12/07/2009
From the Notes: The future regulation in the past
- Are there any studies on what the effects of the economy would have been assuming regulatory laws that are currently being legislated (reaction to current financial crisis) were in place during the late 1990's - 2000 boom?
-- Would the public/Congress have been receptive to these policy changes during the boom times?
--- I assume not receptive because even after a near meltdown of the system (2007-2008), policies are still difficult to reform.
---- Why is this? (pressure from pro-business groups, status quo is comfort zone, etc?)
----- If we assume current legislated policies were in place back then, what changes would we probably see in today's economy (i.e. Would there have been a financial crisis)?
------ Would these changes convince the public/Congress?
-- Would the public/Congress have been receptive to these policy changes during the boom times?
--- I assume not receptive because even after a near meltdown of the system (2007-2008), policies are still difficult to reform.
---- Why is this? (pressure from pro-business groups, status quo is comfort zone, etc?)
----- If we assume current legislated policies were in place back then, what changes would we probably see in today's economy (i.e. Would there have been a financial crisis)?
------ Would these changes convince the public/Congress?
11/06/2009
U-3 vs. U-6
Today the Labor department reported the unemployment rate is now 10.2%, a depressing psychological barrier to a grim economy. But what I don't understand is why the MSM and the government continue to push this figure. If they wanted to be really honest about unemployment, we would have been "celebrating" the true double-digit rate back in 2008 by looking at the U-6 rate. That's the rate I hope is used more and more.
As the link states, the U-6 rate is really anybody who doesn't have a full-time job that wants one, even those who gave up looking for a job. This is what we're dealing with. It's really 17.5% unemployment.
The U-3 rate is used purely for political reasons. I see no other relevant reason why this is the rate du jour. You would think the MSM would jump at the U-6 rate since they love a depressing and dramatic story.
As the link states, the U-6 rate is really anybody who doesn't have a full-time job that wants one, even those who gave up looking for a job. This is what we're dealing with. It's really 17.5% unemployment.
The U-3 rate is used purely for political reasons. I see no other relevant reason why this is the rate du jour. You would think the MSM would jump at the U-6 rate since they love a depressing and dramatic story.
11/05/2009
How does one start a policy institute?
I have been contemplating on advancing my academics for some time now. It's been a battle between two very different directions. I won't get into the detail, but I've come to the decision. As this blog shows, I'm fascinated by public policy so it is natural that I would want to pursue something along those lines. Public Administration with a focus on public policy seems an avenue that will help me become more confident in presenting my ideas. But what excites me the most is the prospect of learning to effectively research and present data to support the policy ideas.
We all have wonderful ideas that we believe will help in some way. But it needs more than an idea, it needs a stepping stone. The foundation of that step needs to be sturdy enough to handle some abuse. In the debate arena, an idea needs to hold up against all scrutiny. Using empirical data via research is key to withstand the assaults. Thus, learning the theories and ideas about data gathering is required of me to effectively become a policy institute (can it just have one person???). Hopefully I will soon step backing the academic world to move this institute forward.
Once that becomes a reality, I'll need some fellow data miners (who love numbers and stats, obviously) who want to join together to push out common ideas. Who knows where it ends up, but I would be proud to say that I tried to make a difference in the world.
We all have wonderful ideas that we believe will help in some way. But it needs more than an idea, it needs a stepping stone. The foundation of that step needs to be sturdy enough to handle some abuse. In the debate arena, an idea needs to hold up against all scrutiny. Using empirical data via research is key to withstand the assaults. Thus, learning the theories and ideas about data gathering is required of me to effectively become a policy institute (can it just have one person???). Hopefully I will soon step backing the academic world to move this institute forward.
Once that becomes a reality, I'll need some fellow data miners (who love numbers and stats, obviously) who want to join together to push out common ideas. Who knows where it ends up, but I would be proud to say that I tried to make a difference in the world.
From my Notes: The Judiciary nomination process
Back in July, I Noted this during the Sotomayor nomination process:
The problem with the Judiciary nomination process is that it has now become so political with the misguided focus on the nominee's ideology versus the strength of the nominee's impartiality.
Now, I believe there is room for Senators to question a nominee's belief system as it is impossible for said nominee to be completely unbiased. A nominee is nominated because the President believes the person in question is aligned similarly with the President's views, so even before the debate begins, ideology is already at play.
Democracy at play.
Elections have consequences. When the people vote for their representatives, I would assume it is because they agree with the majority of that politicians views (at least that's what I hope is the case; they're will always be wedge issue voters though).
Because of this, the will of the voters needs to be upheld. The minority has the weaker position of a vote. So to see the minority consistently hold up the nomination process is very undemocratic (or maybe it's the rules not and the Senator is just playing the game). The focus should be on impartiality. The main criteria should be, "Can this person effectively suspend his or her own viewpoints while holding court?"
How to effectively measure this is something I'm still wondering about.
The problem with the Judiciary nomination process is that it has now become so political with the misguided focus on the nominee's ideology versus the strength of the nominee's impartiality.
Now, I believe there is room for Senators to question a nominee's belief system as it is impossible for said nominee to be completely unbiased. A nominee is nominated because the President believes the person in question is aligned similarly with the President's views, so even before the debate begins, ideology is already at play.
Democracy at play.
Elections have consequences. When the people vote for their representatives, I would assume it is because they agree with the majority of that politicians views (at least that's what I hope is the case; they're will always be wedge issue voters though).
Because of this, the will of the voters needs to be upheld. The minority has the weaker position of a vote. So to see the minority consistently hold up the nomination process is very undemocratic (or maybe it's the rules not and the Senator is just playing the game). The focus should be on impartiality. The main criteria should be, "Can this person effectively suspend his or her own viewpoints while holding court?"
How to effectively measure this is something I'm still wondering about.
Letter to Senator Specter
Dear Senator Specter,
I am writing in regards to the 1st time homebuyers extension that is currently being addressed in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I understand that you are not on this committee but I would like to address a concern.
If the current form of the bill becomes law, it allows current homebuyers to receive a tax credit for purchasing a new home if they have lived in their previous home for 5 or more years.
Admittedly, this would be for my benefit, but I believe that it would be a much stronger bill if it was amended to reduce the 5+ year requirement to 3+ or 4+ years. Based on some quick research, mortgage rates were extremely low during late 2004 and early 2005 (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/30/real_estate/weekly_rates/index.htm) & (http://mortgage-x.com/general/national_monthly_average.asp?y=2004) thus many new homeowners, including myself, took advantage of this during that time period. Because the proposed extension bill deadline is April 30, 2010 for a new home, those homeowners will not benefit under the current requirement.
I understand that this will add additional cost to the bill since it opens the door for more qualified taxpayers to take advantage of it, but I feel that it still carries the spirit of the bill in helping the housing sector get back on its feet, which translates to a stronger recovery.
If you are in agreement, could you or your staff pass this request of lowering the 5+ year agreement to 3 or 4 years to Senator Dodd for consideration to amend the current form of the bill. I believe this will create a sound financial opportunity for those consumers who knew when to take advantage of a good opportunity three or four years ago to continue the dream of homeownership.
I am writing in regards to the 1st time homebuyers extension that is currently being addressed in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I understand that you are not on this committee but I would like to address a concern.
If the current form of the bill becomes law, it allows current homebuyers to receive a tax credit for purchasing a new home if they have lived in their previous home for 5 or more years.
Admittedly, this would be for my benefit, but I believe that it would be a much stronger bill if it was amended to reduce the 5+ year requirement to 3+ or 4+ years. Based on some quick research, mortgage rates were extremely low during late 2004 and early 2005 (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/30/real_estate/weekly_rates/index.htm) & (http://mortgage-x.com/general/national_monthly_average.asp?y=2004) thus many new homeowners, including myself, took advantage of this during that time period. Because the proposed extension bill deadline is April 30, 2010 for a new home, those homeowners will not benefit under the current requirement.
I understand that this will add additional cost to the bill since it opens the door for more qualified taxpayers to take advantage of it, but I feel that it still carries the spirit of the bill in helping the housing sector get back on its feet, which translates to a stronger recovery.
If you are in agreement, could you or your staff pass this request of lowering the 5+ year agreement to 3 or 4 years to Senator Dodd for consideration to amend the current form of the bill. I believe this will create a sound financial opportunity for those consumers who knew when to take advantage of a good opportunity three or four years ago to continue the dream of homeownership.
7/27/2009
Jury nullification
I believe this is one of the most important processes in the American judicial system that we, as citizens, should know and understand.
Jury nullification
I came across this process a few years ago and almost forgot about it. After reviewing it on Wikipedia, I realized just how important it is.
Jury nullification
I came across this process a few years ago and almost forgot about it. After reviewing it on Wikipedia, I realized just how important it is.
5/28/2009
5/20/2009
NPR sponsorship
I'm a touch bit uneasy with the idea that Monsanto is a sponsor of NPR. Hopefully the editorial process at NPR remains impartial when reporting agricultural issues.
Start here if you're unsure of why I have a negative view of Monsanto.
Start here if you're unsure of why I have a negative view of Monsanto.
Peyote story on NPR [UPDATED, orig post 5/18]
has me thinking...
If certain drugs bring happiness to an individual (with no negative
consequences to any one), why are they illegal?
Isn't the American motto of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
enough to justify the use of happy drugs?
This isn't the first time I've considered this.
More on drug policy later...
UPDATE 1: mba has some good points in her comments. She is correct in implying the argument "with no negative consequences to anyone" is in fact a broad definition. The fault lies with me in stating such a vague phrase. There definitely needs to be a defined balance of what constitutes positive versus negative consequences. For example, if a so-called happy drug puts a financial strain on the user, I would think that this would counter-balance any positive effects of the drug itself. The smart thing to do is to go on vacation when you can afford it.
The second part of mba's comment I disagree with. I don't think today's mainstream has been taught to fear. That may be the approach of the anti-drug school of thought, but the reefer madness era has come to pass. I believe in fact that the instilling of fear of drugs has actually been counterproductive. For example, if I've been bombarded with ads (such as Above the Influence, drug money pays for terrorists, etc) stating that drug use has a negative effect, and then try them and the effect is a positive experience, the ads lose credibility with me. And I think humans have a tendency to not have a strong emotional attachment with abstract ideas like "drug money funds terrorists" (There would be more vegetarians if we watched how our hamburger was produced).
So because of the loss of credibility and lack of negative direct connections associated with drugs, I'm less likely to accept the next round of "information". This can be dangerous because perhaps the next round of information is in fact accurate. Then we have a very slippery slope.
5/18/2009
High School Home Economics
I've been out of high school a decade so maybe I'm out of touch, but
shouldn't home economics classes teach how to balance a checkbook,
explore the pros/cons of credit cards, investing, learning about bank
loans such as mortgages (and pass that knowledge to parent, maybe the mortgage crisis wouldn't have been as bad), among other things?
shouldn't home economics classes teach how to balance a checkbook,
explore the pros/cons of credit cards, investing, learning about bank
loans such as mortgages (and pass that knowledge to parent, maybe the mortgage crisis wouldn't have been as bad), among other things?
I have yet to sew one thing, although I've baked brownies a few times.
Maybe more on this later...
EDIT: If you're involved with the academic ciriculum at a public high school, feel free to enlighten me on what is taught in home economics. Meanwhile, I'm going to try and find some sites that would post this type of info.
The United Immigrants of America Part I
Recently, I received wonderful news that a friend of mine, after passing her citizenship exam 6 years ago (if I recall correctly), is finally going to be naturalized later this month. As a natural-born citizen, I can't possibly describe the feelings that my friend is going through with this news. She has much to give to the United States, but to get there, for a while it seemed the United States government did not want to give her anything.
This does not mean they did not want to give to her specifically, but the issues that she had to deal with would perhaps have discouraged many immigrants from continuing to pursue citizenship (especially if there was a language barrier). It took a US Senator's office to get the ball rolling (or so I think that was it; the good news happened shortly after discussions with the Senator's office. This after 6 years of back and forth between my friend and the immigation agency). Why did it need to take a powerful government official to get this issue straightened out? What changed for the immigration agency? It's almost like a stubborn child who refuses to give up his toy until his mother says so.
It's hard to remember sometimes, but this is supposed to be the place where anyone can come to live in hopes for a better life. Perhaps since the 9/11 attacks, we've become somewhat an isolationist-type country, afraid of anything new, therefore settle into the mindset that everyone is a security threat until proven otherwise. Paranoia is the status quo. It seems one of the objectives of the hijackers has been achieved.
This is just speculation on my part but my friend can probably attest to the paranoia mindset. She was, in my mind, harassed illegally while re-entering the US from her honeymoon abroad. What happened to respect and the presumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? It's frustrating to hear about stories like this. I'm glad I haven't gone through that; I might get in trouble, since I tend to speak my mind. But perhaps that's another problem; if I don't show the "respect" that the authorities demand, will I get into trouble? What I think I would do was question why I'm being questioned. Depending on the mood of the officer, that may sound like I'm being defensive of something guilty. Well, it is defensive but its in defense of my reputation, rights, and respect.
Okay, straying a little here. Back to immigration agencies and the problems. I would imagine that part of the problem is that the original Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was dissolved in 2003 and replaced by a Homeland Security department: Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Part of the stated mission of the USCIS is to "promote national security..." (1) whereas the original INS "protected and enforced the laws of naturalization...". (2) The USCIS mission does go on to say to eliminate the backlog of immigration cases. (1) But the focus here is by promoting national security, does that imply a guilty until proven innocent mindset? Note that the USCIS rolled into the Homeland Securty Department from it's previous home at the Department of Justice. (1) My guess is that the primary role of the immigration agency turned from an law-type view to a security-type view. And this is how it continues today.
I'll post more on this later...
Sources:
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Citizenship_and_Immigration_Services
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service
This does not mean they did not want to give to her specifically, but the issues that she had to deal with would perhaps have discouraged many immigrants from continuing to pursue citizenship (especially if there was a language barrier). It took a US Senator's office to get the ball rolling (or so I think that was it; the good news happened shortly after discussions with the Senator's office. This after 6 years of back and forth between my friend and the immigation agency). Why did it need to take a powerful government official to get this issue straightened out? What changed for the immigration agency? It's almost like a stubborn child who refuses to give up his toy until his mother says so.
It's hard to remember sometimes, but this is supposed to be the place where anyone can come to live in hopes for a better life. Perhaps since the 9/11 attacks, we've become somewhat an isolationist-type country, afraid of anything new, therefore settle into the mindset that everyone is a security threat until proven otherwise. Paranoia is the status quo. It seems one of the objectives of the hijackers has been achieved.
This is just speculation on my part but my friend can probably attest to the paranoia mindset. She was, in my mind, harassed illegally while re-entering the US from her honeymoon abroad. What happened to respect and the presumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? It's frustrating to hear about stories like this. I'm glad I haven't gone through that; I might get in trouble, since I tend to speak my mind. But perhaps that's another problem; if I don't show the "respect" that the authorities demand, will I get into trouble? What I think I would do was question why I'm being questioned. Depending on the mood of the officer, that may sound like I'm being defensive of something guilty. Well, it is defensive but its in defense of my reputation, rights, and respect.
Okay, straying a little here. Back to immigration agencies and the problems. I would imagine that part of the problem is that the original Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was dissolved in 2003 and replaced by a Homeland Security department: Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Part of the stated mission of the USCIS is to "promote national security..." (1) whereas the original INS "protected and enforced the laws of naturalization...". (2) The USCIS mission does go on to say to eliminate the backlog of immigration cases. (1) But the focus here is by promoting national security, does that imply a guilty until proven innocent mindset? Note that the USCIS rolled into the Homeland Securty Department from it's previous home at the Department of Justice. (1) My guess is that the primary role of the immigration agency turned from an law-type view to a security-type view. And this is how it continues today.
I'll post more on this later...
Sources:
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Citizenship_and_Immigration_Services
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)