The war, it seems, went on forever.
It lasted half my lifetime. At least it had when it finally ended. In 1945.
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, I was a little over four and a half years old. When the Japanese surrendered in Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945, I was eight years and five months old.
War movies had already been going on for nearly four years. And they are still going on.
I even occasionally come across a war movie I don't remember having seen before.
It's no wonder that younger generations can't place the war in any particular half century. It was ancient, wasn't it? Nineteenth century? Just after the Spanish American War? Or was it before?
It's also no wonder the younger generations find it unsurprising that a war in a foreign land could have been going on for a decade. It's like seeing WWII movies. Especially if you don't have a father or an older brother in the fight. Life goes on as usual.
That isn't the way it was in 1942. Or 1943 or 44 or 45. We were all in it together, even if all we did was deliver carefully smashed tin cans and bundles of paper and magazines to the scrap drive. Or sweetened our tea with saccharine instead of sugar and our mothers saved up ration cards for months to be able to bake a birthday cake.
Is this trip necessary? The patriotic posters asked in the train station.
Good question.
Monday, June 6, 2011
D-Day Conundrum
Sixty-seven years ago today, allied forces crossed the English Channel by air and sea, conducting the largest amphibious invasion in history.
The forces landed on the coast of Normandy, not far from Bayeux, from where the Norman forces under William the Conqueror had left in 1066 to defeat the forces of King Harold and conquer England.
By far the two best movies depicting the landings in Normandy are The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan. Neither movie, however, depicts the most significant technical innovations of Operation Overlord - the Conundrum, Pluto, Bambi, Dumbo and the Mulberries.
As early as 1941, British military and naval planners recognized that the harbors in the pas de Calais would be heavily defended and that amphibious assault would probably not succeed. The solution: artificial harbors constructed using enormous concrete caissons towed across the channel and sunk to form artificial breakwaters. Inside the breakwaters, cargo was to be offloaded onto floating piers.
The greatest challenge, though, was how to provide enough fuel to the forces once they landed. The answer was to invent, manufacture and test an underwater pipeline system, known as PLUTO (Pipe Line Under The Ocean). The pipeline was to be laid by using enormous spools of line (called Conundrum). Once in place, the pipeline would be serviced by camouflaged pumping stations built in great secrecy under the code names Bambi and Dumbo.
Here is a good summary of PLUTO.
The forces landed on the coast of Normandy, not far from Bayeux, from where the Norman forces under William the Conqueror had left in 1066 to defeat the forces of King Harold and conquer England.
By far the two best movies depicting the landings in Normandy are The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan. Neither movie, however, depicts the most significant technical innovations of Operation Overlord - the Conundrum, Pluto, Bambi, Dumbo and the Mulberries.
As early as 1941, British military and naval planners recognized that the harbors in the pas de Calais would be heavily defended and that amphibious assault would probably not succeed. The solution: artificial harbors constructed using enormous concrete caissons towed across the channel and sunk to form artificial breakwaters. Inside the breakwaters, cargo was to be offloaded onto floating piers.
The greatest challenge, though, was how to provide enough fuel to the forces once they landed. The answer was to invent, manufacture and test an underwater pipeline system, known as PLUTO (Pipe Line Under The Ocean). The pipeline was to be laid by using enormous spools of line (called Conundrum). Once in place, the pipeline would be serviced by camouflaged pumping stations built in great secrecy under the code names Bambi and Dumbo.
Here is a good summary of PLUTO.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Let's Make Voting Harder
Good article in today's New York Times explains what's really going on with voting law in North Carolina and in other states.
I had an earlier post on the issue of one-stop (early voting) in North Carolina.
I had an earlier post on the issue of one-stop (early voting) in North Carolina.
Make White Water!
When a US Navy destroyer goes from one place to another at high speed, it stirs the water up and leaves a big rooster tail and wake.
One day in 1964, I was at the conn of USS Higbee (DD-806) when the commodore decided to exercise the destroyer squadron at tactical maneuvers. At one point, we were in a circular formation centered on the flagship, when he ordered us to rotate the formation axis. I checked the maneuvering board solution and realized we could simply alter course a bit, slow to about ten knots, and slide into the new station. Smooth.
Commodore Healy had different ideas. He called us on the radio. "Higbee," he said, "this is ComDesRon Three. Make White Water!"
In other words, he wanted us to speed up, turn in a tight circle, stirring up the water, and hurry into the new station. I ordered left full rudder, all ahead full, and did as he wished.
I learned from that experience that sometimes visible action is more important than subtlety.
As I look at the state of the economy and assess the recent jobs information, I see that we aren't creating jobs fast enough to keep pace with our growing population. We need to kick up a rooster tail and make white water!
Is anyone in Washington listening?
One day in 1964, I was at the conn of USS Higbee (DD-806) when the commodore decided to exercise the destroyer squadron at tactical maneuvers. At one point, we were in a circular formation centered on the flagship, when he ordered us to rotate the formation axis. I checked the maneuvering board solution and realized we could simply alter course a bit, slow to about ten knots, and slide into the new station. Smooth.
Commodore Healy had different ideas. He called us on the radio. "Higbee," he said, "this is ComDesRon Three. Make White Water!"
In other words, he wanted us to speed up, turn in a tight circle, stirring up the water, and hurry into the new station. I ordered left full rudder, all ahead full, and did as he wished.
I learned from that experience that sometimes visible action is more important than subtlety.
As I look at the state of the economy and assess the recent jobs information, I see that we aren't creating jobs fast enough to keep pace with our growing population. We need to kick up a rooster tail and make white water!
Is anyone in Washington listening?
Debt Problem?
Suppose you could borrow money for ten years at a real interest rate of less than one percent? Even better, suppose you could borrow money for five years at an interest rate of less than zero? In other words, someone will pay you for you to borrow their money?
You'd probably think about borrowing that money and investing it in measures to improve your future wealth.
Strange as it seems, the US Treasury's real interest rate paid on inflation-protected securities is less than one percent for ten years and less than zero percent for five years. So why not borrow more at those rates and use the funds to stimulate jobs and reinvigorate the economy?
Ask the Republicans.
Is this what they mean by running the government like a business?
You'd probably think about borrowing that money and investing it in measures to improve your future wealth.
Strange as it seems, the US Treasury's real interest rate paid on inflation-protected securities is less than one percent for ten years and less than zero percent for five years. So why not borrow more at those rates and use the funds to stimulate jobs and reinvigorate the economy?
Ask the Republicans.
Is this what they mean by running the government like a business?
Saturday, June 4, 2011
What is Economics?
I've been following recent disputes among academic economists in the blogosphere. Very interesting.
I think macroeconomist Brad DeLong has put his finger on one of the essential differences in approach that feeds economic disputes, as well as political disputes.
Commenting on a presentation by Robert Lucas, Jr., a noted economist of the Chicago School, who cites taxes, unions, financial regulation and the expanding welfare state as causes of the persistent depression, DeLong has this to say:
"[A]s Gavyn Davies [another economist blogger] drily notes, Lucas "seems to have ruled...out [alternate explanations] by a priori conviction, rather than any detailed empirical work."... Lucas seems to be discarding the very idea that economics, like the natural sciences, should be based on the evidence. He appears to believe that the state of the world can be ascertained by deductive logic, without ever looking out the window. That's fine, I suppose, if you believe that economics is a branch of philosophy rather than a branch of science. But it does not seem to be an approach that is likely to enable many practical improvements in the lives of human beings."
Reminds me a bit of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first - verdict afterwards." And perhaps then a bit of evidence, if ever we get around to it.
But I'm afraid too many in Congress treat economics as a branch of philosophy rather than science.
I think macroeconomist Brad DeLong has put his finger on one of the essential differences in approach that feeds economic disputes, as well as political disputes.
Commenting on a presentation by Robert Lucas, Jr., a noted economist of the Chicago School, who cites taxes, unions, financial regulation and the expanding welfare state as causes of the persistent depression, DeLong has this to say:
"[A]s Gavyn Davies [another economist blogger] drily notes, Lucas "seems to have ruled...out [alternate explanations] by a priori conviction, rather than any detailed empirical work."... Lucas seems to be discarding the very idea that economics, like the natural sciences, should be based on the evidence. He appears to believe that the state of the world can be ascertained by deductive logic, without ever looking out the window. That's fine, I suppose, if you believe that economics is a branch of philosophy rather than a branch of science. But it does not seem to be an approach that is likely to enable many practical improvements in the lives of human beings."
Reminds me a bit of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first - verdict afterwards." And perhaps then a bit of evidence, if ever we get around to it.
But I'm afraid too many in Congress treat economics as a branch of philosophy rather than science.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Milk Jug Protests
Remember the local protests against President Obama's health care reform proposal at the Oriental post office last year? The protesters, mostly Republicans, said they didn't want any government interference in health care, though most of them were users of Medicare, VA and other US Government health care programs. Some seemed to fear that health care reform would take these away.
We now know that it is the Republicans who want to replace Medicare with a voucher system, thus turning it into something entirely different from the present system. But they get upset if anyone points out that Congressman Ryan's plan is a voucher system (which it is) and will end Medicare as it now exists (which it will).
Paul Krugman points out quite clearly in his blog why Medicare is sustainable in its present form, but is susceptible to improvement. If you are interested in his explanations, look here. For even more information, once on his blog, keep clicking on the "previous post" button. Eventually, you will come to an explanation of liquidity preference and an informative graph.
Personally, I think a better health reform would have been to adopt a system like VA. For various reasons, in any event, doctors are increasingly withdrawing from their own private practices and going on salary. This brings many benefits to them as well as to their patients. I, for one, would be more comfortable knowing that the physician isn't recommending a procedure because it improves his own personal income.
We now know that it is the Republicans who want to replace Medicare with a voucher system, thus turning it into something entirely different from the present system. But they get upset if anyone points out that Congressman Ryan's plan is a voucher system (which it is) and will end Medicare as it now exists (which it will).
Paul Krugman points out quite clearly in his blog why Medicare is sustainable in its present form, but is susceptible to improvement. If you are interested in his explanations, look here. For even more information, once on his blog, keep clicking on the "previous post" button. Eventually, you will come to an explanation of liquidity preference and an informative graph.
Personally, I think a better health reform would have been to adopt a system like VA. For various reasons, in any event, doctors are increasingly withdrawing from their own private practices and going on salary. This brings many benefits to them as well as to their patients. I, for one, would be more comfortable knowing that the physician isn't recommending a procedure because it improves his own personal income.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
Today's employment news isn't good.
Unemployment is up to 9.1%.
I hate to be a pessimist, but I'm not surprised. The stimulus plan (ARRA) wasn't big enough, and included too many tax reductions in lieu of direct government expenditures.
To understand why, you need to be familiar with three concepts:
A. Liquidity trap. That is when our national monetary authority reduced short term interest to zero, but banks aren't lending and companies aren't borrowing. We are in a liquidity trap. There are many reasons for this - companies, for example, aren't investing because they have no expectation that new customers will suddenly appear. Another reason is:
B. Liquidity preference. In uncertain economic times, companies prefer to hold liquid assets (that can be readily converted to money, like bonds) rather than illiquid assets, like real estate and other commodities;
C. Aggregate Demand. Classical economists have believed for nearly two centuries that there will never be an overall shortage of aggregate demand. Time and again they are proven wrong, but the belief persists. Our aggregate demand is way down because we have the lowest percentage of the population employed since the great depression.
The reason our recovery is stalled is that, in a liquidity trap only government expenditures have a realistic chance of overcoming liquidity preference, improving aggregate demand for goods and services, and therefore stimulating businesses to hire workers and invest in increasing productive capacity.
Businesses aren't refusing to invest because Democrats have hurt their feelings, as some seem to suggest.
Unemployment is up to 9.1%.
I hate to be a pessimist, but I'm not surprised. The stimulus plan (ARRA) wasn't big enough, and included too many tax reductions in lieu of direct government expenditures.
To understand why, you need to be familiar with three concepts:
A. Liquidity trap. That is when our national monetary authority reduced short term interest to zero, but banks aren't lending and companies aren't borrowing. We are in a liquidity trap. There are many reasons for this - companies, for example, aren't investing because they have no expectation that new customers will suddenly appear. Another reason is:
B. Liquidity preference. In uncertain economic times, companies prefer to hold liquid assets (that can be readily converted to money, like bonds) rather than illiquid assets, like real estate and other commodities;
C. Aggregate Demand. Classical economists have believed for nearly two centuries that there will never be an overall shortage of aggregate demand. Time and again they are proven wrong, but the belief persists. Our aggregate demand is way down because we have the lowest percentage of the population employed since the great depression.
The reason our recovery is stalled is that, in a liquidity trap only government expenditures have a realistic chance of overcoming liquidity preference, improving aggregate demand for goods and services, and therefore stimulating businesses to hire workers and invest in increasing productive capacity.
Businesses aren't refusing to invest because Democrats have hurt their feelings, as some seem to suggest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
