Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:46:00 GMT
Tim Geithner has to acknowledge one of four possibilities:
The tax code is too complex for a treasury secretary to comprehend
This particular treasury secretary can't understand the tax code
This particular treasury secretary doesn't pay attention to details when it comes to accounting
This particular treasury secretary did understand the tax code and defied it
In an era where nobody alive understands the whole tax code and calling the IRS will get a taxpayer seemingly random answers to questions, let's hope Tim goes for Door #1 and uses his unique position to disassemble a legal monstrosity that makes every American a criminal.
Tim may have painted himself into this corner, but he can parlay that embarrassment into heralded accomplishment.
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:21:00 GMT
This is a great chart that illustrates in a simple manner why the US economy is having such problems:
In terms of the Dollar, decoupled from real assets, we had a market boom in the 2000's. But if you figure out what that Dollar actually buys, in terms of real commodities, not traders on Wall Street, we see that the Dollar has been in decline since 1999, and has lost nearly 75% of its value over that period.
Washington's solution to the problem? Weaken the Dollar further with inflationary spending. The obvious way to buck the trend is to switch holdings from Dollars to the commodities that are 'gaining value'.
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:15:00 GMT
I've been confused for a while about what the Fed is up to. Their usual cycle is to contract the money supply to cause economic downturns:
"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933." - Milton Friedman
"However, this time around the Fed is lowering interest rates to stimulate borrowing, right?" This is the kind of muddy thinking that let me to confusion for the past couple months.
Of course not! Our economic problem today is the unwillingness of the banks to lend money, not that there is a lack of people who want to borrow it. The rationale is that due to the housing-bubble collapse the loans are riskier today than they've been in a long time. So, what convinces a lender to lend to risky borrowers? High interest rates. What is the Fed doing? Lowering interest rates.
The perfect cover for not lending money, and contracting the money supply.
At the same time, those banks are cashing out as many US Dollars are they can get their hands on from Washington, while the exchange rates still have some value. Once the 'bailout' is done, we can expect the government to start monetizing the debt (it can't borrow that much) and the exchange rates will rationally go through the roof. This is the same game that was played in 1934 when the US was selling all its gold for ~$20/oz before confiscating all the citizens' gold and raising the price to $35.
This time around, the instruments are slightly different but the game hasn't really changed much. The last play ended at Bretton Woods, with the US Dollar as the world reserve currency. Who will win this time? The Euro? The Yuan? Something new? Picking the right horse in this race is likely to pay off well for the winner.
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:07:00 GMT
For those who appreciated VerizonMath allow me to follow-up with a more modest 'Famous Gift Catalog Math':
Note 1: this isn't wrapping right - turn off page style for this article. View...Page Style...No Style in Firefox.
Note 2: this was top-quoted, the quote levels will look odd.
> >>> -------------
> >>>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:43:00 AM, bill-
> >>>> h********.com@mcgonigle.us wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Question: Re Item 73425 the personalized throw I wanted to
> >>>> verify the
> >>>> dimensions. One part of the description says 300 square inches
> >>>> one part says
> >>>> 50 x 60. I assume its just a typo and should be 3000 square
> >>>> inches but wanted
> >>>> to verify its not smaller than I expected. Also once I get the
> >>>> kit whats the
> >>>> lead time on prodution?
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Bill
> >>>> Date of Order: mm/dd/yy
> >>>> Order Number:
> >>>> Item Number:
> >>>> Product Name:
> >>>> How to Contact: email
>>>> Name Bill McGonigle
>>> Email: bill-h********.com@mcgonigle.us
>>
>> Email For Promotions:
> >> On Nov 19, 2008, at 15:25, customerservice@h********.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear Bill McGonigle:
> >>> Thank you for your inquiry regarding item 73425. I see that the
> >>> throw is 300 square feet or 50 inches wide by 60 inches high. Also,
> >>> once you recieve the packet and send it out to the manufacture it
> >>> takes approximately 4-6 weeks for you to receive the finished
> >>> product. If you require further assistance feel free to contact us.
> >>> Thank you!
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> R***** *****
> >>> Voice: 1-800-233-**** (8am-mid EST, 7 days a week)
> >>>
> > -------------
> >> On Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:47:00 PM, bill@mcgonigle.us wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, R*****,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the reply. The throw can't be 300 square feet, that's a
> >> third the size of my house. Is it actually 300 square inches or is
> >> it 3000 square inches, or some other area?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Bill
> >>
> On Nov 19, 2008, at 19:51, customerservice@h********.com wrote:
>
> > Dear Bill,
> > Thanks for the inquiry. The throw is 300 square inches, or 50" by
> > 60". Sorry about any inconvenience this causes. If you require
> > further assistance please contact us. Thank you!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > R***** *****
> > Voice: 1-800-233-**** (8am-mid EST, 7 days a week)
> >
-------------
> On Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:17:00 PM, bill@mcgonigle.us wrote:
>
> Hi, R*****,
>
> Yes, this is what the catalog says but it's clearly wrong. In terms
> of arithmetic, 50 times 60 is 3000, not 300. I'm questioning whether
> the catalog error is in terms of area or dimension.
>
> Thanks,
> -Bill
>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Re: H******** S******** Contact Us Form Responses (********)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:26:15 -0500
From: customerservice@h********.com
To: bill@mcgonigle.us
Dear Bill,
Thank you for choosing H******** S********. I'm sorry about all the
confusion. I was incorrect the item is 3000 inches in area. Once again
sorry for the inconvenience if I can further assistant you please
contact me. Thank you!
Best regards,
R***** *****
Voice: 1-800-233-**** (8am-mid EST, 7 days a week)
There's no need to get anybody in trouble over this, so the personally-identifying information has been scrubbed. I just found the lack of any bounds-checking particularly giggle-worthy.
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:02:00 GMT
There's been a lot of work in the past couple hundred years on reasons to behave morally that don't require a hierarchy of supreme power.
Game theory, capitalism, free markets, bottom-up economics, wisdom of the masses, democracy, emergent behaviors - these all relate the idea that when people behave well all benefit.
In fact, I'd argue that leaving God out of it makes for a stronger system. If you take the original idea that God grants rights to all people and we then give up certain of those rights to the Government in return for protection of the others, the only thing that keeps the Government from turning tyrannical is the existence of God. Stalin and Mao seemed to understand this.
If instead, you realize that it takes millions of people making smart decisions to keep our society working smoothly then you have to maximize the freedom of each of those actors to get the best possible outcome. Each imposition on those actors brutishly eliminates a possible beneficial outcome in an incomprehensibly complex system, so to the extent that such restrictions aren't essential to the defense of rights required by us of our government, they only act to society's detriment.
This model still strongly supports the free exercise of religion but does not require it. It also recognizes the value of each and every human being as integral to a society, while concomitantly being their own sovereign masters, properly casting a government's role as the servant of society and mechanism to protect the weak. And by putting humans explicitly at the top (bottom?), it reminds those humans that they have to be responsible and make the right decisions, nobody else is granted a higher role.
Or, y'know, like Jesus said, "be nice to each other."
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:11:00 GMT
I saw a TV ad for a new Mortal Combat game that includes the DC Superheroes metering out bloody death to their opponents.
Let's see:
The Ultimate Boy Scout
Truth, Justice, and the American Way
Smashing your opponent into the pavement by crushing his spine.
I'll let Cookie Monster handle this one:
Sure, there's probably contrived rationalization for this, but it's not about nerdly debate it's about branding. And about taking a huge license fee payment in trade for said brand quality.
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:47:00 GMT
A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the Canon license for Nano SED patents still exists. Canon had tried to form a partnership with Toshiba (SED, Inc.) which the court found violated the terms of the license, but then Nano claimed that this violation dissolved the license, which the Court found to be incorrect.
Canon has reportedly doubled its workforce in SED on this ruling, so these things may finally get into production. SED TV sets were expected to be on the market three years ago, but patent litigation has held it up, much to the LCD manufacturers' delight.
For those who are not AV geeks: SED TV's bring CRT-level picture quality to the flat-screen form factor at lower power and (theoretically) lower cost than LCD or plasma. However, since the benefits over LCD and plasma are quite dramatic SED is expected to be priced more highly than LCD or plasma for a while. Once all the videophiles throw huge piles of cash at the nicer sets, the next step will be to be priced marginally higher than LCD or plasma, since the average consumer will clearly see the benefit, then they can proceed to meet, then undercut the LCD and plasma market. That'll be the time to buy. Once LCD and plasma get beaten out of the market, the price will climb back up, and then LCD and plasma can come back in. So, long-term these will probably remain slightly more expensive than LCD and plasma, until the patents expire anyway (or OLED becomes competitive), then everybody will be making them and prices should fall through the floor. Mark June 14, 2024 on your calendar. It should be a good Independence Day sale!
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:05:00 GMT
I stopped by Newbury Comics today to buy Will a birthday present (he's two today). I got him a Monster Book of Monsters stuffed toy he absolute went bananas for last time we were in there.
On my TODO index card in my pocket I also had 'wrapping paper' and 'padded envelopes'. Newbury Comics is in the same shopping plaza as K-Mart and since I was shopping on work time I decided to just go there rather than drive down to Wal*Mart and save a couple bucks on products.
I got what I needed, but during checkout I was asked, in order:
for my e-mail address so I could 'get coupons'. Three times, each worded differently.
for my ZIP code
if I wanted to apply for a Sears credit card
for $7.73 for the goods
if I would please go online and fill out a survey
to 'please come back and visit us again'
They're out of their minds. Next time I'm going to drive to Wal*Mart, and it's not for the $2, it's for the check out process:
give us this much money (incidentally, less than K-Mart)
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:15:00 GMT
There's a move afoot to replace the terms 'B.C.' and 'A.D' to denote years with the terms C.E. and B.C.E meaning 'Common Era' and 'Before Common Era'. Anybody who's been to school knows B.C. means 'before Christ' and A.D. means 'Anno Domini', Latin for 'In the Year of Our Lord'. That 'B.C.' is based in English and 'A.D.' in Latin seems incongruous at best, but they've been used for the duration of the Gregorian Calendar and frankly serve their purpose just fine.
C.E. and B.C.E. are simply euphemisms to cover up the fact that the calendar used in most of the world is based on Christianity, specifically the birth of Jesus Christ (or Yoshua of Nazereth for the historically-minded). The Gregorian Calendar was imposed by, who'd'a thunk ... Pope Gregory, and who would you think he'd base his calendar around? (Obviously the name of the calendar system will be next on the block).
There are many good arguments against the Gregorian Calendar, but that's what we've got. The competing calendar standards (e.g. Mayan, Chinese) have fallen to the Gregorian, and there's likely no turning back that tide. So, there's no utility in trying to cover up its origins, and the cost of implementing such changes is without return. At a minimum anybody expected to ever read any historical text would have to be trained in both systems, so at best it's a net increase in cost. If somebody wants to tackle the implementation of a better calendar, perhaps a sidereal one, go for it. You can even call its days a 'stardate' if you must. But until that time, nobody can claim offense at B.C. and A.D. until we take care of the 'Tyr, Odin, Thor, Freyja, Saturn' problem, OK?
