Time to Focus on 'Return of Capital'

We fundamentally disagree on the perfection of "free markets" and the role public institutions in society, we have some common ground, but will never see eye to eye.  IMO Germany did the right thing, blowing a "bubble" in the solar market.  As energy prices continue to rise they can pull out the subsidies and let the thing run on it's own.  Certainly there will be some difficulty in the transition, but even as their growth slows they will be outstripping us by an order of magnitude.  They are and will stay way ahead of us on that front as a result of their approach to the problem. We are falling down in that regard.  I admire your individual efforts, but they pale in comparison to what a community can do when acting collectively (I know how evil that sounds to you - apologies ahead of time).
As we are arriving at the upward curve of the hockey stick on most resource and fiscal issues and germany is subsidising the solar industry preparing for whats to come,  what's happening in the USA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8CqaHTygSc&feature=related

I know, I know, it's all the governmets fault.

Sorry for the exageration on the solar panel facts, someone told me that today in a passing conversation and I could not believe it, should have research that before posting. Must have been in the past quarter.  The statistic is still pretty damn stunning.

 

 

 

I went back and looked at some notes I had from one of Chris's interviews with a radio host. 15% savings in his region with a payback of 7 years. This sounds good to me. Thanks for the help.
Chris, why the hell if you know this that others in your area don't take advantage as you did? Is it because their the same walleye Folks there as in my neck of the woods? This broadcast I think was a couple years ago, have you seen any changes there, in your neighborhood and community? Have you effectively changed your community to action? The political Folks heading your District? That would be interesting to know,

You have here because we are receptive, and I for one are waiting to be approached now rather than explain and get that look any longer because until their ready I can't help. I guess I'm asking if your powers of persuasion in your community had garnered any more people to do as you have.

Regards

BOB

Actually not, I completely support he community doing this type of thing as a collective.  When it's voluntary and the community wants something we can accomplish great things.  What I have a problem with is when a few individuals in a government decide what is best for a large chunk of the population. What if they are wrong?  What if they aren't considering other alternatives?  Also, when people are "forced" to do something they are much less invested in it and so they don't strive to do the best they can.

I actually believe in strong community, but community is voluntary, government does not create community, rather it pits one group against another as we have seen in our recent political landscape.

I agree it's pretty stunning.  I certainly have tried to convince everyone I know to get their money back from the government and to install solar.  Now, as much as I try to get people I know to install solar, it's still a subsidy for the rich (as most subsidies are), since the poor will be unable to take advantage of the incentives but they have to pay for it in higher utility bills.

The problem I see with solar subsidies is they don't really address the issue - solar subsidies are a band-aid for other issues - living beyond our means and subsidies for other forms of energy.  I suspect we actually agree about a lot of the problems, I just suspect we don't agree on the causes or potentially the solutions. For example, the problem with the German and Spain alternative energy bubbles is that the state picked the winners and the losers.  How many alternative solutions died because of the subsidy to PV?  How many people would have reduced usage instead of just adding PV and continuing their current lifestyle (I fit in this category).  Many of the companies that are now suppliers will perish because they do not have a product that is cost competitive and can't survive without subsidies (we have seen that here in the US market - Solyndra, A123, …).

Just as the Fed distorts money, that money and government influence then distort the markets so that they do not create the things people need at the price they can afford.  I don't think markets are perfect, but they certainly do a better job of allocating risk and allowing those with good ideas to flourish than centrally planned, often politically motivated solutions.

 
 

Global Warming,  Resource Depletion, Population

There is noway that this group can throughly cover any one of these topics without talking about the others.  

If we were not using so many resources we would not be causing global warming.         If world population was only 100 million of us we would not be worrying about resource depletion or causing global warming.   

I understand the dificulty of discussing over population . . . To discuss fixing it you will see many things that were good may now bad.   Examples: Having kids, agriculture, life saving devices,  fossil fuel driven labor saving devices, cheap transportation, maybe fire and cooked food,  and the list goes on and on and on.  

The Fuckit Slump

Oil’s running low at the pump,
Not due to some interim hump;
We’re ready to quit
‘Cause we don’t give a shit,
And we enter the Fuckit Slump.
Starvation hits, nobody’s plump,
Global warming beats on our rump;
When it doesn’t mean squat
That it’s getting too hot,
We’re into the Fuckit Slump.  
Air wafts by a nuclear dump,
We inhale a plutonium lump;
Fresh air provides
Radionuclides
To go with the Fuckit Slump.
It’s all of us, you’re not a chump,
The boiling frog still doesn’t jump;
Let’s be succinct:
We’re going extinct,
So we’re doing the Fuckit Slump. 

I totally agree with your position in the abstract, but I do not believe that human beings at present are capable of organizing themselves at present in the way that you suggest. I hope that someday we evolve enough that we can live in a society in which every transaction is voluntary, and people are free do as they choose. In some ways the form of government is irrelevant. If everyone were Jesus Christ like, any form of government (or none at all) would do. If everyone were Adolf Hitler like, no form of government or nongovernment would do.
The question is, how do we get there and what do we do with ourselves in the meantime. I fundamentally believe that responsibility leads to freedom and not that freedom leads to responsibility. Pushing an agenda where Freedom is the slogan word and responsibility is mentioned only in passing leads to the collective pathological behavior we see today, where fame and wealth are worshipped, self indulgent self destructive behavior is the cultural norm. Human behavior leads the to form of government not vice versa.

Germany's method of achieving the solar development may not be the ideal. But if the majority of German's didn't believe in it, it would not have happened. Characterizing it is the few foisting it on the many is inaccurate. We are moving slowly in the direction of both better forms of achieving collective decision making and making better collective decisions. But to hold one hostage to the other is counter productive. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I have no clue how anyone else here does their thing. Me, I just do it. I don't wait on the government or any person's timeline. I get it done. If it makes sense to me then I won't relax until that system is in place. End of story.
Respectfully Given

BOB

California's Proposition 30 would indicate otherwise.  A majority votes to tax a minority so the majority can have someone else pay for something the majority wants.
Yup…that's awesome decision making at work there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxcLNHasPx4

Speaking of outer space, has anyone seen the L-Curve of wealth concentration in the US - and I imagine it would be even more exaggerated for the world as a whole - and this chart refers to incomes, not actual wealth as of 2003.   As I understand it, wealth has continued to concentrate since then:
http://www.lcurve.org/images/LCurveFlier2003.pdf

So, from the stats of that time, if you stacked up the median income of the US population, $40,000, on the 50 yard line of a football field representing the income distributions in the US from the lowest at one goal line (0 yard line, presumably $0) to the highest (at the 100 yard line - Bill Gates), the median income $40,000 as a stack of $100 bills would be about 1.6 inches high, sitting on the 50.  Those with income at the 95 percentile earning $100,000 would have a stack of hundreds about 4" high.  At the 99th percentile, $300K, the stack would be about a foot high.  According to the write-up, Bill Gates income would be a stack of hundreds about 30 miles high, at the upper end of the statospere, and tens of thousands of feet above where Felix Baumgartner stepped off of the balloon gondola for his joy ride the other day.

When I was working on the documentary on corruption a few years ago, I made a 3D model in Excel of wealth concentration in the US, and it was an eye opener.   If you create a 10 x 10 matrix of wealth by percentiles in the US, you have an extremely flat area like the Great Plains for almost the whole area, except for a giant Mount Everest with exponentially rocketing foothills the very last few squares in the corner near the 100th percentile square.

I agree with Chris' basic position, and the basic information, that taxing alone is absolutely not a solution in itself to the major problems we face – it can’t raise close to the funds needed for the current budget commitments - and it absolutely can be part of a syndrome of "taxing someone else" instead of setting priorities and making the real reorganizations, cuts, and improvements to efficiencies where they need to be made.   But, like JBarney, I also cringe at the overdone anti-tax currents on this thread and this site.   Additional taxes and fairer distribution of the world's vast wealth are part of any budget balancing that includes any kind of social safety net in the US.  And IMO, capitalism absolutely doesn't work without providing some safety net and fairness, as we saw in the 1930's.  To the extent we’re all uncomfortable with “class war”, revolution, taxation and redistribution of wealth, we might as well prepare to be uneasy for awhile, because stark differences in wealth and welfare of people is absolutely part of the problem right now everywhere, and it’s worth not forgetting that – beyond all the distracting talk about eternal “freeloaders” which IMO is in part, an avoidance. 

A lot of the wealthy are freeloaders, too. I’m sorry, though they may all be great guys, I don’t have that much respect for a system that delivers outrageous billions to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or George Soros and gives them control over so much of the planet’s resources, let alone Donald Trump.   They don’t need it.  I don’t need it, either – someone else does.   So, how do we change that? As Chris discussed before, one model to look at is the Swedish approach of a mix of free market, higher taxation and higher general welfare - gov't balanced against free markets.   Like many here, I tend to believe it’s likely the larger system is too ossified, corrupt and in denial to change in time and become more fair and principled, either by evolution or revolution.  So, in reality, we are more likely to be left to our own devices and organizing in more localized communities.

I’m not a particularly religious person, but apparently Matthew was a good dude with a nice quote in the Christian Bible that pertains to this thread and this problem at all levels:

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

As times get tougher, doesn't it seem our heart needs to be with our larger community as many have said, on whatever level we can make that work, and that that’s the only place to lay up treasures in the end and find a bit of heaven?

How about "the return of principles" instead of "the return of principal"?  Are both possible?  If not, and we're bound to all be "general partners" with 100% at risk, like it or not, is there a way at this point to do it happily with other people?

kelvenator, I watched as a boy in the neighborhood unwrapped a large two piece Snickers with his little Brothers (4 total). He broke apart the large pieces into smaller and visably simular pieces and shared with his Brothers and a neighbor boy who drifted over. I felt pretty good about that as this is at the heart of the human race were my thoughts. There is hope, I just feel it deeply.
Nice essay

Best Ragards

BOB

[quote=cmartenson]I am quite unsettled by the idea of putting tax hikes that impact one segment of the population to a vote.  It brings to mind this quote:

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."             — Benjamin Franklin.
What's next, a ballot initiative to take the private assets of 49% of the population?  I know that's extreme, but the idea of asking the majority what it thinks of taking more money from a minority is somehow just not in the spirit of things for me.  Just too many ways for all of that to end badly. I know it's been said, but the whole idea that the schools in CA have been 'rescued' by this tax hike (yes, that's the language being used) demonstrates a complete failure to address the core of the problem.  Perhaps the schools have become too expensive for some reason or there are better and more cost effective ways to run things or any of a number of other essential starting points for the conversation? Here's a prediction:  the state will collect less than it thinks, some will be diverted (or 'borrowed') for other-than-school purposes, and nothing will be fixed except that the population of people earning over $250k in CA will shrink.  In just one or two years the schools will have chewed through whatever additional funds came their way and the whole problem will resurface. [/quote] Throughout my entire adult life, I've always willingly paid my full share of taxes, considering them the cost of living in this country and the benefits inherent to that situation.  As I've learned more over the years, however, I've become increasingly disillusioned with the entire situation. I realize now, after seeing the taxes (both overt and covert) that this administration has planned for us, the very best investment for me at this time is not precious metals, timberland, arable land, livestock, alternative sources of power, skill development, or aquisition of other productive assets and/or businesses, although these all have merit.  I realize now that the very best investment for me is to seek out and hire the very best tax lawyer and attorney money can afford and restructure my entire life, livelihood, and future to utilize every available legal means to reduce my taxes to the lowest possible number, if not zero.  I've always preferred simplicity and directness and standing apart from the morass of legal and regulatory entanglement but realize now, such a course of action is no longer tenable if I want to financially survive or even thrive in the coming years.  To paraphrase a statement frequently made by the Viet Cong, I have to "grab them by the belt and pull them close", using the nature and design of their own system to my advantage.      

[quote=thc0655]Bah humbug!  We're going to reduce our world population severely, but not in any thoughtful, organized, compassionate way.  We're going to run wilfully into any one of several walls directly ahead of us (war, pestilence, environment, energy) and millions or billions are going to die prematurely.  It might be more than "necessary" or it might be less than "enough," but it's coming.  The one percent who see it coming won't be able to alter the course sufficiently or measureably, despite the best of intentions and good ideas.  Let's be kind to one another as we hurtle toward extinction (or mere Armageddon).
[/quote]
thc0655,
It was interesting to see in your stomping grounds (i.e. Philly), some of the wards had 99% of their vote for Obama.  Yikes!  I'd sure hate to be there when things start to get dicey.  I can see why you're thinking the way you're thinking.

16 months ago, my 9.2KW grid-connected/dependant system cost $1.23/watt after rebates and tax credits. Today the same system would cost only $0.46/watt.  This means you should be able to install a 5,000 watt system for less than $2,500 in my area. My utility rebates $2/watt so you need to take that into account. Without the rebate, today's cost would be $1.86/watt. Missouri is a net-metering state, so I get credited for any excess energy generated.  I calculate my ROI on a daily basis and it mostly ranges between 10% and 20% (on a yearly basis).  And all of that avoided cost and billing credit is tax free. It is probably the best long term investment that I have made.
I used the 30% tax credit to free up enough IRA funds to install a 2-ton ground source heat pump to heat all my water and entire house.
Dave

[quote=RJE]Geez, I don't like this conversation but I have thought that the heavy population centers around the world are most certainly near their food source and water, we can reasonably be assured of this. Now that means the mass GENOCIDE of large groups must be done close to these resources. So, this makes sense and why? The weapons needed to manage population will be environmentally unfriendly so what is the point of even carrying on about all of this. What we seek in effect will be destroyed for many years to come. Done with this topic now.
[/quote]
Don't worry Bob.  It really doesn't have to be accomplished with any loud booms, radioactive fallout, chemical clouds, pestilence, induced famines, or other fear producing drama. 
Given enough time, fluoridation and GMO foods are expected to take care of the problem quite nicely.
http://www.projectcamelotportal.com/files/PDF/water-flouridestory.pdf
 
 

I think these provide an interesting counter point to the large representation of the quite individualist, Libertarian view here on the site, and the idealization of the individualist ethic in the US generally:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-us-could-learn-from-scandinavia-4e6qv31-169856786.html

This link below (after some gratuitous pictures of Swedish models) talks about how the Swedish economic model may not transfer as well to the US, because Sweden is much smaller, and more homogeneous - more like a smaller community, rather than large, diverse and cumbersome like the US.  It also points out that Sweden has been very adaptive - after setting up an 80% high end tax rate early on, it moved away from an over-emphasis on taxation and the social welfare state towards lower taxes and more free market reforms awhile back when over-taxation became too much of a drag on the economy.  Nonetheless, Sweden's been reducing its debt level while retaining much of its social welfare system for all citizens - heath care, education, retirement, etc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDAQWJbEl9U

It's an open question what kind of balance is possible in the US, but it doesn't seem we hear much real discussion of the values, priorities, and dollar amounts involved in various options. We tend to hear more about extremes.   Maybe we'll just have to sort it out in smaller than national regions.

I had the good fortune to spend some time this past summer with a young Swedish journalist who had flown to the US to attend an "Age of Limits"  weekend and learn more about peak oil, which she claimed was virtually unknown in Sweden.  She was quite pleased with the cradle to grave healthcare and education system in Sweden.
Obama's piddling attempt at healthcare reform missed the whole point of socialized medicine.  He left control with the insurance industry.  There will never be a viable healthcare system as long as they are in charge.
Doug

ao, I liked your essay as it was a nice blowing off of your frustrations. That's a good thing.
The simplest path is to be a part of the majority. Look for a government job, get poorer or simplify your life and you won't need allot of stuff. Live with less and it becomes more actually. I dare say more rewarding. That way you won't have to spend your labors paying for lawyers who write the Bills that Congress supports but have never read, that actually take from us even more of our labors. Wash, rinse and repeat, and you just keep getting more frustrated, paying more of your labors to fight what the lawyers are writing in Bill form being promoted by the political ball less puppets who are screwing you in the first place.

In the end what you have paid to get more in the form of tax relief is eaten up by those that you seek help from, and you end up probably paying more for legal council than the taxes you want to save. Then the politicians come back wanting more as Chris said the cash gets diverted, and we start this thing all over again as those who are poor, have a government job or are now dependent on government for their earned entitlement programs vote for more taxes on you and probably will eliminate the tax advantage you seek by hiring accountants and lawyers, by closing all the loop holes and subsidies that you pay them to take advantage of in the first place. No more tax deductions for mortgage, health care, child care, and things like that.

Then the Fed floods the system with cash, raises gasoline prices, food prices, through inflation that is stated as 2% when the reality is most likely 6%, at least for food and gasoline and your $50,000 dollar income is $3000 dollars less as inflation rocks your family budget, and the tax savings you sought to get by hiring lawyers and accountants just isn't helping you at all.

Finally, what happens is you get a letter from the IRS wanting your books and a meeting to question you about all the deductions you have taken, and so you have to rehire the lawyer, the accountant to come with you and plead your case as you are ultimately responsible, and not the lawyer and accountant, and on average end up paying back $1500 in savings you paid the lawyer and accountant who haven't truly a clue because the tax system is so complicated that even GOD himself hasn't a clue of how to interpret that beast. At the end of the meeting you shake hands with everyone so relieved that you won't have to spend a day with some truly awful people who have an eye on those baby blues of yours in a prison somewhere who like you just wanted justice by hiring an accountant and lawyer to relieve some of their stresses too. They are in prison because all the stress and everything having been piled on them they get irate at the tax man, during a meeting, and calls him a crook, mother fucker and he can kiss my ass. They get pissed at their accountant, lawyer and are completely at their wits end. At trial the judge sentences them, and brands them the bad guy, and as they are placed in their sell the policeman tells them, "now have a nice day and please, behave yourself". The beasts in all the cells they have just past to get them to their new crib all notice them Big Beautiful Blue Eyes they have and say, "hey, have a nice day, whistle and look forward to seeing you later". 

Man do I ever feel your pain. Obviously!

My story, less is more and just try that first. Imagine, no change in life style, debt free, and you can choose to do what you want. Ah, FREEDOM. I have green eyes by the way.

Have a Great weekend.

BOB

Doug said:"Obama's piddling attempt at healthcare reform missed the whole point of socialized medicine.  He left control with the insurance industry.  There will never be a viable healthcare system as long as they are in charge."
I agree, Doug.   As just an example, I read polling when healthcare was being debated that the public largely favored the vilified "public option" - especially before the insurance/GOP funded misinformation parade about "death panels" etc (as though the insurance companies themselves weren't already death panels based on who and what they'll cover).   The public option was the closest thing to single payer and might have hoped to provide at least some cost control, but Obama wouldn't even support that, or mass bargaining for drugs.   Yet, all we heard about from mega-media was how many people hated "Obamacare", which was stupidly crafted to require people to buy insurance from insurance companies - not a great political or practical approach.  
Well now, some kind of universal health care was just enshrined as more permanent in the election, but it's not a great plan and doesn't have appropriate cost controls.    Just about every other developed country in the world does healthcare better and cheaper than the US per person with government involvement, but somehow, you can never really hear about or talk about that here amidst all the yampooning about outrageous socialism, etc.   This is how the GOP ends up with their own "unskewed" polls that show them winning when they aren't, or data that shows climate change doesn't exist when it does, and that the American healthcare system is the best darn system in the world when it's not.   Tough to make smart decisions when you can't talk about facts.

Good graphic if your goal is to promote hate of the wealthy, but absolutely useless at showing the problem.  How about you then show a graphic if you take all the obscene wealth from them evil rich people (the billionaires - essentially the Forbes 400) and distribute it evenly to everyone?

Net worth of Forbes 400: $1.7T

Number of housholds in the US:    112M (assuming your median income was households)

That means every household in the US gets a grand total of $15K, one time!  Now what?  In your diagram you now have a one time bump to everyone's stack of a 1/2".  Wouldn't look very impressive on your graph would it.  And that's a 1 time bump for 1 year.

I think it's important to notice that that $1.7T is mighty close to the amount we are over spending in our federal budget every single year!  Or about 1/3 of our real deficit if you accurately (GAAP) account for the entitlements. 

Then why generate inflammatory displays like your chart?  I think it's pretty easy to show that "eat the rich" is not a solution.  Don't get me wrong, I agree that the wealth gap is as issue, but promoting class warfare will not solve the problem, nor will taxes on the rich - despite all the rhetoric, there simply are not enough rich people.

Oh, the Sweden crap again!  Why is it that people like to pull out the Swedish model and say look how wonderful it is.  What you seem to fail to point out is that Sweden has twice the per capita national debt as the US.  Yes, you can build wonderful things by going into debt, but eventually they fail.  Swedish health care miracle is nothing but an unsustainable illusion built on debt.

Dave, thank you so much. Numbers I can use. Good stuff and appreciated.BOB

[quote=kelvinator]Well now, some kind of universal health care was just enshrined as more permanent in the election, but it's not a great plan and doesn't have appropriate cost controls.
[/quote]
Your right, but neither do any of the other socialized medicine programs.  The proper cost control method is to have those who are paying for it and getting benefit asking how much does it cost.  Only the individual can make the decision if the benefit is worth the cost.
Even if you think the government should be involved in health care, then the best thing would be to hand everyone a card loaded with X dollars to spend on health care.  They can choose to buy insurance, an HMO, or just pay for health care directly.  Or perhaps they will buy a new TV with it and decide they don't want health care.   But at least you then have consumers shopping around for the best deal, or making the decision about what procedures are worth doing.  If people don't ask then you either have rationing by some third party or you get spiraling costs.
Gee, Greece has socialized medicine, I wonder how that's working out for them now?