Without food we starve, without energy we are poor.

The first part of the title is obvious enough. The average length of time that hunger strikers can live, given adequate fluids, is about 50 days.

The second part requires more development.

Domestication of wildlife - oxen, horses, donkeys etc. - allowed mankind to carry more goods, including himself, and to till more land than his unaided muscles would permit. This increased his wealth by using energy supplied by these domestic animals. The result was to reduce the number of people required to produce food and permit them to create additional goods and services.

Then came the wheel which vastly increased the efficiency of the energy provided by both humans and animals. By doing more with less of its own energy, mankind became richer again.

The example above shows that we can get richer by using more energy but we can also get richer by using energy more efficiently. Think of getting the same level of illumination from a 15 watt compact fluorescent bulb as from a 60 watt incandescent one.

Human and animal power, in the USA but not in some countries, contributes a vanishingly small amount of the energy that supports our current standard of living. Most of that energy is derived from coal, natural gas, and oil.

Since all of these fuels are derived from fossils and, therefore, are not renewable except over geological time scales, they will run out.

Sooner rather than later. Not necessarily in our lifetimes, but sometime.

There is, also, strong - though perhaps not yet definitive - evidence that carbon dioxide, the by-product of burning fossil fuels, is causing potentially disastrous changes to our climate. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to assume that our current energy consumption practices will exhaust our fossil fuel resources and run the risk of irrevocably altering our climate for the worse.

If that is the truth, and it probably is, what obligation do we owe to future generations?

I suggest that we have a very strong moral obligation to future generations - some of whom, if this happens as quickly as has been suggested, are our children and grandchildren.

This means that we must be much more efficient in our use of energy and much more careful in how we generate it. Nuclear power can be an interim, but only interim, solution but, in the end, we will have to rely on the sun, for direct solar energy as well as wind and wave power, and gravity for tidal power.

Those who deny that human activity is causing climate change are demanding that we run a gigantic, uncontrolled, science experiment with the future of humankind, and many other species, at risk if the answer is as many fear.

Buying insurance now, by increasing efficiency and investing in renewable power resources, will be much less costly than responding to the likely disaster.

Read the fine print.

I usually do, but last weekend I didn't. Now I am paying for it.

This is a little thing but, perhaps, typical of the way in which companies save a little here, and a little there, and degrade the value of the product.

I spend a lot of time on the water helping to run, judge and umpire sailboat races. That usually means leaving the dock soon after breakfast and getting back in the late afternoon. Naturally, keeping from being fried by the sun is a priority, so I apply sunscreen liberally before heading out.

In addition to sunscreen, one is wise to protect one's lips. Normally I use Chap Stick (R) which is the name brand and market leader. It works really well.

Last weekend, I had a stick of Lip Salve from Walgreen's drug store. I used it assiduously - before going out, and remembered several repeats during each day, and have wound up with major sun poisoning of my lower lip.

A couple of days ago, I looked at the fine print: Chap Stick has an SPF 15 rating while the Walgreen's knock-off is rated SPF 4. I suppose Walgreen's saves a little money by skimping on the sun protection ingredient but only at the expense of quality and at the additional cost of a really annoyed customer. I will take my business elsewhere whenever possible.

Read the fine print. Even in small things, it really can matter.

Resources for education.

This quote from Albert Einstein should be more widely known: "Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted."

As a simple example, love counts but can hardly be counted.

The teachers' unions can count things - and they are very good at it - but insist on counting inputs: dollars spent, teacher to student ratios, new schools built or renovated, teacher pay. They want us to accept, without much evidence, that adding more of these will automatically improve the outcomes.

They carefully neglect to inform us that Washington DC and Newark NJ are high on the list of big spenders (dollars per enrolled student) but the outcomes in those cities are barely better than disastrous.

We should really be asking about the percentage of children that graduate from High School and the quality of their education. It is fairly easy to answer the first part of this question although adjustments for relocation of families can be difficult.

The question about quality of education is really hard. The No Child Left Behind Act - currently up for re-authorization by the U.S. Congress - does a fair job of measuring the very basic skills even if some states do cheat by setting really low standards. The legislation, however, seems to encourage "teaching to the test" and entirely neglects such important subjects as foreign languages, music and art.

And measuring the percentage of high school graduate who go to college - even highly selective colleges - does not give us an honest and useful answer. The reason is because the percentage of college students who do not graduate is far higher than we would like while the percentage of college freshmen in remedial classes is shocking.

If we want good policies, we will have make an effort to count the right things, to challenge the things that can be counted but whose values do not count, and to make qualitative judgements about things that can not be counted.

Social Security

Most people think about Social Security as a taxpayer financed retirement program. And those on the left of the political spectrum complain about the regressive nature of the Social Security tax.

They are all wrong.

Social Security is a welfare program designed to relieve severe poverty among the elderly and, in 1935 when it was created, it was sorely needed. To get the bill passed by Congress, Franklin Roosevelt, its creator, had to sell it as a retirement plan.

This brings to mind something that Abraham Lincoln said:

"How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? None: calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

So, Social Security was a welfare program then and remains one now. Ida May Fuller was the first social security recipient. She paid in a total of $24.75, retired in 1939, lived to be 100 years old in 1975, and in the process collected $22,888.92 in benefits. I don't know of any retirement plans that can provide a return like that!

We should note that taxes fund welfare while contributions fund retirement plans. Social Security is funded with taxes not contributions.

In discussing the regressive nature of the Social Security tax, the left are careful to inform us that all pay the same percentage of job related ordinary income up to the earnings cap. The left also notes that the effective percentage of income paid drops rapidly as job related ordinary income exceeds the earning cap. All true as far as it goes. What is left out is that benefits are not equally linked to contributions: low earners get a proportionately higher monthly benefit for the taxes that they have paid than those who, for example, have reached the earnings cap each year.
It was designed that way. The issue was extreme poverty among the elderly rather than the need for a government run retirement program. Retirement plans are far better done by the private sector.

The right persists in trying to turn Social Security into a true retirement program. The problem, which they carefully ignore, is the transition cost. The so-called Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction. It assets consist solely of government bonds. I owe myself $100 is a delusion: I owe the bank $100 at least means that, at some moment, I received $100 from the bank. If I spent it wisely, then I have something of value.

Today's Social Security Taxes go to pay the benefits of current recipients. Since the government collects more in tax - now - than it pays out, the balance is lent to the Treasury and spent by the rest of the government.

So there really isn't any real money there. And if the current taxes were to be invested in real assets, there would be no money to pay benefits to current recipients. The government would have to borrow trillions to finance the transition. An article, written in 2003 and published on the Centrists.Org website, describes the transition cost issue succinctly. Read it here: http://tinyurl.com/3b6kul

While, in a funded system, there would be real assets, there would, also, be interesting problems of potential government control of [once] private sector companies. These issues are beginning arise with respect to the Sovereign Wealth Funds run by such countries as Norway, Dubai, China and others.

This is a problem for which, now, there seems to be no politically acceptable solution. Unfortunately, delay will only raise the cost of whatever solution we are forced to accept.

How much should we be taxed?

There are two intellectually honest ways of determining the overall tax burden. Both start with a list of things on which we want to spend taxpayer money.

Both of them are hard to do.

The first method puts a price tag on the list of spending items and then determines how what taxes, and how much, must be raised to pay for all this largesse. The second ranks the spending items in order or priority/necessity, determines the level of taxation that the voters can be forced to tolerate, and then only spends until the receipts are entirely consumed.

In practice, the system is a little more sophisticated since people, pension funds, and other institutions really want to lend money to the government.

Government debt, being the closest thing to a risk free investment that we have, provides an interest rate benchmark for the rest of the economy. This is a useful service and allows us, if we use the deficit spending for wisely chosen real investment, to become richer in the long term. Home mortgages are a form of deficit spending and are normally a wealth creating mechanism as opposed to the recent speculators' leveraged nightmare.

Unfortunately, the left believes in spending more than the taxpayer will support and is entirely unwilling to set priorities. Meanwhile, the right chants "no new taxes" regardless of the fact that real needs may be neglected.

Worse, "no new taxes" ignores that fact that many taxes are counterproductive, and should abolished, while others should be increased. There is also a good argument (more another time) for the creation of entirely new taxes in response to changed circumstances.

Until both parties, and the voters, are willing to undertake the really hard job of setting priorities, we can expect little progress. So, just keep holding your nose and writing checks to the taxman.

Rethinking cholesterol and the overuse of health care services

There have been some interesting publications recently on the subject of cholesterol.

A few weeks ago, Business Week's cover story discussed cholesterol and its linkage, if any, to heart disease. The conclusion was that there is little to gain by taking pills for life unless high cholesterol and heart disease co-exist. Reducing cholesterol just doesn't seem, for most people, to cause much reduction in future heart disease.

Yesterday, in the Wall Street Journal, there was a really disturbing article about memory problems in women who are taking statins.

My cholesterol is borderline high so, a few years back, my doctor prescribed Lipitor. I filled the prescription and, when I got home, I read the instructions. After I got to the bit that says: "drink grapefruit juice and die", I threw away the pills.

We are a "can do" nation and we like to believe that there is a solution to everything. While this attitude generally serves us well, there are times when there really is nothing useful that can be done.

We have been trained to regard a doctor's office visit that does not result in a prescription, the scheduling of tests or a procedure, as a failed visit. Something must be done is our attitude. "It will get better in a week - by itself "or "there really is nothing useful that can be done" are not statements that we want to hear from our doctors.

The British have three magic words that are worth considering: best not treated. Balancing the potential side effects and the real benefits needs to be done more thoroughly.

So, let's save money and reduce the overuse of marginally effective treatments. We will avoid a lot of ugly and painful side effects too.

Competition and the market

John Maynard Keynes was either an economic criminal or a genius. Possibly, he was both. Regardless, he had a well developed sense of humor and a way of making a point.

Here is one of his more penetrating thoughts: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

Ideologues, generally of the right wing variety, often claim that the market can solve all problems. They are slaves to the thoughts of Adam Smith, who died in 1790, and lived in a much different era.

Competition usually works but, if there are significant barriers to entry into the market, whether they be capital, regulation, time to construct a factory or facility, or something else, then the market will not work well and sometimes not at all.

In Adam Smith's day, there were few barriers to entry into a business.

By comparison, just try building a power station or an oil refinery now: raise a few billion dollars, attempt to cope with all of the Federal, State and local regulations, hire many lawyers and spend years in court defending yourself against environmentalists and those who just don't want you near them. Then, after many years, your project may be complete and you can begin to compete.

But while you were waiting to enter the market, the existing players were taking their customers to the cleaners. And when you finally get there, the rational action is to compete, but not too aggressively, because, as in your case, new competition will have a hard time getting started.

If you still persist in believing that the market always works, I recommend that you think about the situations that fall into the category of "the tragedy of the commons". If that is too complicated, think about the telephone company where overpricing and abysmal service abound.

Budget Dishonesty - Again

The President of the United States sent his proposed budget to the Congress this week.

Included in the budget are funds for the regular operations of the Department of Defense. That is OK, if one ignores the waste and unnecessary weapons systems, but it entirely neglects the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As usual, funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be dealt with in an "emergency" appropriation request. Since we have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, and in Iraq since 2003, it is hard to understand how the current funding requirements constitute an emergency.

Does the President really think we are so stupid that we believe the reduced deficit headline created by leaving out tens of billions of dollars from teh budget. Or is he fooling himself?

If the latter, we have a serious problem. But, then, what else is new with this President?

Super Tuesday

Super Tuesday has come and gone. On the Republican side a man of honor, Senator John McCain, is leading the pack which is the good news. His followers are Mitt Romney, who appears to be willing to say whatever it takes to get superconservative votes - whether or not he believes what he is saying - and a Southern populist who knows what God wants him to do.

I would be happy if someone would explain these two things. First, how does Mitt Romney, who ran for Senate in Massachusetts and won election, on a pretty left wing platform, as that State's Governor suddenly become the "true conservative" beloved of Coulter, Limbaugh, and the rest of the ugly mob?

And second, did Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist Minister, miss what is written in Mark 12:17 and Matthew 22:21? As a reminder to him, Jesus of Nazareth said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." I recommend that he return to his calling and leave politics for others.

I became disabled in a really ugly automobile wreck. I have been to the edge of the fire and felt the flame. I know what fire feels like. Senator McCain has been through the center of the fire and was tempered not warped. That is one good reason for me to vote for him.

I don't agree with all of his policies but, as long as an honest and honorable man is President, I can live with the disagreement. He has made mistakes - the Keating Five scandal early in his time as a Senator and the Confederate Flag shuffle in the 2000 campaign come to mind - but he is capable of admitting that he was wrong. That's another good reason.

I graduated at the bottom of my class, or very close to it, at the University of Cambridge in England, but have still managed to achieve a few things. Midshipman McCain's performance at the U.S. Naval Academy (graduating 5th from the bottom of his class) makes him my kind of guy.

I will vote for him on Tuesday in the Virginia Primary.

Taxing the poor and the uneducated

The Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, seems to think that it is acceptable to balance the state's budget by taking every possible measure to increase the revenue from the State Lottery.

First, it is well established that the poor and uneducated make up the majority of those who play the Lottery. Second, as in every casino in the world, the math is rigged against the punters.

Roulette is bad enough. On any bet that you can imagine, the house has a greater than 5% edge. Even with a house edge of "only" 5%, if you play for a while - which is not all that long, bankruptcy is almost inevitable!

Lotteries only pay out 50% - with rest going to operating expenses and profit. To add to the insult, the big prizes are dribbled out over 20 years - or you can take a really big haircut if you want the money all at once. And, on top of it all, Uncle Sam (and your greedy Governor who already took 50% of the amount bet) wants his share of your winnings. Worse yet, you may not deduct your losses unless you can prove that you are a professional gambler!

State Lotteries were introduced because there was a demand. The old style neighborhood numbers runner paid out 60% on the Daily Number and, because the game was illegal, it generally escaped the attention of the tax man. That is the good news. The bad news is that violence and gang warfare were rife and, although the payout was less bad that current lotteries, losing was still inevitable over any significant period of time.

Can it be moral to tax the poor and the not so bright at these rates? Since I am entirely unable to reach such a conclusion, I don't believe that state sponsored lotteries can be justified under any circumstances.

When the proceeds are used for education, or other allegedly good causes, there are too many instances when the regular appropriation is simply reduced and lawmakers are provided with an excuse not to raise taxes openly or cut pork barrel programs.

Let's put taxing and spending out in the open where we can see it. Lotteries are just another way of concealing the cost of government while simultaneously penalizing those who can least afford it.

Congressmen and diapers

I am a little busy today, but it is an election year, so I will just leave you with this gem from Rep. Pete McCloskey (R – CA):

“Congressmen are like diapers. They need to be changed often, and for the same reason.”