My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, has just begun to address computerization and its effects on employment. Today's column addresses the "hollowing out" of the distribution of jobs. He includes an interesting graph comparing job distribution by skill level in the 80's the 90's and the first decade of the current century.
In a nutshell, mid skill level jobs are disappearing. In the past decade, so are jobs at the higher skill level. In another post, he shows how the ratio of pay for college graduates compared to high school graduates stabilized more than a decade ago.
If your children and grandchildren want an occupation with a reliable future, they need to find something that isn't easily replaced by computers and can't be readily outsourced offshore. Crafts such as plumbing, cabinet making and welding might be good candidates.
Showing posts with label economic development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic development. Show all posts
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Computers and Lawyers
About three weeks ago I called attention to the effect of computerization on jobs in my post at:
http://mile181.blogspot.com/2011/02/robotics-and-economics.html
Today the New York Times reports on the ability of computer software to replace entire platoons of lawyers with software in complex litigation cases. The article here explains how new advances in software allow firms to screen vast volumes of computer files for relevant documents responding to discovery requests. The impact is substantial. In some cases provided as an example, five hundred attorneys can be replaced with a single attorney.
Experts familiar with the developments suggest that the effect will be that in the future there will be fewer legal jobs, not more. Similar effects are being felt among loan and mortgage officers and tax accountants.
Ironically, computers are also replacing computer engineers who once worked designing computer chips. In fact, unemployment in information technology leads the list of fields tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in unemployment.
The bottom line: the United States economy is being “hollowed out.” New jobs are coming at the bottom of the economic pyramid, jobs in the middle are being lost to automation and outsourcing, and now job growth at the top is slowing.
The only thing left to do seems to be to replace the financial manipulators at the top of the pyramid with software.
Let them look for a job.
http://mile181.blogspot.com/2011/02/robotics-and-economics.html
Today the New York Times reports on the ability of computer software to replace entire platoons of lawyers with software in complex litigation cases. The article here explains how new advances in software allow firms to screen vast volumes of computer files for relevant documents responding to discovery requests. The impact is substantial. In some cases provided as an example, five hundred attorneys can be replaced with a single attorney.
Experts familiar with the developments suggest that the effect will be that in the future there will be fewer legal jobs, not more. Similar effects are being felt among loan and mortgage officers and tax accountants.
Ironically, computers are also replacing computer engineers who once worked designing computer chips. In fact, unemployment in information technology leads the list of fields tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in unemployment.
The bottom line: the United States economy is being “hollowed out.” New jobs are coming at the bottom of the economic pyramid, jobs in the middle are being lost to automation and outsourcing, and now job growth at the top is slowing.
The only thing left to do seems to be to replace the financial manipulators at the top of the pyramid with software.
Let them look for a job.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Country Is Broke?
Are we really broke? Some of my recent posts on the economy make reference to "starve the beast" and other efforts that have been pursued over a sustained period. The obvious goal was to increase the power and wealth of the powerful and wealthy. It seems to be working, to the detriment of everyone else.
Today's New York Times has a different (and clearer) take on the same process here. It is worth reading.
Today's New York Times has a different (and clearer) take on the same process here. It is worth reading.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
A One-Armed Economist
President Truman once complained about his economic advisers.
"They come in," he said, "and tell me 'on the one hand, this,' and 'on the other hand, that.'"
"What I need," he lamented, "are some one-armed economists."
"They come in," he said, "and tell me 'on the one hand, this,' and 'on the other hand, that.'"
"What I need," he lamented, "are some one-armed economists."
Friday, February 25, 2011
Starving the Beast
So why did President Reagan and both Bushes follow a "borrow and spend" fiscal policy instead of making sure the national expenditures were paid for, as they could easily have done?
Because they didn't want to balance the budget. They wanted to follow the policy of "starving the beast."
Don't take my word for it - read the analysis by Bruce Bartlett, writing for Forbes.com.
Here is how economist Paul Krugman describes the scheme in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.
Although the Republican Party has complained about deficit spending ever since the Great Depression, this was never previously a big deal with the GOP, with their predecessors the Whig Party, or with their original predecessors, the Federalist Party. In fact, President Washington, on advice of his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, began his administration with an enormous deficit.
This came about when the Federal Government under the new constitution purchased at face value revolutionary war bonds issued by the states. This represented an enormous windfall for speculators who had purchased the bonds from original investors at pennies on the dollar.
The rule: millions to subsidize financial speculators, but not one cent for ordinary people.
This continues to be the policy of the GOP.
What offended Republicans about the New Deal was not the deficit financing, but to whose benefit the money was spent.
Democrats, on the other hand, have from the time of the Anti-Federalists and especially from the Andrew Jackson administration, opposed deficit financing. The reasons:
1. Government borrowing drives up the cost of credit for ordinary people;
2. Paying off government debt takes money from the pockets of the poor and transfers it to the rich;
3. Driving up the cost of money increases the cost of American products and reduces exports;
4. Government borrowing from foreign lenders makes us vulnerable to foreign interests;
5. Etc.
Only in truly extraordinary circumstances do Democrats support extensive deficit financing: the Great Depression and World War II are the clearest examples.
Six years ago, Paul Krugman exposed the whole Starve the Beast bait and switch scam.
Now they have extended the scam from the Federal level to the State level by making it impossible for Washington to provide enough stimulus money to counteract the reduction in state expenditures resulting from state constitution requirements to balance the budget. Earlier, Krugman described the dilemma facing the states and the implications for the national economy in his article Fifty Herbert Hoovers. The article is worth reading again.
Because they didn't want to balance the budget. They wanted to follow the policy of "starving the beast."
Don't take my word for it - read the analysis by Bruce Bartlett, writing for Forbes.com.
Here is how economist Paul Krugman describes the scheme in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.
Although the Republican Party has complained about deficit spending ever since the Great Depression, this was never previously a big deal with the GOP, with their predecessors the Whig Party, or with their original predecessors, the Federalist Party. In fact, President Washington, on advice of his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, began his administration with an enormous deficit.
This came about when the Federal Government under the new constitution purchased at face value revolutionary war bonds issued by the states. This represented an enormous windfall for speculators who had purchased the bonds from original investors at pennies on the dollar.
The rule: millions to subsidize financial speculators, but not one cent for ordinary people.
This continues to be the policy of the GOP.
What offended Republicans about the New Deal was not the deficit financing, but to whose benefit the money was spent.
Democrats, on the other hand, have from the time of the Anti-Federalists and especially from the Andrew Jackson administration, opposed deficit financing. The reasons:
1. Government borrowing drives up the cost of credit for ordinary people;
2. Paying off government debt takes money from the pockets of the poor and transfers it to the rich;
3. Driving up the cost of money increases the cost of American products and reduces exports;
4. Government borrowing from foreign lenders makes us vulnerable to foreign interests;
5. Etc.
Only in truly extraordinary circumstances do Democrats support extensive deficit financing: the Great Depression and World War II are the clearest examples.
Six years ago, Paul Krugman exposed the whole Starve the Beast bait and switch scam.
Now they have extended the scam from the Federal level to the State level by making it impossible for Washington to provide enough stimulus money to counteract the reduction in state expenditures resulting from state constitution requirements to balance the budget. Earlier, Krugman described the dilemma facing the states and the implications for the national economy in his article Fifty Herbert Hoovers. The article is worth reading again.
They Hired the Money, Didn't They?
Commenting in 1925 on a proposal to restructure European war debt, President Calvin Coolidge said, "they hired the money, didn't they?"
The same might be said of New Jersey and, indeed, of other states, who negotiated labor agreements without setting aside sufficient funds to meet their obligations.
The details set forth in today's New York Times article, "How Chris Christie Did His Homework," makes it clear that for seventeen years, New Jersey did not set aside enough funds to meet the pension obligations to which the state had agreed. In the case of health care obligations, they set aside no funds at all.
This is hardly the fault of the unions.
In many cases, pension and health care agreements were negotiated in lieu of salary increases. In other words, the state said "you provide work for us now in return for future compensation" and signed on the dotted line.
They hired the money.
Did the state negotiate in good faith? If so, the failure to set aside sufficient funds reveals sustained incompetence. If not, what do we call it? A confidence game?
The same might be said of New Jersey and, indeed, of other states, who negotiated labor agreements without setting aside sufficient funds to meet their obligations.
The details set forth in today's New York Times article, "How Chris Christie Did His Homework," makes it clear that for seventeen years, New Jersey did not set aside enough funds to meet the pension obligations to which the state had agreed. In the case of health care obligations, they set aside no funds at all.
This is hardly the fault of the unions.
In many cases, pension and health care agreements were negotiated in lieu of salary increases. In other words, the state said "you provide work for us now in return for future compensation" and signed on the dotted line.
They hired the money.
Did the state negotiate in good faith? If so, the failure to set aside sufficient funds reveals sustained incompetence. If not, what do we call it? A confidence game?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
If You Lived Here, You'd be Home by now
Years ago, when we lived in the big city, downtown developers tried to lure home buyers with signs for commuters that said, "If You Lived Here, You'd Already Be Home."
I think of that every time some pundit talks about how urgent it is to reduce the deficit. The last President to successfully reduce the deficit was Bill Clinton.
In fact, according to CBO projections, if G.W. Bush had continued the Clinton policies, we would have not only reduced the deficit, we would have paid off our national debt by now.
The last previous presidents who reduced the deficit were Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson.
Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt during his tenure. By the end of George Herbert Walker Bush's administration, the debt was four times as great as at the beginning of Reagan's term. At the end of Bush I's term, the debt equaled 66% of the Gross Domestic Product. By the end of Clinton's term, it was down to 56% of GDP.
How would you like for the country to have zero debt right now? We'd have much better fiscal options, wouldn't we?
Instead, by the end of George W. Bush's term, our debt had risen to 83% of GDP, and we were in the midst of the greatest recession since the Great Depression. In fact, had it not been for the safety nets put in place after the Great Depression, we could easily have had an even greater depression.
But let's get one thing straight - the national debt didn't cause unemployment. Nor did it cause the great recession - mishandling of private debt and financial misfeasance did that. And so far, the national debt hasn't caused any inflation.
Now is absolutely the wrong time to balance the federal budget, thus reducing aggregate demand and stifling what little recovery we have going.
Once we get back to near full employment, though, we need to pay down the public debt and drastically reduce private debt. We won't be able to do that without getting back to making things instead of just making deals.
To get there, we need to reward the thing makers and take away special rewards for financial manipulators.
I think of that every time some pundit talks about how urgent it is to reduce the deficit. The last President to successfully reduce the deficit was Bill Clinton.
In fact, according to CBO projections, if G.W. Bush had continued the Clinton policies, we would have not only reduced the deficit, we would have paid off our national debt by now.
The last previous presidents who reduced the deficit were Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson.
Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt during his tenure. By the end of George Herbert Walker Bush's administration, the debt was four times as great as at the beginning of Reagan's term. At the end of Bush I's term, the debt equaled 66% of the Gross Domestic Product. By the end of Clinton's term, it was down to 56% of GDP.
How would you like for the country to have zero debt right now? We'd have much better fiscal options, wouldn't we?
Instead, by the end of George W. Bush's term, our debt had risen to 83% of GDP, and we were in the midst of the greatest recession since the Great Depression. In fact, had it not been for the safety nets put in place after the Great Depression, we could easily have had an even greater depression.
But let's get one thing straight - the national debt didn't cause unemployment. Nor did it cause the great recession - mishandling of private debt and financial misfeasance did that. And so far, the national debt hasn't caused any inflation.
Now is absolutely the wrong time to balance the federal budget, thus reducing aggregate demand and stifling what little recovery we have going.
Once we get back to near full employment, though, we need to pay down the public debt and drastically reduce private debt. We won't be able to do that without getting back to making things instead of just making deals.
To get there, we need to reward the thing makers and take away special rewards for financial manipulators.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Why Rush to Reduce Deficits?
A good article in Slate Magazine calls for politicians to do a better job of explaining why deficit reduction is so important.
The author, John Dickerson, repeatedly points out that the public is more interested in jobs. He says neither party has explained how reducing the deficit will get them jobs.
There's a really good reason for that.
It won't.
In fact, reducing the deficit, which is a good idea in the long run, will kill jobs in the short run.
If so, John Boehner said today, "so be it."
Let them eat cake.
The author, John Dickerson, repeatedly points out that the public is more interested in jobs. He says neither party has explained how reducing the deficit will get them jobs.
There's a really good reason for that.
It won't.
In fact, reducing the deficit, which is a good idea in the long run, will kill jobs in the short run.
If so, John Boehner said today, "so be it."
Let them eat cake.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Robotics and Economics
Ninety years ago, the Czech journalist and author Karel Capek introduced the word "Robot" to the world in his play, "R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)." Isaac Asimov expanded the concept in his I, Robot books.
A staple of science fiction of the forties and fifties was the question of how society might cope with the circumstance created if robots with a wide range of capabilities were to replace humans in routine or even challenging jobs (as did HAL in "2001, Space Odyssey").
We are now there. We get our money from robots (ATM's), we send robots in to fight fires where no human could survive, we use robots to do surgery, dispatch software robots to search the internet, and even use robots to fight our wars.
This is just the beginning.
This Wednesday, IBM will pit its artificial intelligence system named Watson against two of the world's best Jeopardy players. Experts expect that Watson will win the contest. If so, it would be a demonstration of the amazing progress in artificial intelligence. To succeed, Watson will have to deal with puns, homonyms, and contextual ambiguities. (Update as of Tuesday morning: The first round of Jeopardy ended with Watson in a tie for the lead. Stay tuned.)
A different but also successful approach to use of computers to assist human intelligence is known as Intelligence Augmentation (IA). Google searches are a successful implementation of IA.
Economists have always held that increased automation creates as many new jobs as it destroys. That may no longer be the case (if ever it was). For the past few recessions, we seem to have had a "jobless recovery."
The usual suspect for loss of jobs is offshore outsourcing. It may be that another factor is increasing use of computers to perform tasks formerly done by humans. An additional influence is that high speed broad band internet makes it possible to transmit any information that can be digitized to offshore sites for processing. This is already done for widely diverse fields including accounting, law and radiology. Combining offshore outsourcing, robotics and high speed internet could be creating a perfect storm of economic restructuring.
The volume of such outsourcing is said to be small compared to the economy as a whole, but it probably already influences salaries by establishing marginal salaries above which companies will seek offshore solutions, thus keeping labor rates down.
Possible consequences include the fact that twenty-six percent of recent college graduates not going on to postgraduate education are unemployed. For that matter, many of those pursuing graduate degrees may be doing so because they couldn't find a job.
A staple of science fiction of the forties and fifties was the question of how society might cope with the circumstance created if robots with a wide range of capabilities were to replace humans in routine or even challenging jobs (as did HAL in "2001, Space Odyssey").
We are now there. We get our money from robots (ATM's), we send robots in to fight fires where no human could survive, we use robots to do surgery, dispatch software robots to search the internet, and even use robots to fight our wars.
This is just the beginning.
This Wednesday, IBM will pit its artificial intelligence system named Watson against two of the world's best Jeopardy players. Experts expect that Watson will win the contest. If so, it would be a demonstration of the amazing progress in artificial intelligence. To succeed, Watson will have to deal with puns, homonyms, and contextual ambiguities. (Update as of Tuesday morning: The first round of Jeopardy ended with Watson in a tie for the lead. Stay tuned.)
A different but also successful approach to use of computers to assist human intelligence is known as Intelligence Augmentation (IA). Google searches are a successful implementation of IA.
Economists have always held that increased automation creates as many new jobs as it destroys. That may no longer be the case (if ever it was). For the past few recessions, we seem to have had a "jobless recovery."
The usual suspect for loss of jobs is offshore outsourcing. It may be that another factor is increasing use of computers to perform tasks formerly done by humans. An additional influence is that high speed broad band internet makes it possible to transmit any information that can be digitized to offshore sites for processing. This is already done for widely diverse fields including accounting, law and radiology. Combining offshore outsourcing, robotics and high speed internet could be creating a perfect storm of economic restructuring.
The volume of such outsourcing is said to be small compared to the economy as a whole, but it probably already influences salaries by establishing marginal salaries above which companies will seek offshore solutions, thus keeping labor rates down.
Possible consequences include the fact that twenty-six percent of recent college graduates not going on to postgraduate education are unemployed. For that matter, many of those pursuing graduate degrees may be doing so because they couldn't find a job.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Price of Civilization
An anonymous reader commented on my report on Pamlico County Economic Development as follows: "Just remember that government grants are other peoples taxes and they represent the forced redistribution of wealth."
I do.
I also remember Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s comment that "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."
I do.
I also remember Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s comment that "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."
Contrary to popular opinion, wealth is not just an individual creation. It is also a creation of society. Those who would create wealth need social goods such as: roads, harbors, monetary system, collective defense, police, educated employees, banking, transportation, communications, protection for intellectual property, standard measurements, a level playing field (law and regulation), assistance in navigating through legal and regulatory requirements, and on and on. In short, they need the activities of government. These activities are funded through taxes. Tax collection is always coercive.
Our Revolutionary War forebears decried taxation without representation, not taxes in general. In fact, they had been governing themselves and collecting taxes for their own government activities for a century and a half before the Revolution.
There are those who believe the only proper functions of government are defense and public safety. The rest can be handled by the magic of the marketplace. Alexander Hamilton and George Washington (among others) knew better.
In the present case, the issue facing Pamlico County is whether modest support for a project to meet an important national military requirement, expand economic activity in the county and employ up to 1,000 of our citizens is a proper public purpose.
It is.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Pamlico County Economic Development
Last night the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners approved by a narrow 4-3 vote a request by the county's Economic Developer, Jayne Robb, to apply for a flex grant in the amount of $13,900. The grant would not cost the County a dime. The purpose is to fund a feasibility study to determine the suitability of certain land in the county for an algae-based biofuels production facility. The land in question is not suitable for other uses. The proposed project is envisioned to produce up to 80,000 gallons per day of diesel and jet fuel, and to provide employment for up to 1,000 persons.
The first public hint of the project was provided last month in the report to the commissioners of current activities of the Military Growth Task Force. Not explained in detail at either session was why the Military Growth Task Force would be interested.
In October of 2009, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus committed the Department of the Navy (which includes the Marine Corps) to energy reform. A major goal is to aggressively reduce the Navy Department's reliance on fossil fuels. Marines deployed to Afghanistan are already using alternate energy sources, including solar. Here is the Secretary's strategic approach to energy:
http://www.onr.navy.mil/naval-energy-forum/~/media /5EFD428CFEB0412391CC321DCAF67138.ashx
One of the first measures the Secretary of the Navy took to put the policy in effect was to conclude a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Agriculture:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50710
The use of algae to produce fuel has the following advantages:
a. It can use land not suitable for agriculture;
b. Does not affect fresh water resources;
c. Can be produced using ocean or brackish water or wastewater (BRMSD take note);
d. Algae are biodegradable and relatively harmless if spilled;
e. Can yield 10 to 100 times more energy per unit area than other biofuels;
f. USDOE estimates enough algal fuel to replace all petroleum fuel can be generated using less than 1/7 of the area currently planted in corn;
g. No net generation of carbon dioxide.
Here is a Scientific American article explaining some of the issues and possibilities:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=algae-biofuel-of-future
Why Pamlico County? One measure the Navy and Marine Corps are taking is to identify as many local sources as possible for everything they need, including fuel. This not only reduces transportation cost in general, it reduces the use of fossil fuels. Using a local source of algal fuel for jets would therefore kill two birds with one stone.
The projected output is modest compared to petroleum refineries. It would take about 25 similar algal oil production facilities to equal the fuel output of a small refinery. Even so, the facility would provide enough fuel every day to support 80 sorties of fully-loaded combat fighters. That would make a big dent in Cherry Point's fossil fuel usage.
This is a project that deserves our support.
The first public hint of the project was provided last month in the report to the commissioners of current activities of the Military Growth Task Force. Not explained in detail at either session was why the Military Growth Task Force would be interested.
In October of 2009, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus committed the Department of the Navy (which includes the Marine Corps) to energy reform. A major goal is to aggressively reduce the Navy Department's reliance on fossil fuels. Marines deployed to Afghanistan are already using alternate energy sources, including solar. Here is the Secretary's strategic approach to energy:
http://www.onr.navy.mil/naval-energy-forum/~/media /5EFD428CFEB0412391CC321DCAF67138.ashx
One of the first measures the Secretary of the Navy took to put the policy in effect was to conclude a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Agriculture:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50710
The use of algae to produce fuel has the following advantages:
a. It can use land not suitable for agriculture;
b. Does not affect fresh water resources;
c. Can be produced using ocean or brackish water or wastewater (BRMSD take note);
d. Algae are biodegradable and relatively harmless if spilled;
e. Can yield 10 to 100 times more energy per unit area than other biofuels;
f. USDOE estimates enough algal fuel to replace all petroleum fuel can be generated using less than 1/7 of the area currently planted in corn;
g. No net generation of carbon dioxide.
Here is a Scientific American article explaining some of the issues and possibilities:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=algae-biofuel-of-future
Why Pamlico County? One measure the Navy and Marine Corps are taking is to identify as many local sources as possible for everything they need, including fuel. This not only reduces transportation cost in general, it reduces the use of fossil fuels. Using a local source of algal fuel for jets would therefore kill two birds with one stone.
The projected output is modest compared to petroleum refineries. It would take about 25 similar algal oil production facilities to equal the fuel output of a small refinery. Even so, the facility would provide enough fuel every day to support 80 sorties of fully-loaded combat fighters. That would make a big dent in Cherry Point's fossil fuel usage.
This is a project that deserves our support.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
State of the Union
During the President's State of the Union address last night, I was struck by the following passage:
"Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution."
Actually, Al Gore did.
Here is how Wikipedia summarizes Al Gore's efforts in support of modern technology:
"Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their "passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect." On March 19, 1979 he became the first member of Congress to appear on C-SPAN. During this time, Gore co-chaired the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future with Newt Gingrich. In addition, he has been described as having been a "genuine nerd, with a geek reputation running back to his days as a futurist Atari Democrat in the House. Before computers were comprehensible, let alone sexy, the poker-faced Gore struggled to explain artificial intelligence and fiber-optic networks to sleepy colleagues." Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn noted that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication.
"Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution."
Actually, Al Gore did.
Here is how Wikipedia summarizes Al Gore's efforts in support of modern technology:
"Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their "passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect." On March 19, 1979 he became the first member of Congress to appear on C-SPAN. During this time, Gore co-chaired the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future with Newt Gingrich. In addition, he has been described as having been a "genuine nerd, with a geek reputation running back to his days as a futurist Atari Democrat in the House. Before computers were comprehensible, let alone sexy, the poker-faced Gore struggled to explain artificial intelligence and fiber-optic networks to sleepy colleagues." Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn noted that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication.
24 Jun 1986: Albert Gore introduce S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986.[51] As another example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises."
As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill") after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet). The bill was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway."
The truth is, without Al Gore's efforts, it is possible that the Arpanet, the Defense Department Project that became the Internet, would never have been opened to commercial use.
Friday, January 14, 2011
FDR's Children
I had the good fortune to be born into FDR's America.
It was a time of depression - the year I was born was the beginning of the second dip - but it was also a time that working people pulled together. If a family had a roof over their heads, that roof was available to anyone else in the family, and also friends. "Just make me a pallett on the floor" was more than just a line from a song. It was the way people lived.
If someone had a plot of land, he shared the produce with others. We helped each other at harvest time. If your field caught fire, all the neighbors came with wet gunny sacks to beat it out. If the school gym needed a new floor, we all worked together to install it.
People who needed a ride just stuck out a thumb. Often as not, a complete stranger offered a ride.
It isn't that we were naive. We knew the world was a dangerous place. But we didn't let ourselves be intimidated.
At Sunday School and in church, ministers and leaders of all kinds emphasized a Christianity dedicated to helping others. Even the "hard shell Baptist" church in my rural Oklahoma community focused on the parable of the prodigal son, the Sermon on the Mount, the sayings of Jesus calling for the abandonment rather than the pursuit of wealth. Such passages were often quoted, and incorporated into the religious and public morality usually referred to as the "social gospel."
In the past half-century, though, something has happened both to religious and public morality. The acrimony in political and other public discourse has taken a vicious turn. Can't we just get along?
Maybe not.
At least we need to have a clear understanding of what the struggle is about and what is at stake. In today's New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman attributes the acrimony to the struggle between two moralities.
If Krugman is right, we are not faced just with a lack of politeness. This isn't just a "family squabble." It is a struggle over who we are.
Those of us who remember FDR were born into a world where adults worked together to alleviate suffering, to defeat fascism, and to build a prosperous future free of fear and want. Those of us born during FDR's twelve years in office never had a war of our own. WWII and Korea belonged to our fathers and older brothers. Vietnam belonged to our younger brothers. We imagined a world at peace, or at least free of major wars.
We need to recapture that vision.
It was a time of depression - the year I was born was the beginning of the second dip - but it was also a time that working people pulled together. If a family had a roof over their heads, that roof was available to anyone else in the family, and also friends. "Just make me a pallett on the floor" was more than just a line from a song. It was the way people lived.
If someone had a plot of land, he shared the produce with others. We helped each other at harvest time. If your field caught fire, all the neighbors came with wet gunny sacks to beat it out. If the school gym needed a new floor, we all worked together to install it.
People who needed a ride just stuck out a thumb. Often as not, a complete stranger offered a ride.
It isn't that we were naive. We knew the world was a dangerous place. But we didn't let ourselves be intimidated.
At Sunday School and in church, ministers and leaders of all kinds emphasized a Christianity dedicated to helping others. Even the "hard shell Baptist" church in my rural Oklahoma community focused on the parable of the prodigal son, the Sermon on the Mount, the sayings of Jesus calling for the abandonment rather than the pursuit of wealth. Such passages were often quoted, and incorporated into the religious and public morality usually referred to as the "social gospel."
In the past half-century, though, something has happened both to religious and public morality. The acrimony in political and other public discourse has taken a vicious turn. Can't we just get along?
Maybe not.
At least we need to have a clear understanding of what the struggle is about and what is at stake. In today's New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman attributes the acrimony to the struggle between two moralities.
If Krugman is right, we are not faced just with a lack of politeness. This isn't just a "family squabble." It is a struggle over who we are.
Those of us who remember FDR were born into a world where adults worked together to alleviate suffering, to defeat fascism, and to build a prosperous future free of fear and want. Those of us born during FDR's twelve years in office never had a war of our own. WWII and Korea belonged to our fathers and older brothers. Vietnam belonged to our younger brothers. We imagined a world at peace, or at least free of major wars.
We need to recapture that vision.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Conservative Fears and Timidity
Conservatives are timid. Don't take my word for it - read the words of Glen Beck's favorite economist, Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek in his 1960 essay, "Why I am not a Conservative."
"As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers," Hayek writes, "one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind."
He goes on to elaborate:
"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."
Be not afraid.
"As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers," Hayek writes, "one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind."
He goes on to elaborate:
"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."
Be not afraid.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Croaker Fest - Oriental Welcomes Visitors
Tomorrow, July 2, 2010, sees the opening of the Croaker Fest, Pamlico County's midsummer celebration, hosted each year in Oriental. It is a community event, prepared and carried out by many civic-minded people, from parade organizers to garbologists.
Oriental residents and businesses welcome the flood of visitors.
Except for a few. Some take the opportunity to block off "their" section of the town's right of way to prevent visitors from parking on "their" grass. Some even install permanent barriers to prevent parking on public property next to their houses.
Apart from the fact that blocking the town right of way is a violation of the law, it is an offense to the kind of neighborly welcome the rest of us try to extend to visitors. Shame on you!
Oriental residents and businesses welcome the flood of visitors.
Except for a few. Some take the opportunity to block off "their" section of the town's right of way to prevent visitors from parking on "their" grass. Some even install permanent barriers to prevent parking on public property next to their houses.
Apart from the fact that blocking the town right of way is a violation of the law, it is an offense to the kind of neighborly welcome the rest of us try to extend to visitors. Shame on you!
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Great Recession? Or Third Depression?
The great mystery of the great depression of the 1930's was: how could the economy achieve apparent stability at low levels of use of economic resources?
Classical economic theory held that, unfettered by government interference, the market would naturally establish equilibrium at full employment. Periods of reduced economic activity were held to be unstable, leading to a return of stability at full employment.
But from 1929 on, the world economy was stubbornly stable at very low levels of activity. John Maynard Keynes researched the problem with a sense of urgency, publishing his magnum opus, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, in 1936. He demonstrated that in times of massive unemployment and economic stagnation, only government spending could get the economy moving again. Under such circumstances, budget deficits were not important. Keynes was unimpressed with arguments that "in the long run" things would get better. "In the long run," he responded, "we'll all be dead." Over the following quarter century, his theories were adopted by nations all over the world, with great success.
Why would countries abandon a set of insights that worked so well? That is the question economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman examines in today's newspaper. Although he doesn't come out and say so, he seems to fear that once again (as in the 1930's) the world economy is in the hands of fools.
If we hope to avoid a third depression and put people back to work, it is not yet time for Congress to worry about deficits.
Classical economic theory held that, unfettered by government interference, the market would naturally establish equilibrium at full employment. Periods of reduced economic activity were held to be unstable, leading to a return of stability at full employment.
But from 1929 on, the world economy was stubbornly stable at very low levels of activity. John Maynard Keynes researched the problem with a sense of urgency, publishing his magnum opus, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, in 1936. He demonstrated that in times of massive unemployment and economic stagnation, only government spending could get the economy moving again. Under such circumstances, budget deficits were not important. Keynes was unimpressed with arguments that "in the long run" things would get better. "In the long run," he responded, "we'll all be dead." Over the following quarter century, his theories were adopted by nations all over the world, with great success.
Why would countries abandon a set of insights that worked so well? That is the question economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman examines in today's newspaper. Although he doesn't come out and say so, he seems to fear that once again (as in the 1930's) the world economy is in the hands of fools.
If we hope to avoid a third depression and put people back to work, it is not yet time for Congress to worry about deficits.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Bay River Again
Yesterday's report in Pamlico Today was good news about Bay River. The state has held off the moratorium on new hookups until June 7, hoping proposed repairs prove successful.
The news doesn't, however, resolve a longstanding issue that needs to be addressed. There is no agreement between the Town of Oriental and Bay River Metropolitan Sewer District obliging BRMSD to provide sewer treatment for new residences or businesses in Oriental, even though the town's Growth Management Ordinance seems to require sewer hookups for new construction and clearly requires it for subdivisions.
At the time Oriental sold its sewage treatment plant to BMRSD, no one thought to protect the Town's interests with a formal agreement. The problem with handshake agreements, though, is that they are only good while the handshakers are still around. Even then, they may not have thought to cover every likely contingency.
We are all mortal. We owe it to our progeny to protect their interests with formal agreements. An interlocal agreement between the Town and Bay River seems in order.
The news doesn't, however, resolve a longstanding issue that needs to be addressed. There is no agreement between the Town of Oriental and Bay River Metropolitan Sewer District obliging BRMSD to provide sewer treatment for new residences or businesses in Oriental, even though the town's Growth Management Ordinance seems to require sewer hookups for new construction and clearly requires it for subdivisions.
At the time Oriental sold its sewage treatment plant to BMRSD, no one thought to protect the Town's interests with a formal agreement. The problem with handshake agreements, though, is that they are only good while the handshakers are still around. Even then, they may not have thought to cover every likely contingency.
We are all mortal. We owe it to our progeny to protect their interests with formal agreements. An interlocal agreement between the Town and Bay River seems in order.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Are the Best Things in Life Really Free?
Are you High GDP Man or Low GDP Man?
For many years, certain people generally thought to be eccentric (cruising sailors among them) have extolled the virtues of spending less money, being more self-sufficient, growing and catching their own food and so forth. "Leaving the grid," some call it.
Economists who measure the quality of life ("standard of living") by the amount of resources used, frown on this approach. If everyone left the grid, it would lower the GDP.
Other economists, long in the minority, contend that GDP is a misleading measure of prosperity. So what would be a better measure?
Here is a summary of recent developments in assessing prosperity, including some alternate measurements already in use in other countries.
This is definitely worth reading.
For many years, certain people generally thought to be eccentric (cruising sailors among them) have extolled the virtues of spending less money, being more self-sufficient, growing and catching their own food and so forth. "Leaving the grid," some call it.
Economists who measure the quality of life ("standard of living") by the amount of resources used, frown on this approach. If everyone left the grid, it would lower the GDP.
Other economists, long in the minority, contend that GDP is a misleading measure of prosperity. So what would be a better measure?
Here is a summary of recent developments in assessing prosperity, including some alternate measurements already in use in other countries.
This is definitely worth reading.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Effluent Issues
Whenever cruising sailors get together, the conversation eventually touches on holding tanks and pumpouts.
Last week an old friend and his wife stopped by on the way north from cruising in Florida. They were accompanied by two other couples and their boats returning to the Patuxent River. The inevitable subject came up. They complained that there are very few pumpout stations available for transient vessels in North Carolina waters.
This is a serious problem for cruising sailors.
It may also represent an opportunity.
Our friends were confident that cruising boats would drop into Oriental if they knew there was a readily available municipal pumpout facility.
17,000 boats go up and down the ICW every year.
A lot of potential visitors to Oriental and customers for our businesses.
Last week an old friend and his wife stopped by on the way north from cruising in Florida. They were accompanied by two other couples and their boats returning to the Patuxent River. The inevitable subject came up. They complained that there are very few pumpout stations available for transient vessels in North Carolina waters.
This is a serious problem for cruising sailors.
It may also represent an opportunity.
Our friends were confident that cruising boats would drop into Oriental if they knew there was a readily available municipal pumpout facility.
17,000 boats go up and down the ICW every year.
A lot of potential visitors to Oriental and customers for our businesses.
Monday, May 10, 2010
South Avenue Fence
I have been asked several times lately, "when is the fence coming down?"
I modestly point out that I have no inside knowledge anymore. But I have recently learned that the Town of Oriental has given Mr. Lacy Henry a deadline for him to remove the fence.
As some of you may recall, Judge Kenneth Crow signed the Judgment that "the Town of Oriental is the owner of the South Avenue Terminus" on February 5th, 2010. The Superior Court Judgment completed action on a decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued July 7, 2009.
Most of the delay resulted from unsuccessful efforts by Mr. Henry to persuade the Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court to review the unanimous decision of a Court of Appeals panel.
Now the Town needs to get moving. The street end leading down to the water needs to be cleaned up and made presentable.
More urgently, we need a plan on how best to use this public asset.
I have some ideas, which I will be sharing with my readers.
I modestly point out that I have no inside knowledge anymore. But I have recently learned that the Town of Oriental has given Mr. Lacy Henry a deadline for him to remove the fence.
As some of you may recall, Judge Kenneth Crow signed the Judgment that "the Town of Oriental is the owner of the South Avenue Terminus" on February 5th, 2010. The Superior Court Judgment completed action on a decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued July 7, 2009.
Most of the delay resulted from unsuccessful efforts by Mr. Henry to persuade the Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court to review the unanimous decision of a Court of Appeals panel.
Now the Town needs to get moving. The street end leading down to the water needs to be cleaned up and made presentable.
More urgently, we need a plan on how best to use this public asset.
I have some ideas, which I will be sharing with my readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
