« Hollywood Synthesized – Another Step Closer | Main | AtPac’s Nuclear Option »

02 June 2011

Comments

stevenfrisch

By the way Greg why is the "just a guy ...." part in quotes? I always signed editorials with my organizational affiliation if they were representing my organization. Anyone that wants to can go find out what I do. How do we find out what you do? Will you start posting your stock portfolio along with your comments?

D. King

"I do think that creating performance metrics for government agencies, boards, commissions and programs will help business in the long run by helping to force government activities to prove their worth."

Another agency?
You just can't help yourself Steve.
May I humbly suggest:
Department of Redundancy Department

Greg Goodknight

There have been a number of 'moderate' Republicans running for statewide offices. You've not noticed? Even Schwarzenegger carried all but 6 counties in 2006, and in happier times called the most liberal Senator in the US by the name "Uncle Teddy".

Here's your Other Voices... filled with falsehoods and wishful thinking. Where is the disclaimer your company will gain revenue from AB32 implementations, that the SBC budget would have been negatively impacted by Prop 23? Then, as now, you dance around it, as if the fact that your Carbon profits will just help you fund your other activities changes anything. A lie by omission remains a lie.
http://www.theunion.com/article/20101002/OPINION/101009967&parentprofile=search

And yes, I directly challenged you regarding this in the comments; shall I dig those out too?

Greg Goodknight

ggoodknight, 9/7/2010 1:49 PM PDT on theunion.com


Stephen Frisch writes [same day] "By the way, I never said I was an expert, I am not. I am a guy, just like you, who reads about public policy and digs in to it if it is of interest. There is nothing wrong with that. If you think I'm not qualified to discuss this, then neither are you."

Perhaps I'm confused... aren't you the same Stephen Frisch who is CEO of the so-called "Sierra Business Council", and a significant portion of your business involves capitalizing on the regulation of carbon dioxide?Does the SBC stand to gain from AB32 and the defeat of Prop 23, or doesn't it?"

Remember now, Steve?

stevenfrisch

Yet Greg in that very same other voices I identify myself as the President of the Sierra Business Council. Anyone who wants to look can. I admit I am not an expert on the science in my comments that follow, I remember. I think you miss the point ALL OF US HAVE A RIGHT to be involved in public policy. This is friggin America.

So if you are going to say I have a vested interest I would say all citizens have a vested interest and PLEASE DISCLOSE YOUR STOCK PORTFOLIO!

You are just a lazy couch potato dude! I am out doing it and you are frustrated.

wmartin

Nice work if you can get it.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=680397204&yr=200912&rt=990&t9=A

Mike Thornton

Well, well, well...
My point about "demonizing" is as Steve put it. It usually doesn't take more than a sentence or two, before one of the regressive posters call somebody some sort of derogatory name or applies some unwarranted stereotype label to them, calls them a "liar" or even gets into trying to make fun of their physical appearance. When this happens, none of the regressive posters complain about it and very often jump on the band wagon. However, we all know what happens when the regressives believe that the same thing is being done to them or simply want to try and trump something up, in order to take the focus off the issues.
Regressive IS the appropriate term to use and I'll continue to use it!
What I see here is actually pretty simple. Regressives want the ability to say and do anything they want to their opponents. But at the same time they want to limit what their opponents can say or do to them. This has been the bottom line from the regressive playbook for the last 30+ years and "liberals" have fallen for it.
Let me see you guys clean up your act and start treating people with decency and respect.
I'll actually bet real money that you won't do it, because the truth of the matter is that I don't think you can do it!
I really believe that if you actually tried to stick to the real issues and stop the sleazy attacks, you'd run out of material in less than a day!

Todd Juvinall

Wow, I leave for some fun for a short time and this place gets real hot!

Paul, you crack me up, what a hoot!

Thornton, you are stuck in a hate rut, "regressive" doesn't bother me as you intend it too. I would say returning our country to its roots of freedom and less government is a very laudatory "regressive" goal. So have at it.

Frisch, you are why Americans don't like lobbyists. Since you were the chief lobbyist against Prop 23 and were then going to benefit from grants and loans if you succeeded, you have become the poster child for the Sacramento corruption industry. You are a hypocrite par excellence. Also, the bills you say you got passed don't add one private sector job but they do create more Steve Frisch's. We are trying to stop that kind of meaningless deck chair movement.

Greg, you are obviously much smarter then Frisch and Thornton so keep up the good work.

stevenfrisch

Todd I doubt you even read the bills. I wonder why Dan Logue and Doug LaMalfa voted for them?

stevenfrisch

Paul and Mike I think you know see why my question here is "what is the value proposition"? These people and their ideas have no value. They are a waste of time.

stevenfrisch

By the way I have yet to benefit from one grant or loan due to the failure of Prop 23, and there is non on the horizon, although there is no such thing as trust with you guys.

wmartin

I think someone needs a hug.

Honestly, the best rants are to be found on democraticunderground.com although, last time I checked on Mr. Pelline's sight, there's some pretty decent harpy action going on there.

Aside from all these people accusing each other of being meanies, I was thinking about George Rebanes question about the sparseness of new science/engineering graduates and the great number of new workers who are more qualified at the unskilled end of the scale.

The cynic in me wonders if it's really a problem. High tech firms claim labor shortages as an issue mostly, so far as I can tell, to drive down rates via the various flavors of H1B-esque programs. There's also a lot of groups including, oddly enough, normally pro-labor Liberals that think it's cool to ship in millions of campesinos. The primary net effect of this last thing is to cap income and working conditions for blue collar work in a lot of the US.

If there is a shortage of people, where is it really? I'll bet it's nowhere obvious. It wouldn't surprise me if labor shortfalls simply don't exist to any great degree in mature industries (including software and web development), but instead come up in truly new industries.

Todd Juvinall

SB 201 is here and maybe SteveF can explain how this is going to help create jobs.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/reports/history.cfm?ID=478

Looks like a party line vote too. 27-15

SB 14 places "performance" based budgeting into the State Constitution and recieved a unanimous Senate vote. Whether it will become law is yet to be seen.

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/CA/SB14

SB 15 is also a budget tweaker bill and was a unanimous vote.

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/CA/SB15

I would like to know how SteveF had anything to do with this and how the private sector gets any benefit? I think he was blowing smoke.

Todd Juvinall

So Steve, my post was being researched while you were asking me if I read the bills. See above. Please tell us all how these bills create one private sector job here in California. If anything they are simply budget tweaks. Based on your smarmy response and challenges about these bills, tell us how you had anything to do with them? Did you work with your Senator and Assemblyman on them?

Michael R. Kesti

To use the term "regressives" to describe conservatives would be akin to using the term "pro death" to describe those who are willing to allow abortion. In both cases the words are valid and accurate, and they completely misrepresent the issues' actual philosophical differences with the intent to demonize and judge.

George Rebane

Re shortage of skill sets for jobs. Being back in the technology entrepreneurial saddle, my anecdotal experience about the shortage of science/math proficient people confirms government and industry claims. I also see a lot of senior (50+) 'fighter pilots' out there earning high salaries at levels that in the past would have called for their accepting a 'bomber pilot' job or being fired because two or three junior technical workers would have been available to out-produce him.

['fighter pilot' is a term for a highly skilled (technical) individual who likes to work alone, is very productive/innovative, and rejects offers to lead others. 'bomber pilot' is the converse of someone who takes his technical skills into a group/dept leadership position and leverages his experience and education to the benefit of his employer.]

D. King

‘Meathead’ Majors

Steve Said:

"These people and their ideas have no value. They are a waste of time."

Steve,

Your intensions are good, however, to get to 33% renewable in the stated time frame is not possible unless you pencil whip the numbers by reducing overall consumption in an economically debilitating amount. A better approach would be to leave things as they are and invest money into energy research. I’m not talking about wind, solar, bio, but physics. That is where you will find the amount of energy you need, and, it is there Steve.


George Rebane

Agreed with DaveK - set up a very large prize for success, and stand back.

Mikey McD

"Regressive"- when liberals do 'it' they call it "reform." Those using logic can't ignore the run-away government spending, debt, regulations, tax structure... reform is needed.

AB32 forced an ideology on the people of CA. God only knows what the Thornton's of the world would be calling republicans for forcing their ideology on the people (using junk science, fear, propaganda none the less)?

AB32 matches the definition of 'regressive.' AB32 is the poster child for "regressive."

Mikey McD

hypocrisy- when big corporations collude with government there is evil but when hand selected niche businesses (and non-profits) collude with government there is never ending sunshine, lollipops and birds chirping.


"I simply attract a different type of business owner, thats my niche. "

Mike Thornton

No Michael. there's a big difference between "pro death" and "pro choice" and there's as big a difference between "conservative" and "regressive".
There's noting "conservative" about what you guys are proposing. It is in fact "extremist"!
However it is extremely accurate to call it "regressive", since it is (in essence) an attempt to roll back not only New Deal legislation, but to even roll back the idea that we live in an integrated (I don't only mean racially) society and that there is a social contract to work together to better the lives of all Americans, not just the wealthy and privileged!
So the actual misrepresentation is when "regressives" call themselves "conservatives"!

D. King

George,

McCain suggested $1.00 per person in the U.S.
$300+ million, Katie bar the door!

stevenfrisch

By the way Todd, I was talking about CALIFORNIA Senate Bill 201 not Nevada Senate Bill 201.

I'm not going to tell you any more about how we worked on them than I did above. You will need to read the posts.

D. King--we are already at about 20% renewable generated power in the State of California already. Capital investment and permitting processes are in place to put us at about 25% over the next 5 years. 33% is a target. At the current rate of bringing renewables on line we should meet 33% by about 2025. Reducing per capita consumption, and California is already at about 60% of the consumption rate of the average American, through energy efficiency can reduce the gap even more.

We are doing Direct Install energy efficiency in businesses right now and the average savings after an install is about 20% with less than a 1-year payback.

Demand response is another way to meet the goal. We are helping businesses install software that will adjust the timing of their sue of energy to bring the savings up even more, and reduce demand on non-baseload power.

I agree with you that more research is needed.

Mikey McD

Thornton, and your solutions to our debt crisis? Unfunded liability crisis? pathetically low savings yields on mom and pops savings accounts? Bankrupt SS? An ignored and failing educational system?

Do you call it 'EXTREME' when you balance your checkbook each month?

stevenfrisch

Gee Michael, I can't help it if you don't like the word. It is nonetheless accurate and in the dictionary, so i guess you regressive's are just going to have to live with it. I prefer reactionary but I will go with Mike on this one!

stevenfrisch

By the way Todd, perhaps you can call your good friends Dan Logue and Doug LaMalfa about SB 14 & 15. They voted for them. If you guys can't see how these bills improve the states financial position in the long run I can't really help you. To understand it. YOU NEED TO DO THE WORK.

stevenfrisch

Here si the link to CALIFORNIA SB201--it passed 37-1

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_201&sess=CUR&house=B&author=desaulnier

Todd Juvinall

Oops, SB201 is linked here. Please tell me how you helped in this bill. When I went back to get the first link I hit the wrong one.

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/CA/SB201

All three bills were unanimous so that tells me they are in the scope of political votes where no one would vote against say, widows and orphans. So tell us how you managed to be a part of these three unanimous votes Steve and how these are going to create one job here in our bankrupt state.

stevenfrisch

By the way Todd, I can't help but note that according to the timelines above you did not wait to actually read them, or even know if you the accurate links, before you mouthed off with your uninformed opinion that they "don't create one private sector job"; confirming my suspicion that you are 2/3 of a fully formed ideology chasing 1/3 of a fully formed intellect.

Todd Juvinall

I think SteveF is off the meds again. The bills he cites do not create jobs. Read them and then look at the votes. Widows and orphans. I think a hypocrite like Frisch is simply been caught in his own web of deceit and he is using his third grade mental capacity to do the peepee dance of bogus facts. Please StevF, read your bills you seem to believe you had something to do with before you embarrass yourself any further.

D. King

Steve,

Including Hydro is misleading people. If Global Warming is reducing snowpack (oops),
and that means less water, well then… I have to tell you, to an engineer, banning light bulbs was not your best, first, move!
Still, I don’t think you understand how fast new energy will arrive. Don't put all your eggs...

Greg Goodknight

Golly, Br'er Frisch is a bit hot under the collar. Steve, that quote from TheUnion comments wasn't from your OtherVoices, it was from comments from an OtherVoices by County Supervisor Spencer. You hadn't identified yourself as CEO of the rent seeking SBC, you were just a regular guy, not an expert, despite being in a position to be working on legislation (no doughnut at meetings?), or so you now claim. Disingenuous at best.

Now he's melting down, apparently thinking I must be motivated by income in dirty energy stocks. Sorry, Steve, but I own no individual stocks nor do I own any ETFs or other funds that are specific to energy production or distribution. Closest thing I have to skin in the energy game is a paltry four figure investment in a commodity ETF as a very speculative play in an alternative energy scenario, in an IRA. Nor have I ever earned a penny from working in any industry even peripherally related to energy other than having big electric bills.

I wasn't a meathead in college, Steve. Math and physical sciences. I'm in this discussion because in my opinion, the evidence is clear that the science that has driven your 'good public policy' is false, and our economy is being harmed by it.

Greg Goodknight

I think free minds and free markets are the true progressive ideals. Classic liberalism. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Self styled "Progressives" seem oriented towards robbing Peter to pay Paul, and growing the power of the state to boss people around. Free to live as you choose, as long as it's the life "Progressives" want you to live. In my mind, that's true Regressivism.

Thornton, how many of the desperately poor in our country are functionally illiterate? How many of those could not have been expected to read because of mental defects? I expect the answers are on the order of "most all" and "very few". You?

Mikey McD

Worth repeating: "I think free minds and free markets are the true progressive ideals. Classic liberalism. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Self styled "Progressives" seem oriented towards robbing Peter to pay Paul, and growing the power of the state to boss people around. Free to live as you choose, as long as it's the life "Progressives" want you to live. In my mind, that's true Regressivism."
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 04 June 2011 at 11:30 AM

Greg Goodknight

Golly, Steve, I believe you've claimed here that the SBC has 700 *business* members, but your Schedule O claims "MEMBERSHIP: SIERRA BUSINESS COUNCIL IS A MEMBER-BASED ORGANIZATION OF OVER 700 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO PIONEERING INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS IN THE SIERRA NEVADA. MEMBERSHIP PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN NETWORKING PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE ORGANIZATION'S MISSION".

700 individuals, or 700 businesses? Which is it?

I see that year you got $100K in reportable compensation vs $520K for everyone else combined, and the fees for services provided was on the order of $400K. Nice percentage of the action, Steve.

Todd Juvinall

How true. What we now have in the Thornton's Frisch's and their ilk are "pro-gressives" They are rent seekers and live off the rest of us. Therefore they are "pro" short for professionals. Gressives are shared by all.

Greg Goodknight

Todd, forgive me for repeating myself, but your snipings are not contributing to the discussion.

stevenfrisch

D. King--Hydro is not included in the renewable portfolio standard in California. You propensity to assume with out research is showing.

stevenfrisch

Greg, my point remains, I have a first amendment right, as an individual and as a member of an organization, protected under the freedom of association clause. In America, we are all equal. I am always just a guy, whether speaking individually or on behalf of my organization. If you want me to address a specific point by the way I wold prefer it if you link to the original source material. You are trying to divert attention from the core point. I have a right to speak up, and there is NOTHING you are your bullying friends can do about that.

stevenfrisch

Well Greg, why can't I question your motivations if you can question mine? Lets see your stock portfolio.

wmartin

LOL. The 'discussion' is just a cacophony.

Just to throw in my own yammering, in response to:

"Steve,

Including Hydro is misleading people. "

Here's how I see hydro as being misleading.

. It's low hanging fruit.
. It's practically all finished up. IE. there ain't no more.
. Being used as a baseline for renewable, that is, non-mined energy, is kind of disingenuous.

My own thinking on renewables is incredibly simplistic. If you can buy some property, get the permits, put in a field of mirrors plus a steam turbine, and sell power to PGE at less than they can make it for out of something like natgas, I suggest you get to it.

All the handwaving that goes along with solar/tidal/wind power makes my arms tired.

To Mr. Rebane on technology hiring, if you pay more,they will come. A lot of what I think has happened has been a combination of the fact (I believe) that companies are unwilling to train new hires combined with decreasing wages in technology jobs over the decades. The H1B push is just a way to beat prevailing wages.

stevenfrisch

Greg, since the majority of businesses in the Sierra Nevada are sole proprietorships, and under IRS code sole proprietors are treated as individuals, the language is correct. Our membership is actually about 80% sole proprietors, 10% corporate, and 10% local governments and individuals.

By the way, 2009 was a while ago. Our annual revenue in 2010 was just below $2 million, and is about $3 million this year. When the new data comes out you will see that the percentage of earned income has come up substantively.

Must just chap your hides that we at SBC are good at what we do!

stevenfrisch

What a waste of breathe (sic) you guys are. Mean, nasty short and brutish is an appropriate description.

stevenfrisch

wm is right, it is an ill informed, illogical, mean spirited, ignorant cacophony.

(By the way, micro-hydro that does not exist today does count toward the renewable portfolio standard)

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B123F7A9-17BD-461E-AC34-973B906CAE8E/0/ExecutiveSummary33percentRPSImplementationAnalysis.pdf

This is a good example however of how the right does not read, do research, or think before blowing out their airholes.

D. King

D. King--Hydro is not included in the renewable portfolio standard in California. You propensity to assume with out research is showing.


Steve,
You are correct; I was looking at the U.S. as a whole.

Please provide a link to your 20% in today's utilization of renewables, less hydro, in California.

stevenfrisch

Sure D. KIng--you can find almost everything here, or linked to here.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/

The links to renewables in place and coming on line are on the right hand side of the page. If you add in what has come on line this year, both from IOU's and POU's were are about at 20%. There are at least another 8000 MW of renewables coming on line in the next few months. I just visited one of the facilities down in the desert region that will bring in 750 MW by this August.

By the way, thanks for acknowledging the correction.

Greg Goodknight

I'm sure the current state government is being berry, berry good to the rent seekers, Steve. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Fess up. The same time you were claiming to be no expert in public policy on The Union blogsite, you were 'working on' legislation.

Your filings to the IRS says "individuals". You keep with your claim 700+ businesses, but now that's 80% sole proprietors, 10% corporate (which isn't an 'individual'; do you mean an individual who just happens to work for a corporation?) and 10% "local governments and individuals" which also begs the question... these are just individuals who either work for local governments, or individuals who just don't work anymore?

Steve, it's obvious: you BS for a living.

Mikey McD

"I believe that if a government program does not meet its objectives it should go away." Posted by: stevenfrisch | 03 June 2011 at 11:32 PM

Greg, care to help me provide a list?

For starters, The Federal Reserve, Department of Education, Dept of Energy... locally, CARB...

stevenfrisch

Greg, please post the link to John Spencer's other voices that I commented on, with comments. Tell me specifically what he was referring to.

Greg it obvious that you are a frustrated A$$hole for a living. Get out in the real world and do something.

Greg Goodknight

Steve, you seem to be the one who is frustrated. And an a$$hole to boot.

I gave you the date, you're smart (for a meathead, anyway), find it yourself.

Finally, what part of 'I don't own any stocks' don't you understand?

Greg Goodknight

Back to the SBC tax filings, it appears (assuming they had the same staff levels currently listed), while Steve got $100K, the average employee got something like $31K. I'm guessing "Energy Associate" might be significantly less. What is your compensation in your filing for 2010, Steve, and what is the compensation for your staff?

Greg Goodknight

Mikey, I suspect you agree the problems in California's budget aren't solvable by 'performance based assessments'. I understand why the rent seekers wanted to be in the thick of that legislation; it's what they'll be forced to conform to in order to get fed.

Greg Goodknight
D. King--Hydro is not included in the renewable portfolio standard in California. You propensity to assume with out research is showing.

Posted by: stevenfrisch | 04 June 2011 at 12:36 PM

From the latest quarterly report from the Cal PUC on the Renewables Portfolio Standard, we get a different take:


RPS Generation to Date
According to the IOUs’ March 2011 Compliance Filings, the IOU RPS percentage in 2010 is 17.9%,
a 2.5 percentage point increase from 2009. The RPS percentage in 2010 for each IOU compared to
2009 is:
• PG&E: 17.7%,5 a 3.6 percentage point increase
• SCE: 19.4%, a 2.6 percentage point increase
• SDG&E: 11.9%, a 1.7 percentage point increase
These increases are due to a number of factors: 1) new RPS facilities achieved commercial
operation; 2) small RPS‐eligible hydroelectric facilities generated more in 2010 than in 2007, 2008,
and 2009; and 3) utility customers used less power in 2010 than the prior three years, which
allowed renewable energy procurement to account for a greater percentage of retail sales.

It appears that there is hydro, and then there is hydro. Big water, little water. Little water is mixed in with with solar, wind and the even smaller players in a lot of the claims about renewable energy mixes.

I'm guessing the power companies are thanking their lucky stars for the heavy snowpack this year.

Mike Thornton

Gee, Mikey:
When it comes to the various financial problem we face, perhaps the thing to do would be to go back to the Eisenhower tax rates and close all taxes loopholes and develop a program of revoking the corporate charter for any American corporation that ships American jobs overseas.
If these business want to enrich themselves at the expense of their country. They can go live somewhere else and we'll put so many tariffs on their goods that they'll never sell anything in America again.
We can stop being the world's police force and develop a realistic "defense" budget and go to work rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure, restructuring our health care system and our energy production and delivery systems.
That's just a start. And we should do everything we can to support innovative business as long as those businesses support America and the American worker.
Like, I've said before, I don't claim to be the person that has all the answers, but I do know that everything starts with a value system and I don't think our country should be bled dry to support a bunch of global capitalists and oil sheiks, who don't give a damn about this country.
No if you can explain to me, why impoverishing the United States in order to make China or Saudi Arabia even wealthier than they are is "patriotic" and "good for America", I'd love to hear it!

Todd Juvinall

Mikey, if we did return to the Eisenhower era tax rates we would have a teeny tiny sales tax, and hardly a fee to be found. A building permit was $25 bucks and that included the septic. There was little tax at the state level and it was all before welfare and medicare/medicaid. Maybe Thornton is on to something.

Mikey McD

Thornton, we have much more in common than either of us thought!

I could not agree more "I do know that everything starts with a value system"- Posted by: Mike Thornton | 04 June 2011 at 02:51 PM

I agree that we need to stop policing the world (as does Ron Paul).

"And we should do everything we can to support innovative business"- yup

I can't stand the concept of making China or S Arabia rich or outsourcing but our government has forced that upon our economy. We should be drilling here now while focusing MUCH more of our education curriculum towards energy alternatives.

"Eisenhower [income] tax rates" would be suicide for the USA. Granted, we already pay more taxes than during Eisenhower's era if you add up state taxes, gas tax, crv tax, cig tax, utility tax, phone tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, prop tax, etc.

We want the same things (employment for fellow Americans [fellow humans], less/no reliance on oil, better health care, better infrastructure... However, I think the real debate is how to attain such goals.

Look at the liability per employee in the USA versus China (Asia)... regulations and tort make it difficult to hire domestically (not to mention the work ethic here is not as coveted).

paul emery

I'm finally finding a little time to respond to legitimate questions as to why I believe that caring economics as outlined by Riane Eisler is the next evolution of capitalism and must sooner rather than later.

Let's look at the economic value of raising children. To begin with I know I will hear the concern about "baby farming" as a means of income and this is a question not to be taken lightly but let's put that aside for now and ask a very basic question. What is the economic return of the investment in supporting economically the work of raising children? Please do not consider this a complete answer to that quewstion but hopefully it will spark some interest in the economic possibilities.

Properly raised children will stand a much better chance of being independent, productive and caring citizens than those raised in poor conditions. Quite simply put it's a full time job to raise children and right now only a small percentage of families can afford to have a stay at home parent. What this means is that our schools become baby sitting services for working families and the children are essentially raised in State sponsored institutions rather than by their parents. Mandatory education came about largely because of the industrial revolution and the requirement for child care for factory workers. This will probably upset my progressive colleges but I don't believe education should be a function of the State, rather it should be a responsibility of our culture. I was very involved with Waldorf Education at one phase of my life and that credo as articulated by Rudolf Steiner really stuck with me.

If all children had a stay at home parent think of the possibilities for education. First of all, home schooling would be a desired method and children could be educated in the cultural and spiritual direction dictated by the families and parents not the government. Just think of the potential for co-op education with like minded parents all sharing in the responsibilities. Just think of the communities that would create and how that would resonate throughout our country. This would be a huge boost for spiritual education of all types. Just think of the money saved by downsizing our school as they become less necessary. Just think of the money saved because of the decrease in crime, drug addiction and mental and physical illness as a result of properly raised families.

There could be no greater investment in the future of this country than for the job of raising children to be rewarded as an occupation not just something parents do in their spare time. With the current economic situation like;y to continue indefinitely the stress on families will only increase.
The decrease in crime and mental illness would be profound if children had a full time parent.

In short why not think of this as the most important investment that can be made in a capitalist economy. It's an investment in the future that will have resounding results and profit.

I know discussion will flow towards accountability and evaluation of individual children. I think that will not be necessary because the overall results will be profound and easily demonstrated.


I'm looking forward to your comments.

Todd Juvinall

Paul asks "What is the economic return of the investment in supporting economically the work of raising children?" Hmmm, I can't say I ever eard that question or premise before. The only thing I can think of at the moment is a return to forcing children to work. The child is birthed to become a cog of the family income wheel. So, as stated by Paul, this would not fly.

The rest of his words I have a lot of agreement with. The stay at home parent though went the way of the dodo bird in America because of a couple of things. Feminism as liked and practiced by Steinem and taxes.

George Rebane

Paul, without disagreeing with your assessment of returns on home-schooled children, and assuming for the moment that all parents are qualified to home school, could you give us your thoughts on how all that gets started with money flowing from where to where so that one parent can stay at home full time?

Greg Goodknight

Sorry, Paul, but the cost of government at all levels, including payroll taxes that support other people's parents, is what has driven us away from the single earner households in the first place.

After our son was born, we took a big financial hit by relying on one income. That was our choice. It meant a smaller house, and no new cars for some time. It didn't help when we found the Grass Valley School District was incompetent at providing primary education in math and language, and we enrolled him at the only non Whole Math, non Whole Language elementary school we could afford to drive to twice a day and pay tuition, Mt. St. Mary's School. Even then, I ended up stepping in when he got to Algebra when even MSM had chosen a math book that was so bad that its publisher tried to hire an associate of mine to fix its shortcomings and he declined, declaring it unfixable, so I chose a good Algebra text and taught him how to learn from a good book.

If you want everyone to have such a chance to rely on their parents, you need to shrink the Federal, state and local governments to a sustainable size. One that imposes taxes that young working couples can afford on one income, and still afford to retire despite one career having productive years diverted to other matters.

And no, imposing higher taxes on their employers and other producers of needed goods and services isn't going to make it up. It all ends up being paid by the vast majority of people who do the working, living and dying in our communities.

Paul Emery

Well George, I know you won't like this but the investment, and it is an investment, comes from the public much like an investment in public infrastructure. The idea is that it is an investment that more than pays for itself because of more productive and healthy adults that are properly cared for when they are children. We should also look at what are the costs of not doing this. We have the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the world. Obesity is epidemic. Our children can't read, write or do math or use good judgment in avoiding drugs alcohol and tobacco addiction. Teenage sexuality is rampant. We rely on taxpayer money to pay for Government schools because we don't have time or money to educate children ourselves or send them to private schools. Of course there are exceptions to this but overall the picture is pretty bleak.

Greg, you are to be commended for the sacrifice your family made to provide for your children. Everyone does not have the capability to make that decision. Also, there are many single parents. I know his seems radical but what is more important than properly raising children?

Also George, if parents do not have the ability to educate their children themselves then they must take the responsibility for finding another path. Imagine how much money would e saived if much of the work in public schools was done by parents who had the time to volunteer their skills. If the occupation of one family member was to raise the children full time they would at least have a chance to develop the ability to help educate, something they cannot do now if both parents have to work full time just for food and shelter.

The essence of Ms Reisler's theory is that this is an investment in our future that more than pays for itself in increased productivity. Again, it is not a handout it is an investment.

Todd, I hope this helps to explain why this is sound economics and where the return is. It has nothing to do with putting children to work. It has everything to do with children growing to be healthy and productive citizens.

Another solution is for most people not to have children but
George, you've raised the alarm on that several times. If the only people that raised children were the ones who could afford the time to properly raise them population would decline in no time and for this form of Capitalism that we subscribe to, that depends on growth and credit for prosperity, the results would be grim. That's why I contend we have no choice.

I have no confident Greg that if were to drastically lower taxes families would suddenly be able to live on one income. Look at the cost of housing in relationship to income in the 50's when there were still one wage earners supporting the family and do the math to see what kind of average income that would have to be and you'll see what I mean. There would have to be a complete collapse of real estate values or massive increases in salary to make that possible.

Thanks for considering my ideas.

Greg Goodknight

Let's recap some of the words of Steven Frisch, the six figure CEO of the Sierra Business Council, a Nevada County non profit corporation:

"What a waste of breathe (sic) you guys are. Mean, nasty short and brutish is an appropriate description."

"Greg it obvious that you are a frustrated A$$hole for a living. Get out in the real world and do something."

"Greg, my point remains, I have a first amendment right, as an individual and as a member of an organization, protected under the freedom of association clause. In America, we are all equal. I am always just a guy, whether speaking individually or on behalf of my organization. If you want me to address a specific point by the way I wold prefer it if you link to the original source material. You are trying to divert attention from the core point. I have a right to speak up, and there is NOTHING you are your bullying friends can do about that."

How special!

And *I'm* a bully? Sorry, Steve, but I have the same rights to free speech that you do and, at the moment, I choose to write and speak my mind here, with George's permission, and I try to do it with as many facts as I can muster, to the apparent delight of some of the other folks here. You apparently have a problem with that. Thanks for sharing. I accept your forfeit.

George allows you to post here, and that's fine with me. If you'd stick with what you know (general political and historical knowledge) that is actually correct, you'd be less of a target.

George Rebane

Paul, those are powerful points on the benefits of a well schooled workforce and electorate. We agree on the objective, and the general outline of the means. What I still don't have a good feeling for is the process that permits the flow of public funds ("investment") to enable such grassroots education to become widespread.

I'm not saying that we're not already spending those public monies for government education and subsequent remediations. Theoretically we could do what you suggest without raising taxes, but just shifting spending. (I have known several homeschooled kids, and they were all smart and on their way to becoming good citizens.)

Also, as you may recall, I am a free market capitalist with an odd streak - I don't believe that business as we used to conduct it will work like it did before. We can't go back and apply the same template. But, I believe we can go forward and build a new paradigm of commerce and trade based on the classical principles.

We have to do this because of globalization and technological advance. Neither Repubs nor Dems are willing to publicly face up to the fact that we may (I say, 'we will') have 70 million un(der)employed by 2020. Current capitalism under current tax laws and current frictional policies will guarantee this.

I have suggested one example of a new paradigm that may help which involves the launch of non-profit public service corporations that are owned by for-profit corporations. These NPSCs appear to have the potential to productively sop up the nation's 'meathead majors'.

http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/09/workers-and-work---the-coming-crisis.html

The progressives on these pages have not wanted to even consider an America with NPSCs; I don't know why. Perhaps it's just intellectually easier to continue putting me into the 'regressive' category. But a careful read would reveal that there is nothing regressive about NPSCs. On the other hand, our congressman McClintock doesn't want to consider NPSCs because he believes that a return to small government, fewer regs, and constitutionality is all that it will take to put the legions of two-digit IQ folks into competitive jobs.

I have plenty of experience shouting into a howling gale.

Paul Emery

The massive unemployment you refer to is exactly why we have to find a way to employ people doing the most essential work that needs to be done, which is raising healthy children, caring for the elderly and ill and insuring a healthy earth. There's more than enough work to employ everyone and doing so is entirely consistent with maintaining a healthy economy because it increases the overall value of our culture. Just imagine if a major portion of what we spend on the military was used for these tasks?

Obama's economic recovery was a disaster because it was not spent on anything that has a lasting value. You may not agree with what Roosevelt did in response to the depression but at least some useful things were built that added to the value of our infrastructure. There's a fine building that is still in use today as a community center in Fair Oaks that has inscribed in it's retaining wall "WPA 1936". That building to this day adds to the economy of the town every time it's used for a wedding or gathering. Imagine the impact on the economy if funds went to the job of child rearing. That money would not only create healthier and more productive citizens but also it would be recycled through the community and returned to the treasury as a reward from a healthy economy.

I will read your piece on NPSC's again. I'm not sure what the relevance is to this topic but I'll check it out.

George Rebane

Paul, yes there are all kinds of monuments to FDR's alphabet programs of 1930s. The part that few understand is what Bastiat, Mises, and Hayek have pointed out is we don't see the alternative benefit had the monies been spent by private initiative instead of the feds in a socialized economy.

Re FDR's policies we always have hearken back to Treasury Secretary henry Morgenthau's May 1939 testimony to the Senate. Bottom line, according to their own Keynesian 'experts', the policies did not work.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/01/jobs-jobs-jobs.html

stevenfrisch

Nice cherry picking Greg, and nice job D. King not acknowledging that I corrected the hydro statement by immediately following up with a statement that micro-hydro was included in the RPS.

IN 2009 SBC had 11 employees, thus all of Greg's comparative figures are off.

Any rational reader of these comments, reading through the full thread would see that Greg is a bully. He attacks me because I won't be bullied. With that said, it really is a total waste of time to talk to you morons. Nothing ever changes--mean nasty people. I will beat you in the real world and enjoy it to my dying breathe (sic)!

Greg Goodknight

"Greg, you are to be commended for the sacrifice your family made to provide for your children. Everyone does not have the capability to make that decision. Also, there are many single parents. I know his seems radical but what is more important than properly raising children?"

Raising them without state interference, or without picking the pockets of neighbors in order to pay for them?

Sorry, but *everyone* has a capability and a responsibility to make their own decisions regarding raising their own children as they see fit. This is not a state function and I'd love to see how you would stretch the Constitution to cover this. Interstate commerce clause, anyone?

Greg Goodknight

It wasn't "cherry picking", Steve. I quoted an entire relevant section of a state report that had information appropriate to the discussion, and it showed you were wrong on a number of points.

"Any rational reader of these comments, reading through the full thread would see that Greg is a bully. He attacks me because I won't be bullied. With that said, it really is a total waste of time to talk to you morons. Nothing ever changes--mean nasty people. I will beat you in the real world and enjoy it to my dying breathe (sic)!"

Feel better? Sometimes a tantrum like that can be cathartic, but you seem to be obsessive compulsive about coming back and talking to these supposed morons you apparently hate. Is it just unfair you keep losing arguments? Here, seemingly rational people have given me some support.

In short, you complain because you've not been able to drive me off, and my shots hit the mark.

Please note you weren't very nice to D. King when you first dumped on him for his literally correct hydro remark by adding a zinger:

"D. King--Hydro is not included in the renewable portfolio standard in California. You propensity to assume with out research is showing."

That Steve, was your bullying, made worse by being incorrect.


Greg Goodknight

Frisch: "D. King--we are already at about 20% renewable generated power in the State of California already"

Cal PUC: "RPS Generation to Date: According to the IOUs’ March 2011 Compliance Filings, the IOU RPS percentage in 2010 is 17.9%"

And some of that increase is because "utility customers used less power in 2010 than the prior three years, which allowed renewable energy procurement to account for a greater percentage of retail sales."

Meaning, if the California economy continues to slide, the numbers will get better on their own!

Todd Juvinall

Having children is a feat anyone with the proper components can do. What we have done here in America and other advanced countries is nationalize the womb then nationalize the child. "It takes a village" is what the left has achieved here. For instance, the State takes about 83% of our local property tax and the funds and the responsibility to teach our kids was taken over by nameless faceless bureaucrats in Sac and DC (Education Dept.). If we want money we have to grovel (you can't even build a classroom without them approving). Before that we taught our own friends and neighbors. Same with the trashing over time of a woman's role in raising kids while the hubby was working. I remember all the hub-bub from feminists that raising a kid was demeaning and only being men-like was acceptable, (glass ceiling). My mom stayed home and took care of six kids while my dad had a business building structures here in little Nevada County. I remember my school years as mostly a wonderful experience and I learned a lot from many great teachers. There was a huge leap forward of mankind during those years of my youth because people had common sense, government was much smaller and men and women knew their jobs.

Todd Juvinall

I do get a kick out of the rent-seekers like Frisch who burn through so much taxpayers money to then tell us how many taxpayer jobs they created. Whoop-de-doo!There is a mental disconnect with reality in them. Greg calls a spade a spade and Frisch and his ilk cry a river. But, they still have their phony job forums periodically so they can pat themselves on the back. SBC is simply an example of what has made America a mess.

Mikey McD

Paul and George, I have a common sense solution to the 'investment' question. Approx 50% of the CA general fund is spent on Education (k-college). The state could actually save money and provide the education you have set as a goal by allowing all 'private school' (tuition to private school, curriculum for home school, etc) expenses to receive a credit [not a deduction) on state income taxes [with a cap of 50% credit].

"What I still don't have a good feeling for is the process that permits the flow of public funds ("investment") to enable such grassroots education to become widespread. " Posted by: George Rebane | 04 June 2011 at 07:22 PM

Mikey McD

We need more diversity in education. Instead of an all-conforming structure sent down from DC and we need to empower teachers AND PARENTS to draft relevant curriculum (at home and at school).

If the Department of Education or The Teachers Unions want to prove their worth why don't they focus on solving today's glaring problems. How about focusing math and science on alternative energy studies? Imagine if they made this a focus since the 1970's?

We need to encourage [via tax incentives] a parent to directly participate in their child's education either via homeschooling or otherwise. The largest obstacle to the changes needed for our students is without any doubt the teachers unions. I understand that the Teachers Union is just that, a Union for Teachers, but, the students have suffered long enough.

Greg Goodknight

"If the Department of Education or The Teachers Unions want to prove their worth why don't they focus on solving today's glaring problems. How about focusing math and science on alternative energy studies? Imagine if they made this a focus since the 1970's?"

That isn't their core competency, which is supposed to be the teaching of children in K-12 grades. They are not the scientists able to discover new principles, or the engineers able to design efficient solutions using the best applicable technologies. Instead, they should be the ones who can help K-12 students gain the literacy and numeracy needed to either get a job or to continue their studies at a community college or a university.

The problem with education is that all too often, kids are passed through the system and learn little. Some of the problem goes back to student motivation and poor parenting but much of it lay at the feet of the education biz that rewards merely showing up and chooses not to penalize mediocrity and incompetence.

George Rebane

Greg, I understood Mikey's 9AM comment to suggest the teaching of the tools to prepare kids for ultimate success in, say, the "alternative energy" fields where they could then "discover new principles" and "design efficient solutions using the best applicable technologies." Mikey's point agrees with your point -"Instead, they should be the ones ... ."

Mikey McD

Greg, Rebane is correct. I did type in a bit of haste. But, you and I are in agreement. I don't expect high schoolers to solve our problems (alt energy), but be equipped to tackle such feats after graduation via a strong math/science/english foundation which they should receive in public schooling.

D. King

Greg Goodknight
Meaning, if the California economy continues to slide, the numbers will get better on their own!

That's what I was trying to say here.


Steve,

Your intensions are good, however, to get to 33% renewable in the stated time frame is not possible unless you pencil whip the numbers by reducing overall consumption in an economically debilitating amount.

Todd Juvinall

When the State created the Integrated Waste Management Board twenty years ago I said at the time their goals for a 50% recycling by 1995 or so was nuts. They had to delay year after year and they still have not met that if my info is correct. What happened though is the little department became a humungous bureaucracy and caused our citizens to pay a hundred billion bucks over time to comply. The Board became corrupt and was populated by political appointees and they received huge salaries. This is what happens and AB32 is no different.

D. King

Todd,

It's already here.
CARB
Hien T. Tran's fake PhD.
Mary Nichols knew of the fraud before voting on the controversial regulation. The board members who knew, kept the information from other board members for nearly a year after the vote.

http://www.youtube.com/user/killcarb?blend=1&ob=5#p/c/AD1F8DE4333579A3/1/z7YaTbiWxLg

D. King

DON'T use the above link (No return path)
USE this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7YaTbiWxLg

Paul Emery


We're way off track from discussing values so I'm returning to that focus.

George writes:
"What I still don't have a good feeling for is the process that permits the flow of public funds ("investment") to enable such grassroots education to become widespread."

The investment is for much more then education it is in the children themselves, therefore our future. Let me challenge all of you left right and whatever with this question. What "work" is more important than the work of raising children, care of our elderly and those unfortunate physically and mentally and care for the earth so that it may to continue to provide for our essential well being? I'm curious if we can reach a consensus on this then perhaps, we can go forward. For the purpose of this question let's not get diverted by how we pay for doing these tasks. That will be considered when we look at the "how"phase after priorities are established. Also, we can easily be diverted by asking "why" but I think we can assume we all have the same basic values in that department.

George Rebane

Paul, IMHO your asking us to first go through priority settings isn't going to happen. All of us, most certainly all of us with with multiple future generations already alive, will agree that raising the newest generation is up there among the most important tasks a society promotes and, perhaps, collectively undertakes. (It may be a priority setting exercise with an uncertain outcome for those not so blessed with kids.)

So let's just posit that properly raising kids to maintain the species and, specifically, the culture into which they are born is job one. Given that, how is society to 'best1' fund that enterprise so as to turn out the 'best2' product?

You want to analyze something? try to define best1 and best2 in such a way that we can use them to evaluate alternative funding schemes. Not agreeing on best1 and best2 is where the whole thing will stop, and re/turn to the dysfunctional political solutions we now have. That's what got us there, and that's what will keep us there.

Todd Juvinall

There is a conundrum here reagrding the raising of the kids in America. Paul is concerned about them an their value as an investment and we are simply saying the policies the left has enacted regarding the culture and taxes have made the place a mess. When the wife has to also work just to pay the tax burden of the family so the tax money can be redistributed to others children or their parents, you can see the problem. The family raising the kid and making the tax payments has been asked to forsake the nuclear family so their lives can be made more comfortable. Of course that is thru to force of the middle man, the government. Yep, Paul, solve that and we'll nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize for family values/tax policy.

Greg Goodknight

Paul E, there really isn't any answer besides NO. After a century of progressive 'professionalization' of education under government purview kids in the US are at record levels of illiteracy and innumeracy, at least in California. They can't even teach the basics in California despite being given about HALF the state budget.

The government can't give a dollar to a parent to raise their kids without taking a dollar from someone else. And, there's nothing in the Constitution to justify taking a dollar from person A to give to parent B to raise their kids. Or is there? Do you see something I don't?

As a single, widowed Dad with an elementary student, I was happy never to have gotten a visit (announced or not) from some government entity wondering what I was doing to raise my son. I was steeled to not let them in the door if it ever came to pass. Somehow, if I would have taken money from the government to do what I was doing, I suspect there would have been a bureau tasked with making sure I was following their marching orders, and that visit might have happened over and over. There is no such thing as free money with no strings attacheed.

Paul, it's time to be less coy. Say what you want to say. Out with it. You probably won't get much agreement from me, but then, I doubt that will be a big surprise. :)

D. King

Where are you leading us Paul?
I'm waiting for a logic stream.

Greg Goodknight

Regarding 'teaching the kids to be prepared to advance the state of the art' for energy production, or anything else for that matter, the state Education bureaucracy is not competent to do so.

[rant about the incompetence of the GVSD deleted before posting - GG]

The latest K-12 BS to be aware of is STEM. NSF categories: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. On the surface, great. Preparing kids for careers in these is a fine target:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields

However, how it seems to have been run up the flagpole in the high schools is not making sure kids have the ability to choose any of those paths, but rather, they're STEM ready if there are any paths to at least one of them. "Of course we do STEM!"

For example, when my son was choosing his sequence of math classes at the local high school (Nevada Union HS) he was assured by his counselor he needed to finish up with AP Statistics his senior year, the natural endpoint. It's STEM you know; health care needs Stats. However, he had all the required prerequisites entering into the 10th grade, and I assured him that while Stats is good, it's a dead end. If he wanted to study a math or math intensive field in college, Calculus would best be fresh. Fortunately, it was an easy sell.

Should I blame the counselor? Probably not, they most likely just knew what they were told and had no clue what a hard core collegiate STEM program expected of a frosh walking in the door.

Nothing wrong with the meathead majors, but I would not want them to have the final say in anything regarding my son, and they're the ones running K-12.

Paul Emery

I was the opposite of coy and very direct when I stated my belief on the most important work that needs to be done and pointed out the wisdom of investing in the infrastructure of raising children, compassion and care for the aged and disabled and a healthy earth. How much more direct do I need to be?

By the way, here's the latest crack in the Republican facade

During a Fox News panel Sunday, conservative contributor Bill Kristol admitted that “corporations have a ton of cash” and the Republican Party’s desire to slash corporate tax rates was a mistake.

“Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on big businesses and corporate tax rates,” he said. “Corporations have a ton of cash. The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America.”

From Raw Story
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/bill-kristol-admits-gop-making-a-mistake-by-slashing-corporate-taxes/

Greg Goodknight

"I was the opposite of coy and very direct when I stated my belief on the most important work that needs to be done and pointed out the wisdom of investing in the infrastructure of raising children, compassion and care for the aged and disabled and a healthy earth. How much more direct do I need to be?"


Wisdom of investing in the infrastructure of raising children? Paul, you aren't being direct, because it's the nature of the 'infrastructure' you are hinting of that is the crux of the issue. You seem to be withholding what you want to be done, and what governmental entity should be the one to do it.

That infrastructure used to be called the "family". If you want families to have more assets with which to better raise their children, tax them less.

Greg Goodknight

??? a *bunch* of comments are, at the moment, not there anymore...

wmartin

"Paul, you aren't being direct, because it's the nature of the 'infrastructure' you are hinting of that is the crux of the issue.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight"

Probably because there is no there there. I suspect what's being presented is not a plan, but a general emotional appeal to how things oughta be.

George Rebane

GregG - No comments removed by me. It seems that a whole day either disappeared, or no one commented on this stream. Do you have a specific example that's gone?

Paul Emery

Sure Greg, I hope this helps.

First of all we have to place economic value in the work activities that lie beyond the marketplace. The title of Riane Eisler's book that I gather most of these ideas from, is the "Real Wealth of Nations", obviously taken from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" but questioning Smiths devaluation of activities that fall beyond the markets parameters of buying and selling. The contention of caring economics is that the market place many times gives economic value to activities that harm of health and the environment but does not necessarily reward practices that are nurturing to the earth and to the lives of people. That is the essence of caring economics.

When I say invest in the infrastructure I mean investment like when we build highways, bridges, airports and dams. The money would come from the general fund pool that we all pay into but in short order would more than be returned by less dependence on public education, social welfare systems, law enforcement and medical services and general taxpayer support for social services.

Probably the closest models we have to this are from the Nordic countries.

George Rebane

Paul, what I see ignored in your promotion of Eisler is any response to the critical workings of price in the marketplace. The values you/Eisler speak of will be set through diktats issued by some remote committee of the collective, otherwise known as the power of the bayonet wielded by an authoritarian state. This has never worked.

The socialists' arguments for such Eisler-type solutions that involve central control always omit any recognition of the role of price and those who bring this notion into the debate. Your response so far has been typical of this.

I copy here my comment on price posted under 'True Value of Work ...' where you introduced Eisler to us.

Eisler does not appear to understand the function of Price in an economy.

Price is what the Buyer pays the Seller for a good or service. Except for barter economies, it is always in the form of recognized money. In an open market, an agreed upon price between buyer and seller communicates many important attributes about what is being sold to other members in the market.

To begin, in price lies the ability to draw compensation/reward for taking the risk to bring the product/service to market (to the customer). Others can then gauge from price how they may or not be able to use their resources to also supply such product/service and receive such reward.

To suppliers the current price can be compared with former price(s) in order to communicate any change in demand, since prices in a free market are sensitive to supply relative to demand. Therefore price will induce timely increase or decrease in supply thereby allowing capital to flow to its most productive uses.

From these we see that price also provides the information of how to allocate scarce resources, thereby causing an economy to respond in the most timely and effective manner to provide the so-called Pareto optimal (the best for the most) quality of life in a society.

And finally, price has been found to be the most ‘fair’ method of allocating scarce products/services.

Price is a natural artifact of human behavior within the realities of the real world. It has its own level and can only be manipulated for a while through force or the secreting of information. If the government mandated prices are wrong in an economy, black and gray markets will immediately arise wherein the correct prices prevail to serve the above described functions.

Whenever prices have been manipulated by the government’s gun, shortages and wasteful excesses have been the result and people have suffered. Extended periods of enforced price controls have always ruined economies and even brought down empires.

As an historical aside, all communist governments have controlled prices. And all such governments – e.g. USSR, Red China, Cuba, … - have enslaved their populations and ruined their economies as a result, while still allowing various forms of black and gray markets to exist in order to keep the peace and prolong the nominal public order. As a counter, all nation-states that have eased government control of markets and economies have enjoyed the blessings brought by individual freedoms and freer markets in which prices again are allowed to communicate the realities in order to increase the quality of people’s lives.

Posted by: George Rebane | 01 June 2011 at 10:05 AM

Paul Emery

This would of could only happen with the consent of the governed so you can put your bayonets away. I doubt if you would deny the will of the majority if this were to come to pass. It's much like your longing for a Free Trade dictate that is not likely to pass majority muster. The only examples of modern advocates you were able to gather were a couple of Asian City States.

George Rebane

Paul, I also cited the historical era of a US market. But your argument has little relevance since the citing of only ONE such marketplace would be sufficient in such a debate.

[This hearkens to a famous Einstein episode. The scientist was approached by a colleague who greatly disagreed with Einstein's theories. He cited the number of similarly persuaded scientists as being the clincher. Einstein replied that such a numerous horde is unnecessary, just send one with the definitive refutation and his theories would be no more.]

Paul, I have no "bayonets". And people of my persuasion would are not given to governance by the will of the majority on public policy questions like this. We are not a democracy for the reasons taught by the Founders, we are a democratic republic in which the volatility of the ignorant and/or uninformed are tempered through representative bodies duly constituted. This seminal difference between us is a powerful force moving the country toward a Great Divide.

Paul Emery

Okay George let me amend my statement.

I fundamentally disagree with your limited essay about the meaning of "price". Nowhere does that include the value of care giving, stewardship of the land and raising children. It works well in valuing commodities and services but ignores the most important work that needs to be done. It's so 20th century (19th). We are approaching a time when there won't be jobs for significant numbers of our population yet the essential work I described carry on. This will happen, there is no choice. Marketplace capitalism will soon run out of customers and you know what that means.

Since you don't believe in the rule of the majority let me say "This will only come to pass through legislation passed by both houses of congress and signed by the President." Then, I assume, you would respect the rule of law established by the governance of the land.

By bayonets I was referring, not to clearly, to your predictable reactionary rhetoric against the idea that an expansion of capitalistic values is necessary and should include support for ideas proposed by Reisler.

George Rebane

Paul, the 'essay' on price is completely general, it does not exclude any interactions whatsoever between people in an economy. The free movement of prices strongly includes and communicates all the 'values' that are important to you and Eisler. I fear your concern is that such 'values' will not be valued enough by a free public as reflected by what they are willing to pay, and therefore the public must be coerced to perform and pay as the government dictates (Cass Sunstein's "nudging").

I agree about the massive under and unemployment that will now become systemic, and have proposed a specific approach (NPSC) to address that and fulfill any of the functions you outline. What we don't know is what price people are willing to pay for those functions.

Finally, I reiterate: price is not something relegated to the 19th or 20th century, it is a fundamental aspect of human behavior that has been in effect since we crawled out of caves (even before?). The hubris of man has been to subvert and/or ignore this natural phenomenon, and it has always failed. The rejection of this truth is what separates us.

Paul Emery

George

There are many other examples of economic systems that do not employ the system of price that you advocate. That's a whole separate topic but I will grant you that position for the sake of this discussion so I can concentrate on the practical value of caring economics in our current climate.

My contention is that essential work needs to be valued. Caring work (I'll use caring as a simplification) is not valued economically in our current system so the essential work is neglected and causing us to pay later, so to speak, when the true costs of our neglect become apparent (crime, chronic illness, preventable destruction to the environment, neglect of seniors and the disabled, dependency on government mandated education ......on and on. These costs are paid by taxpayers after the fact.
It is much cheaper and cost effective to tend to these matters up front through government funded workers


It can probably be calculated though it's beyond my ability, the cost comparison between home care giving and institutional care for the aged and infirm. Since much of that cost is paid by medicare and medicaid and therefore paid by the common treasury it is perfectly reasonable to consider how paying a family member to provide this aid would compare. This is discussed in her writings. There are no credible examples of free enterprise solutions for senior care. We do not let our old folks die in the street so why not train and fund family members to take care of loved ones? In many cases it's a full time occupation so family supporters can't afford to lose their paying jobs to provide the needed care.

wmartin

"My contention is that essential work needs to be valued. "

OK,OK. Fine.

Please lay out a plan where this is accomplished. Include how it is funded and who gets the $$$$ and why.

It's always a lot harder to cook up an idea than to tear it down, so it's probably time to ante up.

I admit that one funny side effect of paying people the amount they are really worth, is that you'd start seeing 10:1 differences in salaries between people who work right next to each other.

The comments to this entry are closed.