct tax on the consumption of carbon based fuel (i.e. tax on gasoline). This type of tax is also called a "Pigovian Tax". BOTH solutions will raise the cost of fossil fuel based energy for people/businesses. One (Cap and Trade)is more subtle than the other (Pigovian Tax).
  Bottom line: Cap and Trade identifies a QUANTITY of allowable carbon emissions and the Pigovian Tax puts a PRICE on carbon emissions...

Cap and trade

See more presentations by dpeerless | Upload your own PowerPoint presentations

How Did Your Favorite Movie Do At The Box Office???

A list of the Highest Grossing movies of all time in 2009 dollars (adjusting for inflation over time). I find the estimated production costs (in 2009 dollars also) very interesting as well....

How Long Would You Work For A Big Mac???

In minutes, how long does it take to buy a Big Mac in different parts of the world.  This is a different take on the "Big Mac Index" we learn about in AP Macroeconomics.  It is measure of productivity and the purchasing power of your earnings. The Big Mac is used because it is relatively uniform in its finished form across the world, with some modifications for local tastes...

Bottled Water vs. Tap Water??? Read this before you make up your mind...

The use of bottled water vs tap water has been a topic of discussion, formally and informally, in school lately.  This article in the the NYTIMES  "That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy" may give us a reason to pause (not to raise any alarm as to the safety of our water here).  This article is instructive in that it shines light on the ability, or inability, of a Federal bureaucratic agency to adapt to changing situations as it relates to Federal legislation.  In this case, it is the EPA applying a law passed 35 years ago (The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974) to current conditions.  Many chemicals that did not exist when the law was passed are now found in drinking water in different parts of the country.  The inertia of the bureaucracy and industry pressure seem to prohibit the inclusion of many of these contaminants.  The article is informative AND gives a perspective on the efficacy of federal enforcement/regulation in an important part of our everyday life.

Unemployment by various demographic characteristics...

Informative interactive graphic  in the NYTIMES on how various groups organized by different demographics are doing in terms of unemployment. Lots of ways to view the data...

Christmas is Economically Inefficient...

Have you ever recieved a gift for Christmas that you would have never bought for yourself, even if you had the money and inclination to do so?  If I buy you something for $100 and it is something that you would have never paid more than $50, is this an efficient outcome for you AND society?   The only way it would be so is if the gift value, or sentimental value ,you received from the gift-giver is equal to the $50 you would be willing to pay for that gift PLUS $50 in sentiment you recieve from recieving the gift. You have to factor out the value lost to society if you do not use the gift to its maximum value.  If you dont use it, or under-utilize it, then there is a loss to society in terms of the multitude of resources used to produce the gift.  We have a mis-match in what the giver pays for a gift (the cost in societal resources) and how much the recipient values the gift (societal cost in resources PLUS sentiment).  Do I really do you a favor, or show you sentiment, if I buy you a gift that you dont value and will not use? Have I really done society a disservice by spending money and sending a market signal that the particular gift is useful and/or desirable?  Give this a thought on Christmas morining as you are opening your gifts...Hope I did not ruin the holiday for you, but this is what knowledge of economics will do to you...:)

Can you hear me NOW???

In a recent post I suggested that Congress reached a new low by injecting itself into BCS Bowl bruhaha.  Seems like they have better things to do, however they have exceeded my low expectations by tackling the apparently serious problem of TO LOUD T.V. COMMERCIALS! I did not realize this was a problem that Congress needed to address with Federal legislation.  Some Congressional representatives have nothing else to do on the taxpayers dime...

The "Stuff" Revolution Started in 1985!

Here are two graphs that support my "rant" on stuff (similar to George Carlin's(language warning!!) and emprically confirms my thoughts about the decade of your birth (late 1980's/1990's) as a period in history that will be studied for its economic advancement.  They show that 1985 is a seminal year.  In that time the size of houses AND garages started to grow rapidly.  I am not sure what came first, however, the increase in the size of houses or the explosion of the production of "stuff" to put in them.  Regardless, it is evidence that life changed in the US in 1985.  Now I need to find a graph of the construction of min-storage facilities to go with these and I will have visual evidence to go with my lecture on why we are dependent on the production of "stuff" in the global economy...