Monthly Archives: July 2012

Obama: Government Invented The Internet

Posted on July 18, 2012 | 1 comment

You might have heard by now that Obama gave a speech in Virgina.  And in that speech he made a statement.  He made a statement that individuals can’t claim credit for their successes.  Rather, they must acknowledge that what they have labored to craft is the result of the collective.  And, more importantly, that leading the way is the government.  After all, it invented the internet.

Right?

Maybe not.

Most people give credit to the invention of the internet to ARPANet, a DOD agency.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was the world’s first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US. The packet switching of the ARPANET was based on designs by Lawrence Roberts of the Lincoln Laboratory.

But did ARPANet really invent the internet?  Not so fast say some:

In February of 1966 I initiated the ARPAnet project. I was Director of ARPA’s Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) from late ’65 to late ’69. There were only two people involved in the decision to launch the ARPAnet: my boss, the Director of ARPA Charles Herzfeld, and me.

Numerous untruths have been disseminated about events surrounding the origins of the ARPAnet. Here are some facts.

The creation of the ARPAnet was not motivated by considerations of war. The ARPAnet was not an internet. An internet is a connection between two or more computer networks.

-Bob Taylor

Interesting.

But if ARPANet didn’t create the internet, who, or what, did?

On further analysis we come up with at least five distinct theories, each of which can be credibly discussed. We state from the beginning that we do not personally see the theories as mutually exclusive – we have for many years believed in a multiple origins theory rather than a single point of invention one.

But the theories which need to be examined are:

1. Packet switching represents the origins of the Internet
2. The TCP/IP protocol represents the origins of the Internet
3. A range of telco-led activities from the 1960s represents the true origins
4. The birth of the Internet is best explained through a history of applications rather than the protocols
5. The range of inventions and activities emanating from Xerox Palo Alto laboratories, including Ethernet, represent the true beginnings.

All five theories are interesting.  Personally, I find theory 1 and 3 the most compelling with theory 3 possibly encompassing theory 3 almost completely.  Digital transmission and switching was accomplished in 1962, seven years before ARPANet claimed that accomplishment.    Further, the languages of the internet, C and Unix, were developed not by ARPANet but by AT&T.

Who knew?

In any event, what we CAN conclude is this:

So then, where and when did the Internet begin? The only thing historians seem to agree on is that it was not 1969, or the Pentagon, (or for that matter Al Gore). From there on, there is a wide divergence of views as to when, where, and by whom the Internet may have been invented.

Contrary to what Obama would have you believe, it wasn’t the government that created the internet, it was individuals engaging in business that invented the internet.

1 Comment

Posted in Economy, Politics: National, Technology

Tagged , , , ,

Why Democrats Love Big Labor

Posted on July 17, 2012 | Leave a comment

You don’t think that the democrats need the unions?

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor’s political activity that has often been overlooked.

Previous estimates have focused on labor unions’ filings with federal election officials, which chronicle contributions made directly to federal candidates and union spending in support of candidates for Congress and the White House.

But unions spend far more money on a wider range of political activities, including supporting state and local candidates…

Indeed.

But it isn’t just the money.  It’s not just the influence that money may be able to buy.  It’s the coercion of actual voters:

…and deploying what has long been seen as the unions’ most potent political weapon: persuading members to vote as unions want them to.

And what do unions spend money on?

The costs reported to the Labor Department range from polling fees, to money spent persuading union members to vote a certain way, to bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year. Much of this kind of spending comes not from members’ contributions to a PAC but directly from unions’ dues-funded coffers.

But these costs are certainly reported as political efforts, yes?

There is no requirement that unions report all of this kind of spending to the Federal Election Commission, or FEC.

So, to review, unions are able to use money collected through dues to support the election of politicians who then pass legislation that allows unions to prevent workers from working unless they belong to a union?  And then “due” them to death.

Nice gig.

I was in Charlotte when Walker won in Wisconsin.  When he beat the unions.  I was watching Maddow.  She was crestfallen that the democratic party was at the brink.  She pointed out that without the unions, the democrats didn’t have any way to raise money.  She was half right.

Corporations and their employees also tend to spread their donations fairly evenly between the two major parties, unlike unions, which overwhelmingly assist Democrats. In 2008, Democrats received 55% of the $2 billion contributed by corporate PACs and company employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Labor unions were responsible for $75 million in political donations, with 92% going to Democrats.

They still get half the take, they just don’t get ALL the union take.

Let’s hope the gig is up.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lobby/PAC, Politics: National

Tagged ,

The Family: SES Impact – The Bell Curve

Posted on July 16, 2012 | Leave a comment

I’m continuing my way through the book, “The Bell Curve” by Herrnstein and Murray.  I’ve posted already on several of the chapters describing the impact of the socioeconomic status of the families people come from.  Fascinating stuff.

The chapter next on the list deals with the family; specifically the family structure.  The chapter takes a look into what impacts how the family is formed and remains together, or not.

First, let’s take a look at marriage.  Specifically, marriage by the age of 30.  Marriage is very important in society and is critical in creating the building blocks that form successful family units.

So, how does the socioeconomic status of the parents impact the chance of marriage of the child?

The chart above shows data for white individuals in the study.

Because of the impact of education and its suppression on marriage, it’s useful to separate folks who have a high school diploma only from those who have a college diploma.  As you can see, socioeconomic status of the family of the individual has little impact on marriage.  Most people are married by 30 with an even higher percentage married by 40.

If marriage is important, then divorce is important as well.  After all, it’s the two parent home that’s critical to the success of ensuring kids gain a strong foothold in life.  And the data?

An interesting trend to be sure.  As family wealth increases, the rate of divorce increases as well.  Indeed, by the time we reach 2 standard deviations from the mean SES, the individuals are divorcing at 17 points higher than those on the lower SES end.  This represents a greater than 100% increase.

Here the conversation shifts from marriage and divorce without reference to children to those families formed outside of marriage.  And so enters the illegitimate child.  I tend to agree with the authors that the old-fashioned view of illegitimacy was that it occurred mostly at the lower ends of the socioeconomic scale.  It was “the poor girls” having babies out of wedlock, not the wealthy.

But does the data support that view?  The answer is kinda.

 

The women at the very end of the socioeconomic scale have illegitimate births at a 19% rate while the richest of women are giving birth about 8-9% before marriage.  The 10 points or so isn’t much, but again, does represent nearly a 100% increase in the rate comparing the very wealthy to the very poor.

Here the authors move into an interesting question.  Does poverty cause illegitimacy or does the welfare system cause illegitimacy?  The idea, or the argument, being is that the welfare system enables the single mom to refrain from taking precautions that she might otherwise take if she were to bear the cost of raising the child.

To tease out an answer to this, an interesting question is asked:

Among NLSY white mothers who were at or below the poverty line in the year prior to giving birth, what proportion of the babies were born out of wedlock?  The answer is 44%.  For women above the poverty line?  6%.

What does the data, shown in the usual format, show us?

A pretty compelling argument that the wealth of the mother’s family plays a role.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics, Middle Class, Politics: National, The Bell Curve

Tagged , , ,

Obama’s View Of Government And Business

Posted on July 16, 2012 | 17 comments

It’s long been a narrative that Obama doesn’t like the free market.  Titles such as socialist and statist have been thrown at him.  Pages and pages have been written that Obama is a lover of big government, more regulations and higher and higher taxes.  He’s been a target for not understanding how the economy, or even just business, really works.

He’s had to fight the continual drum beat from the right that he’s not friendly to small business and prefers the government to provide.  That’s he’s anti-capitalist and more for ideals of fairness and equality for all.

But I have to ask you, if you owned your own business, worked hard to get it to where it is today, sacrificed soccer games, vacations and new cars.  Set aside the addition to the living room or gave up on the new boat, how do you think you’d feel if you heard this:

You didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.

 

17 Comments

Posted in Economy, Elections 2012, Politics: National

Tagged , ,

President Obama: How Effective Has He Been

Posted on July 16, 2012 | 4 comments

As summer is in full swing, how do voters feel Obama has impacted the nation in his first 3.5 years in the Oval Office?

In some ways, I don’t like polls like this.  I mean, how do people gauge how a president has done, or should have done?  How do they know if he’s doing well or poorly?  In some cases, it may be some social cause that they champion; gay rights or women’s health.  Perhaps for others, it’s military accomplishments; ending Iraq or killing Bin Laden.  But in terms of the economy, I’m not sure how people reach their conclusion.

To be sure, this swings both ways.  Obama is hammering Romney for his time at Bain when jobs were lost and even outsourced to low wage nations.  The idea being that you don’t have to show that in some cases, this move actually CREATED jobs.  All you have to do is throw the stigma of the evil corporate master who only cares for his own bottom line; worker be damned.

So, it is what it is.  And for Obama, the news is bleak:

A new poll says President Obama has changed things for the worse in the United States.

A survey by The Hill, a Washington, D.C., newspaper, says that 56% of likely voters believe Obama has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared with 35% who believe the country has changed for the better on his watch.

“The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks re-election this fall,” reports The Hill.

I’m fairly certain I would have guessed an unease at the president’s job so far.  People are beginning to recognize that while we’ve added jobs, we haven’t added enough.  People are beginning to understand that each spring we seem to get better only to stall in the summer.  Unemployment remains uncomfortably high, people are fleeing the job market and Obama doesn’t have a plan.

There is significant reason to believe that, if elected, we would see another 4 years of stagnant growth, if that, with growing numbers of people taking advantage of an ever increasing federal entitlement system.

The question is, can Romney capitalize?

4 Comments

Posted in Economy, Elections 2012, Politics: National

Tagged , , , ,

The Romney Vice President

Posted on July 13, 2012 | 9 comments

I don’t know how important a VP pick really is.  Can anyone really say that Biden did or didn’t play a role in getting Obama elected?  Palin certainly drew attention when she was selected by McCain, but McCain could have chosen Reagan and he still would ave lost.

I’m not sure that the pick will really truly matter.  However, it WILL provide gigabits of data for those of us junkies out there.

With that said, I really would like the pick to be someone who has “done” something.  A governor, the head of an agency, a director of this or that, anything.  Anything but another senator or congressman.  It’s for these reasons that I don’t like any talk of a Rubio or a Ryan.  The role of an executive should be filled by someone qualified to be an executive.

My favorite pick to date has been Condi Rice.  And the rumors are flying today:

Political observers are asking whether Mitt Romney could pick Condoleezza Rice as his running mate a day after a story on the Drudge Report said she has emerged as the front-runner.

I think the pick would be perfect.  Rice is an accomplished statesman on her own right.  She’s gifted intellectually, has a resume a mile long and is well liked among conservatives:

Strategists acknowledge picking the former Bush administration secretary of State would be a bold, unconventional choice that could broaden support for Romney among independents.

Romney may wait until the convention to name his choice.  We might be weeks away.  And this may just be a tactic to change the narrative from Bain to something/anything else.

Who knows.  But I think Ms. Rice would be a fantastic choice.

9 Comments

Posted in Elections 2012, Politics: National

Tagged ,

New Must Read Website

Posted on July 10, 2012 | 1 comment

I’m not sure how many of you read XKCD.com.  If you don’t, you should; he’s great and smart and funny.

But he’s launched a new site, a site called What If.  Apparently the blogger gets email with “what if…..” questions.  This new site is his way of answering those questions.

What If you don’t read What If?

Your life will be just a little less fun.

1 Comment

Posted in Fun, Life

Tagged

More Free Market Airline Style

Posted on July 9, 2012 | Leave a comment

I’ve mentioned in the past that the airlines are employing some unique methods in order to raise additional revenues while protecting passengers who may not wanna take part in higher fares.

One of those examples is paying extra for prime seats.  For example, I’ve pointed out that some airlines are experimenting with charging folks extra for aisle and window seats.

Personally, this makes great sense to me.  I absolutely LOVE not sitting in the middle seat and am willing to pay money not too.  Others, however, are not willing to pay additional fees in order to travel and are thus more than happy to trade a middle seat for money.

We all win.

Well, here’s another example:

…according to a survey by Airfarewatchdog.com, a fare-tracking site that found 16% of respondents were willing to pay to be at the front of the line when their flight lands. Of that group, 10% would pay $10 and 3% would pay as much as $20.

I’m traveling again this week and the example below really happened to me:

An early exit can also give fliers more time to make their connections. Airlines have gotten better at getting passengers to their destinations on time. In the first four months of this year, major U.S. carriers had an on-time arrival rate of 84.54%, their best performance for that period in 18 years, according to the Transportation Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

But even if their flight’s not delayed, passengers often have little cushion to make a connecting flight. Paying a few more dollars to be first off the plane could be an advantage, Hobica says.

I had one hour to get from my flight to my connection.  It appeared we were gonna be late and I’d rather have the extra time by being in front of the plane rather than in the back.  In this case, I didn’t have to pay extra [I would have], but I DID have to trade an aisle seat for a middle seat.  But I saved 17 rows.  And at 6 people per row, that’s a  lot of time.

Personally, I’m all for these free market measures that airlines use to spread the cost of flying to those who want the extras.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics

Tagged , ,

The Cost Of Health Insurance

Posted on July 8, 2012 | 2 comments

I am reading the morning’s internet today.  As usual these days, I’ve come across a lot of health insurance stuff.  And it got me to thinking.  If we’re now going to allow individuals to wait until they get sick to purchase health insurance, and force companies to sell insurance to folks with pre-existing conditions AND make it illegal to adjust premiums based on an individual’s health risk, there is only one thing that can happen.

The price will go up.

So, I’m gonna try and track the cost.

Right now, the laziest and best historical example I have is from a September 2009 post where I was discussing the healthcare debate:

Ah, here’s one.  $5000 deductible, Office visits are free after the deductible.  0% coinsurance.  149 a month.  Oh yeah, and you can have an HSA.

Another:  $5000 deductible, $15 office visits and 0% coinsurance.  $229 a month.

One more:  $1250 deductible, office visits are not covered and the coinsurance is 20%.  $253 a month.

I was quoting from ehealthinsurance  The above example is for a 52 year  old man in Greensboro, NC who doesn’t smoke.

Let’s see what that costs today.

$5,000 deductible, 0% coinsurance, Office visits are free after deductible:

$132.00 per month.

Before Obamacare is implemented, the price of insurance has gone DOWN $17 a month.  However, it seems to be on a policy by policy basis.  The $1,250 – 20% – No Dr. visits plan?

$292.00 a month.

Now, how expensive in insurance for a 30 year man in the same ZIP?

The plan that offers $5,000 – 0% -No charge after deductible?

$62.24

The plan with the lowest deductible that is the cheapest looks like this:

$2,500 – 30% – $40 office visits:

$99.40 a month.

First, insurance isn’t that expensive today.  I may not be very happy with a plan that offers a deductible as high as $5,000, but remember, we’re crafting a policy that protects against the #1 liberal complain, medical care shouldn’t force someone into bankruptcy.  And a brake at 5k will do just that.

Let’s watch the policies in Greensboro’s 27403 ZIP code.

2 Comments

Posted in Health Care

Tagged ,

The Mandate And The Cost Of Insurance

Posted on July 8, 2012 | Leave a comment

Let’s set aside the debate on whether or not the mandate represents a penalty or a tax.  In many ways, it doesn’t matter; the bill was made law, the law was challenged and the law remains the law.

A question occurred to me as I was watering failing to save my flowers Saturday:

Given that individuals are offered the choice of purchasing health insurance or paying a penalty, and that penalty is paid to the federal government of the United States, what will this do to health insurance premiums?

The answer is, of course, “Insurance premiums will go up.”

Individuals will make a value based decision on whether or not to purchase insurance or pay the penalty/tax.  The problem comes into play when you consider that the organization making the determination, and receiving the money, of how much that penalty/tax will be is NOT the same organization that is required to insure people who decide not to purchase insurance.

In short, the insurance company has to cover uninsured individuals while the government keeps the penalty/tax.  What this means to the insurance companies is that they have to cover uninsured people for free.  And since coverage of medical costs isn’t really free, they will have to raise the rates of everyone to cover those costs.  As those costs rise, more and more Americans will conduct value propositions and conclude that purchasing insurance isn’t worth it.

And costs will rise.

And costs will rise.

And costs will rise.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics, Government, Health Care

Tagged , ,