Energy and Low Taxes reduce Unemployment Rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats have little good economic news during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  To create more economic activity they argue to raise the minimum wage.  And to provide a pathway to citizenship for those illegally in the country.  But will these help the employment picture?  Well, we don’t have them now and employment is doing very well in parts of the country (see Tight Job Market in U.S. Cities Prompts Higher Pay by Steve Matthews posted 4/16/2014 on Bloomberg).

To hire 10 to 15 project coordinators this year, Sabre Commercial Inc. has boosted pay 10 percent and added a 401(k) retirement plan.

“It is an employee’s market,” said John Cyrier, co-founder and president of the 48-employee Austin, Texas-based builder. “We are definitely seeing a labor shortage in Austin and central Texas. I see it only getting worse.”

Companies across the U.S. from Texas to Virginia and Nebraska are struggling to fill positions with metropolitan jobless rates below the 5.2 percent to 5.6 percent level the Federal Reserve regards as full employment nationally. Competition for workers is prompting businesses to raise wages, increase hours for current employees, add benefits and recruit from other regions…

In New Orleans, where unemployment is 4.2 percent, “we are getting killed on overtime,” said Ti Martin, co-owner of Commander’s Palace, SoBou and Café Adelaide, which employ a total of more than 350 people. “We are doubling up and working extra hours,” and managers are filing in as cooks. The restaurants have a dozen or more openings, mainly for experienced chefs and servers, she said…

In Omaha, with a 4.5 percent unemployment rate, the Greater Omaha Chamber is coordinating a program that will increase the number of internships to more than 300 this year from 135 in 2012 at employers including Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., Union Pacific Corp. (UNP) and ConAgra Foods Inc. (CAG) Exposing young people to the city has been an “excellent recruitment tool,” said Sarah A. Johnson, director of talent and workforce initiatives for the chamber…

The labor shortage is expected to worsen in some regions. In Houston and the surrounding area, construction for the oil, gas and petrochemical industries on the Gulf Coast will require about 36,000 more workers in 2016 than in 2013, according to Industrial Info Resources Inc., a Houston-area based research company.

Even with hot labor markets in some cities, twenty-nine metro areas still have unemployment rates of at least the October 2009 post-recession peak of 10 percent, including Atlantic City, New Jersey, and Fresno, California.

Virginia is doing well in the Washington area thanks to lobbyists and those getting fat on the largess of government.  Nebraska is doing well because of some big national companies there.  Which attract people there even though their taxes are a little on the high side.  But the balance of good economic activity is in low-tax states.  Such as Texas.  Which has no state income tax.  And the energy business is keeping the Gulf States doing well.  Thanks to the energy boom in North Dakota.  Which has the nation’s lowest unemployment rate.

So it is clear what is driving the economy.  Energy.  And low taxes.  Put these together and you have low unemployment.  Which is why Atlantic City and Fresno still have unemployment rates of at least 10%.  Because these are in Democrat states.  Which have high tax rates (California and New Jersey are the two of the highest taxed states in the nation).  And prefer green energy over oil and gas.

A higher minimum wage won’t reduce unemployment.  For California and New Jersey have some of the highest minimum wages in the nation.  So a higher minimum wage is not helping their economies.  But energy and low taxes will.  As proven by the healthy economies in areas with them.  And bad economies in areas without them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Free Birth Control is no more Necessary for a Healthy Life than having Breast Implants

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2014

Week in Review

Gays and lesbians have fought for same-sex marriage.  Because they want to be like traditional couples.  A man and a woman entering wedded bliss.  With all of the legal and employer spousal benefits that come with it.  Even while feminists decry the institution of marriage as enslaving women into a loveless relationship where women are cooks in the kitchen, maids in the house and whores in the bedroom.

Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning after being arrested for leaking classified documents.  Chelsea is now asking for the government to pay for hormone treatment therapy to become physically a woman.  And that denying this costly treatment was cruel and unusual punishment.

So there is a lot of pressure to help people become what they want to be.  And some argue that tax money should pay to help them.  As well as rewrite our laws.  But how far should this go?  How far should we go to help people who are unhappy with their circumstance in life (see Men are funding breast implants for women they’ve never met in exchange for their attention online. That’s pathetic by William Henderson posted 4/16/2014 on The Telegraph)?

I’ve just been reading an article about a woman in the north of England whose breast implants were paid for by strangers. In just three months, 23-year-old Gemini Smith from Northumbria raised the £4,450 needed to transform her from a 34A to a 34DD, and it’s all thanks to MyFreeImplants.com – or rather, the men who use it. This is a website for women who feel unhappy in the chest department but lack the funds to change it. They create a profile explaining why they would like breast implants and why they can’t afford them, and are given a dollar for each message they receive; men are invited to buy chat credits in order to send them messages, and are offered “… direct access to thousands of women seeking friendship and your help in obtaining the body they’ve always dreamed of”.

Should the taxpayers pay for breast implants, too?  As having small breasts is causing some women pain in their lives.  For they don’t feel as attractive as women with larger breasts.  As men tend to look at women with larger breasts.  Because men are pigs.  Yet these women want these pigs to look at them.  And suffer pain when they don’t.

One wonders where the feminists would fall on this issue.  As providing free birth control is no more necessary for a healthy life than having breast implants.  But women getting breast implants are seeking acceptance based on how attractive men find them.  Which runs contrary to feminism.  Much like feeding women free birth control so they can please as many men as possible sexually.  Placing a woman’s sexuality at the core of her being.  Again, something that kind of runs contrary to feminism.  And the left.

Which makes the left’s obsession with same-sex marriage puzzling.  As they are trying everything within their power to help women live without having to marry a man.  While at the same time they are doing everything they can to help same-sex couples do what they try so hard to prevent women from having to do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Vladimir Putin is running roughshod over International Law and the EU is addressing Coffee Makers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 19th, 2014

Week in Review

Vladimir Putin is running roughshod over international law.  He took Crimea.  And is threatening further parts of Ukraine.  Some think he will take Moldova next.  Or possibly one of the Baltic States.  And what is the European Union (EU) doing to protect democracy?  This (see EU lays down the law on coffee making by Edward Malnick posted 4/19/2014 on The Telegraph).

Filter coffee machines will have to turn off automatically to help save energy, under new European Union rules.

All of the devices on sale for domestic use from next year will be required to go into “standby mode” after brewing the drink, the Sun reported.

The European Commission said the changes would save money on electricity bills and were “supported by consumer and industry organisations” as well as member states including the UK.

However campaigners claimed the rules would leave many people with “cold coffee”…

Those machines with non-insulated jugs will have to go on standby after no more than 40 minutes.

Really?  Coffee makers?  That’s the threat to Europe?  Not Vladimir Putin running roughshod over international law.  I guess the EU has a different set of priorities.

All right, let’s look at the cost savings for the average EU consumer.  In America we typically brew a pot of coffee and let it sit on the warmer for maybe 2 hours.  After that it gets a little strong.  So let’s look at two hours.  Assuming a typical 600 watt heating element and an electrical cost of $0.15/kilowatt-hour the cost savings comes to $0.12.  If we brew a pot every morning that comes to a cost savings of $43.80 per year.  Of course, people will have to warm up their tepid coffee after the coffee maker automatically shuts down.  And the most likely way will be in a microwave oven for about 30 seconds.  You do this for three cups of coffee and you’re not going to consume much electric power.  But you’re going to put a lot of wear and tear on your microwave oven.  Which cost more than the $43.80 savings in electric power.  Not to mention the inconvenience of having to run your microwave when you want another cup of coffee.

You know what can keep that coffee warm without stressing your microwave oven?  The coffee maker.  For only $0.12 a day.  There are people that won’t stoop to pick up a coin if it’s less than a quarter.  So do you really think the people are going to appreciate paying more for a coffee maker (that now must include a timed shutoff mechanism) so they can go through microwave ovens quicker just to save $0.12 a day?  Probably not.

This is the problem with a nanny state.  Which the EU is.  The worst part is that these people are paid by taxes to come up with these brilliant ideas no one needs.  Something taxpayers may be more in need of is a way to stop the law-breaking ways of Vladimir Putin.  For Vladimir Putin probably poses a greater risk to Europe than coffee makers.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Only Government can Create and Enforce a Monopoly

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 19th, 2014

Week in Review

So many people fear the low prices of corporations.  They say they will put higher priced Mom and Pop shops out of business.  Then when they have a monopoly they will raise their prices and gouge their customers.  Which is silly.  Because corporations can’t create a monopoly.  Only government can grant them one.  Allowing them to charge the high prices once the government eliminates all competition.  But even when the government does if there is a market for lower prices some competition will find a way (see 3 epic fails that prove Uncle Sam is a terrible venture capitalist by Burton W. Folsom Jr. and Anita Folsom posted 4/19/2014 on the New York Post).

After 20 years in Europe perfecting his steamboat, an inventor named Robert Fulton returned to the US in December 1806.

He knew that a legislator, Robert Livingston of New York, would back him to the hilt. Livingston was a Founding Father who believed that steamboats would work well on the wide rivers of North America. Livingston and Fulton obtained a monopoly from the New York legislature for the privilege of carrying all steamboat traffic in New York for 30 years, if they could produce a working steamboat within two years…

One problem with Fulton’s monopoly, however, was that it affected shippers in neighboring states. As steamboats became more common, the Fulton monopoly meant that other companies couldn’t sail in New York waters without fear of fines. The monopoly also kept ticket prices high.

Finally, in 1817, Thomas Gibbons, a New Jersey steamboat man, tried to crack Fulton’s monopoly when he hired young Cornelius Vanderbilt. Gibbons asked Vanderbilt to run steamboats in New York and charge less than the monopoly rates…

For 60 days in 1817, Vanderbilt defied capture as he raced passengers cheaply from Elizabeth, NJ, to New York City. He became a popular figure on the Atlantic as he lowered the fares and eluded the law.

Finally, in 1824, in the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden, the US Supreme Court struck down the Fulton monopoly. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that only the federal government, not the states, could regulate interstate commerce.

This extremely popular decision opened the waters of America to competition. A jubilant Vanderbilt was greeted in New Brunswick, NJ, by cannon salutes fired by “citizens desirous of testifying in a public manner their good will.”

On the Ohio River, steamboat traffic doubled in the first year after Gibbons v. Ogden and quadrupled after the second year. The real value of removing the Fulton monopoly was that the costs of traveling upriver dropped. Passenger traffic, for example, from New York City to Albany immediately dipped from $7 to $3 dollars after the court decision.

Only governments can maintain and enforce a monopoly.  And only a business with a government enforced monopoly can gouge their customers.  For with the government eliminating all competition what else is a consumer to do?  He or she has no choice but to buy from the business with the government enforced monopoly.  The same is true today.

Free market capitalism is always finding a better way to do something that costs less.  But people who enjoy government monopolies try to fight back.  To keep their government privileges.  Just look at the UAW and the automotive industry.  Which used the power of their government privilege to restrict competition.  Such as with tariffs and import quotas.  Which only let the UAW to continue to burden the American automotive industry with ever more costly union contracts that ultimately led to their bankruptcy/government bailout.  All the while keeping cars more expensive than they had to be.  As the UAW used their government privilege to gouge American automotive customers.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Left wants a Health Care System like Britain’s NHS despite the NHS having Crippling Deficits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 19th, 2014

Week in Review

Obamacare is not going well.  The say it is.  But it isn’t.  The White House can all of a sudden give us a number like 8 million enrollees when they said earlier they couldn’t tell until the insurance companies tell them.  And the other big question is this.  Are these enrollees?  Including all people who enrolled whether they paid or not?  Or are these only the people who paid?  Or are most of these people enrolling in Medicaid?  Those who won’t ever pay?  If that 8 million aren’t paying customers Obamacare is doomed.

So the financial foundation of Obamacare is likely very perilous.  Where the sick and poor are probably signing up more than the healthy with money.  And the delay of the employer mandate to sometime after the midterm election takes a bad financial foundation and makes it worse.  For they can’t keep delaying the funding parts until after elections.  Because someone has to pay for all of the subsidies.  As well as the high cost of the old and sick.  Which alone may bankrupt Obamacare (see Labour considers raising national insurance to fix £30bn NHS ‘black hole’ by Toby Helm posted 4/19/2014 on the guardian).

Radical plans to increase national insurance contributions to plug a looming £30bn a year “black hole” in NHS funding and pay the spiralling costs of care for the elderly are being examined by Labour’s policy review.

The Observer has learnt that the idea is among options being considered to ensure NHS and care costs can be met under a future Labour government, without it having to impose crippling cuts on other services in successive budgets.

Senior party figures have confirmed that a scheme advanced by the former Labour minister Frank Field – under which funds from increased NI would be paid into a sealed-off fund for health and care costs – is being examined, though no decisions have been taken.

Recent figures based on data from NHS England and the Nuffield Trust and produced by the Commons library suggest that NHS costs alone will go from £95bn a year now to more than £130bn a year by 2020.

Some have suggested that they designed Obamacare to fail.  So they can get what they really want.  Single-payer.  Or national health care.  Like they have in Britain with their National Health Service (NHS).  Which is running an enormous deficit.  Based on the above numbers it currently is 31.6% (£30bn/£95bn).  Which is just unsustainable.  But this is what an aging population will do.  When you have more people leaving the workforce consuming health care benefits paid for by fewer people entering the workforce.  Which should be a huge warning for the United States.  Because they have an aging population, too.

At the current exchange rate that £30 billion comes to $50.37 billion.  Is this what the US can expect?  No.  Because they have five-times the population Britain has.  So their deficit will be approximately five-times as big.  Or $251.85 billion.  That’s a quarter of a trillion dollar shortfall PER YEAR.  At least.  And $2.52 trillion over a decade.  So unless the Americans can somehow make their people less sick so they won’t consume health care resources the deficit alone for Obamacare will be more than twice the original CBO projection for the total cost over 10 years.  Which means the Americans will have to do what the British must do.  Increase taxes.  Charge for some health care services in addition to these higher taxes.  Or impose crippling cuts to services.  Hello rationing.  And longer wait times.

This is the absolute worst time to impose a single-payer/national health care system.  Just as the baby boom generation fills our health care system in their retirement.  It might have worked if we had kept having babies the way we did before birth control and abortion slashed the birthrate.  But we didn’t.  And now we have a baby bust generation stuck footing the bill for a baby boom generation.  Fewer paying for more.  And the only way to make that work is with confiscatory tax rates.  Or death panels.  Because you have to raise revenue.  Or cut costs.  There is just no other option.  Or people can work longer, pay out of pocket for routine, expected expenses and buy real insurance to protect themselves from catastrophic, unexpected medical expenses.  Which is actually another option.  And probably the only one that will work.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Airbus A380 hits 2 Light Poles at LAX while carrying Fewer Passengers than a Smaller Boeing 777 can Carry

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

The Boeing 747 ruled the long-haul routes for decades.  Because of its range.  And its size.  With it being able to carry so many passengers the cost per passenger fell.  Allowing it to offer ticket prices at prices people could afford while still making airlines a decent profit.  Airbus took on the Boeing 747.  And produced the mammoth A380.  A double-decker aircraft that can carry around 555 in three classes.  But this plane is big.  With a wingspan greater than the 747.  Not to mention special boarding requirements to load and unload its two decks.  But this extra large size couldn’t board at any run-of-the-mill 747 gate.  It needed a wider parking place.  Double-decker boarding gates.  As well as wider taxiways (see Korean Air A380 Hits 2 Light Poles At LA Airport by Tami Abdollah, AP, posted 4/17/2014 on Time).

A Korean Air A380 superjumbo jet hit two light poles while taxiing to its gate at a remote end of Los Angeles International Airport with hundreds of passengers aboard.

Airline spokeswoman Penny Pfaelzer says the flight arrived from Seoul Wednesday afternoon with 384 people aboard. She says an airport operations vehicle guided the jet onto a taxiway that wasn’t wide enough…

The A380 is the world’s largest commercial airliner, carrying passengers in a double-deck configuration. It has a wingspan of nearly 262 feet.

The search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 is important.  Because Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 was a Boeing 777.  One of the most popular long-range, wide-body aircraft flying today.  So if there is a mechanical defect every airline flying that plane would want to know.

Because of the cost of fuel airlines prefer 2-engine jets over 4-engine jets.  Which is why they like the 777 so much.  The 777-300ER can take 386 passengers in three classes 9,128 miles.  On only 2 engines.  Whereas the Airbus A380 can take 555 passengers in three classes 9,755 miles.  But on 4 engines.  Burning close to twice the fuel a 777 burns.  So the A380 can out fly the 777.  But at much higher fuel costs.  And with greater restrictions.  As the 777 can fit most any gate and taxiway at any airport.  Unlike the A380.  So is that extra passenger capacity worth it?  It is.  As long as you can fill the seats.  In this case, though, the A380 flew the approximately 6,000 miles from South Korea to Los Angeles with only 384 people aboard.  Something the Boeing 777-300ER could have done on half the engines.  And about half the fuel cost.

This is why the Boeing 777 is one of the most popular long-range, wide-body aircraft flying today.  Because it allows airlines to offer tickets at prices the people can afford while allowing the airlines a handsome profit.  And it has an incredible safety record.  Unless Malaysian Flight 370 changes that.  Which is why it is so important to find that plane and determine what happen.  As there are so many of these flying today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Postponing Motherhood may be good for Busy Women but not for their Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant.  He was bald.  And not in the best of shape.  He looked older than he was.  He started a family later in life.  And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was.  Because he looked like a grandfather.  Even though he was only a father.

I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation.  Running around with his grade-school-aged children.  Another father who started his family later in life.  It was not a problem for him.  For men don’t have a biological clock ticking.  So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life.  But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school.  Which is a horrible thing for a child.

This was something women were spared.  Because they have a biological clock ticking.  And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’.  Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.

“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”

LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.

This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules.  But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation.  Old enough to be a grandmother.  While the grandmother may be in a nursing home.  Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her.  For nursing homes are not places children want to be.

And you could be dead by your child’s graduation.  For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51.  Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s.  The risk of breast cancer increases with age.  The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age.  The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age.  The risk of heart disease increases with age.  As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc.  Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s.  But more common for women over 40.

And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40.  The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age.  As does the risk for birth defects.  So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children.  Who deserve young and healthy parents.  Who can run with them while on vacation.  And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them.  Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gun Crime in Chicago and Knife Crime in Britain have same Root Cause

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 16th, 2014

Week in Review

Chicago is adrift in a sea of blood.  Despite their strict gun laws there is an epidemic of gun violence in the city.  And the reason for this, say those on the left, is the availability of guns elsewhere.  Guns that are brought into Chicago and get into the hands of innocent young kids.  Forcing them to leave their peace-loving ways.  That’s the problem.  Get rid of all the guns and those kids will stay peace-loving and as pure as the wind driven snow.  For without guns there can be no violence.  Because what person would never think about picking up a knife (see Impose tougher sentences for knife crimes, says top judge by David Barrett posted 4/16/2014 on The Telegraph)?

The most senior judge in England and Wales has called on magistrates to impose tougher sentences for youths who carry knives.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, said more severe punishments could help cut the “prevalence” of such crimes.

In a ruling at the Court of Appeal in London, Lord Thomas said: “Given the prevalence of knife crime among young persons, the youth court must keep a very sharp focus, if necessary through the use of more severe sentences, on preventing further offending by anyone apprehended for carrying a knife in a public place and to securing a reduction in the carrying of knives.”

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, has previously expressed his concern about knife criminals being handed cautions and other non-custodial punishments.

Mr Grayling brought in new measures in December 2012 which were designed to impose mandatory jail sentences on anyone who uses a knife or offensive weapon to threaten and endanger others.

Britain has very strict gun laws.  It’s like Chicago writ large.  So people can’t go to a part of Britain where there are lax gun laws.  Buy guns.  And taking them to another place in Britain that has strict gun laws.  Even their police don’t carry guns while walking a beat.  They do, however, have units that carry guns.  In response to rising gun crime.  But it’s the knife crime that Britain is struggling with.  And much of the knife violence in Britain is due to the same cause of the gun violence in Chicago.  Gangs.

Is knife violence preferred over gun violence?  Perhaps.  No doubt it is more difficult to stab an innocent bystander in a ‘drive-by’ stabbing.  But because knives are so easy to get almost any gang member can carry a knife.  And anyone with mental health issues can easily pick one up in most any kitchen.  And cause harm.  As in Calgary and Regina, Canada.  And in Murrysville, Pennsylvania.

It’s not the guns or the knives that are causing people to harm others.  These people are just determined to cause harm.  You can try to take away every conceivable weapon but if they want to cause harm they will find a way to cause harm.  Which is what we should be doing.  Trying to prevent them from causing harm.  Not just trying to prevent one way they can cause harm.  With guns.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio paid a lower effective tax rate than Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 16th, 2014

Week in Review

The problem with Republicans is that they are so greedy that they put money before people.  That’s why they oppose taxes.  Because they don’t want to give up any of their money.  At least, this is what Democrats say about Republicans.  Along with the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ mantra.  In fact, they castigated Mitt Romney for only paying an effective tax rate of 14% in 2011.  Even Warren Buffet decried the unfairness of the tax code where rich guys like him pay an effective tax rate of 17.4% while the poorer classes working beneath him paid on average 35%.  Even his secretary paid a higher tax rate.  And that just wasn’t fair.  Of course Buffet’s 17.4% in actual dollar amounts dwarfed the tax dollars of everyone working for him combined.  But that’s not the point.  No, the point is that Republicans are all a bunch of greedy, vicious, heartless bastards.

New York’s new mayor is a Democrat.  And he isn’t a greedy, vicious, heartless bastard.  In fact, he promised to raise taxes on those rich fat cats who pay as little as a 14% effective tax rate.  Something he would never do himself.  Because he’s not a greedy, vicious, heartless bastard.  He’s a Democrat (see New York Mayor Bill De Blasio Pays A Lower Tax Rate Than Mitt Romney by Hunter Walker posted 4/16/2014 on Business Insider).

Democratic New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio became a prominent proponent of progressive tax policy when he made raising taxes on city residents who make over $500,000 a year a cornerstone of his platform during his underdog campaign last year.

That’s why it raised eyebrows and drew some initial national coverage when The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that de Blasio had paid an “effective tax rate” of 8.3%.

That would put de Blasio’s tax rate substantially lower than the approximately 14% tax rate multimillionaire former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was attacked by Democrats for paying in 2011.

Well, somehow it works out that a Republican paying a 14% effective tax rate is a greedy, vicious, heartless bastard but a Democrat paying 8.3% is not.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The more Electric Cars people drive the greater the Stress on the Electric Grid

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 16th, 2014

Week in Review

Have you ever noticed your lights dim when your air conditioner starts?  They do because when an electric motor starts there is a momentary short circuit across the windings.  Causing a great inrush of current as they start rotating.  Once they are rotating that inrush of current drops.  During that surge in current the voltage drops.  Because there is no resistance in a short circuit.  So there is no voltage across a short circuit.  And because everything in your house goes back to your electrical panel that momentary voltage drop affects everything in your house.  Including your lights.  The lower voltage reduces the lighting output.  Momentarily.  Once the air conditioning motor begins to rotate the short circuit goes away and the voltage returns to normal.

Air conditioners draw a lot of power.  And during hot summer days when everyone gets home from work they cause the occasional brownout.  As everybody turns on their air conditioners in the evening.  Stressing the electric grid.  Which is why our power bills rise in the summer months.  For this great rise in demand causes a corresponding rise in supply.  Costing the power companies more to meet that demand.  Which they pass on to us (see Electricity Price Surged to All-Time Record for March by Terence P. Jeffrey posted 4/16/2014 on cnsnews).

The average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of electricity hit a March record of 13.5 cents, according data released yesterday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was up about 5.5 percent from 12.8 cents per KWH in March 2013.

The price of electricity in the United States tends to rise in spring, peak in summer, and decline in fall. Last year, after the price of a KWH averaged 12.8 cents in March, it rose to an all-time high of 13.7 cents in June, July, August and September.

If the prevailing trend holds, the average price of a KWH would hit a new record this summer.

All-electric cars are more popular in California than in Minnesota.  Because there is little cold and snow in California.  And batteries don’t work so well in the cold.  AAA makes a lot of money jumping dead batteries during cold winter months.  So batteries don’t hold their charge as well in the winter.  Which is when an all-electric car requires more charge.  For the days are shorter.  Meaning that at least part of your daily commute will be in the dark and require headlights.  It is colder.  Requiring electric power for heating.  Windows fog and frost up.  Requiring electric power for defogging and defrosting.  It snows.  Requiring electric power to run windshield wipers.  Slippery roads slow traffic to a crawl.  Increasing the time spent with all of these things running during your commute.  So the all-electric car is more of a warm-weather car.  Where people who don’t live in sunny California may park their all-electric car during the worst of the winter months.  And use a gasoline-powered car instead.

As those on the left want everyone to drive all-electric cars they don’t say much about the stress that will add to the electric grid.  If everyone switched to an electric car in the summer it would be like adding a second air conditioner at every house.  Especially after work.  When everyone gets home and plugs in.  Causing an inrush of current for an hour or so as those discharged batters recharge.  A discharged battery is similar to an electric motor.  As it’s the current flow that recharges the battery cells.  There’s a high current at first.  Which falls as the battery charges.  So summer evenings will have a lot of brownouts during the summer months.  As the added electric load will greatly stress the electric grid during the evenings.  A demand that the power companies will have to supply.  At the same time they’re replacing coal-fired power plants with less reliable renewable forms of power generation.  Such as solar farms.  Which will be fast running out of sunshine as these cars plug in.

If people switch from gasoline to electric power in their cars en masse the average price for a kilowatt-hour will soar.  It’s simple economics.  Supply and demand.  The greater the demand the higher the price.  And there is little economies of scale in power production.  Because more power requires more fuel.  And the kicker is that even people who don’t drive will have to pay more on their electric bills when people switch from gasoline to electric cars.  And their gas bills if gas-fired turbines provide that peak power demand.  Raising the price of natural gas.  Making everyone pay more.  Whereas only drivers of gasoline-powered cars are impacted by the high cost of gasoline.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »