Olympics, Olympics, Olympics! It's hard to avoid the Olympic games right now, even if you're not into sports. But what really gets me is the nationalistic jingoism that surrounds it. People want to criticize China for making such a big deal out of hosting it, but other host nations, including the U.S., also make a big deal about it.
And yet, why do people get all nationalistic about it? I mean, these are presumably the top amateur athletes that a nation has to offer in the competitions, meaning these are exceptional people, not ordinary people who are representative of their nation. So an American wins the gold in some particular event? It doesn't mean that I'm (as an American) a particularly gifted athlete, or that Americans in general are especially athletic. All it means is that one person is the best athlete in that event at that time, and he just happens to be from the United States. A Chinese athlete winning the gold doesn't make China a better (or worse) place, either. So all this nationalistic furor seems way over the top for me.
If anything, the Olympics are supposed to be above politics and nationalism, a chance for people to come together and celebrate the best that humanity as a whole has to offer, and to show the best that people can be. A win by an athlete from any country is a win for all of us.
8/14/2008
8/04/2008
Williams Keytar - Unusual musical instruments, part 1

I got a Williams Keytar, the V-1 model! Why? After playing around with autoharps, zithers, bulbul tarangs and other strange instruments, I still longed for the perfect combination of strings and keys. While I'm not sure this is the perfect combination, it's a lot closer than anything else I've come across.
How to describe the Williams Keyboard Guitar? Well, it's like a guitar, but instead of a fretboard for selecting notes and chords, you have an actual keyboard instead. The V-1 has 12 strings and keys, from C3-B3, so you can finger any possible chord type, although you have to settle for inversions of some chords to do it.
Like the Bulbul Tarang, pressing a key pushes a string down onto a metal platform and "frets" the string to that pitch. Unlike the Tarang, pressing a key only frets one string (one key per string), not all the strings, and thus allows for true polyphonic playing that the "Indian Banjo" is incapable of. Simply pushing the key down like that makes a sound, but you get a louder sound if you strum the string(s) at the same time. In fact, you can use the difference in volume to create complex rhythmic patterns.
Thanks to the strings, you get a very guitar-like sound out of it, even though you don't usually get the actual guitar voicings. Run it through some guitar effects, and you can get some very cool sounds and noises out of it. Chorus, reverb, distortion, any effect that you'd put on a guitar.
Because any unplayed strings are dampened, strumming the strings can give you that "washboard" effect. While that could be distracting, I think it adds interesting "guitar-like" noise to the sound. However, the effect can be lessened by playing more complex, four-note chords instead of simpler three-note triads.
Like I said, you can make sound simply by pressing the keys, and thus, can play melodic or harmonic lines as well as chords, but because the volume is lower than by strumming, and because you're limited to a 12-note range, the Keytar is not well-suited to soloing. The V-2 model has a 2-octave/24 string range, which would help there.
The default strings are pretty thin, though. The four lowest strings are .023 and sound pretty good, but the eight higher strings are all .009's. One of the first things I did was buy some heavier loop end strings to replace the .009's. I got a couple of .012's, .015's, .017's and .020's. I figured I would lay them out from highest and thinnest to lowest and thickest. Alas, I suck at changing strings, and ended up breaking a few while trying to get them on and tuned up. I ended up keeping 3 of the .009's so I would still have all twelve playable strings. But I do think the heavier strings help give it a meatier sound--I'll go get some more strings and try again to finish re-stringing it.
When I first saw pictures of the Williams Keytar, I figured playing it guitar-style with the strap over your shoulder would be awkward. I was right. It can be done, but it's really easier to play it sitting on your lap, or simply laying it flat on a keyboard stand and play standing up.
I don't know about that triangle-shaped, aluminum body, though, and I do wish they had some other colors for it. I suppose the aluminum body made it easier to do the precision machining and put it together, but I'd still like to see a solid wood body with some nice curves on it. The aluminum with the sharp edges just seems too harsh, although I suppose it could be considered a plus for metal or thrash musicians.
All in all, I'm really enjoying playing the Williams Keytar, and expect to start writing and recording with it pretty soon. I'd also like to get the V-2, but at $999, it'll have to wait a while. If I could just get someone else to do the re-stringing for me! ;-)
How to describe the Williams Keyboard Guitar? Well, it's like a guitar, but instead of a fretboard for selecting notes and chords, you have an actual keyboard instead. The V-1 has 12 strings and keys, from C3-B3, so you can finger any possible chord type, although you have to settle for inversions of some chords to do it.
Like the Bulbul Tarang, pressing a key pushes a string down onto a metal platform and "frets" the string to that pitch. Unlike the Tarang, pressing a key only frets one string (one key per string), not all the strings, and thus allows for true polyphonic playing that the "Indian Banjo" is incapable of. Simply pushing the key down like that makes a sound, but you get a louder sound if you strum the string(s) at the same time. In fact, you can use the difference in volume to create complex rhythmic patterns.
Thanks to the strings, you get a very guitar-like sound out of it, even though you don't usually get the actual guitar voicings. Run it through some guitar effects, and you can get some very cool sounds and noises out of it. Chorus, reverb, distortion, any effect that you'd put on a guitar.
Because any unplayed strings are dampened, strumming the strings can give you that "washboard" effect. While that could be distracting, I think it adds interesting "guitar-like" noise to the sound. However, the effect can be lessened by playing more complex, four-note chords instead of simpler three-note triads.
Like I said, you can make sound simply by pressing the keys, and thus, can play melodic or harmonic lines as well as chords, but because the volume is lower than by strumming, and because you're limited to a 12-note range, the Keytar is not well-suited to soloing. The V-2 model has a 2-octave/24 string range, which would help there.
The default strings are pretty thin, though. The four lowest strings are .023 and sound pretty good, but the eight higher strings are all .009's. One of the first things I did was buy some heavier loop end strings to replace the .009's. I got a couple of .012's, .015's, .017's and .020's. I figured I would lay them out from highest and thinnest to lowest and thickest. Alas, I suck at changing strings, and ended up breaking a few while trying to get them on and tuned up. I ended up keeping 3 of the .009's so I would still have all twelve playable strings. But I do think the heavier strings help give it a meatier sound--I'll go get some more strings and try again to finish re-stringing it.
When I first saw pictures of the Williams Keytar, I figured playing it guitar-style with the strap over your shoulder would be awkward. I was right. It can be done, but it's really easier to play it sitting on your lap, or simply laying it flat on a keyboard stand and play standing up.
I don't know about that triangle-shaped, aluminum body, though, and I do wish they had some other colors for it. I suppose the aluminum body made it easier to do the precision machining and put it together, but I'd still like to see a solid wood body with some nice curves on it. The aluminum with the sharp edges just seems too harsh, although I suppose it could be considered a plus for metal or thrash musicians.
All in all, I'm really enjoying playing the Williams Keytar, and expect to start writing and recording with it pretty soon. I'd also like to get the V-2, but at $999, it'll have to wait a while. If I could just get someone else to do the re-stringing for me! ;-)
7/18/2008
Kickbikes, or an adult push scooter

Ever had a scooter when you were a kid? You know, two wheels, handlebars, and a running board you stood on. You pushed with your foot and rolled along. Well, now there's an increasing number of adult versions of this.
I had come across a kid's scooter a few years ago at the thrift store, and got it because it seemed interesting. It had a 14" front wheel and 12.5" back wheel, and was actually big enough for an adult. I'm still not sure if the 14" was standard, or if someone added it on after the fact. I fixed it up and tried it a little, but it never seemed too impressive.
However, it occurred to me that it might roll better and faster if it had even larger wheels on it. I eventually found such a device on the internet, or actually two of them. One is called a Kickbike (http://www.kickbike.com/), and another one is called a Sidewalker (http://www.sidewalkerscooters.com/). In fact, at Sidewalker scooters, they have a 26" model, a 20" model, and the more traditional 12" model, while the Kickbike models are all 26" or 28".
It took me a while, because of my limited budget, but I just recently got a Kickbike from Kickbike America, the City Cruiser model, with fenders and a basket. Frankly, I really wanted a model with wider, mountain bike tires (because city streets around here aren't all that good), but I still wanted the fenders and basket as well. I just ended up getting the cheaper model.
All in all, I'm pretty happy with my purchase. It really is fun to ride, although I must stress that it's not quite as fast as a regular bicycle, and not quite as easy--it takes more effort, which is probably why the sites advertise it as a good way to get exercise. Other factors that I like are no gears, no chain, and no pedals. This simplifies the mechanical operation and the maintenance on it--you only have to worry about the wheels, tires, and brakes.
There is apparently a certain following for these in Europe, but there also seems to be an increasing interest in the US, although certainly not enough for any local place to sell these. I got mine from Kickbike America (http://www.kickbikeamerica.com/), or the Sidewalkers are available from http://www.sidewalkerusa.com/. More recently, a third brand of these scooters is now available at http://www.footbikeusa.com/.
I've taken mine to the local parks, including Tulsa's River Parks trail, and the occasional back lot or street with a good hill. Mostly, though, I've started commuting to work on it. Fortunately, my current job is only a little over a mile away from my home, and only takes about ten minutes to travel. I've certainly gotten my fair share of stares, smiles, and questions from people about it. I suspect that I'm the first person in Tulsa to get one. Okay, sometimes I feel a little silly on it, but I usually get over that by enjoying the ride. There's nothing like getting on a downhill slope, even a gradual one, and just coasting all the way down it.
As I said, these can't quite match up to a good bike in speed or distance, so don't expect to zip past any but the slower bicyclists or kid's bikes. However, the kickbike is certainly much faster than walking. It's good for shorter trips (less than five miles), and is especially good where you might make frequent stops, like window shopping, at a park, or scenic viewpoints.
I especially got the City Cruiser because it came with a basket, but the basket is slightly smaller than a standard bike basket. I'll probably end up replacing it with a standard bike basket, or the Bell removable basket. You could conceivably put a front rack on it, like a bike, but a back rack would be harder to do, and could interfere with your legs when kicking.
I was worried about locking the kickbike up when going somewhere, because from the pictures, it didn't look like there was any good way to run a chain through it except for the wheels. In fact, there is a loop in the frame right near the back wheel, so I run my cable through that as well as through the rear wheel (the front is too far away) to lock it up.
Last, but not least, I'd like to get a second one, or actually, I'd like to get a Footbike, because they have a nice pearl blue color option that I really like. Plus, I'd like to be able to go scootering with a friend or companion, and not just by myself.
I had come across a kid's scooter a few years ago at the thrift store, and got it because it seemed interesting. It had a 14" front wheel and 12.5" back wheel, and was actually big enough for an adult. I'm still not sure if the 14" was standard, or if someone added it on after the fact. I fixed it up and tried it a little, but it never seemed too impressive.
However, it occurred to me that it might roll better and faster if it had even larger wheels on it. I eventually found such a device on the internet, or actually two of them. One is called a Kickbike (http://www.kickbike.com/), and another one is called a Sidewalker (http://www.sidewalkerscooters.com/). In fact, at Sidewalker scooters, they have a 26" model, a 20" model, and the more traditional 12" model, while the Kickbike models are all 26" or 28".
It took me a while, because of my limited budget, but I just recently got a Kickbike from Kickbike America, the City Cruiser model, with fenders and a basket. Frankly, I really wanted a model with wider, mountain bike tires (because city streets around here aren't all that good), but I still wanted the fenders and basket as well. I just ended up getting the cheaper model.
All in all, I'm pretty happy with my purchase. It really is fun to ride, although I must stress that it's not quite as fast as a regular bicycle, and not quite as easy--it takes more effort, which is probably why the sites advertise it as a good way to get exercise. Other factors that I like are no gears, no chain, and no pedals. This simplifies the mechanical operation and the maintenance on it--you only have to worry about the wheels, tires, and brakes.
There is apparently a certain following for these in Europe, but there also seems to be an increasing interest in the US, although certainly not enough for any local place to sell these. I got mine from Kickbike America (http://www.kickbikeamerica.com/), or the Sidewalkers are available from http://www.sidewalkerusa.com/. More recently, a third brand of these scooters is now available at http://www.footbikeusa.com/.
I've taken mine to the local parks, including Tulsa's River Parks trail, and the occasional back lot or street with a good hill. Mostly, though, I've started commuting to work on it. Fortunately, my current job is only a little over a mile away from my home, and only takes about ten minutes to travel. I've certainly gotten my fair share of stares, smiles, and questions from people about it. I suspect that I'm the first person in Tulsa to get one. Okay, sometimes I feel a little silly on it, but I usually get over that by enjoying the ride. There's nothing like getting on a downhill slope, even a gradual one, and just coasting all the way down it.
As I said, these can't quite match up to a good bike in speed or distance, so don't expect to zip past any but the slower bicyclists or kid's bikes. However, the kickbike is certainly much faster than walking. It's good for shorter trips (less than five miles), and is especially good where you might make frequent stops, like window shopping, at a park, or scenic viewpoints.
I especially got the City Cruiser because it came with a basket, but the basket is slightly smaller than a standard bike basket. I'll probably end up replacing it with a standard bike basket, or the Bell removable basket. You could conceivably put a front rack on it, like a bike, but a back rack would be harder to do, and could interfere with your legs when kicking.
I was worried about locking the kickbike up when going somewhere, because from the pictures, it didn't look like there was any good way to run a chain through it except for the wheels. In fact, there is a loop in the frame right near the back wheel, so I run my cable through that as well as through the rear wheel (the front is too far away) to lock it up.
Last, but not least, I'd like to get a second one, or actually, I'd like to get a Footbike, because they have a nice pearl blue color option that I really like. Plus, I'd like to be able to go scootering with a friend or companion, and not just by myself.
4/27/2008
Checks in the mail
I don't write checks very often anymore, and I don't usually carry much cash on me. I pay for most things with my check card (debit card), usually by running it through VISA as a credit transaction. I can pay most of my bills online now. So I don't write checks very often.
I still have the occasional bill or payment that requires a check, so I finally got low enough on my starter checks that I decided to order a new batch of checks. I went to Checks Unlimited and found the type I had used on a previous account and liked so much (Autumn Leaf). I submitted my order, and a couple of weeks later got the checks in the mail.
What was different this time, though, is that they send you a relatively flat package instead of boxes of checks. They say this is so they won't be obvious to thieves as check boxes. Here's the interesting part, though. They include flat, unfolded check boxes, so you can fold the boxes into shape and store your checks in them.
Frankly, the package they sent the checks in is pretty sturdy, and I wouldn't mind just storing them in that. But I couldn't resist putting the boxes together, so I sorted out the checks and stuck them in the boxes numerically. A relatively simple activity, but still one of those slightly time-consuming activities when you have nothing better to do.
It's not quite as elaborate as these Phillip-Morris mailings I occasionally get. Somehow I ended up on their mailing list, and they started sending me stuff. Colorful, extravagant, fold-outs, boxes, flaps, and other interesting things. Once I got a free cd, but it was nothing I was terribly interested in. But for the most part, their mailings don't provide any activity as useful as the check boxes. Ah, well, back to a real hobby, like blogging.
I still have the occasional bill or payment that requires a check, so I finally got low enough on my starter checks that I decided to order a new batch of checks. I went to Checks Unlimited and found the type I had used on a previous account and liked so much (Autumn Leaf). I submitted my order, and a couple of weeks later got the checks in the mail.
What was different this time, though, is that they send you a relatively flat package instead of boxes of checks. They say this is so they won't be obvious to thieves as check boxes. Here's the interesting part, though. They include flat, unfolded check boxes, so you can fold the boxes into shape and store your checks in them.
Frankly, the package they sent the checks in is pretty sturdy, and I wouldn't mind just storing them in that. But I couldn't resist putting the boxes together, so I sorted out the checks and stuck them in the boxes numerically. A relatively simple activity, but still one of those slightly time-consuming activities when you have nothing better to do.
It's not quite as elaborate as these Phillip-Morris mailings I occasionally get. Somehow I ended up on their mailing list, and they started sending me stuff. Colorful, extravagant, fold-outs, boxes, flaps, and other interesting things. Once I got a free cd, but it was nothing I was terribly interested in. But for the most part, their mailings don't provide any activity as useful as the check boxes. Ah, well, back to a real hobby, like blogging.
4/11/2008
Robin Hood
Mill Creek Entertainment, a company best-known for its cheap dvd's, has just recently released the complete first season of The Adventures of Robin Hood, the 1950's television show that starred Richard Greene:
http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Robin-Hood-Complete-Season/dp/B0012VCMR0/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1207970342&sr=8-6
I had seen a few of the episodes and greatly enjoyed them, in spite of their half-hour length and being in black and white. I picked up this collection at 'evil' Wal-mart for five bucks and have been watching these early episodes in chronological order. These are fun shows to watch, and they stayed fairly close to the legend of Robin Hood.
Everybody knows about Robin Hood and his Merry Men. They stole from the rich and gave to the poor, right? Well, not exactly. They didn't steal from the rich merely because they were rich, but because they gained their riches unjustly. Robin and his men helped those who were being wronged or too heavily taxed by Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Thus, some libertarians see Robin Hood as a good guy. And to a large degree, I suppose we can consider him to be so. Still, we should probably consider just what Robin Hood was trying to defend. Prince John was the brother of King Richard, and John was ruling in Richard's absence. Robin was fighting against John's corruption and evil, and the sheriff was his best-known enforcer of John's laws and taxes. And yet, John was the rightful ruler in Richard's absence. And why was Richard absent? Because he was away on the continent fighting in the Crusades against Muslims! Perhaps the heavy taxes were necessary to pay for Richard and his army while they were fighting. And Robin himself is usually considered to be one of Richard's knights who, for one reason or another, had to leave the Crusades and return home.
Basically, though, Robin was awaiting the time when 'good' King Richard returned from the Crusades and once again ruled justly over his people. So, according to Robin, good government is just a matter of having the 'right people' in rule. That doesn't seem too libertarian to me.
Of course, like most legends, the legend of Robin Hood grew and changed over time. Many of the legend's best known features came much later in history, and the earliest stories of Robin Hood bear little resemblance to the portrayals by Errol Flynn or Richard Greene. More about the legend and history can be found on the link in the title of this post, or at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood
I've also seen the 1922 Douglas Fairbanks silent film Robin Hood, and it was really quite impressive for its time. Well worth watching if you like Robin Hood.
http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Robin-Hood-Complete-Season/dp/B0012VCMR0/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1207970342&sr=8-6
I had seen a few of the episodes and greatly enjoyed them, in spite of their half-hour length and being in black and white. I picked up this collection at 'evil' Wal-mart for five bucks and have been watching these early episodes in chronological order. These are fun shows to watch, and they stayed fairly close to the legend of Robin Hood.
Everybody knows about Robin Hood and his Merry Men. They stole from the rich and gave to the poor, right? Well, not exactly. They didn't steal from the rich merely because they were rich, but because they gained their riches unjustly. Robin and his men helped those who were being wronged or too heavily taxed by Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Thus, some libertarians see Robin Hood as a good guy. And to a large degree, I suppose we can consider him to be so. Still, we should probably consider just what Robin Hood was trying to defend. Prince John was the brother of King Richard, and John was ruling in Richard's absence. Robin was fighting against John's corruption and evil, and the sheriff was his best-known enforcer of John's laws and taxes. And yet, John was the rightful ruler in Richard's absence. And why was Richard absent? Because he was away on the continent fighting in the Crusades against Muslims! Perhaps the heavy taxes were necessary to pay for Richard and his army while they were fighting. And Robin himself is usually considered to be one of Richard's knights who, for one reason or another, had to leave the Crusades and return home.
Basically, though, Robin was awaiting the time when 'good' King Richard returned from the Crusades and once again ruled justly over his people. So, according to Robin, good government is just a matter of having the 'right people' in rule. That doesn't seem too libertarian to me.
Of course, like most legends, the legend of Robin Hood grew and changed over time. Many of the legend's best known features came much later in history, and the earliest stories of Robin Hood bear little resemblance to the portrayals by Errol Flynn or Richard Greene. More about the legend and history can be found on the link in the title of this post, or at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood
I've also seen the 1922 Douglas Fairbanks silent film Robin Hood, and it was really quite impressive for its time. Well worth watching if you like Robin Hood.
4/02/2008
Say "emulsified"!
If you read "The Little Things", you'll remember that I talked about the difference between individually wrapped slices of American cheese and sliced cheese that's not individually wrapped.
Wikipedia comes through to explain the difference:
The individually wrapped cheese slices are typically the least like natural cheese. These "slices" are actually individually poured onto each plastic wrapper and then set to emulsify. Small (e.g., 16 to 36 slice) blocks of presliced, but not individually-wrapped, American Cheese are also marketed, often with the branding "deluxe" or "old fashioned".
Viva, la difference! You can go to the linked article for the full story on American cheese.
Wikipedia comes through to explain the difference:
The individually wrapped cheese slices are typically the least like natural cheese. These "slices" are actually individually poured onto each plastic wrapper and then set to emulsify. Small (e.g., 16 to 36 slice) blocks of presliced, but not individually-wrapped, American Cheese are also marketed, often with the branding "deluxe" or "old fashioned".
Viva, la difference! You can go to the linked article for the full story on American cheese.
3/11/2008
Free Money - A Stimulating Package
It's been a while since I wrote anything except in my favorite on-line forums, but I recently wrote this article about the Stimulus package Americans are supposed to be getting. At this point, I'm not sure it's going to be officially published anywhere, so I figured I'd post it here.
--------------
Free Money!
Oh, boy! In May, thanks to the stimulus package, the federal government will be sending out checks to most Americans in the $300 - $600 range, to be spent on whatever you want. Woo-hoo, free money!
Or is it free? Just where is all this money going to come from? Well, government gets its money from three sources: taxes, borrowing, and printing.
If they're going to pay for it with taxes, and they're not taxing us now (that would defeat the point of the "stimulus" package), then they must be planning to take it out of future taxes. But if they don't cut government spending somewhere, the only way taxes can pay for it is by raising taxes.
If they're going to borrow more money (through Treasury Bills, bonds, etc), they won't have to raise taxes. But the federal government is already borrowed to the hilt. The national debt continues to increase every year, especially for our out-of-control military spending, and the debt is so massive that other countries are losing faith in the U.S. dollar, which is why the dollar is being devalued compared to other currencies. How much more can they borrow if fewer people believe that the goverment (and taxpayers) will pay it back? Governments can't really go bankrupt, but they can sure do a lot of harm to the economy while trying to.
Lastly, they can print more money. Or they could, except that under the current system, the Federal Reserve and not the government decides how much money should be added to the economy. The law could be changed, but that would be considered a rather drastic change to our financial system. Since its creation in 1913, the Fed has had a nasty habit of increasing our money supply every year, and thus devaluing our earnings and savings, while trying to offer artificial and unsustainable "boosts" to the economy.
In fact, what the Fed does is much like what the current administration is hoping to do with the stimulus package. Like eating a candy bar, the "sugar rush" of the extra money will help temporarily, but without the means to sustain it, there will necessarily be a corresponding fall or crash.
Sustainable economic growth requires balancing supply and demand. Production must be geared towards satisfying consumers' most urgent wants first, and to their less urgent wants secondarily. Consumers tell producers what to produce not only by what they're willing to buy, but by what they're not willing to buy, and by how much money they're willing to save and invest instead of spending right away. Prices are the means of conveying this information to producers, including the "prices" of interest rates.
Interventions in the economy in the form of easy credit, increased money supplies, or stimulus packages are unsustainable because they upset the balance between supply and demand, not improve it. Once the balance is upset, the economy necessarily has to reconfigure itself and find a new equilibrium, a new point of balance. The result of intervention is a zero sum game, with both net winners and net losers to make up the balance.
The best thing Americans can do with their stimulus check is not to spend it, but to use it towards their debt. Or, if you're one of the few Americans not in debt, invest the money. If we do that, the "boost" to the economy may not be as great, but the inevitable crash that follows won't be as great, either.
--------------
Free Money!
Oh, boy! In May, thanks to the stimulus package, the federal government will be sending out checks to most Americans in the $300 - $600 range, to be spent on whatever you want. Woo-hoo, free money!
Or is it free? Just where is all this money going to come from? Well, government gets its money from three sources: taxes, borrowing, and printing.
If they're going to pay for it with taxes, and they're not taxing us now (that would defeat the point of the "stimulus" package), then they must be planning to take it out of future taxes. But if they don't cut government spending somewhere, the only way taxes can pay for it is by raising taxes.
If they're going to borrow more money (through Treasury Bills, bonds, etc), they won't have to raise taxes. But the federal government is already borrowed to the hilt. The national debt continues to increase every year, especially for our out-of-control military spending, and the debt is so massive that other countries are losing faith in the U.S. dollar, which is why the dollar is being devalued compared to other currencies. How much more can they borrow if fewer people believe that the goverment (and taxpayers) will pay it back? Governments can't really go bankrupt, but they can sure do a lot of harm to the economy while trying to.
Lastly, they can print more money. Or they could, except that under the current system, the Federal Reserve and not the government decides how much money should be added to the economy. The law could be changed, but that would be considered a rather drastic change to our financial system. Since its creation in 1913, the Fed has had a nasty habit of increasing our money supply every year, and thus devaluing our earnings and savings, while trying to offer artificial and unsustainable "boosts" to the economy.
In fact, what the Fed does is much like what the current administration is hoping to do with the stimulus package. Like eating a candy bar, the "sugar rush" of the extra money will help temporarily, but without the means to sustain it, there will necessarily be a corresponding fall or crash.
Sustainable economic growth requires balancing supply and demand. Production must be geared towards satisfying consumers' most urgent wants first, and to their less urgent wants secondarily. Consumers tell producers what to produce not only by what they're willing to buy, but by what they're not willing to buy, and by how much money they're willing to save and invest instead of spending right away. Prices are the means of conveying this information to producers, including the "prices" of interest rates.
Interventions in the economy in the form of easy credit, increased money supplies, or stimulus packages are unsustainable because they upset the balance between supply and demand, not improve it. Once the balance is upset, the economy necessarily has to reconfigure itself and find a new equilibrium, a new point of balance. The result of intervention is a zero sum game, with both net winners and net losers to make up the balance.
The best thing Americans can do with their stimulus check is not to spend it, but to use it towards their debt. Or, if you're one of the few Americans not in debt, invest the money. If we do that, the "boost" to the economy may not be as great, but the inevitable crash that follows won't be as great, either.
4/29/2006
The Little Things
It's the little things in life that really seem to make a difference. Take, for example, sliced cheese. The environmentalist mantra is "reduce, reuse, and recycle". So, I thought, one thing I could do was to buy sliced cheese that was not individually wrapped, and then I wouldn't be throwing away all those little plastic wrappers for each slice.
The problem with that is that it costs more for sliced cheese that's not individually wrapped. What's the deal? I'm no expert in processed cheese or anything (who is?), but I can make a guess: it's simply cheaper to extrude and wrap a slice of cheese and pack slices together than it is to extrude a block of cheese and slice it.
I looked at the ingredients list of sliced cheese that was individually wrapped and compared it to the ingredients list of cheese that's not individually wrapped. It's the same ingredients, but listed in a slightly different order. The FDA requires ingredients to be listed in order of most or greatest to least (percentage-wise or something). Some companies "fiddle" with that to hide the amount of sugar a product has, by listing different types of sugars separately (i.e. fructose, dextrose, etc.) instead of simply listing "sugar" as the first and foremost ingredient of the product. But I digress.
So anyway, I'm guessing that sliced cheese that's not individually wrapped requires a different consistency than individually wrapped slices so that the slices remain distinct slices and don't stick together and become a single blob of cheese, whereas the wrapping of the individually wrapped slices does away with that problem and the need (and probably extra expense) of maintaining a certain consistency.
That's my guess. Maybe a processed cheese expert is out there who actually knows and can tell us (although at this point I doubt have very many readers).
Of course, one could object that the individually wrapped cheese merely seems cheaper because the cost of disposing of the extra wrapping hasn't been figured in. That could be a valid objection, but as long as governments control the disposal of trash, that extra cost is simply hiding in our taxes, unseen, and is difficult to calculate.
The problem with that is that it costs more for sliced cheese that's not individually wrapped. What's the deal? I'm no expert in processed cheese or anything (who is?), but I can make a guess: it's simply cheaper to extrude and wrap a slice of cheese and pack slices together than it is to extrude a block of cheese and slice it.
I looked at the ingredients list of sliced cheese that was individually wrapped and compared it to the ingredients list of cheese that's not individually wrapped. It's the same ingredients, but listed in a slightly different order. The FDA requires ingredients to be listed in order of most or greatest to least (percentage-wise or something). Some companies "fiddle" with that to hide the amount of sugar a product has, by listing different types of sugars separately (i.e. fructose, dextrose, etc.) instead of simply listing "sugar" as the first and foremost ingredient of the product. But I digress.
So anyway, I'm guessing that sliced cheese that's not individually wrapped requires a different consistency than individually wrapped slices so that the slices remain distinct slices and don't stick together and become a single blob of cheese, whereas the wrapping of the individually wrapped slices does away with that problem and the need (and probably extra expense) of maintaining a certain consistency.
That's my guess. Maybe a processed cheese expert is out there who actually knows and can tell us (although at this point I doubt have very many readers).
Of course, one could object that the individually wrapped cheese merely seems cheaper because the cost of disposing of the extra wrapping hasn't been figured in. That could be a valid objection, but as long as governments control the disposal of trash, that extra cost is simply hiding in our taxes, unseen, and is difficult to calculate.
11/03/2005
Blog without purpose?
I created this blog just because I wanted to be able to post comments in another blog, http://axeld.blogspot.com/ , but as long as I've got a blog, I guess I could post some comments on it. As soon as I think of something worth saying...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)