Adam Smith: The Wealth of Natioons

Quote from Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations but brought to my attention by The New York

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Adam Smith

Capitalism, in order to work, needs a middle class that is functional and has significant wealth. No middle class means uprisings, war, and no capitalism for anyone. To steal from that middle class to feed the upper class, over the long term, benefits no one. To truly be wealthy, in this garden of existence, you need to be surrounded by a healthy field of flowers if you want to be the beautiful red rose.

I hate paying taxes, but I love that I have the opportunity to. Right now the system is out of sync and paying taxes to a central government that is foolish with the money is the true issue, not paying of taxes itself. When WE, THE PEOPLE, choose to educate ourselves and vote appropriately, only then can WE, THE PEOPLE, fix things.

Thought of the Day

Buddhism: Your Daily Meditation

We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. - Buddha

Time Interview: Barack Obama

Just listen and watch for a few minutes...

Time Exclusive: Barack Obama

Solar Energy to Produce Hydrogen

MIT: Solar power storage discovery could mean energy nirvana

Solar power will be used to create hydrogen. Hydrogen will be used to power our lives. The energy of solar power will be used to split molecules. Those split molecules will then be stored, and when needed, recombined, or burnt and we will have energy. Energy not used during the daytime will be used at night, it will be used in your car, it will be used in your office building, or maybe you can sell it off to the big businesses and neighbors who weren't smart enough to make the move. Big Oil will not go anywhere - we still need significant amounts of oil and will need even more in the future - plastics!

Don't fret people...your lives will not be controlled by your energy. Your car will not dictate your lifestyle, and maybe, if we are smart we will not destroy our planet. Free the people!

Russia, Qatar & Iran Announce Gas Triumvirate

Russia, Iran and Qatar announce cartel that will control 60% of world's gas supplies

The purpose of this cartel would be to coordinate sales of gas around the world, most likely, to inflate prices so that the selling countries can make more money.

Thank you Russia, Iran and Qatar. The vehicle that I drive is a V6 and since I happen to drive, one might say, "aggressively" my gas mileage tends to be quite dismal for a small Asian vehicle. So at first glass, I should be one person who would be in significant support of lower fuel prices. Additionally, and this is for all people, every single good that I use has its price marked up because of the cost of the fuel that transports it. So in fact, like most of the human's on the world - I should be demanding lower fuel prices and aghast at the nerve of these evil countries and their non-capitalistic actions!

In fact, however, I am happy to see an action like this. Why? Because I long for higher fuel prices. I am hoping the price of flattens out around $90/barrel. I would like to see the price of gas increase stay at an aggressive price as well. Why would I want to transfer my hard earned wealth, and that same hard earned wealth of the common folk from around the world to evil dictatorial style countries?

Because the longer the price of fuel stays high, and the higher it is, the more money, time, patience, and expertise goes into developing environmentally sound energy sources. Solar power will change the rules in time - and I don't care what any of the naysayers chip about. We all hear the pretty statistic that the Sun sends down enough energy to power the world for a year in a day (or something like that). Well, the only way for us to get there is to be pushed by money - that is what I have learned motivates people. Geothermal power, wind power, ocean power, and a few others are just waiting for our scientific attention.

Right now, oil has fallen to around $73 per barrel and the stock price of renewable energy companies has dropped as well. This is because investors don't see renewable energy worth it if energy is cheap. In the early '80s when the price of oil fell through the ground all of the alternative energy initiatives that began in the 70's collapsed as well. The financial motivation dissipated. In order to keep investors and governments focused on the alternative prize oil needs to be a little more aggressively priced - thank you OPEC, and just for good measure, we should jack the price of gas up as well - thank you Russia, Iran, and Qatar! Keep up the monopolistic, short term thinking! We need more of you in this world...

ECB's Nowotny Sees Global `Tri-Polar' Currency System Evolving

European Central Bank's Nowotny Sees Global `Tri-Polar' Currency System Evolving

Diversity in the world is what many people seem to preach. Diversity in food, businesses, experience, plant and animal life, investing, and, above all, opinions. Diversity allows for a more stable overall environment - if one arm falls the others continue on their trajectory or, maybe, even pick up a little because of the other's fall. Diversity is good.

As an American, really, as any body/individual that is in the premier position of power, stepping aside from that position of preeminence is very hard. Fear of change. Fear of loss. Fear of retribution. It is a simple evolutionary trait that once you achieve a certain level within a group you want to hold onto that position because it is in your, and, you believe, in everyone's best interests for you to be there.

Well, the United States has chosen to put policies and long term practices in place that potentially weaken that position of preeminence. But maybe, just maybe, over the long term, sharing that power will benefit everyone involved. Maybe by giving away the big chair for a triumvirate everyone will benefit.

I hate it when people say its a brave new world...because everyday is a brave new world. Not a single one of us on this planet has ever lived today before. The dynamics is this world are unique. There are always parallels...but uniqueness is always the case. And, it is a brave new world. Opportunity is the name of the game now.

Camping out for Early Voting

People who camp out early have already amused me, and on a certain level dismayed me. The cynical side says we are a consumerist society and need to better focus our time elsewhere.

But today I saw something different. As I was driving home last night I saw people camping out in downtown West Palm Beach. I was confused - what had I missed? Is there a product out there? A concert? Whats going on? My little monkey brain wants to be in the know...

Then this morning I see in the local papers that people are camping out for early voting. I got chills. Are we excited about voting? Are we excited about taking care of our country? Are we educating ourselves (I know it may be a stretch...)?

Educating yourself and voting is so important. The reason the people in Washington can continue to do what they do is that we allow them to stay in office. When a fool does something that a fool does - it is your RESPONSIBILITY to act.

Get out and vote dammit!

Political Monopoly Power

Capitalism Magazine on brought me a new idea. In an article, "Political Monopoly Power," the author comments on the size of the representatives of the United States House of Representatives.

The House is currently capped at a value of 435 individuals that are distributed to the states based upon their percentage of the overall population. This idea, to base one house (the Representatives) on population and another house (the Senate) on a fixed value (two per state in this case) was called the , "Connecticut Compromise." The founders from the smaller states didn't want to be overrun by the large population centers in the larger states, the masses, if I may. The larger states felt that since they did have a larger portion of the population and they were attempting to build a representative democracy that it was only common sense to allow those individuals to have a greater voice. From this, came the idea of an upper house and a lower house. Good work gentlemen.

One of the nuances of the lower house was in how many representatives there were going to be. Originally, as the above article references on Thirty-Thousand.org, there were approximately 40,000 people per representative. A population of about two to three million during the countries founding years meant we needed to start with around 65 representatives (based on 2,500,000). As the population grew, the number of representatives grew. Why?

The more people that one person controls via their vote the more power that one person has and the more influential and influencible they become. Today the average number of persons per representative is around 700,000 (almost 20 times the original value wanted). One person controls the views of 700,000. In the Senate, a single person represents 3,000,000. The founders went so far as the specifically state the figure of 40,000 as the proper number of representatives because they saw the flaws in the system.

So, should we have 7,500 members of the House of Representatives? Should there be a much larger group of individuals with a much more varied set of values, and experiences and knowledge running our country? Would the House of Representatives be undermined by the Senate due to a relative lack of power on an individual level? The Senate and its 100 seats so high up might begin to carry more influence than it already does. Maybe the size of the Senate needs to be double or quadrupled. Would increasing the size of the Senate put more power in the hands of the President and Vice President?

Or maybe, as the CapMag article states, maybe having more people to influence to get a vote across, maybe having each of those people having less power, maybe allowing people of a different nature into the system would benefit it greatly. I think there is some validity to this thought.

Maybe the Senate should be expanded to 400 and maybe the House of Representative to 3,250. Maybe power concentrated in the hands of so few has hurt us.

Study: 38 Percent Of People Not Actually Entitled To Their Opinion

Study: 38 Percent Of People Not Actually Entitled To Their Opinion

Its true. Its science. I read it on the intarweb, you know - the tubes!

Help your creative, itelligent personalities! They are sensitive.

The Creative Personality

Individuals who think a little different have suffered the consequences of the thoughts, most often due to the fear associated with change. Someone named Alfred de Musset is credited with once saying, "How glorious it is - and also how painful - to be an exception." Upon the mountain peak you stand when you discover something so great, but if you are at odds with common thought of the day, you will be placed in the pit of societal disdain. I can often be heard saying (mostly in defense of myself), "Common sense is for common people." The rules were made as guidelines. The "truth" of everyday life changes. The masses move in various directions, sometimes correctly and sometimes not.

Love your creative people!

Creative people's openness and sensitivity often exposes them to suffering and pain, yet also to a great deal of enjoyment. Most would agree with Rabinow's words: "Inventors have a low threshold of pain. Things bother them." A badly designed machine causes pain to an inventive engineer, just as the creative writer is hurt when reading bad prose.

Being alone at the forefront of a discipline also leaves you exposed and vulnerable. Eminence invites criticism and often vicious attacks. When an artist has invested years in making a sculpture, or a scientist in developing a theory, it is devastating if nobody cares.

Deep interest and involvement in obscure subjects often goes unrewarded, or even brings on ridicule. Divergent thinking is often perceived as deviant by the majority, and so the creative person may feel isolated and misunderstood.

Perhaps the most difficult thing for creative individuals to bear is the sense of loss and emptiness they experience when, for some reason, they cannot work. This is especially painful when a person feels his or her creativity drying out.

Yet when a person is working in the area of his of her expertise, worries and cares fall away, replaced by a sense of bliss. Perhaps the most important quality, the one that is most consistently present in all creative individuals, is the ability to enjoy the process of creation for its own sake. Without this trait, poets would give up striving for perfection and would write commercial jingles, economists would work for banks where they would earn at least twice as much as they do at universities, and physicists would stop doing basic research and join industrial laboratories where the conditions are better and the expectations more predictable.

From Waste to Running your Car & iPod

New way proposed to make Energy from Waste

"This technique is more flexible than conventional methods because we can process a wider range of very different feedstocks and, at the same time, we can generate a wider range of end products -- not just gasoline and diesel. but ethanol and hydrogen," said Zhao. "Or we could generate electricity directly from the gas produced."

The scientists said their new system heats paper, wood, plastic and rubber into a gas. Hydrogen and carbon monoxide gases, referred to as synthesis gas or syngas, are separated and fuel a turbine that generates electricity, or are converted to gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel or biofuels.

One of the reasons I decided to go back to college to get a degree in engineering is because I see the world changing. I see the perception of energy and pollution in the minds of people changing. I see people wanting to save energy, I also see people becoming a little more cognizant about where their energy comes from. I also see the usage of energy, over the long term, increasing, even with all of the new conservation that will occur. Computers will consume more and more energy. Gadgets and buildings with gadgets built into them will consume more energy. And even though we will become more efficient, there will be, over the long term a need for more energy.

For all of the naysayers who don't believe we can get off of our oil addiction...well, a lot of people used to think the world was flat - and they are all dead now. And a lot of people used to believe we couldn't fly. They are dead too.

Government Isn't The Problem - Its the People!

Don't blame the damn system! The system isn't the problem. Its the damn people! The system is created by the people. The government is run by the people. The people fuck the system up.

Don't take it from me, the weird email list guy. Take it from your famous comedian - Lewis "The Pontificator" Black

Government Isn't The Problem - Its the People!

21st Century Green Farming with Wireless Soil Sensors

21st Century Green Farming with Wireless Soil Sensors

A system of sensors placed under the ground on a farm in a grid like pattern feeding various bits of information - like water flow and nutrient usage - back to a central computer to help the farmer decide how best to take care of the land.

This is what I want to see located in my home. "Your home?" you might ponder...why would you want to know this information in your home? Well, my home of the future has an additional floor that ours of today doesn't. The purpose of this floor is to grow food. The floor will be about two or three feet high and have a grid of sensors in the base of it reading continually about what is going on as well a small robotic system that will float above applying needed resources in an ultra focused manner - UltraFarming. Does Plant A look a little light in nitrogen? Does Plant B seem to be low on water? Whatever is going on, a neat little computer software package will communicate that information to a centralized database which will make judgment calls based on programmed variables and react accordingly.

Imagine perfectly planning out, not on a plot level or a square level, but a seed level, when to plant so that you have a continual food flow? I wonder how much pace would be needed to provide a decent amount of nutrition to a small family.

The revolution of the individual is going on right now.

re: Why the Critics of Globalization Are Mistaken

Three friends gave me three great responses to this posting via email and I wanted to take a minute to sent them out to the world and the respond to them as they all brought up interesting and important points.

Response #1: Case Study in Capitalism Run Amok

In hindsight, I think it would have been better policy to extend tax benefits to those corporations that kept jobs in the US. The wage gap between labor here and overseas is so great, however, that it might have been a futile effort. Tax breaks would have helped. It would have been better than lowering the tax rates for rich Americans whose incomes have sky-rocketed while Average Joe is out of work.

And we should have gone to war with the Middle East after 9-11 building energy efficient electric cars and hybrids, extending loans and more tax benefits to our car makers to do so. We could have led the charge in wind tech, nuclear, etc. Instead, we played right into the hands of the terrorists by invading Iraq, spending $10b a month on that war which would have been better spent on a Green Revolution in the States.

Now we have to fight to become the engine of economic growth for the Green Economy, and countries like China and Japan will be hot on our heels to compete for supremacy in that industry. At least Obama knows what time it is on this topic.

This whole mess is the logical end of an unregulated capitalistic society, where greedy corporations make every attempt to extend credit to borrowers who are incapable of meeting these obligations. The housing market was the last straw, but you can see the warning signs during the tech bubble (margin trading for a company with no revenues, anyone?), the run-up in commodities (nobody takes delivery of the oil they trade, do they?), the carry-trade (borrow cheap Yen and buy an internet stock in Zimbabwe), those checks sent-out with your credit card begging for your consumption. I could go on forever.

As Bush said the other night during an interview with the press, it's really sad that losers at the highest level of Corporate America were rewarded for failure. And the majority of the wealth created during that time went to those same managers and their closest employees thru bonuses and compensation. So fuck you Average Joe, and go find another job, if you can.

$1 trillion invested in the university's of the United States focusing on energy technology would hurt terrorism more than anything and, over the long term, would lead to a brand new technological revolution in the world.

Response #2: The long term hurt of outsourcing

What do you think about certain jobs being outsourced as a result of globalization, specifically those in the manufacturing sectors OVER THE LONG TERM? I do realize that companies will benefit in the short term from lower production wages and maybe even cheaper material costs. But when a country like the US develops, as it has, a significant amount of its jobs in a financial and service sector and those sectors suffer a crash or serious recession like we are experiencing, isn't there a need for that country in it's effort to re-employ those that have lost jobs to put them into more of a manufacturing or industrial role. I feel like there is a reverse-industrialization that happens in these economic situations, and when the most advanced industrial element, in this case, speculative financial instruments start to subside, those employees can't go back into that sector, they are forced to look in other areas. If they have an assembly line or manufacturing background, that would be their fall back; however, globalization will have already relocated that fall back position to another country.

I think from a fiscal standpoint you are right, but I am seeing a human resource element, a re-training element, that has to be addressed as a component of globalization. Right now I see a US economy that has outsourced the mining of raw materials and the production of final products. That leaves the financing and service industry that dominate the US, both of which are the most exposed in a recession. I think that is why we have a focus on "bailing" out and "stimulus" packages, instead of creating public works that got us out of the last depression.

I don't have a problem with globalization, just as I don't have a problem with anything that is done with measure and caution. I think there are benefits to be had for outsourcing some manufacturing, some resource mining. But I think in the long term too much globalization could bring us to a point where countries become the cogs in the machine, and we would be subject to negotiation with each "cog" that feels it's not getting enough foreign aid, etc. I like having some things be ALL AMERICAN, so shoot me!

The most interesting thing about this response was that it took me back to World War II and why the United States was able to fight off two machines in the form of Germany and Japan - industrial might. If we don't have the resources to produce to the goods to fight the battles what happens? What happens when we don't have a substantial number of factories? War is a terrible reason to change economic logic - but we still leave in a world in which small brained humans see murder and violence and an answer and the United Nations and sanctions cannot stop those who have guns.

Response #3 - You fool, global-whatever has long passed. We are already in the brave new world.

John..thanks for forwarding this very highminded almost irrelevant piece to me...it is not my intent by any means to make light of this issue but the world as we knew it has changed, not will change or in the process of changing but has changed!

In any event to complete the thought,what has happened before the last week of so and what will happen,be it Global--or---whatever izations is a totally new ball game.We are in a new world of doing..and with this fresh wind of change comes unleashed storms of opportunities for the young of mind and body---so there! You are in the catbird seat young man...

Why am I wasting time talking about the critics of globalization? Those critics and myself are talking of a wind long past...in fact, why am I not doing right now! Back to the books...

Why the Critics of Globalization Are Mistaken

Why the Critics of Globalization Are Mistaken

In the US I continually hear about how globalization is a false promise that has not and will not ever benefit the common working man in this country. And I struggle with this because I hear it continually while the arguments against that logic are in front of every single one of us every single day.

The major thing that I hear about globalization from Americans is how they have become poorer as a result of globalization. Certain jobs have left the US and headed elsewhere but in exchange for those jobs we have been able to keep the prices of our goods cheaper than they have ever been in this world. That little combination there makes it so we don't have to make as much money from a cash perspective to live the same lifestyle.

Now that simplistic argument above isn't much solace for the real people who have lost jobs in the auto industry, in the foundry industry, and so many others - and some of those people I know and it hurts to watch - but, and this is of such importance, over the long term we all win. Over the long term the system builds upon itself. There are pains at various points, like today with the US exporting our flawed economic policies, but imagine if something like this had happened 50 or 75 years ago. Bedlam, riots, and calls of the apocalypse. We are a stronger planet, we are more intertwined and we are managing a very significant loss of capital.

Globalization is good. To say it is bad is as foolish as an individual in the US saying that Florida should stop peach trade with Georgia because it takes away from the orange grower's ability to make money and keep jobs. Why haven't the orange growers begun to export to Georgia? Why hasn't the US gotten smarter and caught up with the world yet in manufacturing? Because it is a long process. The world is large and the shifts in the dynamics take time.

Be patient. We all will benefit.

Rough Times Make Us Healthier

When the rough gets going, the body feels better. Some social scientists have done a little research and have found that in certain circumstances around economic downturns people get healthier - in multiple manners. Their bodies get healthier - they eat better (the absolute best evidence that we are eating too much in our wealth). Their families get healthier - they spend more time with them. Their rates of suicide drop (caught me here). And a few other interesting little tid bits...

Our bodies are evolved to work in conditions of feast and famine. Maybe these economic bubbles aren't the work of bad policy or foolish Wall Streeters but the natural reactions of human beings in situation of plenty. When there is something to be gotten, as our history has dictated to us, you must get as much as you can because at some point it will stop flowing.

And maybe, those famines are important to us because they reeducate us. They refocus us. They teach us how to live within our means, how to appreciate a normal sized meal and how to live in a manner that made human beings so great.

Long live volatality!

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - Sept. 30, 1999

Why are we having a home value based economic failure?

I wonder if this has something to do with it...

Remember, this article is from 1999 - note the below paragraph:

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

There needs to be a balance between social support and free markets. To much in either direction causes issues as we know the limitations of human beings. This isn't fully eh fault of Democrats or Republicans, but definitely the fault of both of them.