Coffee Klatch

Today President Bush said that the U.S. economy is still strong and growing. What the heck? Is he living in the same country I’M living in?

[This morning President Bush] attempted to calm jittery economic markets and anxious Americans at a morning press conference, insisting that the U.S. economy is still growing despite its problems, even as new reports showed inflation rising at the fastest pace in more than a quarter-century, and the prospect of more bank failures loomed.

If consumer confidence is any indicator of the strength of the economy, it’s far from strong. Many other indicators say the same thing. Yet Mr. Bush chose to point out that:

“our economy’s continued growing, consumers are spending, businesses are investing, exports continue increasing, and American productivity remains strong.”

Food and gasoline costs are the highest they’ve ever been, there have been runs on several banks (some actually folded), the housing market is still going down, foreclosures are STILL going up, job losses are still going up, the stock market is still going down, and the U.S. dollar is weak all over the world (including at home). That sure doesn’t sound to me like a strong economy.

Somebody is seriously deluded.

He’d be better off explaining what’s truly going on and suggesting ideas to make it through the tough times he acknowledges we’re in. Instead, all I hear is “We’re doing fine. We’re doing fine!” That’s no help. It’s delusion.

I got really frustrated on the way home today, because I was listening to the governor of Florida lamenting his state’s current situation with regard to the Democratic Primary and their votes not being counted.

Florida and Michigan are both in this situation because they moved their states’ primaries to earlier in the year, hoping that their states would have more say in the process. In hindsight, things are still so even between Obama and Clinton that they would have HAD their say if they’d done things properly. But they had to KNOWINGLY break the rules and move their primary date. They knew it was against the rules and even refused to talk to reporters about it afterwards.

And NOW the governor of Florida is saying he wants the votes counted. Shouldn’t he have thought about that BEFORE breaking the rules?? It sure isn’t the Democratic National Committee’s fault that his state’s voters are “disenfranchised.” But during this whole interview, he ignores the rules and keeps insisting that the best solution is to count the votes that were already cast (improperly). I was appalled. (Yes, I feel sorry for Florida (and Michigan) for their Democratic Primary votes not counting, but it’s the states’ fault.)

Give a listen at NPR’s All Things Considered.

While the 2008 presidential election is still a ways off, we can honestly say that it appears that the field of contenders is down to three: Clinton, McCain, and Obama (in alphabetical order–no preference intended). Do you know who you will/would vote for? Do you know the candidates’ positions on various topics?

Here are a couple political quizzes that determine your position on a variety of topics and compare it with those of the candidates.

The VoteMatch Quiz is the simplest and when you’ve answered the questions shows how all the candidates compare with your perspective. Also included are links to more information about the candidates.

Another similar one, but more in depth, is The Political Compass. This one is interesting because they use a spectrum for the economic scale and another for the social scale, resulting in a grid that is a little different from some other political quizzes. After you’ve taken the quiz there, you can click on U.S. Primaries 2008 to see how the candidates have positioned themselves and then compare your spot on the grid with theirs. Presumably the one closest to your dot on the grid is who you’d prefer to vote for.

HTH! (Hope that helps!)

We’re a little more than a year away from our next presidential elections. Many people are longing for that day because they’re discontent with the way things are now. (Like that isn’t ALWAYS the case to some degree or other.) This morning I found a website that allows you to pick your stance on a variety of issues and then see how the candidates compare with your views. It’s quite enlightening. Make sure you click on the issues to see just what it means to support or strongly support (or oppose) the issues. Clicking the issues brings up a new window with the details about each issue and what supporting or opposing it means.

Take the VoteMatch Quiz now.

Today I got an email forwarded to me by a coworker. It asked me to NOT purchase any gas on May 15, touting how this boycott had been going on annually for 10 years now and had made gas prices drop by 30 cents overnight. Being the good doobie that I am, I immediately checked Snopes.com and found out some things that I’ve included below this quotation from the email.

—–Original Message—–
>I only pass this on as asked & will abide Let’s do this
>
>NO GAS…On May 15th 2007 Don’t pump gas on MAY 15th In April 1997,
>there was a ‘gas out’ conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices.
>Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On May 15th 2007,
>all internet users are asked to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices.
>Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 73,000,000+
>American members currently on the internet network, and the average car
>takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up. If all users did not go to the
>pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that’s almost 3
>BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please
>do not go to the gas station on May 15th and let’s try to put a dent in
>the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day. If you agree
>(which I can’t see why you wouldn’t) resend this to all your contact
>list. With it saying, ”Don’t pump gas on May 15th’

Here’s what I learned from Snopes:

• The first email-based boycott of gasoline for a day was in April 1999, not 1997.
• It didn’t make any difference.
• People just bought gas the day before or after instead, so there was no change in the overall market.
• A boycott is a long-term campaign where people totally and continually DO WITHOUT something to get their point across.
• The very premise of this idea is flawed because the amount of gas being used doesn’t change at all.
• Avoiding driving (or at least severely reducing it) would have more impact that not pumping gas on one day.

Their conclusion:

Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won’t have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days–an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without.

Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing.

An event like a “gas out” can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: “We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can’t even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost.” What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its price? Those who really want to send a “message” to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row.

And there was a nice list of “Sources” at the end of their article.

I replied to the email I received with the following:

For what it’s worth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

Truth be told, it’s never had an effect on the gas market or prices. The email campaign to boycott gas stations began in 1999, not 1997, and the prices did not drop 30 cents a gallon overnight. Prices HAVE changed that much in one day, but not because of a boycott (or one-day abstention).

Just thought you should know.
Scott

Their response? “Thanks for the clarifications. I’ll be participating. Ethics are what its worth to me.”

From my point of view, no disrespect intended, ethics would require either doing an actual boycott or not pretending that my one-day thing was efficacious.

What it REALLY comes down to is self-delusion, convincing yourself that what you’re doing matters, even if all the evidence says there is no effect. Again, no disrespect intended, but if it really was a matter of ethics, then they should work at taking steps that CAN reduce the price instead of just trying to feel good.

Current music: On the Way to Bethlehem (Music of the Medieval Pilgrim)

I find it interesting how the various media websites cover the elections. In particular, when they declare winners (or “projected winners”). I’ve been going back and forth between CNN and Fox News tonight, and I noticed that CNN declard winners as early as 2% of the precincts reporting, and every time it was a Democrat winner. Fox, on the other hand, seemed more biased toward the Republicans. Watching the numbers of “winners” in the House and the Senate slowly go up, Fox had more Republicans listed as having taken the wins, while CNN listed more Democrats. It was just a few difference (45-39 versus 44-41), but you see what I mean. They both seem reluctant to declare winners if they’re not the party they’d favor.

This isn’t really much of a surprise or anything, but it’s interesting to observe.

[tags]politics, elections, election coverage[/tags]

I don’t really consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. What I’d really like to see is a true multi-party system. That’s why I started a group on Facebook with that name. Here’s my description:

The United States describes itself as a democracy. How pure can that democracy be when there are realistically only two parties to choose from? We are told that there are many political parties available to us in the U.S., but when was the last time that a non-Republican or -Democrat got even 5% of the vote when running for president? We haven’t even had a feasible third-party candidate since the 1940’s, apart from the one election in 1968.

What we need is more people willing to vote for a “third-party” candidate without being afraid of a “bad guy” getting into the White House.

If you’d like to vote for who you truly think would do the best job, instead of for the lesser of two evils, join this group!

Anyway, that being said, and with the elections coming up in just a few days, here are my results from Blogthings about how Democrat or Republican I am:

You Are 20% Democrat

If you have anything in common with the Democrat party, it’s by sheer chance. You’re a staunch conservative, and nothing is going to change that!

You Are 68% Republican

You have a good deal of elephant running through your blood, and you’re proud to be conservative. You don’t fit every Republican stereotype, but you definitely belong in the Republican party.

The Free Information Society has assembled a collection of “Historical Sounds” which contains some of “the greatest speeches in recorded history.” Over 100 audio files in MP3 format with speakers like Spiro Agnew, Fidel Castro, Calvin Coolidge, FDR, Che Guavara, Albert Einstein, Al Gore (the “Internet” speech ), Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Malcom X, Leon Trotsky, Harry Truman, and many more.

They even encourage you to download and distribute these file, and hopefully to learn from them.

[tags]speeches, historical, mp3[/tags]

Here are some thoughts and commentaries on world news from a friend’s blog. He quotes Newt Gingrich from when he was interviewed on ABC News. Look at the connections around the world and ask yourself what more has to happen before it really IS World War III.

The Minimum Wage is going to be a hot-button issue during the elections this fall. I blogged about it over a year ago, but since it’s becoming an issue (radio ads by the Democratic Party started this week and focus on this issue), I feel like it’s worth another look.

The Federal Minimum Wage is currently $5.15/hour and has been that since 1 September 1997. Eighteen states have passed laws setting their own minimum wage higher than that; the rest are the same or lower (so the higher federal rate applies). The purpose of the Minimum Wage law is nominally to guarantee a “liveable wage” for the American workforce. Of course, the law as written does not state the purpose of the law, only what the requirements are. The purpose is something argued about by Congress.

The U.S. Department of Labor says:

The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that do at least $500,000 in business a year. It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications. It also applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.

In other words, it applies to almost all businesses in the U.S. Even tiny little “mom-and-pop” places use the mails or telephones for interstate communications, if only to communicate with their suppliers.

But does the Minimum Wage law accomplish its purpose? My answer is “No.”

First let’s look at the business process when the minimum wage is increased. We’ll use a hypothetical burger joint for an example. Businesses are required to pay more for their “low-end” workers. This won’t affect management because they make quite a bit more. It more typically involves high school and college students and the poorer people of society. So the basic workers coming in to flip burgers have to get paid more. This produces a higher cost for the employer, obviously, because they’re spending more money on employees. This causes profits to be reduced. For every burger sold, the company makes less money. If they were already struggling financially, this could kill them. No exaggeration.

This also means that the suppliers of beef, hamburger buns, paper goods, cleaning supplies, etc., are ALSO making less of a profit, thus increasing the costs for the mom-and-pop place even more.

If profits are to be kept where they are, then, there has to be either a decrease in costs elsewhere in the company or else an increase in sales. Often, this means hiring fewer low-end (lower-productivity) workers. This has been documented here and elsewhere. If fewer poor people are hired, how is this helping society? It’s a guarantee for higher unemployment. Many of these people would be willing to work for LESS than minimum wage if they could have a place near where they live and not have to take a bus to get there. Instead, more of them are out of work.

The other way to offset the cost of an increased minimum wage is to increase sales. Most profit-driven companies are in a continual process of trying to increase sales so they can make money. That’s their business. So if that’s not really an option, the only other thing is to increase the price of their products. Mom-and-pop’s hamburgers go from $1.99 a burger to $2.25 a burger.

Figure that this process is going on in ALL businesses that have minimum-wage workers. The end result is that costs for EVERYTHING go up. So we’ve increased the pay of the low-end workers and then raised the prices of the entire retail market. That results in NO CHANGE for the minimum-wage workers and LOWER PURCHASING POWER for everyone else, since they’re not getting raises to balance the low-end pay rates.

How is this a good idea?

This is an area that should NOT be regulated by the government. Let the markets drive the wages. Businesses that hire many low-end workers will hire more people and will experience decreased costs, allowing them more retail flexibility for competing with their rivals. Sure there will be some that will try to exploit their workers, but that happens anyway. The market will eventually even it out and allow more people to be hired, help reduce unemployment, and increase the power of the dollar. For many poor or out-of-work people, $4.25 an hour would still be tons better than $0.00 an hour.

So if you get a choice this November to voice your opinions on the Minimum Wage, just say NO! It’s a foolish idea that offers a pretense of helping people while in reality it hurts both businesses and employees.