Straight Talk About Tea and College Aid January 31, 2007March 5, 2017 HEY, LOOK AT HONEST TEA! We made the front page of the Marketplace section of Monday’s Wall Street Journal – which you can now read for free, thanks to yesterday’s tip from Rockwell Wade. If you drink Honest Tea, you will be very happy – as will I. (Full disclosure for new-comers: I own a tiny sip of this private company.) Favorite flavor: mint white. JOHN McCAIN IN HIS OWN WORDS Click here. An interesting 3 minutes. PAYING FOR COLLEGE? I have no college-age kids, so did not run this site through all its paces. But at first glance, it sure looks helpful. (I do have three nephews in summer camp. Seeing their smiles when they get back more than covers the cost.)
From Minimum Wage to the Wall Street Journal January 30, 2007January 9, 2017 FREE WALL STREET JOURNAL Rockwell Wade: ‘Your readers can get free access to Wall Street Journal, Zacks, Morningstar, etc. with a free Netpass from: congoo.com – amazing financial news too.’ ☞ Click here for a quick clip that explains it all. RICH DAD Michael Axelrod: ‘I read that book [that your reader reviewed] and I agree – it’s awful. But the review says: ‘There is also something vaguely creepy about Kiyosaki’s resentment of his father who devoted his life to public service.’ My impression from the book is that Kiyosaki respects his father, but thinks he didn’t know much about money. He says you don’t get rich by working the way his dad did. I see no resentment there, only an appraisal of this father’s strength and weaknesses. He doesn’t resent a life devoted to public service, he just says it won’t make you rich. The problem with the book is it keeps telling you go into business and get rich, but doesn’t really say how. It’s a little like saying ‘don’t get sick, stay healthy.’ Ok what do I do to stay healthy? However the message of the book is clear: to get rich, write books on how to get rich and hope the public buys it.’ ☞ Worked for me. MINIMUM WAGE Kent Hammond: ‘I am surprised that you advocate an increase in the minimum wage. You of all people should know that it will hurt the people that it is supposed to help, those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The simple laws of economics will prevail once again. The increase will accelerate the use of outsourcing and mechanization by employers. Those seeking entry level jobs will be the ones to suffer.’ ☞ This is an old debate, and Kent is dead right that the minimum wage can’t successfully be set too high – $30 or some nutty thing. But the long-overdue cost-of-living adjustment that the House passed, from the current $5.15 an hour to $7.25, phased in over two years – the first raise in 10 years – will not see motel rooms being sent to China to be cleaned. It may add a nickel to the cost of a fast food meal. And there will certainly be some people, on the margin, not hired, or let go. But that will be offset by the increased economic activity from giving workers more money to spend . . . vaguely reminiscent of Henry Ford’s choosing to pay his workers enough so they could afford to buy Ford cars . . . and offset by the increased economic activity from giving people an added incentive to work. Certainly, when President Clinton got the last hike written into law, it did not kill the economy of the 1990s. But it helped a lot of people at the bottom. See this scholarly analysis, published not long after the last minimum wage hike. For now, Republican Senators have blocked the House bill. As reported here Friday, they are demanding yet more tax breaks in return for allowing this first-time-in-ten-years cost-of-living increase. (They have voted themselves $31,600 in such increases in those same 10 years.) But with any luck, we’ll get this done. In the meantime, those earning $5.15 an hour can still, as noted above, go into business and get rich – or access the Wall Street Journal for free.
Strategy and Chocolate January 29, 2007March 5, 2017 STRATEGY The new maximum you’re allowed to give a federal candidate for his or her primary or general election to the House, the Senate, or the White House is $2,300 (up from $2,100) – or $4,600 (up from $4,200) if you max out to both their primary and presidential campaigns (even if they face no primary opponent), or $9,200 (up from $8,400) if both you and your better half do the same. Or $216,400 if you both do all the federal candidate and committee giving the law allows. Aren’t you fortunate? So the first thing to say is that we need public financing of federal elections (a good link to click if you’re interested in how this would work and why it would be better) . . . . . . and the second thing to say is that, yes, I know, these limits are about as relevant to your life as, chances are, my telling you about ways to save money on yacht fuel. (Easy: don’t buy a yacht.) But whether you have already maxed out to three different presidential hopefuls – as at least one of my friends already has (a total of $6,900) – or have a budget of $200, total, for all political giving this year, I believe there are some points to be made. Many of us agree on THE GOAL: Increase the Democratic majority in Congress and take back the White House, so we can move full-speed ahead toward solving our country’s (and our planet’s) problems . . . made so much worse these past six years. (It would also be very nice to go back to appointing moderate, progressive judges.) And many of us face the same CHALLENGE: Everybody and his brother is going to be calling to ask for money for a dozen different presidential primary campaigns, and – not wanting to lose a friendship (or offend a brother) – we are going to want to say yes to them all. So . . . for what it’s worth, here’s a possible STRATEGY: Give all you can to ONE candidate, if you feel passionately about him or her. That’s a great thing to do. Otherwise, though, give to NONE of them. Because whether we collectively spend 50 million Democratic dollars on the primary contest or 500 million Democratic dollars, we will still wind up with just one – great – nominee. Spending more does not change that in any way. But the number of Democratic dollars we have to build the Party and the war chest for the general election may determine who wins the White House (and how well we widen our margins in Congress). Spending more could make all the difference in the world. Thus two sacrifices are called for here. First, giving a ton of money. Second – insofar as possible – giving it logically. It’s tough to tell a friend, ‘I’d love to help, but I’m saving that money for one of the 21 red ’08 Senate seats coming up for grabs that we’ll want to turn blue.’ Or to tell your brother, ‘I need to save that money for tough red Congressional districts we turned blue in 2006 that we need to keep blue.’ Or (my favorite), ‘I’m really, really sorry, but – since I know we’ll have a presidential nominee whether I give or not – I’m putting my limited dollars where the outcome is not certain. I’m giving my 2007 political money to the DNC to fund its army of local organizers and build its war chest, to be sure our nominee WINS.’ In a world of limited resources, the team that uses its resources most logically has a big advantage. COOKING LIKE KING KONG Have you ever seen a 20-foot chocolate sculpture? If not, you may enjoy this five-minute clip of its construction.
More Hope for Earth If Not for Mercury January 26, 2007March 5, 2017 But first . . . MINIMUM DECENCY So the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour – first raise in 10 years – and the Republicans in the Senate voted to block it. (Only 40, not 51, being needed to block.) As the Center for American Progress notes: ‘Eighty-three percent of the American public supports this increase. But unfortunately, the Senate fell six short of the votes needed to end debate and move on. It will now take up a bill pairing a minimum wage increase with tax breaks for small businesses, at the insistence of a small group of conservative senators. In the past 10 years, Congress has given small businesses $36 billion in tax breaks. It has given itself $31,600 in cost-of-living raises. . . . Send a message to your senator voicing your support for a clean bill to increase the minimum wage.’ And now . . . MY FRESHMAN NEIGHBOR Freshman year at Harvard I was in Pennypacker Hall and Amory Lovins was in neighboring Hurlbut. (You can imagine the sophomoric jokes, though we were freshmen.) Then Amory dropped out because he was bored – Harvard was too easy – and went to Oxford, out of which he also dropped, and for the same reason. As many of you doubtless know, he went on to change the world, inventing the concept of negawatts and much else and . . . well, The New Yorker has just profiled him in its January 22 edition which – in an annoying ploy to force you to buy the magazine – they do not post entirely online. The author, Elizabeth Kolbert, quotes Wal-Mart’s VP for corporate strategy and sustainability (aren’t you pleased Wal-Mart has one?): ‘In a room of ten people talking about why it can’t be done, Amory is the one working on the five ways to get there.’ Elsewhere she writes: A few years ago, Texas Instruments hired [Amory’s Rocky Mountain Institute] to help design a new chip-manufacturing plant in Richardson, Texas. It is expected to use twenty per cent less energy and thirty-five percent less water than a typical chip factory of comparable size. It also cost thirty per cent less to build. “Amory doesn’t take a bullying, negative approach,” Paul Westbrook, Texas Instruments’ manager for sustainable development, told me. “He just says, ‘Here’s a better way, and here’s why it works.’ And you think, Well, we’d be kind of dumb not to do that.” One of the ways the new Texas Instruments plant will save energy is by capturing heat that normally would have been discarded as waste. “We implemented heat recovery, and, lo and behold, we didn’t need as many boilers,” Westbrook said. Not only that, notes RMI, but by saving so much energy and money, Texas Instruments was able to keep its plant – and about 1,000 good jobs – in the U.S. Amory basically trots around the world, huge briefcase under his arm, evangelizing for energy efficiency. (The huge briefcase stores reprints of various technical papers he hands people like me who can’t possibly understand them.) I am very proud of Amory. Read the profile. It will inspire you with hope and excitement for the future. You might even redouble your own (already considerable) efforts at energy conservation – and recycling. RECYCLING IN NORWAY Karl Klaudi: ‘On the subject of setting up recycling for CFLs and such in local Wal-Marts, there is something similar ongoing in Norway. Some background: My wife and I recently moved to Norway from New Orleans. While still in NOLA, after seeing An Inconvenient Truth, we decided to do our part to help our ‘home,’ and one of the things we wanted to do was recycle. And by recycle, we just meant the basics – glass, plastic, aluminum, paper. But post-Katrina, recycling was simply not offered in New Orleans. (I’m not entirely certain it was offered before Katrina.) The closest recycling drop-off center was miles and miles outside the city. And so because it was not easy, we did not follow through on our intentions. ‘Flash forward a number of months – we move to Norway. Here, recycling is not an option, it is simply the way it is. In our house, we have three small bins in the kitchen: one for paper, one for organic stuff, and another for ‘other.’ These small bins are then emptied into much larger bins that are convenient to the neighborhood – and I have no worries that some indiscriminating garbage collector simply combines all into one truck. With a little more effort, we can further separate the ‘other’ trash into glass, plastic, and metals bins that are not as commonly found, yet still fairly convenient. All these different materials are then taken away for recycling. Most of the organic stuff becomes compost, while some is burned to generate electricity. ‘Anyhow, back to the CFL recycling at Wal-Mart idea. Here in Norway, when you purchase plastic bottles of Coke or aluminum cans of beer, you pay a small deposit. You retrieve the deposit by returning the bottle or can to your local grocery store, which has a little machine in which you feed all the cans and bottles and it spits out a receipt that is exchanged for cash. Every single grocery store has these machines. The whole process is so simple and easy that there is no reason not to do it. It helps to have a financial incentive, too. As far as I know, EVERYONE does it. Why couldn’t the same be done in America, with Wal-Mart leading the way?’ RECYCLING IN FT. LAUDERDALE (or anywhere else) Rod: ‘For batteries, go here to find where to recycle. For Ft. Lauderdale, to take one example, you will discover places like Home Depot, Radio Shack, Cingular and many others.’ Robert Haugland: ‘There is a website where you can search by ZIP code to find out where you can recycle just about everything, from household chemicals and motor oil to cell phones and computers: earth911.org.’ RECYCLING ON MERCURY George: ‘Tough Mercury Recycling Laws Backfire and Actually Increase Mercury Pollution.‘ ☞ Well, yes and no. But it shows how complex is this problem of sustaining 6.5 billion humans, headed shortly to 9 billion, on a finite planet, without fouling it entirely. Have a great weekend.
A Brighter Day January 25, 2007January 9, 2017 HOPE Kathryn Lance: ‘Your column about the evangelicals and the scientists today made me realize something – perhaps you have noticed it too. Despite the intractable war and the threat of yet another, there does seem to be a new feeling in the air, a feeling of hope, that all is not yet lost . . . all since the Dems took back Congress. I think that until that happened, I had never been so in despair of the future, not even in the sixties during Vietnam. Who knows? Maybe we may yet manage to save the planet.’ ☞ Wouldn’t that be nice? MORE HOPE Ken Doran: ‘Better LED bulbs are in the research pipeline. From EE Times: ‘The reported efficiency is about 11.5 times higher than conventional incandescent lamps that deliver 13 lumens/W and 1.7 times higher than widely used fluorescent lamps, Nichia said.’)’ ☞ A delivery date is not estimated, but they will surely be on sale by the time your CFLs need replacing ten years from now. I LEARN SO MUCH FROM MY READERS, I SHOULD BE PAYING YOU John Seiffer: ‘LED lights have many benefits, but the cost is not low enough yet to make them a good replacement for CFLs or even regular bulbs. In fact, the technology is different enough that it’s more efficient not to try and make them fit in a regular bulb socket. And the quality/directionality of the light is such that its best uses are designs that take those differences into account (since the color can be tightly controlled, LEDs work great for aquariums to highlight the colors of the fish). The price is still too high for most uses. That is changing rapidly but for the moment LEDs make sense where the other benefits (besides energy savings) are worth the cost. Such as: Places where changing a bulb is expensive (nuclear reactors come to mind). Also, where the lack of heat makes for additional savings (supermarket refrigeration units). They also have the benefit that turning them on and off does not shorten their life (as it does with fluorescents). They are also very durable (even can be made water proof). And some people just like the high tech look. Here’s a company that designs/sells LEDs that are built to take advantage of their differences.’ CFL SAFETY Wib Smith: ‘Here is the answer from Don Klipstein, the expert I wrote to about hazards from my CFLs. I have taken my cheap fluorescents out of my recessed ceiling lamps, some of which are charred. I will try a UL rated CFL and check it periodically.’ You are talking about compact fluorescents with integral ballasts (screw-in compact fluorescents). As for brightness: Brightness is decreased when the tubing, or coolest substantial portion thereof, is at a temperature that is much different from optimum in either direction. In most indoor applications, this makes little difference, with exception of dimming from overheating being more likely when base down in an enclosed fixture. As for burnouts and fire hazards: Base down is better. Compact fluorescents easily produce 50% more convected and conducted heat (and less infrared) than an incandescent of the same wattage, although normally less heat than an incandescent of the same rated light output. Less widely considered is that compact fluorescents tolerate heat less well than incandescents do, and worse still when the ballast is built-in (which is the case in screw-base ones). When a compact fluorescent is operated base-up, heat from the tubing heats the ballast. This gets worse in downlights such as recessed ceiling fixtures since those can accumulate heat in their upper regions. In fact, it is recommended to use in recessed ceiling fixtures no compact fluorescents not specifically rated for that use. These include Philips SLS ones that are not dimmable and of wattage up to 23 watts (and not their 25 watt one). Overheating of the ballast is supposed to do no worse than shorten its life or cause very early burnout. If the compact fluorescent is UL listed (most that are not dollar store junkers are), they have supposedly passed testing to assure reasonable safety from starting a fire if used as directed – supposedly including use in a recessed ceiling fixture unless the packaging or any instruction insert says not to do so. However, I have the impression that a lot of things barely pass UL testing by the skin of their teeth because the design was cost-minimized as much as possible to the penny without flunking. And I have heard of some somewhat scary CFL failures, often when used in recessed ceiling fixtures, including a couple with holes melted in their ballast housings and a few with charred plastic. Thankfully there is a voluntary standard (which at least some dollar store junkers violate) for the plastic ballast housing to be made of flame-retardant grade plastic. Some other scary CFL failures (also disproportionately base-up and probably heavily in recessed ceiling fixtures) is from a particular electronic component (rectification filter capacitor) bursting or cracking and leaking fluid. The anecdotes of that coming my way mainly did so mainly 1.5-4 years ago, so I suspect problems in that area are largely solved. The only anecdote I have received of a compact fluorescent outright catching fire is for one of what I consider a “dollar store junker” “brand” that was involved in a safety recall for using non-flame-retardant type plastic for the ballast housing. There are also ballastless compact fluorescents with pin bases so as to plug into associated special sockets. These tend to be more reliable and safer, since the ballast is separate from the “bulb” and likely not as impacted by heat from the bulb. BALANCE Gary Diehl: ‘I prefer the balanced approach. I use conventional bulbs for outdoor lights (for some reason CFLs do not seem to be able to handle the weather extremes of Kansas well). I long ago remodeled to use conventional fluorescents in my workshop and kitchen where I really value a lot of light. Everywhere else I use CFLs except for the two locations in my home where changing a light bulb is a nightmare. In these spots I bit the bullet and paid for the convenience of LED bulbs which according to the numbers should last 40 plus years! While I hope I live long enough to change the LED bulbs one more time, the thought of never having to stand on a ten foot ladder precariously balanced on a stairway riser again is also pretty compelling.’ ☞ What if you put little mittens on the outdoor CFLs in the winter? No? Okay.
Loco January 24, 2007January 9, 2017 Today’s discussion of CFLs and LEDs – the graphics are almost done to change the name of this website to A BRIGHTER DAY: Energy Efficient Lighting and Other Subjects – has been bumped by the State of the Union, or at least the health insurance piece of it. (Kudos, by the way, to the President for his classy and warm recognition of our nation’s first female Speaker.) But first . . . L IS FOR LOCO Bob: ‘Not to kick a dog when he’s down, but when is the best time to kick one? I recently downloaded Robert Kiyosaki ‘Rich Dad’ pod-cast from Apple iTunes. The pod-cast presents Mr. Kiyosaki in front of his company’s management team discussing brand extension . . . including ‘Rich Dad’ for Women, Children, etc. . . . and he starts discussing his joint venture with Donald Trump and his new book deal. He truly seemed excited about the new direction and association with ‘The Donald.’ He starts discussing building wealth and GOLD. He proceeds to discuss the path to GOLD is GOD. He claims the only way to build gold through GOD is to remove the ‘Ls’ in your life. ‘L’ is for the ‘Losers’ mentality, ‘L’ is for ‘Lazy’ . . . and then to my shock, ‘L’ is for ‘Limp-wristed.’ ‘ ☞ Well, there you go. Another approach would be to apply L for Logic – and for Living beneath your means. And now . . . SPEAKING OF LOCO It is truly a grand time to be rich and powerful in America. George W. Bush, with the help of an until-recently-Republican-controlled Congress, has done more to shift wealth to the very richest among us than has anyone else – very possibly in the history of the world (you will send me your nominees if you disagree he has earned that distinction) with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan. Consider that even the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their income real income, adjusted for inflation, ‘rise less than 1% a year since the late 1970’s,’ according to Paul Krugman, while ‘the income of the richest 1% has roughly doubled and the income of the top 0.01% – people with incomes of more than $5 million in 2004 – has risen by a factor of five.‘ And now comes the Bush compassionate health insurance proposal in the State of the Union, previewed Saturday morning. Professor Krugman, the floor is yours: Gold-Plated Indifference By Paul Krugman The New York Times Monday 22 January 2007 President Bush’s Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in tomorrow’s State of the Union address. Mr. Bush’s proposal won’t go anywhere. But it’s still worth looking at his remarks, because of what they say about him and his advisers. On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.” Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it’s like to be uninsured. Going without health insurance isn’t like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It’s a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don’t need an “incentive” to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible. Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can’t afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket. Of those uninsured who aren’t low-income, many can’t get coverage because of pre-existing conditions – everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won’t solve their problem. The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we’re least concerned about – affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. At most, the Bush plan might induce some of those people to buy insurance, while in the process – whaddya know – giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break. While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase – not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.” Again, wow. No economic analysis I’m aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul’s premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have “gold plated” health coverage please raise their hands? According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we’re not talking about the wealthy; we’re talking about ordinary workers who have managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans. What’s driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance – that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket. The administration also believes, for some reason, that people should be pushed out of employment-based health insurance – admittedly a deeply flawed system – into the individual insurance market, which is a disaster on all fronts. Insurance companies try to avoid selling policies to people who are likely to use them, so a large fraction of premiums in the individual market goes not to paying medical bills but to bureaucracies dedicated to weeding out “high risk” applicants – and keeping them uninsured. I’m somewhat skeptical about health care plans, like that proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that propose covering gaps in the health insurance market with a series of patches, such as requiring that insurers offer policies to everyone at the same rate. But at least the authors of these plans are trying to help those most in need, and recognize that the market needs fixing. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is still peddling the fantasy that the free market, with a little help from tax cuts, solves all problems. What’s really striking about Mr. Bush’s remarks, however, is the tone. The stuff about providing “incentives” to buy insurance, the sneering description of good coverage as “gold plated,” is right-wing think-tank jargon. In the past Mr. Bush’s speechwriters might have found less offensive language; now, they’re not even trying to hide his fundamental indifference to the plight of less-fortunate Americans. ☞ If you’re not a New York Times Select subscriber, click here for a free trial. Tomorrow: A Brighter Day
Yes, MORE About CFLs – And Here’s Why January 23, 2007January 9, 2017 RECYCLING Erich Potter: ‘They may not be as pervasive as Wal-Mart, but Ikea has just the sort of recycling bins discussed in your column. You can drop off your mercury containing light bulbs and batteries at their stores (not too sure about the emergency flares). If you don’t have an Ikea nearby you can find the closest place to recycle those mercury bulbs check this out.’ Tim Bonham: ‘Here in Minneapolis, the City recycling program takes household batteries. All you have to do is leave them in a clear plastic bag on top of your other recyclables in the alley. Doesn’t get much more convenient than that.’ Anna Marasco: ‘When the first Wal-Mart came to Lawrence KS, one of the things they did for the community was open a center where you could bring glass, plastics of all kinds, paper, and cardboard. Hopefully, that will continue with their trend toward greening. If they don’t though, many areas have a place like this where you can take fluorescents.’ WHY SO MUCH SPACE DEVOTED TO CFLs? Heck, we’re just talking about a few lightbulbs, right? Well, it may be more important than you’d initially assume. Carol Vinzant: ‘If you liked the Times’ January story on Wal-Mart’s push for CFLs, you’ll love the Fast Company story by Charles Fishman they seemed to have based it on.’ ☞ I do. In small part: Sitting humbly on shelves in stores everywhere is a product, priced at less than $3, that will change the world. Soon. It is a fairly ordinary item that nonetheless cuts to the heart of a half-dozen of the most profound, most urgent problems we face. Energy consumption. Rising gasoline costs and electric bills. Greenhouse-gas emissions. Dependence on coal and foreign oil. Global warming. . . . Compact fluorescents emit the same light as classic incandescents but use 75% or 80% less electricity. What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. . . . Swirl bulbs don’t just work, they pay for themselves. They use so little power compared with old reliable bulbs, a $3 swirl pays for itself in lower electric bills in about five months. Screw one in, turn it on, and it’s not just lighting your living room, it’s dropping quarters in your pocket. The advantages pile up in a way to almost make one giddy. Compact fluorescents, even in heavy use, last 5, 7, 10 years. Years. Install one on your 30th birthday; it may be around to help illuminate your 40th. Frank: ‘I think LEDs last longer than CFLs, are more luminance-efficient, and do not contain mercury. But cost even more. Click here. [‘The latest LED light bulbs now produce about the same amount of light per watt as compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL). However, unlike incandescent bulbs and CFLs, which splash light in all directions, LED bulbs are directional. They drive their light in one direction, so that you have light exactly where you want it. This directional lighting equals savings in yet another fashion. LEDs don’t waste light (energy) on areas you don’t need illuminated, which is also why they’re perfect task lights.’] Lowest price I can find: here.’ THE BEST POSSIBLE NEWS (the partnering part, not the extinction part) On Wednesday [writes my friend Alan Farago in the Orlando Sentinel], the nation’s leading scientists and evangelicals joined in Washington, D.C., to urge action to reverse rapidly escalating environmental problems, including global warming and species extinction. “We are glad to be partnering with our friends in the scientific community. They have the facts we need to present to our congregations; we have the numbers of activists that will work through churches, government, and the business community to make a significant impact,” said the Rev. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood. [. . . ] ‘We agree that our home, the Earth, which comes to us as that inexpressibly beautiful and mysterious gift that sustains our very lives, is seriously imperiled by human behavior. The harm is seen throughout the natural world, including a cascading set of problems such as climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and species extinctions, as well as the spread of human infectious diseases, and other accelerating threats to the health of people and the well-being of societies. ‘Each particular problem could be enumerated, but here it is enough to say that we are gradually destroying the sustaining community of life on which all living things on Earth depend. The costs of this destruction are already manifesting themselves around the world in profound and painful ways. The cost to humanity is already significant and may soon become incalculable. Being irreversible, many of these changes would affect all generations to come.’ ☞ Amen.
Annoying Books January 22, 2007March 5, 2017 BUY THIS BOOK AND ANNOY SOMEONE My friend Terry McAuliffe’s book hit the shelves yesterday. You may have just seen him on ‘The Today Show’ minutes ago (I am fast asleep as you read this, but I have TiVo). He’s on Jon Stewart tomorrow. There are two reasons to buy What a Party! First, Terry’s story-telling is unabashed and irrepressible. (Find put what really happened with that John Kerry wind-surfing episode. And, yes, Terry really did once wrestle an alligator to raise $15,000 for the DNC). Second, even if you can’t find time to read it, just having it on your desk at work – let alone boosting it onto the best-seller list – should annoy the right wing. Small consolation, but still.* * And lest you not see the gentle smile on my face, I mean this in a largely playful way. The truth is, we all need to learn to get along. I don’t want to annoy the right too much. I’d rather persuade them of the need to stay out of people’s private lives, avoid ill-advised military action, balance budgets, conserve the environment, and read the Sermon on the Mount. DON’T BUY THESE BOOKS, THOUGH There is something remarkable about Zac Bissonette’s AOL review below but I won’t tell you what it is until you get to the end: Terrible books top this year’s personal finance best-sellers Posted Jan 3rd 2007 11:58AM by Zac Bissonnette The Wall Street Journal published a list of the best-selling personal finance books of 2006 in the weekend edition. The article focused on the fact that only one of the bestsellers was published this year. But there was something else that jumped out: How truly awful many of the best-selling titles were. Number 1 was Robert Kiyosaki’s perennial bestseller Rich Dad Poor Dad, which is easily the worst of the 200-plus investing/personal finance books I’ve read. The fact that it’s written at about a third-grade level aside, it is chockful of hackneyed advice, bad advice, and just plain weird advice. He actually suggests insider trading as a way to make money in the stock market. There is also something vaguely creepy about Kiyosaki’s resentment of his father who devoted his life to public service. Kiyosaki needs some counseling. For an excellent write-up of all that is wrong with this book, visit the site of real estate guru’s guru, John T. Reed. Kiyosaki also shows up at number three on the list, this time with the book Why We Want You to Be Rich, with the one, the only, and the all-too omnipresent Donald Trump. There’s something really amazing about this collaboration. Most intelligent investors have long suspected that Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki were full of it. By collaborating with each other, each has successfully destroyed any credibility he might have had. It’s like Michael Bolton’s duet with Kenny G. It just makes you hate both of them a little bit more. For the record I actually did read this book, and it is truly awful (although I refuse to listen to the Michael Bolton/Kenny G duet). Kiyosaki suggests joining a multi-level marketing scheme as a way to build up your business knowledge, which is sort of like taking your son to a Royals game to show him how to play baseball. Trump babbles on about how great his father was, how great golf is … and mostly how great Donald Trump is. While a couple good books did make the list (Jim Cramer’s Real Money and Joel Greenblatt’s Little Book That Beats the Market), the number of bad titles underscores the serious financial literacy deficit in America. The fact that books that anyone who knows anything about money would know are garbage are selling out, combined with the sub-zero national savings rate, indicates a serious need for financial education from reliable sources. Let’s make 2007 a year for financial literacy. If you have a child, find out if his or her school teaches kids about money. If it doesn’t, find out why not. If Robert Kiyosaki is the most popular source for financial advice in America, we are in serious trouble. ☞ Okay? Ready? The author of that review, Zac Bissonette, is a senior in high school.* *I expect we’ll be reading his book – with pleasure – in the not too distant future.
A Great Idea And a Video at the End Well Worth the Click January 19, 2007March 5, 2017 MERCURY Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs save tons of energy but, as one of you pointed out yesterday, contain a trace of mercury. Every time you discard 100 of them, it’s as though you threw a household thermometer in the trash. But . . . Joe Prochaska: ‘Any mercury calculation for CFLs has to balance out against the mercury in the coal that is not burned to fuel the incandescents they replaced. The number one source of mercury in our environment is the mercury going up the smokestacks of all those coal fired power plants; about one-third of all US mercury emissions, or 150,000 pounds, comes from coal. CFLs reduce overall mercury emissions by 40%, even if they are not disposed of properly.’ ☞ So it would appear Brian’s concern yesterday was unfounded. Still, in the long run, we ought to find a way to recycle household CFLs. And here it is: JAMES MUSTER’S GREAT IDEA James Muster: ‘You write about the disposal of compact fluorescents. I would like to point out this is just the tip of the iceberg. I don’t know how to dispose of the AA batteries I use bunches of, so they go in the trash. I don’t know how to dispose of the emergency rockets and flares that all boats are required to carry (and that expire every three years). I dare not put them in the trash because they could go off. They are pyrotechnics with nasty stuff like phosphorus in them. The regulations and facilities for disposing of the mergansers flares, from boats or from car emergency kits vary wildly around the nation. It’s against the law to just shoot the rockets into the air. ‘As the products we use become more toxic, and clean water becomes more scarce, correct disposal will become more of a problem. Every store that sells disposable batteries should have a battery return bin. Every marine store that sells emergency flares should have a fire resistant return bin. The law should require that every store that sells should also be a return point. My newspapers are picked up in the blue bin once a week, but to legally dispose of something toxic I have to drive 25 minutes to another city. It is not like I live in the boonies. I live in the middle of a metropolis of 1.8 million people! ‘I called the county toxic waste recycling line and they had never heard of a marine emergency flare. I live in Fort Lauderdale, the city that bills itself as a boating capital of the U.S., and yet the toxic waste hot line help did not understand what a marine emergency flare was. Even when you do try to dispose of things correctly you are swimming up hill.’ ☞ Since Wal-Mart hopes to sell 100 million CFLs each year (and since they must sell billions of batteries) – what better place to get the recycling ball rolling even without a law requiring it? Wal-Mart could attract customers and kudos by becoming America’s place to recycle. First $4 prescriptions, next leaner packaging to take 213,000 trucks off the road, now this push to sell CFLs . . . imagine if everyone came to know Wal-Mart as the place to go to recycle responsibly. Full disclosure: I own the stock. Ed: My county, Camden, NJ, has six ‘special waste collection’ weekends between spring and fall. The county will set up in different communities and collect all kinds of household things that shouldn’t end in the landfill like paint, fuels, pesticides, car batteries, pool chemicals, mercury thermometers – they even have the sheriff’s bomb squad there to collect ammunition. They also just started an electronics recycling program as well. It doesn’t cost anything (albeit my tax dollars) and they make it really easy. I got rid of a few gallons of gas mixed with oil one year for a gardening tool that I didn’t have anymore. I wish more communities took this approach.’ ☞ Okay, that, too. But Wal-Mart could do the routine recycling 365 days a year – and invite the bomb squad to use its easy-to-find parking lots on ‘special waste collection’ weekends. AN INFORMED CITIZENRY . . . This video will surely make you laugh – and cry. (This, by the way, is John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia.)
The Anonymous Company Spokesman January 18, 2007January 9, 2017 Sorry for all the ups and downs of the web site in recent days. The way I understand it, freakish accumulations of ice weigh down the branches of the Internet and trucks carrying packets of information skid all over the place. I blame Canada. FORTUNE-STEALING III Steven E Rubin, MD: ‘Ben Franklin had Sheryl Crow and the rabbi both beat: ‘Wealth is not his that has it, but his that enjoys it.” Yaakov Har-Oz: ‘And Rabbi Schachtel was merely paraphrasing a famous mishna in the tractate Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers), 4:1: ‘Who is rich? He who is happy with what he has.’ See here. The individual quoted, Ben Zoma, lived early in the second century C.E.’ THE HERTZ FRAU From Yahoo! And Reuters: A 46-year-old German motorist driving along a busy road suddenly veered to the left and ended up stuck on a railway track – because his satellite navigation system told him to, police said Sunday. The motorist was heading into the north German city of Bremen “when the friendly voice from his satnav told him to turn left,” a spokesman said. “He did what he was ordered to do and turned his Audi left up over the curb and onto the track of a local streetcar line. He tried to back up off the track but got completely stuck.” The police spokesman said about a dozen trams were held up until a tow truck arrived to clear the car off the track. Several German motorists have crashed their cars in recent months, later telling police they were only obeying orders from their satnavs. LAB DIAMONDS Wayne Arczynski: ‘The real value to lab diamonds and their raison d’être is in electronic circuits. The diamond’s density allows it to conduct heat away from transistors very effectively. This will allow higher performance computer chips to be made. They grow diamond ingots and slice them into wafers and then deposit the transistors onto the wafers. This also drives the need for zero impurities in the diamond ingots. Lab diamonds may pressure jewelry prices, but I think it will take a while. I think it will be difficult to overcome De Beers marketing. Plus you don’t just go down the street and buy the equipment you need to start an ingot production plant. Although, it is tempting – with high quality 1 carat diamonds going for $5,000 or so a pop, you’d only need to sell 20,000 or so to recoup your investment. Then you could buy the rest of BOREF.” BOREF Did you have to mention BOREF? My bottom line is that this remains a great lottery ticket. Is there a good chance we will lose our money? I think we have to assume so. But I haven’t sold a share. It seems to me we have three big elements here. One is the giant iron ore deposit. Core samples were drilled this summer and are being analyzed now. I expect the results to be highly encouraging but inconclusive. (When has Borealis ever not been highly encouraged by its progress? When has it ever conclusively succeeded at anything?) Two is a portfolio of alleged cutting edge technologies that I am not remotely qualified to assess – except we have the tangible example, confirmed by Boeing more than a year ago, of a 767 at full weight being powered around a tarmac by an electric motor the size of a watermelon. And three is a CEO who – while I am perfectly prepared to grant he is brilliant and honest and well-meaning – seems (how to put this kindly?) never, ever, to make his dreams come true. (He has been pursuing the value of the iron ore for 41 years now.) In a speech he gave two-and-a-half years ago, he told IBM: “The Borealis Family of Companies have made scientific advances that will transform the basic science that underlies some of our oldest, biggest, and most important industries of which electronics is only a small part.” So how do you value that? Do you discount all the assets to zero because the CEO rejects conventional business practice? (When I threw out the hypothetical of recruiting “a Jack Welch” to head the company, he told me he would not hire a Jack Welch, and had his doubts about the health of GE.) Do you discount them to zero because nothing ever seems to happen on the timetable he expects? (When the results of this summer’s aerial iron ore tests were disclosed and the stock was around 10 – it’s more like 5 now – he called to urge that I not sell my shares at the paltry $30- or $50-a-share tender offer he felt certain was imminent, now that the world could see the results.) Do you discount them to zero because someone so headstrong is unlikely ever to give up control? Or because he has never, to my knowledge, run a business that sold a single commercial product? Or do you figure that, with the entire company commanding a market cap these days south of $30 million – I have friends whose planes cost more – it’s a place to put some fraction of the money you can truly afford to lose? Here’s a recent article describing the activities of the company. (“Tom Shelley reports on the imminent commercialisation of a solid-state technology set to revolutionise the direct conversion of heat to electricity.”) If you read it closely, you’ll notice that the Borealis spokesman on whose briefing the article was based refused to give his name. This company is nothing if not unique. CBH Who knows? But my guru is hanging on. CFLs Andrew Klossner: “Compact fluorescent bulbs are NOT damaged by use in lamp fixtures with three-way switches. A standard CFL bulb will work just like a non-three-way incandescent bulb: you’ll get only one lighting level, not three. Dimmers, however, do require special bulbs.” Brian S. Kimerer: “A couple of years ago I installed about eight compact fluorescents. Four have failed. Now I am faced with their disposal. They are full of mercury. Even though these bulbs should be treated as hazmat, only businesses are required by law to dispose of them properly. When people start tossing them into the landfills (which I will not do), we will have a problem that is perhaps worse than the small additional power consumption incurred by the use of incandescents.” ☞ Well, according to this, discarding 100 of them would, in terms of mercury, be like discarding a single household thermometer. But I’m all for collecting them until a convenient way to recycle them has been developed. The energy saving, if America replaced a significant fraction of its most-used incandescents (the ones left burning a lot), would be tremendous.