Long Hiatus

Still under construction.

Well folks, it certainly may seem that I've been on a long hiatus. Which I have. Not because I've been anywhere exciting or exotic, I just haven't taken the time to post new material here. But in concerance, I have also been posting on several of my other blogs and don't have the time to necessarily keep all of them up to date each and every single day. Maybe one day, someone will pay me to write blogs all day long. Until that time, sporadic posting will continue. However, please feel free to check the other ones out. They're listed below for your perusing convenience.

Marven's Money Musings - Personal finance blog nominally aimed at the part of society that seems left out of usual personal finance disucssions. This is the blog I update most often and has the most development.

Marven's Political Ponderings - The place where I occasionally let the world know how I feel about various topics in the quasi-political sphere. I'd update it more often, but responding to the perpetual nonsense takes up real amounts of my time. I hope to update it more often by not trying to make each one an minibook.

flight [b]log - Blogging about my flight training and flying experiences. Getting my pilot's license has always been a dream of mine and I want to share the magic of flight with everyone. Unfortunately, I haven't flown regularly in about 20 months, so that's about how long it's been since it had any regularity of updates.

I am also looking to develop a new separate site that would combine all four of my blogs under one banner. That would eliminate the problem I currently have of blogs that are virtually orphaned due to not being updated in a year or more. If anyone of you has experience with that sort of thing, point me to resources in the comments and/or shoot me an email so I can get on with that project. I don't have a definite timetable set, but hopefully by time the next decade starts, it'll be done. That is all.

Image sourced from State Library and Archives of Florida.

healthcare. again.

so a lot of people seem to be under the impression that if there is a government option for healthcare in the reform, that it would push private insurers out of business with competition. but i find that claim quite dubious, almost actually a downright lie. history has taught us that generally speaking, private business is usually much more efficient than government ever is. so then, need i even ask? oh fine, i will. if a government option pushes private insurance companies out of business, then were they really operating efficiently to begin with? my prediction is that a government option would do two things:
- first of all, it would result in lower premiums as well as more efficient service on the part of private insurance firms so as not to lose customers to the government.
- second, it would always run over it's budget. that's just what tends to happen at the government level.
with that in mind, bring the government healthcare. we'll find out who is there for their members and who is there for wall street.

and side note to congress: trim the bill down a bit. it should be quite simple, really, and definitely needn't be a 1000+ page behemoth. and none of those last-minute trickeries where you have five minutes to read it before the vote either.

tax sugars

hmm, sounds a bit weird to say that. but sugars really need to be taxed, maybe even on par with tobacco. the american heart association just issued guidelines on how much sugar one should consume every day which are much lower than many people (myself included) usually consume. but it would be nice if congress were to act proactively instead of reacting to what has happened for once. in this case, the what has happened is the expanding american waistline. however, since it is still expanding, congress acting now would slow that expansion. the current debate in congress over healthcare actually is much more intricately linked with this idea than might initially appear. as the waistline expands, health problems increase accordingly as well which equal more expense. currently, there is much concern over the plan costing maybe $1 trillion over ten years. which really isn't bad. however, if more attention is brought to the effects of sugar, people's future medical costs could be lowered as they avoid sugar-related medical expenses. sounds weird to be saying that, but any good medical professional will tell you that they definitely exist. beyond that, tax revenues could also be used to fund any healthcare proposals. also, funding in this manner will more evenly spread the cost of reform instead of only taxing the top earners in the country.
anyway, just a couple of my thoughts on this matter. comments are welcome, questions are as well.

what's going on today?

hmm, so what is there to blog about today. i think i already exhausted my thoughts for the week on the healthcare debate, as well as clash for cunkers. and nothing notable happening in aerospace industry either. boeing still isn't quite sure how long the 787 will take, and they plan to test the orion crew module in abort tests starting early next year. but none of that is really surprising i suppose. and the state budget has even managed to avoid front page and especially my wallet (and thus my extreme interest, ire, and disgust) for a few days.
oh. i remembered what i can talk about. remember a couple weeks ago, gates got arrested "because he's black?" then he and crowley went to have beers with obama (and biden) to "discuss race relations in america." but then within the last two weeks here in california, we had a large race riot in one of the state prisons. dorms are now uninhabitable, in once case completely burned. yet why is no one suggesting that we invite some of the prisoners directly involved to go to washington and talk it out over some beers too? while some might argue that this riot was between two minority groups (blacks and hispanics), there's no denying that it was still an issue of racial tension here in america and one that is certain to rise with the gradual "browning" of america that is expected to happen over the next several decades. so what better way to highlight and bring positive discussion on the issue than to bring real average citizens into the discussion? (i'd hardly say crowley and gates are very representative since a similar episode is undoubtedly played out weekly with other minorities but none are world-renowned harvard professors.) this incident is being highlighted as a further failure of the california prison system, but i think it's far more representative of both the imbalance of incarcerations and definitely an indicator of the racial barometer in the country. if anyone is really serious about discussing race relations in a meaningful way, they would seize the nice opportunity afforded by this riot to start a real discussion. sure, Ph.Ds can sit around all day at posh conferences and talk about it until their faces are blue, but i can assure you that many are not directly related with it like the common man is.

"death panels"

so lately, the so-called "death panels" have been all the rage in the news and apparently in town hall meetings. but why? first of all, it was definitively debunked by all major news organizations. but let's assume they were going to operate these "death panels." armed with the knowledge that up to one third of the lifetime healthcare costs for a person are in the last three months, there needs to be something that should be done. that's an extremely disproportionate amount, especially when this person dying is the national average age (or greater) of mid-70s. they've already lived for at least 1464 months, but the next three are going to cost 100x more each and end result is still death. so apparently we need to figure out several things:

• how to spread the cost of the final 3 months out over greater amount of time, possibly by spreading that care over more time
• how to make the care given in the final 3 months more effective so that those final 3 actually aren't final 3
  
• how to learn to accept our own death
• how to let go of loved ones who are dying

we clearly want to lower the cost in the final three months. along with that, we want to make the treatments more effective. but what isn't being talked about much is much more personal. of course, losing a loved one is never easy, especially if that loved one is oneself. however, we need to come to a concensus on something. for one, people are scared to die. look back over pretty much all civilizations, and no one was really fond of death. most cultures have always included with death an option of further life, either by way of an afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc., just as long as one is never truly gone. we as people don't know what awaits, so no one wants to go. connected with that, of course, is the fear of losing a loved one. we as a people should learn to better accept that those we know and love will more than likely die (if we don't first). now of course, we all want to believe that no one can put a price on someone's life. but at the same time, let's sit back and think before we rush out and spend a small fortune on the procedure that only has 20% chance of success and additionally will only be negligibly helpful in extending life.
on top of that, let's consider the wishes of the one who is actually dying. i know if my parents were dying, i wouldn't be rushing to pull the plug. but i also know that they would not want heroics pulled to save them, especially if they had something such as dementia or alzheimer's and were barely cognicant of their surroundings. also, at that point, why are the kids even interested in prolonging life? now i know not everyone dies a painful death not knowing who is visiting them. but even if they aren't, many who are dying come to accept it long before others do. so if they are dying that painful death of cancer with a healthy dose of alzheimer's, let them die. why keep them in their misery and also continue to torture yourself since they have no clue who you are when you show up?
anyway, just a patchwork of my thoughts. leave me comments as always, tell me what you thinks.

clash for cunkers

yes, i did actually transpose the "l" from the word "clunkers" over to "cash" on purpose. seems to be quite a popular topic of late, so i figure i might as well say something too. anyway, the cash for clunkers program has proven to be at least decently popular, with people trading in older vehicles for something modern and fuel efficient. definitely a good idea on several fronts. but there of course were gripers. and as usual, they end up being rather insignificant...
some environmentalists have expressed concern that the people would only go for the low end of the mileage requirements. (data has proved them wrong-average replacement gets 10 mpg more than what it's replacing.) they also were concerned that by junking an old car, you negate any benefits because a new one has to be built. but by and large, i do not think people are placing an order for a new one. they are buying a car that is already on the lot aka a car that has already been built. since both cars are already built, do we want a more polluting or less polluting vehicle being driven?
other people were concerned that taxpayer dollars are supporting foreign companies since toyota and honda share top spot with gm and ford in terms of cars being sold. they seem to forget that honda and toyota (as well as nissan and kia is building one in ga) all have several giant factories in america, mostly in the south. meanwhile, gm and ford have steadily been moving their plants to mexico for awhile, and also have some in canada (as do toyota and honda). but when one reads the new car sticker in the window, they would soon realize that the average honda or toyota is just as much american as their gm or ford counterparts. (and in some instances actually contain more american parts or final assembly than the "american" cars.) due to the volume of cars involved, it becomes increasingly prohibitive to manufacture cars in japan and ship them over. so no need to boohoo over that since i'm gonna guess that probably 50-70% of the cars being bought are primarily american in parts.
then some were concerned as to why the program costs so much and even more so wonder why we're spending more money on it. first of all, they're not getting more money to support the program. the program was already funded from the outset (by the stimulus act of 2009) with about $4 bn, but initially they figured they'd just start with $1 bn. that apparently wasn't enough, so now they have to go for $2 bn more. but the money was already there, just hadn't been appropriated yet. beyond that, let's say it was $4 bn total. that's $4 bn to the people who paid taxes to fund it in the first place. over the past year or so, the government has basically given several companies blank checks under the premise that they're "too big to fail." some of them turned around, and despite their horrific performance for the year, proceeded to give out a "performance bonus" to the executives. i can guarantee that none of the bonuses was anywhere near the absurd sum of $4500 maximum available under the program. (no, i do believe they were bigger by substantial margins, probably around the order of at least 1000x bigger.) but as the sputtering economy will attest to, the real entity that is "too big to fail" is actually the consumer. despite marvelously beautiful sale prices, companies have still lost massive amounts of money over the last three-five quarters as the consumers all stayed home except for essentials. why? because they were all on the verge of (or some already had) "failure" in the form of foreclosure, bankruptcy, or job loss (or combination of three). something is wrong with american government if they will use our taxpayer money to write blank checks to corporations on the verge of failure but can barely find a way to help us, the payers.
however, there is one concern with the program. currently, the federal government funds highways with guess what?! gas taxes! raising average mpg by of over 700,000 cars at once by 10 will have an immediate effect on highway funding, which was already $8 bn short for the year. this is in addition to the collectively lower driving due to higher gas prices as well as the general trend of mpg to improve due to normal replacement of old cars. when congress gets back from summer recess, they should consider raising gas tax at least $0.10/gallon. will this possibly have a negative effect on commerce? yes. but we cannot keep coming up with "emergency funding" every couple months because there's not enough money. and beyond that, this country currently has one of the worst transportation systems in the industrialized world, getting a grade of "d" from the engineers. if our economy is to remain viable, we need proper transportation. while of course highways are only one facet, they are still the most used and therefore need the dollars. the negative cost of an inefficient highway will soon outweigh the negative effects of an increase in the gas tax. with the memory of lackluster fresh in everyone's minds, it's doubtful that an increase in the gas tax will then lead to a runup in gas prices reminiscient of last year's record highs.
anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the cash for clunkers program that is currently going on. comment, let me know what you guys think