Watch out for the new scare of solar storms. I seem to remember a scare of solar storms a couple of years ago. And a couple of years before that. In fact, I think it has something to do with El Nino or La Nina. Or maybe just the 12 year, 30 year, 524 year, or 12,113 year solar cycles.
Look, there is not a whole lot we can do to fight off the angry sun god. So far, none of the scares have wiped out civilization as we know it. While I understand that this could be the big one, I am not betting on it (because if you did, the solar storm would wipe out all communications, electronics, and set off nuclear warheads - your buddy is going to have bigger concerns than paying you back). Face it, if there is a solar storm that wipes out civilization as we know it, WE ARE SCREWED. Actually, I think that might be one of the definitions of "screwed."
Of course, you can always buy gold to help protect you in the event of a solar storm. It would probably make a nice protective blanket that would keep your electronics safe! After all, they use it on the visors of the space suit helmets.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Roadkill
Yesterday I spent 8 hours driving on the interstates (only interstates, no side roads) of Iowa. During that time I saw at least 30 dead deer on the sides of the road. Is this a sign that DNR needs to issue more hunting permits? They were all does from what I could tell.
I am not a hunter myself, but 30 deer at around 100 pounds of meat each, that it a 3000 pounds of wasted meat. Make those into deer burgers and you could serve 9000 meals. That's enough to feed ALL of the homeless people in Iowa for a month.
I am not a hunter myself, but 30 deer at around 100 pounds of meat each, that it a 3000 pounds of wasted meat. Make those into deer burgers and you could serve 9000 meals. That's enough to feed ALL of the homeless people in Iowa for a month.
Top Shot Review
Top Shot is a show on the History Channel that is a competition of 16 shooters for the title of "Top Shot." After one episode I am rather disappointed.
Quick Run Down: Survivor without the bug eating, naked fat guys, and 25-30 yr old girls wearing loin clothes and pretending they aren't using their sexuality to try and win. That being said, I am glad that I have the DVR and can pare the show down to about 10 minutes of shooting, thereby getting rid of the rest.
One of the bloggers I read, Caleb, is a competitor on the show. It was nice to see that he made the only competitive shot he was suppose to. Also, they didn't show him talking smack in the house (of course he is on the team that won the challenge). In any case, it sounds like the competition is going to start out as a semi-contest in one's proficiency with firearms and gradually devolve into throwing rocks (maybe it would be better if they ate bugs, had naked fat men, and scantily clad 25-30 yr old girls).
The first team competition was billed as a long range rifle competition with some of the rifles used in the 20th century. During the practice, I couldn't tell how far away the targets were, but they couldn't have been that far. And they had some one spotting for them. All of the rifles used iron sights only, and when the competition happened you found out that this was just a timed event at 50 yards and 100 yards.
50 and 100 yards is only a long distance when you are down by 6 and there are 30 seconds left in the game. But that sport doesn't involve rifles. Back to the competition. The 1903 Springfield rifle was the first one mentioned and the History channel made a big deal of it being the longest rifle in service. Well from its initial service in 1905 to the end of the Vietnam war (which is being generous since only a few were still in use as sniper rifles), is about 70 years. That is a pretty long time. It was billed as a rifle from WWI.
The next rifle was the Russian SVT-40. This was billed as the WWII rifle. It was first built in 1940 and was one of the first semi-automatic rifles. The third rifle was a Mosin Nagant. It was billed as a Korean War era rifle. Huh? This is the History Channel right? The Mosin-Nagant was a Korean War rifle? Technically, yes, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say a WWII, WWI, Russian Revolution, Russo-Japanese War, and Boxer Rebellion Rifle? This is a rifle that was built in 1891 and saw widespread continuous service in the Russian army (far more than the 1903 in the US army) until 1960 (ohmygosh - that is 70 years like the 1903). It has been issued to a limited extent in Eastern block countries for another couple of decades and was one of the main battle rifles of all sorts of countries, including the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which are still using it today. So, 2010 - 1891 = 120 years of service in wars throughout the world. Look, I am as proud to be an American as the next guy, we make better rifles than Russians, but come on now. Don't try to pretend that because we make better rifles, then they have been in service longer than any other. The Mosin-Nagant has been in service longer than any other because it is cheap to make and goes BANG every time (I have never had a dud in the hundreds of rounds of 40-60 year old ammo that I have shot).
The last rifle was the M14. The Vietnam era rifle. When the team competition time came, there was some crawling under barbed wire, jumping through mud puddles, etc. Since these were all military rifles, that sort of added to it. And they got to shoot at the targets (50 and 100 yards). They were exploding targets so all you needed to do was nick the edge. This was another disappointment. It turns the competition into a speed competition. Fastest bangs wins, with no regards to accuracy. No MOA groupings.
The blue team won without a hitch when the red team's second shooter couldn't hit the target. Place all of the blame you want on the spotter, but this was from 100 yards! You shouldn't need a spotter from 100 yards. I don't know how big the exploding circle was, but it looked to be at least 4 inches in diameter and possibly as large as 8 inches in diameter. 30 shots and you can't even hit 4 inches. At 100 yards.
So there is a shoot off for elimination. Frankly, I like Andre (the red team shooter who did hit his target). Lots of people were trying to make excuses for Mike (the guy who couldn't hit his target), so Andre was thinking that he would be eliminated. He is the first one to vote for who he thinks should be eliminated and shoots the target dead center. Only one other person hit the bullseye on theirs, that is icing the competition. I would want Andre on my team.
With the shootoff, it was Mike against the long range shooter Kelly, doing guess what? Long range shooting. 200, 400, and 600 yards. OK, that is long range shooting. This was with a Remington 700 (in .308 Winchester I assume), with a scope that was probably a 15X - 50mm. Naturally, Kelly cleaned Mike's clock and Mike was sent home. Kelly didn't really need the help of the spotter and during practice he made a smiley face on his target. My kind of guy.
As I said, next week I'll boil it down to just shooting in 10 minutes.
Quick Run Down: Survivor without the bug eating, naked fat guys, and 25-30 yr old girls wearing loin clothes and pretending they aren't using their sexuality to try and win. That being said, I am glad that I have the DVR and can pare the show down to about 10 minutes of shooting, thereby getting rid of the rest.
One of the bloggers I read, Caleb, is a competitor on the show. It was nice to see that he made the only competitive shot he was suppose to. Also, they didn't show him talking smack in the house (of course he is on the team that won the challenge). In any case, it sounds like the competition is going to start out as a semi-contest in one's proficiency with firearms and gradually devolve into throwing rocks (maybe it would be better if they ate bugs, had naked fat men, and scantily clad 25-30 yr old girls).
The first team competition was billed as a long range rifle competition with some of the rifles used in the 20th century. During the practice, I couldn't tell how far away the targets were, but they couldn't have been that far. And they had some one spotting for them. All of the rifles used iron sights only, and when the competition happened you found out that this was just a timed event at 50 yards and 100 yards.
50 and 100 yards is only a long distance when you are down by 6 and there are 30 seconds left in the game. But that sport doesn't involve rifles. Back to the competition. The 1903 Springfield rifle was the first one mentioned and the History channel made a big deal of it being the longest rifle in service. Well from its initial service in 1905 to the end of the Vietnam war (which is being generous since only a few were still in use as sniper rifles), is about 70 years. That is a pretty long time. It was billed as a rifle from WWI.
The next rifle was the Russian SVT-40. This was billed as the WWII rifle. It was first built in 1940 and was one of the first semi-automatic rifles. The third rifle was a Mosin Nagant. It was billed as a Korean War era rifle. Huh? This is the History Channel right? The Mosin-Nagant was a Korean War rifle? Technically, yes, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say a WWII, WWI, Russian Revolution, Russo-Japanese War, and Boxer Rebellion Rifle? This is a rifle that was built in 1891 and saw widespread continuous service in the Russian army (far more than the 1903 in the US army) until 1960 (ohmygosh - that is 70 years like the 1903). It has been issued to a limited extent in Eastern block countries for another couple of decades and was one of the main battle rifles of all sorts of countries, including the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which are still using it today. So, 2010 - 1891 = 120 years of service in wars throughout the world. Look, I am as proud to be an American as the next guy, we make better rifles than Russians, but come on now. Don't try to pretend that because we make better rifles, then they have been in service longer than any other. The Mosin-Nagant has been in service longer than any other because it is cheap to make and goes BANG every time (I have never had a dud in the hundreds of rounds of 40-60 year old ammo that I have shot).
The last rifle was the M14. The Vietnam era rifle. When the team competition time came, there was some crawling under barbed wire, jumping through mud puddles, etc. Since these were all military rifles, that sort of added to it. And they got to shoot at the targets (50 and 100 yards). They were exploding targets so all you needed to do was nick the edge. This was another disappointment. It turns the competition into a speed competition. Fastest bangs wins, with no regards to accuracy. No MOA groupings.
The blue team won without a hitch when the red team's second shooter couldn't hit the target. Place all of the blame you want on the spotter, but this was from 100 yards! You shouldn't need a spotter from 100 yards. I don't know how big the exploding circle was, but it looked to be at least 4 inches in diameter and possibly as large as 8 inches in diameter. 30 shots and you can't even hit 4 inches. At 100 yards.
So there is a shoot off for elimination. Frankly, I like Andre (the red team shooter who did hit his target). Lots of people were trying to make excuses for Mike (the guy who couldn't hit his target), so Andre was thinking that he would be eliminated. He is the first one to vote for who he thinks should be eliminated and shoots the target dead center. Only one other person hit the bullseye on theirs, that is icing the competition. I would want Andre on my team.
With the shootoff, it was Mike against the long range shooter Kelly, doing guess what? Long range shooting. 200, 400, and 600 yards. OK, that is long range shooting. This was with a Remington 700 (in .308 Winchester I assume), with a scope that was probably a 15X - 50mm. Naturally, Kelly cleaned Mike's clock and Mike was sent home. Kelly didn't really need the help of the spotter and during practice he made a smiley face on his target. My kind of guy.
As I said, next week I'll boil it down to just shooting in 10 minutes.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Taking Kids Out to Dinner
Why do parents take kids out to dinner?
I don't know, but I still do it. For some strange reason. Usually because we have a coupon and the kids eat free. What I don't think I will ever understand is why we put up with our kids ordering Mac and Cheese for $4.49.
You can buy the stuff in bulk for 10 cents a box (25 cents if you go with the expensive brand). Restaurants must make a killing off of this stuff. Having eaten a lot of Mac and Cheese in my life, I know what boxed Mac and Cheese looks like. Only one restaurant I have ever been too makes their own Mac and Cheese.
I guess I make up for it by letting my kids have two to three classes of chocolate milk.
I don't know, but I still do it. For some strange reason. Usually because we have a coupon and the kids eat free. What I don't think I will ever understand is why we put up with our kids ordering Mac and Cheese for $4.49.
You can buy the stuff in bulk for 10 cents a box (25 cents if you go with the expensive brand). Restaurants must make a killing off of this stuff. Having eaten a lot of Mac and Cheese in my life, I know what boxed Mac and Cheese looks like. Only one restaurant I have ever been too makes their own Mac and Cheese.
I guess I make up for it by letting my kids have two to three classes of chocolate milk.
Gun Show Goodness
Having read about Matt Snyder's gun show experience, it was a great weekend to go and see some of his "preconceptions" at the local gun show. I got permission from my wife (yes, she is in charge), called up a friend and we headed on over.
"An unspoken etiquette seems to dictate that vendors don't initiate conversation until a prospective buyer pauses for at least 10 seconds at a given display." Well, actually I think this is more a case of personality. There were some vendors there who barely said a word even when you talked with them. On the other hand, one of my favorite vendors (who I have yet to buy anything from) was his normal gregarious self and was able to spout off facts about any firearm that he saw someone touch or even take a second look at. When I first met him, it was a little nerve racking, I am the type of person who likes to shop without being bothered by salesmen until I have a question. Now it is always fun to spend a few minutes and watch his table while he talks nearly non-stop, carrying on three or four conversations at a time.
"This place is crawling with cops." Well, I saw three cops. One at the door, and two wandering around. Hardly what I would consider crawling. Of course there is something about thinking of committing a crime in a place where the person to gun ration is around 1:100 that just screams insanity.
"Nazi-themed tomes, for whatever reason, seem particularly popular." I'll be perfectly honest, I don't go to gun shows to look at books. I go to look at guns (and ammunition). At this particular gun show, there were probably three tables that had "Nazi-themed" anything. Mainly militaria. Of course, there was also Russian militaria, Japanese militaria, and don't forget those dastardly Yankee militaria at the same tables. Some people happen to like militaria, just because the swastika is a very noticeable symbol doesn't mean everyone who collects it subscribes to those philosophies. I have some South American coins, but you don't see me participating in a revolution every six months now do you?
"This is not the venue for selling machine guns." OK, anyone who has been to a gun show knows this. Only anti-gun groups still believe that the Mexican drug lords are arming themselves at US gun shows. While I was there, I didn't see a single machine gun, no live grenades (some dummies though), and rocket launchers had already sold out. As to why people like to bring up the $200 tax for buying machine guns, I don't know. This is one time when not indexing for inflation has been good (granted it would be better if there was no tax or registration).
"The clichéd caricature of the "gun nut" is not only white, but aggressively white." This is something I honestly haven't paid attention to before, so I thought I would look. Well suprisingly there were people of all races there. Now, I must say that the vast majority (95%) were white, but then again, where I live (and coincidentally where Mr. Snyder went to his gun show), the vast majority of people (98%) are white.
"... gun and knife shows are the male equivalent of window-shopping for shoes." Oh yeah, I can agree with this wholeheartedly. Since they have driven guns out of the shopping malls of America, we are forced to get our shopping fix at gun shows. It would be much better to bring firearms sales back into JC Penny and Sears. Put it right between the Jewelry counter and the Cosmetics Counter. Across from the Womens Clothing. That way, we could go in, do our browsing and still have our wife's in somewhat close proximity if we needed the checkbook.
"Six days, three gun shows, and 19 attempts to buy handguns sans permit had yielded zero sales." Yeah, in some states they have a "Permit to Purchase" for handguns (or long guns in the really unfree states). I haven't come across a dealer yet who would sell you a handgun without a purchase permit. So much for gang bangers coming in and buying whatever they want.
Basically, Mr. Snyder is mostly wrong. But I still had a successful day. My friend came out of the bathroom at lunchtime and said to me, "Isn't the gun show great. You can go to the bathroom and there is a guy cleaning a sword in the sink." Sword, as in three foot blade designed to cleave people in half. And nobody minds at all.
I had gone to this show with the goal of getting a youth rifle for my kids. I taught my oldest to shoot at Thanksgiving and needed to get something that was more in her size. In the past, there were usually three or four vendors that had Crickett rifles. During my first stroll around the place, I couldn't find any. During the second stroll I finally found one. It was the black synthetic stock, and was priced a little more (OK, a lot more) than I wanted to pay. As I started walking further down the table the father behind me said to his son, "We should sell our Crickett sometime."
I turned immediately and asked if I heard him right. Yes, they had a Crickett that their son didn't use. So one of the greatest freedom's of all (the private commerce of firearms) commenced. What price? How old? I'm willing to buy. Well, I just live a few minutes away, let me go home and get it. Done.
Thirty minutes later, the gunshow loophole was fully utilized as the father and his son handed over a high powered, bolt action sniper rifle, with a powerful scope, with the minimum length barrel the law allowed for greater concealability, all so that I could indoctrinate my kids in murder and mayhem (Can't you just hear Sarah and Josh crying their eyes out?). I in turn handed him four bills coated with evidence of the drug trade.
OK, so it was just a .22 Crickett with a 4X scope. And 80-90% of American bills have trace amounts of cocaine or other drugs on them. But, no papers were filled out, no drivers licenses shown, just two free people happy to do business. They sold a rifle no longer in use. And I gained something that my kids will use for a decade or more. Both of us were happy with the transaction. That is how America should work.
Oh yeah, I put the rifle in the trunk of my car with enough ammunition to take over a small Central American country. God bless America!
"An unspoken etiquette seems to dictate that vendors don't initiate conversation until a prospective buyer pauses for at least 10 seconds at a given display." Well, actually I think this is more a case of personality. There were some vendors there who barely said a word even when you talked with them. On the other hand, one of my favorite vendors (who I have yet to buy anything from) was his normal gregarious self and was able to spout off facts about any firearm that he saw someone touch or even take a second look at. When I first met him, it was a little nerve racking, I am the type of person who likes to shop without being bothered by salesmen until I have a question. Now it is always fun to spend a few minutes and watch his table while he talks nearly non-stop, carrying on three or four conversations at a time.
"This place is crawling with cops." Well, I saw three cops. One at the door, and two wandering around. Hardly what I would consider crawling. Of course there is something about thinking of committing a crime in a place where the person to gun ration is around 1:100 that just screams insanity.
"Nazi-themed tomes, for whatever reason, seem particularly popular." I'll be perfectly honest, I don't go to gun shows to look at books. I go to look at guns (and ammunition). At this particular gun show, there were probably three tables that had "Nazi-themed" anything. Mainly militaria. Of course, there was also Russian militaria, Japanese militaria, and don't forget those dastardly Yankee militaria at the same tables. Some people happen to like militaria, just because the swastika is a very noticeable symbol doesn't mean everyone who collects it subscribes to those philosophies. I have some South American coins, but you don't see me participating in a revolution every six months now do you?
"This is not the venue for selling machine guns." OK, anyone who has been to a gun show knows this. Only anti-gun groups still believe that the Mexican drug lords are arming themselves at US gun shows. While I was there, I didn't see a single machine gun, no live grenades (some dummies though), and rocket launchers had already sold out. As to why people like to bring up the $200 tax for buying machine guns, I don't know. This is one time when not indexing for inflation has been good (granted it would be better if there was no tax or registration).
"The clichéd caricature of the "gun nut" is not only white, but aggressively white." This is something I honestly haven't paid attention to before, so I thought I would look. Well suprisingly there were people of all races there. Now, I must say that the vast majority (95%) were white, but then again, where I live (and coincidentally where Mr. Snyder went to his gun show), the vast majority of people (98%) are white.
"... gun and knife shows are the male equivalent of window-shopping for shoes." Oh yeah, I can agree with this wholeheartedly. Since they have driven guns out of the shopping malls of America, we are forced to get our shopping fix at gun shows. It would be much better to bring firearms sales back into JC Penny and Sears. Put it right between the Jewelry counter and the Cosmetics Counter. Across from the Womens Clothing. That way, we could go in, do our browsing and still have our wife's in somewhat close proximity if we needed the checkbook.
"Six days, three gun shows, and 19 attempts to buy handguns sans permit had yielded zero sales." Yeah, in some states they have a "Permit to Purchase" for handguns (or long guns in the really unfree states). I haven't come across a dealer yet who would sell you a handgun without a purchase permit. So much for gang bangers coming in and buying whatever they want.
Basically, Mr. Snyder is mostly wrong. But I still had a successful day. My friend came out of the bathroom at lunchtime and said to me, "Isn't the gun show great. You can go to the bathroom and there is a guy cleaning a sword in the sink." Sword, as in three foot blade designed to cleave people in half. And nobody minds at all.
I had gone to this show with the goal of getting a youth rifle for my kids. I taught my oldest to shoot at Thanksgiving and needed to get something that was more in her size. In the past, there were usually three or four vendors that had Crickett rifles. During my first stroll around the place, I couldn't find any. During the second stroll I finally found one. It was the black synthetic stock, and was priced a little more (OK, a lot more) than I wanted to pay. As I started walking further down the table the father behind me said to his son, "We should sell our Crickett sometime."
I turned immediately and asked if I heard him right. Yes, they had a Crickett that their son didn't use. So one of the greatest freedom's of all (the private commerce of firearms) commenced. What price? How old? I'm willing to buy. Well, I just live a few minutes away, let me go home and get it. Done.
Thirty minutes later, the gunshow loophole was fully utilized as the father and his son handed over a high powered, bolt action sniper rifle, with a powerful scope, with the minimum length barrel the law allowed for greater concealability, all so that I could indoctrinate my kids in murder and mayhem (Can't you just hear Sarah and Josh crying their eyes out?). I in turn handed him four bills coated with evidence of the drug trade.
OK, so it was just a .22 Crickett with a 4X scope. And 80-90% of American bills have trace amounts of cocaine or other drugs on them. But, no papers were filled out, no drivers licenses shown, just two free people happy to do business. They sold a rifle no longer in use. And I gained something that my kids will use for a decade or more. Both of us were happy with the transaction. That is how America should work.
Oh yeah, I put the rifle in the trunk of my car with enough ammunition to take over a small Central American country. God bless America!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Investing in Gold
GOLD! It is everywhere in the news. We have hit a new high, but gold may go to $1500 or even $2000, so there is still an opportunity to buy. And of course there are all the commercials that talk about gold out-performing stocks (if you conveniently forget certain periods of history), being a hedge against inflation (if you conveniently forget certain periods of history), and never losing all of its value (which is true, but is also true of every bankrupt company's stock certificates - they still have a heating value and can be used as a fuel source).
Gold is a rather mundane element. Up until the 20th century there wasn't much use for it (except money). Iron could be worked into all manner of tools, as could copper, bronze, brass, and steel. Gold had the intrinsic property of being shiny. Even in the 20th century, besides its decorative value, gold's only real use is in electronics and as a protective coating (it doesn't corrode).
Like every other commodity, the price of gold has fluctuated. Once Nixon completely dissolved the connection between gold and value of money in the early 70s, the price of gold has gone up and down. Before that time in America, the price of gold was mandated by law. So, if anyone tries to compare gold using a price scale that started before about 1975 with stocks over the same period is just pulling a fast one. Once the price of gold was no longer mandated by law (less than $40/ounce), it quickly traded up to a market value of $200/ounce).
So buying up gold, why? If you are doing it because it outperforms stocks, then you need to take a look at the historical record. If you are doing it because it is a hedge against inflation, you need to take a look at the historical record. If you are doing it because gold will always have value, then think about the situation you need it in.
Are you talking about a natural disaster where there is no access to electricity and ATM machines? Last I checked, the pimply faced kid at the grocery store didn't have a clue how to ring up a sale with gold. The manager knew about twice what the kid knew - nothing. Besides, I don't think they are going to be working at the grocery store during that time, and by the time you lug your backpack of gold down there, it will probably be all looted anyway. Using gold to conduct business requires that the population have an idea of what the value of gold is and a means of verifying that what you have is really gold. Our society has neither for small scale transactions. When the government controlled the price of gold they could do this by minting their own coins and stamping the value on it. Companies that buy and sell gold today have the technology to determine the amount of gold in an item, but unless you are buying your eggs and milk from Zales Jewelers, I wouldn't count on them.
How about a complete societal breakdown. Well, gold is nice because it looks pretty. But in the end it doesn't help you survive any. You can't eat it (well, you can but you don't get much nutrition from it), it isn't good for making tools (hoes, rakes, firearms, etc) because it is too soft, and it is heavy. Besides, even if you were going to do some small transactions with it, how are you suppose to break apart the 1 ounce gold coin (that is now theoretically worth $50,000) so that you can buy the two dozen eggs from the farmer for $30? If I was the farmer, I would much rather have a bolt of cloth, an extra shovel, or perhaps three gallons of gasoline. In other words, in spite of its theoretical worth, the practical worth of gold during this scenario is zero.
A lot of libertarians like gold. I like gold too, as jewelry. Do I think the US needs to get back on the gold standard - heck no. Do I think hoarding gold is worthwhile - heck no. Do I own gold (outside of jewelry and electronics) - not that I know of. Do I think you should drop everything and invest in gold - only if you are a moron, if you bought when gold was around $250 per ounce, then sell now and celebrate, if you are going to buy now at $1200 and ounce, don't cry when it falls back to $500.
Gold is a rather mundane element. Up until the 20th century there wasn't much use for it (except money). Iron could be worked into all manner of tools, as could copper, bronze, brass, and steel. Gold had the intrinsic property of being shiny. Even in the 20th century, besides its decorative value, gold's only real use is in electronics and as a protective coating (it doesn't corrode).
Like every other commodity, the price of gold has fluctuated. Once Nixon completely dissolved the connection between gold and value of money in the early 70s, the price of gold has gone up and down. Before that time in America, the price of gold was mandated by law. So, if anyone tries to compare gold using a price scale that started before about 1975 with stocks over the same period is just pulling a fast one. Once the price of gold was no longer mandated by law (less than $40/ounce), it quickly traded up to a market value of $200/ounce).
So buying up gold, why? If you are doing it because it outperforms stocks, then you need to take a look at the historical record. If you are doing it because it is a hedge against inflation, you need to take a look at the historical record. If you are doing it because gold will always have value, then think about the situation you need it in.
Are you talking about a natural disaster where there is no access to electricity and ATM machines? Last I checked, the pimply faced kid at the grocery store didn't have a clue how to ring up a sale with gold. The manager knew about twice what the kid knew - nothing. Besides, I don't think they are going to be working at the grocery store during that time, and by the time you lug your backpack of gold down there, it will probably be all looted anyway. Using gold to conduct business requires that the population have an idea of what the value of gold is and a means of verifying that what you have is really gold. Our society has neither for small scale transactions. When the government controlled the price of gold they could do this by minting their own coins and stamping the value on it. Companies that buy and sell gold today have the technology to determine the amount of gold in an item, but unless you are buying your eggs and milk from Zales Jewelers, I wouldn't count on them.
How about a complete societal breakdown. Well, gold is nice because it looks pretty. But in the end it doesn't help you survive any. You can't eat it (well, you can but you don't get much nutrition from it), it isn't good for making tools (hoes, rakes, firearms, etc) because it is too soft, and it is heavy. Besides, even if you were going to do some small transactions with it, how are you suppose to break apart the 1 ounce gold coin (that is now theoretically worth $50,000) so that you can buy the two dozen eggs from the farmer for $30? If I was the farmer, I would much rather have a bolt of cloth, an extra shovel, or perhaps three gallons of gasoline. In other words, in spite of its theoretical worth, the practical worth of gold during this scenario is zero.
A lot of libertarians like gold. I like gold too, as jewelry. Do I think the US needs to get back on the gold standard - heck no. Do I think hoarding gold is worthwhile - heck no. Do I own gold (outside of jewelry and electronics) - not that I know of. Do I think you should drop everything and invest in gold - only if you are a moron, if you bought when gold was around $250 per ounce, then sell now and celebrate, if you are going to buy now at $1200 and ounce, don't cry when it falls back to $500.
What is the Role of Government?
Problems are everywhere. You have them, I have them, we all want them solved, but for some reason, we just can't get rid of them. Which brings me to the topic of what is the role of government?
Listening to some people, you would think that government exists to solve everyone's problems. On the other extreme, some people would say that government has no purpose. The vast majority of people believe it lies somewhere in between, however, the in between part is rather large, so you would be hard pressed to get me to agree that we all want something in the middle.
One of the first things that people need to understand is that at the present moment, we have a finite number of resources. Let me elaborate on this concept further. Broken down to its simplest components, there are people and raw materials (although some might argue that people are raw materials). People have the capacity to create ideas and work. Through ideas and work, raw materials can be used to create technology. Technology may then make the kind of work that created it obsolete, but people still retain the capacity to create ideas and work.
Well, that is the wrong question first off. Because it supposes that government is actually capable of solving the problems in the first place. Government is nothing more than a collection of people and their raw materials. Sort of like a corporation, a collection of people and their raw materials. Or an athletic team, or a family, or even an individual. If government is going to solve a problem, shouldn't we compare how well it has handled similar problems to how other organizations have fared? Furthermore, shouldn't we look at objective evidence of both the means of accomplishing some objective as well as the objective itself?
Rarely do you hear about that in a political discussion in America. One group says "We want clean water", another says "We want drug free America", another says "We want 35 mpg on cars", and on and on. All of these things may or may not be good things. But the question should be, is it up to government to provide it?
John Locke talked about the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. I believe that the government should be focused on protecting these. Infringements on these natural rights in any form should be justified by an overwhelming evidence of benefit to another of the natural rights. Probably much to the chagrin of family and friends, at this point in my life there is very little that the government does that I support. Rather than voting for a new law to fix some perceived injustice, I would rather repeal the laws that caused the injustice in the first place. Voting for half-baked fixes only perpetuates the problem of the government creating problems to begin with.
From a federal government standpoint, we could still have 536 elected officials, but there would be no need for most of the millions of other government employees. Do I support term limits as a means to reform government? No, not at all. If you want to be in government your whole life that should be your choice. I would like to see the power that government wields minimized, that would naturally have the effect of keeping people who seek power out of government (which I believe is the major reason politicians want to be elected). Return the "service" part to public service and do away with salaries for elected officials (or at least limit it to the average salary for the whole nation).
From a state and local standpoint, that is up to the state and local constitutions. If a city wants to provide endless welfare benefits, fine by me (I won't live there), just support it from your own tax receipts. There is no reason for people from North Dakota to pay for the welfare largess of California.
I would just prefer if the government (federal, local, and state) just left me alone.
From a state and local standpoint, that is up to the state and local constitutions. If a city wants to provide endless welfare benefits, fine by me (I won't live there), just support it from your own tax receipts. There is no reason for people from North Dakota to pay for the welfare largess of California.
I would just prefer if the government (federal, local, and state) just left me alone.
A Primer on Electricity Generation
Most people in the United States take electricity for granted. Whenever we need something we simply plug it in and electricity magically powers whatever instrument we have. Having been in the energy business for my entire adult life, I thought I would write an introduction for the average person on where electricity comes from. Since the country is currently debating items that could drastically change how energy is produced in the US, it is important that people understand the basics how where electricity comes from. After reading this, you will probably know more about electricity production than 90% of the adults in America.
To begin let me start with what everyone does know about. Our homes. Most homes in America have two services of electricity: 240 Volt AC and 120 Volt AC. There are normally three wires that come into your home, two 120 volt wires and one ground wire. Large appliances like oven ranges, dryers, electric furnaces, and air conditioners use 240 volts, while all of the rest of your home uses 120 volts. The first thing to remember is don't ever try to plug a 120 volt appliance in a 240 volt outlet. For one, the plugs are different so it shouldn't work. Secondly, you are going to fry your appliance. If you do try to plug your 240 volt appliance in your 120 volt outlet most likely, you appliance won't work (it is not getting enough electricity), although it probably won't be permanently damaged.
AC stands for alternating current. This means that the direction of flow changes. In the US, we use 60 Hz or 60 cycles per second. So the direction of flow switches 60 times each second.
As an analogy, voltage can be looked at as pressure. Water pressure (from a water tower) pushes water through the pipes which is why it comes out when you turn the faucet on. Voltage pushes electrons (electricity) through the wires so that when you plug something in, it turns on. No voltage, no electricity. The other key term is amps or amperage. For the analogy, amperage is like the amount of electricity that is flowing. When a water faucet is off, there is pressure (voltage) in your pipes, but no water flow. When you turn the faucet on, you get water flow (amps).
Besides your normal appliances and lights, your doorbell runs on electricity as well. This is usually a lower voltage of around 12 volts. To do this, a transformer is connected to a 120 volt circuit. A transformer is a simple device that has two sets of windings, input and output. Based on the ration of loops per winding, will determine what voltage the output will be.
All of the electricity in your house flows in through a meter and a breaker box. The breaker box allows loads (lights, appliances, etc.) to be disconnected without affecting the rest of the house. The meter is where the electric company measures the amount of electricity you are using so that it can bill you.
Working backwards, the 120 volt lines that run to your house are probably coming from a transformer. As before, the transformer steps down the voltage from a higher voltage. Higher voltage allows for more efficient distribution of electricity over long distances. Depending on your locale, the power lines you see overhead could have any number of different voltages and more than likely there are several transformers in between your home and the major power lines. Major power lines have voltages in the neighborhood of 14,500 volts to 345,000 volts or more.
The major power lines run through substations. Substations are sort of like your breaker box for your home. They may include stepdown transformers, but they also include breakers and disconnects so that electricity can be cut off to different areas of a city or county without affecting the entire network. Neighborhood substations feed into major substations.
Major substations are like the clearinghouse for power. Major substations may be near a power plant or not. In all cases, major substations have incoming lines from several sources. Our modern reliance on electricity makes it impossible for a city to lose power just because one power plant is not producing electricity. It is not a matter of backup sources, all of the sources are the primary sources. To return to the water analogy, a city may have only one water tower, however it might use a dozen wells to fill that water tower. The residents of the city never notice that any of the wells are not working as long as the water tower remains full. The major difference, is that a water tower is storing water, electricity in the electrical distribution system is either used or not created. (More on that later.)
Major substations are fed by power plants. Besides some solar power plants (which account for less than 1% of all electricity production in the US), electricity at a power plant is created by a generator. A generator is a machine that rotates magnets passed wires (or wires past magnets). This creates electricity (you can generate your own electricity with a magnet and a piece of copper wire - but don't plan on running anything from it). Electricity and magnetism are related. Electricity creates magnetic fields and magnetic fields create electricity. A generator uses rotational energy to create electricity from wires and magnets (a motor is the opposite, it uses wires and magnets to create rotational energy).
A quick word about solar plants. There are really two types, direct conversion and generator conversion. Direct conversion uses solar cells (like what is found on a calculator) to generate electricity. The materials on the solar cells produce electricity when light shines on them (conversion of visible light to electricity). Generator conversion types use a generator like any other power plant.
The generators are turned by a turbine. A turbine is another rotating machine that has blades attached to it. As a fluid (usually steam) passes over the blades, it causes the turbine to rotate (like a pinwheel in the wind) which turns the turbine. Hydroelectric dams use liquid water to rotate specially designed turbines. Wind generators use a wind turbine which is open to the environment because air is the fluid that is pushing the blades. But the blades on the windmill are connected to a generator. All other power plants (coal, gas, nuclear, solar) use the same type of turbine, and in some cases if a company (say GE) designed two different types of plants (say nuclear and coal) at the same time (say 1975), it is very possible that they have the exact same model of turbine and generator. So except for those solar and wind plants I already mentioned, from the turbine out to the electric distribution lines they are all the same (and in some cases exactly the same).
And since all of the electrical lines are interconnected, the electricity is all the same. In other words, lets say that you are a rabid environmentalist and want to get all of your electricity from wind power. If you have a wind turbine in your yard and your house is not connected to the grid, then congratulations. However, if your house is connected to the grid, then you are getting electricity that was made from coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, and wind. There is no device you can put on your house that is going to filter out the "bad" electricity. 1 kilowatt of electricity from coal is indistinguishable from 1 kilowatt of electricity from solar.
So, why hasn't wind and solar energy taken off, in spite of promises that it would for the last 40 years? In a nutshell, the answer is energy density and reliability. (Coincidentally, the same issue that has kept the electric car from being the savior of mankind since the late 1800's). Energy density could be described as the amount of energy that can be derived from a certain volume. Wind and solar's energy density sucks rocks. Sure it is all over the world, however it is in such small amounts that huge tracts of land are needed to supply energy. For instance, an average size power plant is around 1000 MW. For a coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear plant all of the equipment can be located on 50 acres or less (with room to spare and build walking paths for the employees at lunchtime). A comparable wind or solar farm would need several thousand acres to produce the same electricity. Wind does have an advantage over solar in this case, because 95% of the land could still be used for farming or other uses.
Energy density has to do with the fuel itself. Nuclear has an extremely high energy density. 95% of the mass of nuclear fuel is made up of non-fuel (uranium 238 that isn't fissile, stainless steel, zirconium, and some other metals). In spite of this, a nuclear plant produces only a few hundred tons of waste each year (which includes the 95% of non-fuels in the fuel). Compared to a coal plant which produces millions of tons in ash alone.
As you can begin to see, every type of fuel has its tradeoffs. So reliability is coupled with energy density to determine what fuels we use to make electricity. We need electricity all day long, although in varying amounts. Simplified, there is a base load and a varying peak load. The base load is the minimum amount of electricity that is needed. Plants that produce baseload need to be the cheapest plants that can be continuously run. Since plants will always be shut down for maintenance on a periodic basis, there is little to no "extra" base load, unless a new plant is started up. Coal, nuclear and hydroelectric plants are the vast majority of this country's baseload. Coal and nuclear plants also cannot just be started and stopped at will. The process takes several hours to days.
Peak load is during those times (daytime, early evening) when more electricity is demanded because of industrial needs. In hot climates, the use of air conditioning can greatly affect the peak demand. Because this electricity is not needed at all times, certain peaking plants are used. Natural gas is the primary fuel for these plants. Gas turbines plants are basically glorified jet engines (really, really BIG jet engines). They can be started up rapidly, and are designed to go through lots of start stop cycles. Solar is a great option for peaking plants since it is available at the prime peaking times. Unfortunately, it is not predictably available at the peaking times. Cloud cover can decrease the effectiveness of solar power to near nothing, so any solar plant is going to have to be backed up by a gas turbine plant.
Wind is even less predictable than solar. While some areas have great wind resources, Mother Nature doesn't always cause the wind to blow like the average of the last 30 years. Sometimes it is significantly below that. And when the wind isn't blowing, there is still the electricity demand. So while wind and solar may someday provide up to 20% of the electricity we use, there will be another 20% of unused fossil fuel capacity just in case. Running two power plants (even though one is inactive) is more expensive than running one.
To begin let me start with what everyone does know about. Our homes. Most homes in America have two services of electricity: 240 Volt AC and 120 Volt AC. There are normally three wires that come into your home, two 120 volt wires and one ground wire. Large appliances like oven ranges, dryers, electric furnaces, and air conditioners use 240 volts, while all of the rest of your home uses 120 volts. The first thing to remember is don't ever try to plug a 120 volt appliance in a 240 volt outlet. For one, the plugs are different so it shouldn't work. Secondly, you are going to fry your appliance. If you do try to plug your 240 volt appliance in your 120 volt outlet most likely, you appliance won't work (it is not getting enough electricity), although it probably won't be permanently damaged.
AC stands for alternating current. This means that the direction of flow changes. In the US, we use 60 Hz or 60 cycles per second. So the direction of flow switches 60 times each second.
As an analogy, voltage can be looked at as pressure. Water pressure (from a water tower) pushes water through the pipes which is why it comes out when you turn the faucet on. Voltage pushes electrons (electricity) through the wires so that when you plug something in, it turns on. No voltage, no electricity. The other key term is amps or amperage. For the analogy, amperage is like the amount of electricity that is flowing. When a water faucet is off, there is pressure (voltage) in your pipes, but no water flow. When you turn the faucet on, you get water flow (amps).
Besides your normal appliances and lights, your doorbell runs on electricity as well. This is usually a lower voltage of around 12 volts. To do this, a transformer is connected to a 120 volt circuit. A transformer is a simple device that has two sets of windings, input and output. Based on the ration of loops per winding, will determine what voltage the output will be.
All of the electricity in your house flows in through a meter and a breaker box. The breaker box allows loads (lights, appliances, etc.) to be disconnected without affecting the rest of the house. The meter is where the electric company measures the amount of electricity you are using so that it can bill you.
Working backwards, the 120 volt lines that run to your house are probably coming from a transformer. As before, the transformer steps down the voltage from a higher voltage. Higher voltage allows for more efficient distribution of electricity over long distances. Depending on your locale, the power lines you see overhead could have any number of different voltages and more than likely there are several transformers in between your home and the major power lines. Major power lines have voltages in the neighborhood of 14,500 volts to 345,000 volts or more.
The major power lines run through substations. Substations are sort of like your breaker box for your home. They may include stepdown transformers, but they also include breakers and disconnects so that electricity can be cut off to different areas of a city or county without affecting the entire network. Neighborhood substations feed into major substations.
Major substations are like the clearinghouse for power. Major substations may be near a power plant or not. In all cases, major substations have incoming lines from several sources. Our modern reliance on electricity makes it impossible for a city to lose power just because one power plant is not producing electricity. It is not a matter of backup sources, all of the sources are the primary sources. To return to the water analogy, a city may have only one water tower, however it might use a dozen wells to fill that water tower. The residents of the city never notice that any of the wells are not working as long as the water tower remains full. The major difference, is that a water tower is storing water, electricity in the electrical distribution system is either used or not created. (More on that later.)
Major substations are fed by power plants. Besides some solar power plants (which account for less than 1% of all electricity production in the US), electricity at a power plant is created by a generator. A generator is a machine that rotates magnets passed wires (or wires past magnets). This creates electricity (you can generate your own electricity with a magnet and a piece of copper wire - but don't plan on running anything from it). Electricity and magnetism are related. Electricity creates magnetic fields and magnetic fields create electricity. A generator uses rotational energy to create electricity from wires and magnets (a motor is the opposite, it uses wires and magnets to create rotational energy).
A quick word about solar plants. There are really two types, direct conversion and generator conversion. Direct conversion uses solar cells (like what is found on a calculator) to generate electricity. The materials on the solar cells produce electricity when light shines on them (conversion of visible light to electricity). Generator conversion types use a generator like any other power plant.
The generators are turned by a turbine. A turbine is another rotating machine that has blades attached to it. As a fluid (usually steam) passes over the blades, it causes the turbine to rotate (like a pinwheel in the wind) which turns the turbine. Hydroelectric dams use liquid water to rotate specially designed turbines. Wind generators use a wind turbine which is open to the environment because air is the fluid that is pushing the blades. But the blades on the windmill are connected to a generator. All other power plants (coal, gas, nuclear, solar) use the same type of turbine, and in some cases if a company (say GE) designed two different types of plants (say nuclear and coal) at the same time (say 1975), it is very possible that they have the exact same model of turbine and generator. So except for those solar and wind plants I already mentioned, from the turbine out to the electric distribution lines they are all the same (and in some cases exactly the same).
And since all of the electrical lines are interconnected, the electricity is all the same. In other words, lets say that you are a rabid environmentalist and want to get all of your electricity from wind power. If you have a wind turbine in your yard and your house is not connected to the grid, then congratulations. However, if your house is connected to the grid, then you are getting electricity that was made from coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, and wind. There is no device you can put on your house that is going to filter out the "bad" electricity. 1 kilowatt of electricity from coal is indistinguishable from 1 kilowatt of electricity from solar.
So, why hasn't wind and solar energy taken off, in spite of promises that it would for the last 40 years? In a nutshell, the answer is energy density and reliability. (Coincidentally, the same issue that has kept the electric car from being the savior of mankind since the late 1800's). Energy density could be described as the amount of energy that can be derived from a certain volume. Wind and solar's energy density sucks rocks. Sure it is all over the world, however it is in such small amounts that huge tracts of land are needed to supply energy. For instance, an average size power plant is around 1000 MW. For a coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear plant all of the equipment can be located on 50 acres or less (with room to spare and build walking paths for the employees at lunchtime). A comparable wind or solar farm would need several thousand acres to produce the same electricity. Wind does have an advantage over solar in this case, because 95% of the land could still be used for farming or other uses.
Energy density has to do with the fuel itself. Nuclear has an extremely high energy density. 95% of the mass of nuclear fuel is made up of non-fuel (uranium 238 that isn't fissile, stainless steel, zirconium, and some other metals). In spite of this, a nuclear plant produces only a few hundred tons of waste each year (which includes the 95% of non-fuels in the fuel). Compared to a coal plant which produces millions of tons in ash alone.
As you can begin to see, every type of fuel has its tradeoffs. So reliability is coupled with energy density to determine what fuels we use to make electricity. We need electricity all day long, although in varying amounts. Simplified, there is a base load and a varying peak load. The base load is the minimum amount of electricity that is needed. Plants that produce baseload need to be the cheapest plants that can be continuously run. Since plants will always be shut down for maintenance on a periodic basis, there is little to no "extra" base load, unless a new plant is started up. Coal, nuclear and hydroelectric plants are the vast majority of this country's baseload. Coal and nuclear plants also cannot just be started and stopped at will. The process takes several hours to days.
Peak load is during those times (daytime, early evening) when more electricity is demanded because of industrial needs. In hot climates, the use of air conditioning can greatly affect the peak demand. Because this electricity is not needed at all times, certain peaking plants are used. Natural gas is the primary fuel for these plants. Gas turbines plants are basically glorified jet engines (really, really BIG jet engines). They can be started up rapidly, and are designed to go through lots of start stop cycles. Solar is a great option for peaking plants since it is available at the prime peaking times. Unfortunately, it is not predictably available at the peaking times. Cloud cover can decrease the effectiveness of solar power to near nothing, so any solar plant is going to have to be backed up by a gas turbine plant.
Wind is even less predictable than solar. While some areas have great wind resources, Mother Nature doesn't always cause the wind to blow like the average of the last 30 years. Sometimes it is significantly below that. And when the wind isn't blowing, there is still the electricity demand. So while wind and solar may someday provide up to 20% of the electricity we use, there will be another 20% of unused fossil fuel capacity just in case. Running two power plants (even though one is inactive) is more expensive than running one.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Regulation of Reporters
Michigan to me is a whacked out place. They are always running commercials in my state about going to work in Michigan or vacationing to Michigan. I have zero desire to do either one. My guess is the vast majority of Americans feel the same way, hence the reason their economy is in a worse slump than the rest of the nation.
But now one of their politicians is coming up with the bright idea of "licensing" reporters. This is a bad idea on so many levels.
First, that pesky 1st Amendment was made so that reporters would not have to fear or kowtow to any politicians. Now, whether a media organization decides to get into bed with the political party of their choice is their decision. That doesn't mean the government should step in to help us out.
Second, who is going to verify that the politicians that license the reporters are of good standing moral character? It certainly isn't a qualification and you can't say that politicians are even more moral and upstanding than the population at large. No need to mention names (Spitzer, Sanford, Craig, Clinton, etc, etc). While some reporters may "not know what they are talking about" some politicians know nothing of what they are making laws and regulations on. At least the reporters are just talking about stuff they don't know.
Third, just because it used for hair dressers, auto mechanics, and plumbers doesn't mean we should license everyone. Frankly, I see no reason to license hair dressers, auto mechanics, and plumbers through the government. Why not let private organizations provide their stamp of approval, you know the ones whose members actually engage in the trade for which they are approving. What do politicians know about hair dressing, auto mechanics, and plumbing?
Fourth, the chance for corruption from this is so great. Want to silence a reporter, just start planting some rumors of bad moral character. Do you not think that cronyism, kickbacks, and corruption reside in every single regulatory agency of the government? Then you haven't been paying attention to the news for the last 2 millenia.
I am not a real fan of reporters anyway. I don't trust most of them, and most of them don't know what they are writing or talking about. That being said, I will stand up for their right (yes, freedom of the press happens to be a right) any day, even though they may not like most of my political views.
The nice thing about the article is that only the one politician is sponsoring the bill and it has next to zero chance of actually being passed. Said legislator is on his way out and wants to start a "discussion." Why not propose a bill to round up people of a certain ethnic orientation that we are actively engaged in combat against and put them in internment camps? At least we have precedent to do that, in spite of being a really bad idea.
But now one of their politicians is coming up with the bright idea of "licensing" reporters. This is a bad idea on so many levels.
First, that pesky 1st Amendment was made so that reporters would not have to fear or kowtow to any politicians. Now, whether a media organization decides to get into bed with the political party of their choice is their decision. That doesn't mean the government should step in to help us out.
Second, who is going to verify that the politicians that license the reporters are of good standing moral character? It certainly isn't a qualification and you can't say that politicians are even more moral and upstanding than the population at large. No need to mention names (Spitzer, Sanford, Craig, Clinton, etc, etc). While some reporters may "not know what they are talking about" some politicians know nothing of what they are making laws and regulations on. At least the reporters are just talking about stuff they don't know.
Third, just because it used for hair dressers, auto mechanics, and plumbers doesn't mean we should license everyone. Frankly, I see no reason to license hair dressers, auto mechanics, and plumbers through the government. Why not let private organizations provide their stamp of approval, you know the ones whose members actually engage in the trade for which they are approving. What do politicians know about hair dressing, auto mechanics, and plumbing?
Fourth, the chance for corruption from this is so great. Want to silence a reporter, just start planting some rumors of bad moral character. Do you not think that cronyism, kickbacks, and corruption reside in every single regulatory agency of the government? Then you haven't been paying attention to the news for the last 2 millenia.
I am not a real fan of reporters anyway. I don't trust most of them, and most of them don't know what they are writing or talking about. That being said, I will stand up for their right (yes, freedom of the press happens to be a right) any day, even though they may not like most of my political views.
The nice thing about the article is that only the one politician is sponsoring the bill and it has next to zero chance of actually being passed. Said legislator is on his way out and wants to start a "discussion." Why not propose a bill to round up people of a certain ethnic orientation that we are actively engaged in combat against and put them in internment camps? At least we have precedent to do that, in spite of being a really bad idea.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
$73 Billion for Food Stamps?
40 million Americans are using food stamps. At a cost of $73 billion (with a B). Something is just wrong with this when 13% of the country leaches money to buy food. I am assuming that those 40 million don't have cars, dvd players, computers, iPods, and Playstations. Because afterall, food is a necessity and why would you want to spend your money on play things if you need to eat? Oh yeah, because our welfare state has bred it in to some people. Its disgusting!
Put $73 billion into perspective. For 40 million people, that is $1825 a year. About $150 per month, per person. Our family's food budget is just under $100 per month per person. And we eat out fairly regularly. And I wouldn't consider us anywhere close to poor. If this isn't a bloated government welfare program, then I don't know what is.
The stigma of using food stamps has all but disappeared too. At one point in our nation's recent history, people were for the most part ashamed to use food stamps and tried to hide it as much as possible. Since the adoption of debit cards, it has made it less obvious that anyone is using food stamps. Plus, the government has gotten into a large ad campaign to "encourage" people to sign up for food stamps. What irks me is that probably 75% of the people on food stamps don't need it or are there because of conscious choices they made.
Case in point, when I was going to college, there were quite a few couples I knew who were living in subsidized housing and getting food stamps. And they had chosen to do that by going to school that they couldn't afford and not wanting to lower their standard of living below what they were accustomed to in their parents home. Every now and then my friends would offer us milk and cheese that they got as part of their allotment because it was too much for their family. I don't think my wife and I ever took any of it, even though that sure would have helped our food budget at the time.
So what would I do? Scrap the whole program. Why should the government be in the business of providing food for people? But, but, but ... then people will starve .... Uh, no. They won't. They may get their priorities in order and not buy the latest movie on Blu-ray and instead feed their family for a couple of days. Perhaps they will cut back on the beer and buy Wheaties instead (their both made from the same stuff, one just has more nutritional value and you don't have the hangover the next morning). There are lots of charities that provide food for the poor, and can feed a family for a lot less than $150 per person a month.
So, am I a heartless cretin? If you rely on food stamps, you probably think so. However, in my mind (and in practice) I can separate what are legitimate roles of government (blowing things up, printing money, and building some roads) and what should be the role of private charities. Unfortunately, I only get to selectively choose which charities I donate to. I don't get to selectively fund government programs.
Put $73 billion into perspective. For 40 million people, that is $1825 a year. About $150 per month, per person. Our family's food budget is just under $100 per month per person. And we eat out fairly regularly. And I wouldn't consider us anywhere close to poor. If this isn't a bloated government welfare program, then I don't know what is.
The stigma of using food stamps has all but disappeared too. At one point in our nation's recent history, people were for the most part ashamed to use food stamps and tried to hide it as much as possible. Since the adoption of debit cards, it has made it less obvious that anyone is using food stamps. Plus, the government has gotten into a large ad campaign to "encourage" people to sign up for food stamps. What irks me is that probably 75% of the people on food stamps don't need it or are there because of conscious choices they made.
Case in point, when I was going to college, there were quite a few couples I knew who were living in subsidized housing and getting food stamps. And they had chosen to do that by going to school that they couldn't afford and not wanting to lower their standard of living below what they were accustomed to in their parents home. Every now and then my friends would offer us milk and cheese that they got as part of their allotment because it was too much for their family. I don't think my wife and I ever took any of it, even though that sure would have helped our food budget at the time.
So what would I do? Scrap the whole program. Why should the government be in the business of providing food for people? But, but, but ... then people will starve .... Uh, no. They won't. They may get their priorities in order and not buy the latest movie on Blu-ray and instead feed their family for a couple of days. Perhaps they will cut back on the beer and buy Wheaties instead (their both made from the same stuff, one just has more nutritional value and you don't have the hangover the next morning). There are lots of charities that provide food for the poor, and can feed a family for a lot less than $150 per person a month.
So, am I a heartless cretin? If you rely on food stamps, you probably think so. However, in my mind (and in practice) I can separate what are legitimate roles of government (blowing things up, printing money, and building some roads) and what should be the role of private charities. Unfortunately, I only get to selectively choose which charities I donate to. I don't get to selectively fund government programs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)