Carpooligans August 21, 2007March 8, 2017 GENENTECH’S CARPOOLIGANS Dr. Lindsay Leveen spends $29 instead of $363 a month commuting to work, saving $4,000 a year after tax (and freeing up time, when he’s not the one driving, to snooze or read the paper). Obviously, this would not apply so dramatically in, say, rural Georgia. But still: Ever since I joined Genentech in 2005, I have carpooled with several other employees who live in southern Marin County. Genentech has its main campus in South San Francisco some 25 miles from my home in Tiburon. My commute is certainly scenic. I cross Sausalito, the Marin headlands, the Golden Gate Bridge, The San Francisco Marina, San Francisco Civic Center, and then a dreary drive down the 101 south to near SFO. If I drive alone I have a $5 toll southbound on the Golden Gate Bridge, there is no toll northbound on my return trip. My 1990 C280 Mercedes has an average fuel efficiency of 23 miles to the gallon combined city and freeway that is representative of my commute to work. Therefore, if I drive alone each day I would consume slightly more than 2 gallons of premium gasoline. The Bay Area has perhaps the highest gasoline prices in the US so gasoline would cost me approximately $7 per day. My car is paid for and pretty close to fully depreciated so I will only account for out of pocket maintenance and repair expenses. The car costs $500 to service every 10,000 miles (5 cents a mile), needs a new set of tires costing $600 every 30,000 miles (2 cents a mile),and needs brakes costing $600 every 30,000 miles(2 cents a mile). This totals 9 cents a mile, therefore the 50 mile round trip commute equals a cash maintenance and repair cost of $4.50 each day I drive to and from work. The total cost for tolls, gasoline, and cash maintenance costs is therefore $16.50 per day. A new car that is not fully depreciated would cost substantially more than the $16.50 per day. Carpooling to work, I only have to drive about one quarter of the time. We have 6 members but it is a casual carpool and sometimes we have only 2 or three in the car but mostly we have 4 or 5 in the car. Let’s assume I drive 6 times a month to work and that there are at least 3 people in total in my car when I drive. I save the Golden Gate Bridge toll because a car with 3 people or more can travel toll free. My monthly out of pocket cash costs for the 6 days I drive total 6 times $11.50 or $69 per month. Had I driven alone, my monthly out of pocket cash cost would equal 22 (workdays in a month) times $16.50 or $363 per month. There is still another offset to my commuting cost. Genentech for commercial and societal reasons wants to limit the number of vehicles that are parked on the main campus. They have instituted a reward program titled gRide. For every day that an employee does not bring a car on campus the company pays the employee $4. Therefore for the 16 days that I was in another member of my carpool’s vehicles, I get $64 added to my paycheck. After taxes this equals $40. My $69 out of pocket monthly commute expense is therefore reduced to only $29 a month. The gRide reward program also saves Genentech a bunch of money. To build a seismically braced parking structure in the Bay Area requires an investment of some $15,000 to $20,000 per parking space exclusive of land acquisition cost. Genentech pays less than $1,000 per year to the employees for the elimination of a parking space under the gRide program. The money that would have been spent on a parking structure is better invested in research for a life saving drug and the company has motivated the employee with an added reward. This is the perfect example of a “win-win” situation. The gRide program is very successful. 10 months after its inception we now have over 2,000 employees participating and over $1 million in rewards will be paid out this year. Each month the gRide program saves over 50,000 gallons of gasoline and eliminates a million pounds of CO2 emissions. This example shows the benefit of carpooling to employees, corporations, and society. We call our carpool participants “Carpooligans” but we are a tight knit group who enjoy our companionship during the commute, we all care about the environment, and we definitely appreciate saving money. The federal government should give corporations a tax credit for a gRide type program. The money would be far better spent and provide immediate fuel savings compared with all the nonsense about fuel cells, hydrogen, clean coal, carbon sequestration, ethanol and the myriad programs that simply line some special interest’s pocket. SHOULD DEMS ESPOUSE MARRIAGE EQUALITY? Evan Wolfson argues that they should. See if you agree with his reasoning. Tomorrow: Ketchup (and Other Scary Condiments)
Lower, Less, Less August 20, 2007January 6, 2017 LOWER INTEREST RATES The Fed cut its discount rate Friday to begin dealing with the subprime mortgage morass – as you knew it would. Other measures will be taken to mitigate a very difficult situation. Smart people at high levels of the Administration and Congress are working for the softest possible landing. But my guess is that the softest possible landing will be, at best, rough. Do not expect a quick, painless resolution to our unfolding economic problems. LESS FEAR OVER LOVING COUPLES According to the latest Zogby poll, 63% of New Jersey voters said they wouldn’t mind if their legislature upgraded the ‘civil unions’ that gay couples are currently permitted to civil ‘marriage.’ (As before, and quite properly, the government would not presume to tell religious institutions whom they could or could not marry.) One state legislator who’s now willing to go with that flow recently wrote: ‘To paraphrase John Lennon, let’s give love a chance. We might just find it works.’ LESS OPPRESSIVE WAGES If you missed Saturday’s Democratic radio address, it was delivered by a waitress from North Carolina: Good morning. My name is Fawn Townsend and I am proud to deliver the Democratic radio address this week. I am a waitress working the night shift at a restaurant in Raleigh, North Carolina and – like millions of other Americans – I have tried to make ends meet on the minimum wage. And as anyone in my position knows, that is a very tough job. You can’t pay all your bills. You struggle every day, but still find yourself falling behind. Despite the fact that more Americans are working harder while earning less, it took ten years for our representatives in Washington to raise the minimum wage, with Republicans in Congress blocking it along the way. But during the last election, the people spoke out loud and clear. We elected Democrats across the country who took the lead in passing several minimum wage increases at the state level and improving the lives of America’s working families. Because the new Democratic Congress kept their word and increased the federal minimum wage last month, many more of us today have a better shot at achieving the American Dream. Millions of Americans now have a little more in their paychecks to help pay for basic necessities like food and clothing. And now more Americans can save to build a better future for themselves and their families. While the pay increase may not seem like much, it will create ripples in the lives of so many people. More than six million children whose parents earn the minimum wage will benefit with the earnings increase. When you add it all up, the resulting pay raise of $4,400 per year will help families pay for child care, housing and food. In recognition of their brave service to our country, Democrats in Congress passed a pay raise for our brave men and women in the military, helping them and their families make ends meet. With the money I earn, I hope to buy a used car. With a car, I might then be able to pick up more work so I have enough income to live independently – and no longer rely on my good friends who I live with now. And that is only the beginning. In order to truly get ahead and reach my life-long goal of becoming a nurse, I hope to attend college in the next couple of years. And thankfully, Democrats have made education a top priority and passed legislation that makes higher education more affordable, which helps make my goal no longer insurmountable. This year, Democrats in Congress provided aid and helped make the student loan system work for students rather than the banks. Democrats also passed a child tax credit to help parents put money away for college for their children. I believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to earn a decent living in our country. Democrats agree with that thinking and they have shown that raising the minimum wage is just the first step. Our Democrats in Congress are dedicated to getting millions of low-income children the health care they need by recently passing the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Unfortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto it. On important issues like health care, we can’t afford to put politics ahead of the well being of our children. Everyone should contact their members of Congress and urge them to support the children’s health program and stop any veto, like I have. I’m grateful that our Democratic leaders in Congress are taking our country in a new direction. They have accomplished more this year than Republicans accomplished in the past six years combined – including giving people like me a long overdue raise. I’m Fawn Townsend from Raleigh, North Carolina and this has been the Democratic Radio Address. Thank you for listening and enjoy your weekend. ☞ As we face a possible recession, the Republican leadership would like to further cut taxes for billionheirs and – if only it were possible! – repeal that increase in the minimum wage the Democratic majority forced through. It’s what Jesus would have done.
Should You Sell? August 17, 2007January 6, 2017 Here’s what I wrote in the 2005 revision of my book. (Because of lead times, it was actually written in early November, 2004, right after the election.) I am dismayed by the reelection of George Bush. Yes, my taxes are likely to stay low, but I don’t see how we become more prosperous if much of the world hates us . . . if we are adding to our national debt at a tremendous rate . . . if we are investing in missile systems instead of education . . . if we are giving tax incentives to encourage the purchase of Hummers rather than fuel-efficient vehicles. And that just begins the list. Under either Bush or Kerry, we would have faced challenges: Terrorism, which even when it doesn’t strike costs us dearly (security guards make us safer but they do not make us richer). Globalization, which will make the whole world more prosperous in the long run, including us, but which threatens our manufacturing base and puts high-wage jobs at risk of being teleported abroad. And more. (The likelihood of high energy prices for a very long time could be another.) But under Bush, I see the problems just getting worse, not better. So maybe yesterday around 1pm was the bottom. It represented a 10% ‘correction’ from 14,000 on the Dow; 20% and more on a lot of less stodgy stocks. In Euro terms – stocks are cheaper still, as the dollar is so much less valuable than it was six years ago. But I fear we may not have seen the bottom, and that the bad news could be reinforcing, depressing both prices and economic growth. It’s generally a bad idea to try to ‘time the market.’ But as always, if you have money in the market you can’t afford to risk, it shouldn’t be there. Sell. And if you’d be one of those people who, if the market kept dropping and dropping, would finally throw in the towel and sell just when, with hindsight, it will turn out you should have been buying – you shouldn’t be in the market either. You should sell, too. If, on the other hand, you’re in it for the long haul – perhaps in domestic and international index funds, with a few interesting speculations on the side to keep it interesting (and to give you tax control, selling your losers to lower your taxable income by $3,000 a year and gifting some of your long-term winners to fund your charitable giving) – then, well, you are in it for the long haul. Hang tight. And if you have the income to buy more shares every year – dollar cost averaging – you should be pleased when stocks decline. The bigger the bargains, the more shares you can buy. My retirement plan is about half in cash, but I’ve not, by and large, sold any of the stocks I’ve been writing about here (at least none I can think of) and yesterday I bought more AII warrants at $1.05, down from $1.40 (with a standing order to buy yet more at 85 cents). These warrants remain highly speculative and could go to zero. But think about it: AII has nothing but cash and a charter to find something to acquire. Might it get an even better bang for its acquisition bucks in an environment like this? If so – admittedly a big if and a true speculation – that $1.05 could with hindsight prove to have been a good deal not just because it’s ‘30% off’ last month’s price, but also because AII might itself be able to get ‘30% off’ when it goes to make its acquisition. Famous last words. But still. Have a nice weekend!
More Galbraith August 16, 2007March 8, 2017 iPHONE BATTERIES Emerson Schwartzkopf: ‘The iPhone uses a lithium-based battery, so you really don’t need to do that constant power-up/power-down cycle at the start; that’s for rechargeable NiMH batteries. The best advice I’ve seen so far is to maybe do that every 30 charges or so, because a constant topping-off may be OK for the battery – but it can effect the ability of the device itself to judge how much power the battery holds. (Apple itself recommends a full charge cycle every month.) It’s why you may have had a device in the past that showed full charge for a long time, and then dropped to nearly nothing very quickly. . . . What’s also interesting is that Apple recommends an operating temperature range of 32°F to 95°F. This is one of the most-limited operating ranges I’ve ever seen for a device. It suggests (my opinion here) that Apple struck a compromise by accepting less temperature endurance to get more minutes of operation. You also have to remember that the iPhone is constantly ‘on’ as a computer, which is going to heat the thing up – and heat is a drain on batteries.” RW Cox: “Turn off the WiFi unless you are using it. That thing sucks a lot of power.” Bob Fyfe: “Here is a website from Apple with tips on extending the iPhone’s battery life. The key points are to turn off the features that you aren’t using: WiFi, Bluetooth, equalizer, etc. And don’t let the unit get hot – “keep it out of the sun or even a hot car (even the glove box)” – as that degrades the battery.” ☞ Helpful! MORE GALBRAITH This quote last week elicited a lot of response: “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” — John Kenneth Galbraith Here’s some more: G. Latimer Schmidt: “The JKG quotation was right on. Your correspondent had a typically conservative reaction not to ‘get it.’ John Kenneth Galbraith was a great man who understood the greed and perversions of market capitalism and moreover (especially today), the appropriate role and value of involved government. Here is another Galbraith quote someone cited recently over the ‘debt crisis’ and all the new debt instruments: ‘As to new financial instruments, experience establishes a firm rule… that financial operations do not lend themselves to innovation. What is recurrently so described and celebrated is, without exception, a small variation on an established design, one that owes its distinctive character to the aforementioned brevity of the financial memory. The world of finance hails the invention of the wheel over and over again, often in a slightly more unstable version. All financial innovation involves, in one form or another, the creation of debt secured in greater or lesser adequacy by real assets. … All crises have involved debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale in relation to the underlying means of payment.’ ” ☞ The great man would have been dismayed but not surprised to see negative amortization mortgages, “no-doc” mortgages (where no one verifies your stated income), and all the other brilliant financial innovations that this week have the financial system tottering. (It will probably right itself, and a recession may even be avoided; but neither of those things is by any means guaranteed.) Brent Stapleton: “I want to jump in about conservative/liberal thinking, rationalizations, and actions. Conservatives generally emphasize the individual/family as the problem and answer to society’s problems. They note that, ‘He is weak morally,’ ‘She has no ambition,’ ‘What we need is a leader with integrity,’ ‘If we can just get rid of Saddam Hussein’ and on and on. They also often see wealth, no matter how obtained, as a marker of virtue, and if anyone is poor in the US, it is a sign of weakness. They feel that governmental programs (and NGOs) to help those needing another chance are wasteful, not helpful, and often deleterious. They feel that those with wealth are themselves best able to determine how best to use that wealth and thus abhor taxes and emphasize individual donations. Liberals tend to see humanity less as a collection of individuals and more as a related and very similar large family or community. While recognizing differences in how individuals think and act today, they see those differences as a reflection of their genetics and life experiences. Instead of seeing the suicide bomber as subhuman, they are curious about what might cause humans much like themselves into taking such actions. I particularly recommend The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, by Philip Zimbardo, about the impact of social setting and systems on behavior. Liberals note that wealthy individuals and the corporations run by wealthy individuals seem to have at least as much propensity for bad behavior as the middle and lower classes and the impacts of the bad behaviors of the wealthy and powerful often have great negative impact. They are less likely to judge the wealth of a nation by the GNP and more by how many live in poverty. They see government and nonprofits as a tool of prevention, both primary and secondary, and that prevention is the least wasteful method of improving the lot of humanity. They are more willing to tax themselves (and others) and may view that as a significant portion of their donations. These liberal/conservative differences lead to the differences in solutions to mankind’s problems. If there are a few “bad apples” in Iraq, make them into a deck of cards and eliminate them. If in our attempt to do that we create the social setting and situation which creates many more “bad apples,” maybe we would be better off holding off. If crime is caused by “bad apples,” once again identify and eliminate. If crime is related to poverty, lack of education, lack of meaningful work, etc. then work harder on the root causes. These are the differences between charity and social justice (see here). We clearly need both. Liberals and conservatives have much to learn from each other. There is a correct proportion, a healthy balance. I have been closest to it in my work with Habitat for Humanity and it feels good. It is just that we have swung so far to the right.” ☞ Have I got the best readers, or what? I should be paying you. And at the risk of turning such a thoughtful post partisan, I would suggest that the center of gravity of the Democratic Party – the Clinton/Gore team for example – did learn a lot (to the distress of the most liberal wing of the party), moving to the center on trade and welfare reform; introducing competition by encouraging charter schools; raising taxes on the rich – but only a very small way back toward the rates of the Eisenhower era. But that at the same time, the Republican center just moved further and further to the right. Sure, there are some moderate Republicans. But none in the House or Senate leadership; none on talk radio; virtually none in the Republican think tanks. Carl Granados: “Conservatives like Michael Albert love to use the term ‘other people’s money’ as if only Liberals ever use it. Doesn’t he even conceive that we are paying for our needless wars, our welfare for the rich, our no-bid contracts to Halliburton, and the pork the GOP have increased – all with others people’s money? Are modern conservatives so naive that they think we are not spending people’s money when we use the national credit card to pay our bills and therefore pile up our debt? Both conservatives and liberals use other people’s money, DUH! The difference is how they use it. As for who is the most compassionate, they need only read a little history to see that without Liberals there would be no middle class and that whenever conservatives come into power the number of poor and homeless goes up (I won’t even mention the increase in corruption, bribes, ‘special interest money,’ size of government, government controlling people’s personal lives, and other things conservatism is supposed to decrease). What is compassionate about this?” Marissa Hendrickson: “I think we liberals support taxes as a way to help those in need because we know that even generous charitable giving always ends up focusing the most on photogenic, appealing causes, and cannot be counted on to fill all the holes in the market. But we still do give when we can.”
Battery Life August 15, 2007March 8, 2017 iPHONE BATTERY If money is no object, I think you’ll really like your iPhone. I really like mine. But it (or AT&T) drops a lot of calls, and its battery life, now that I’ve had a chance to use it for a while, is not remotely ‘8 hours of talk or 250 hours of standby or 7 hours of web-browsing.’ At least not for me (and, yes, I let it fully drain and recharge a couple of times). The Energizer bunny it simply is not. BUNNY CURSOR Speaking of whom . . . David Bruce: ‘A rabbit that really likes your cursor.‘ RUNNING OUT OF JUICE And on a diametrically more serious note, here is the latest from our Comptroller General. (‘Long-range simulations from my office are chilling.’) America ‘always’ reinvents itself when it runs into obstacles. But Rome ‘always’ did, too. The citizenry needs to pay attention for democracy to work.
Find Me, Mine Me, Grind Me (And Sell Me to the Chinese) August 14, 2007March 8, 2017 I know I owe you your Galbraith and SiCKO responses, but editing them has eluded me because I’m in Cleveland, and there’s just too much going on. Meanwhile . . . THE CHUMBYs ARE COMING You heard it here first. A moderately expensive way to make your college sophomore think you’re cool. When was the last time you knew about a tech gadget before she did? Can you spell C-H-R-I-S-T-M-A-S? (For me, it will be Hanukkah if Chumbys catch on, because I’m in the venture fund that’s backing them.) MORE PROGRESS FROM THE FRIGID NORTH If you own BOREF, you may be pleased with this. ‘Results indicate that fine grinding and magnetic separation can produce a high grade concentrate averaging greater than 67% Fe.’ That’s not ‘Fe’ as in ‘Feh! Feh!’ by the way, it’s the symbol for Iron. And the release goes on to say that our ore is relatively soft, which makes grinding it less expensive. All this may prove to be fanciful for some reason, but what is life without a little fantasy? [Really. Not only does Cleveland rock, but our Democratic field organizers have come to town to sharpen their skills. As Ohio goes . . . ]
What to Sell? What to Sell? August 13, 2007March 8, 2017 DICK CHENEY You’ve got to hand it to him. When he’s right, he’s right. Here he is laying out in two minutes exactly why it would be nuts to try to topple Saddam Hussein. THE MARKET Okay – I’m worried about the market and all those aforesaid chickens coming home to roost. (Or not.) But it’s a little like Congress. Everybody hates Congress but most people like their own representative. I’m downbeat on the market here – but would I really sell my GLDD? Won’t we need to dredge the waterways no matter how bad the economy gets? (Or doesn’t get.) Would I really sell my BOREF? (And to whom?) My HAPN warrants? HAPN has the cash to complete its acquisition; and even if the underlying stock dropped from $5.60 to $3 (say), the right to buy it at $5 for the next three and a half years would still be worth more than 29 cents. Of course, in a really bad market, everything goes down. But even then, you wonder whether it makes sense to sell, pay tax on the gain, and hope you’re smart enough – and brave enough – to buy back your shares when they’re 30% lower. And what if they move higher, instead? The only two things I know for sure are, first, that I don’t know where the market is going (even though I’d guess it’s going down). And second, that neither you nor I should – ever – put money in the market that we can’t comfortably afford to risk or that we might actually need in a year or two. FMD Would I really sell my FMD? My guru on this one writes: I have spent some time reviewing the FMD earnings release, supporting securitization data, and 4th quarter conference call. They had a knockout quarter, exceeding expectations, and are very well positioned to continue their momentum into the 2008 fiscal year. Virtually all previously amplified issues (client concentration, confidence in carried value of residuals, strength of management, durability of industry utility model, etc.) have been diffused at this point, with the only remaining material (in my view) issue being stability of and consistent access to the Asset-Backed Securities funding markets – and here they have reasonable contingency plans. Based on market action Friday – up $2.80 on high volume (against a back drop of pain for other financial services companies) – it would appear that we will start to climb back to a more reasonable price. As I look forward, FMD is a proven 30-40% earnings grower, with significant and measurable competitive advantages that is currently selling at less than 7x forward earnings. In addition, FMD has doubled its dividend over the last year and currently pays out at 2.9% (rather extraordinary for an early stage growth company) – and I would expect material increases approaching that magnitude on a go-forward basis. ☞ My biggest fear on FMD is that someday the government will change the whole business. I linked to a Forbes story a few weeks ago. Here‘s a similar piece from the current New Yorker. My guru remains unfazed.
A Dictatorial Police State August 10, 2007March 8, 2017 But first . . . STAMPS Ralph: ‘I hope Mike Gavaghan enjoys his coil of 100 stamps, but they are not Forever stamps. This page shows that they are sold in quantities of 18 and 20.’ ☞ You’re right, though Mike could be forgiven the confusion. His stamps have an American flag, say ‘first-class,’ and carry no denomination. So any sensible person might conclude that – sensibly – the Postal Service has seen the light. But, no, according to the USPS, these are secretly 41-cent stamps that will require additional postage when the rates go up. It’s all designed to add confusion and effort that benefits absolutely no one in any way. Heck of a job, Potty. Daniel: ‘I don’t think it’s entirely fair to castigate the USPS for not embracing forever stamps that effectively allow it to borrow at inflation + 0% when it appears there are enough ignorant saps, er, people willing to lend at just a flat 0%. I.e., people who buy stamps they won’t use for a while . . . in effect lending their cash to the USPS for free. A more cynical fellow than me might be suspicious that marketing the forever stamp in books of 20 that were more likely to end up in the same place as all of my missing single socks was intentional. If you use this, please omit my last name. I don’t want my mail ending up forwarded to Bolivia.’ iPHONE Richard Factor: ‘What’s a music lover to do? You can get a 60GB iPod, but only 8GB in the iPhone? Sure I’ll have room for the Amboy Dukes and Ambrosia. The Beach Boys and Beau Brummels – no problem! But somewhere around Gene Clark I’ll run out of space. Where will I put my Electric Prunes, Heart, Marillion, and Rush? And Zappa? Forget it! A friend has an iPhone. I found it to be clever and beautiful. Its battery life should be no better or worse than any other cell phone. But the ridiculous emphasis on making it so slim has created a set of unnecessary problems, like no room for enough memory and the unbelievably foolish requirement to return it for a new battery, regardless of how long it might last.’ ☞ I can live with only a thousand or so songs on my phone, plus email, a speaker, effortless three-way calling, a stop watch, an alarm clock, 8,000 contacts, YouTube, photos, a camera, a calculator, a calendar, a web browser, weather forecasts, ‘visual voice mail,’ Google maps in map or satellite view with driving directions . . . and more. But that’s me. GIVE THE LADY . . . Phil: ‘In Chicago, we know that it was Marshall Field who said to give the lady what she wants. Click here.’ ☞ Okay. But Wanamaker seemed to have been saying it, too. Click here. And now . . . PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Are Roberts’ views far out? (‘Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.’) One certainly hopes so! And almost surely they are. Still, having served as Undersecretary of the Treasury under Reagan and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, he can’t immediately be tagged a kook or a commie. ‘Americans think their danger is terrorists,’ said Roberts [on a radio show recently]. ‘They don’t understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. … The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren’t able to perceive that.’ ☞ Click either of those links to see where his alarmism is coming from. Next week: More of your thoughts on Galbraith and SiCKO
A Few Words About the French August 9, 2007March 8, 2017 iPHONE Michael: ‘Where did you read that errant assessment of the iPhone battery life? It is entirely (I mean entirely) *wrong*. This is the truth: (In part: ‘If you completely drained your iPhone’s battery every day – which would be a whole lot of use, since Apple estimates the iPhone can offer up to 8 hours of talk time per charge – in about 13 months your battery would only hold 80 percent of its current charge.’) And you all can whine and wail about how dear the iPhone is, you haven’t used one. I’ll never look back.’ ☞ I’m dazzled by how smart and capable mine is. There are a few things I miss from a ‘push-button’ device (like being able to push the buttons without looking at them). But it’s brilliantly designed and basically amazing. I’m hopeful my battery will last a long time. Here‘s another positive report on iPhone’s day-to-day battery life – up to 250 hours of stand-by time, up to 24 hours of music, 7 hours of video, 6 hours of web browsing. Don Hurter: ‘In case this discussion triggers a different debate about the iPhone’s $600 price tag, this article puts that in proper perspective as well.’ FOREVER STAMPS Mike Gavaghan: ‘Rolls of 100 Forever Stamps *are* available. I have a coil on my desk right now. There’s a link to them is on the front page of the USPS stamp store.’ [Well, oops, actually those are NOT forever stamps – see tomorrow’s column.] Jeremy Bronson: ‘Doesn’t the argument that it’s in the USPS best interest to sell all stamps as forever stamps presume that Postal Service costs rise at or below the rate of inflation? I haven’t tracked it, but my sense is that postal rates – which are supposed to cover costs – have risen faster than inflation in the last 10 years. Thoughts?’ ☞ Well, according to this, first-class postage has been pretty constant the past 30 years, adjusted for inflation. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Dan Stone: ‘I am skeptical of the study cited yesterday, that one technical chart pattern was found predictive of subsequent stock performance. It reminded me of a study done in the medical field that showed the hazards of statistical analysis. A study of a drug given intravenously to abort heart attacks was shown to be of borderline significance. So some playful statisticians divided the study population according to the twelve astrologic signs of the patients. And, as you might expect, two of the twelve groups showed a significant benefit. So, the ‘take home’ lesson was said to be that the first question the emergency room physician should ask the patient when he arrives with heart attack in progress, is, ‘what’s your sign?’ Of course, the real message is that statistics, particularly post hoc analysis, can be quite misleading.’ GALBRAITH George Galla: ‘Yesterday, Mr. Szostak said, ‘I wonder what Galbraith thinks modern liberals are up to with their lack of civility and their intolerance for opposing points of view.’ Has Mr. Szostak ever watched Bill O Reilly or listened to Rush Limbaugh? I wouldn’t call these people examples of tolerance. While there are examples of intolerance on the liberal side Air America is an example, the liberals have not cornered the market on intolerance.’ Kathi Derevan: ‘What is it with the conservatives suddenly finding a lack of civility among liberals? You mean the kind of civility practiced by Limbaugh, Savage, Fox News, et al.? Liberals are uncivil because they point out the sins of the party in power? PUHLEEZE!!!’ Stephen Gilbert: ‘Yesterday’s ‘liberal intolerance’ complaint is telling. We have reached the point where conservative gasbags like Bill O’Reilly shape too much of our public discourse. O’Reilly compares the Daily Kos website to Nazis, and your reader compares criticism to intolerance.’ A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE FRENCH How did I miss this Bill Maher clip? [Warning: Not for children under 18.] (Thanks, Joey!)
Pretty Stamps August 8, 2007March 8, 2017 iPHONE – 20 MINUTE VIDEO You want to see something amazing? Click here for the iPhone demo. ONE THING NOT MENTIONED IN THE iPHONE VIDEO Turns out $600 is only the beginning. You’ll need to send it in for a new battery every year or so at a cost of $79 plus shipping – plus $29 more if you want a loaner for the three days it takes. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS David Andrews: ‘An in-depth mathematical study showed that, indeed, one particular chart pattern was useful at more than a random level. That was the ‘head-and shoulders bottom,’ aka the ‘double bottom.’ But even that pattern was only slightly correlated with a subsequent rise in the stock price.’ FOREVER STAMPS Ralph: ‘Frustratingly, rolls of 100 first-class stamps do NOT come in the Forever variety. People usually buy rolls with the intention of using them over a period of time. They would seem to be the ideal candidate for coming in the Forever variety.’ ☞ It’s not just frustrating – it’s stupid. Why on earth would the USPS not want to be able to ‘borrow’ at zero percent above the rate of inflation? (By selling us stamps months or years before delivering our mail.) If it had no better use for the money, it could turn around and buy TIPS at 2% above the rate of inflation. All its first-class stamps should be forever stamps. And they can go up in price as needed, just as they do now. Gloria Mercado-Martín: “You asked: ‘Why would anyone buying first-class stamps not buy the “forever” variety? (Thus far, most don’t.)’ I don’t buy the forever stamp because it is utterly b-o-r-i-n-g. Yes, I am the one that asks the postal clerk if s/he has any pretty stamps. Last ones I got, the Marvel Superheroes! The Forever bell cannot hold a candle to Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk and The Fantastic Four!” ☞ Agreed! But why can’t they be good “forever,” too? The Postal Service could even experiment with charging a couple of cents extra for the pretty ones. Heck, why not? As Nineteenth Century department-store merchant John Wanamaker first put it: “Give the lady what she wants!” GALBRAITH Donald J. Szostak: “Your reprinting JKG’s quote yesterday (“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”) looks like another attempt to smear conservatives. I wonder what Galbraith thinks modern liberals are up to with their lack of civility and their intolerance for opposing points of view? Have a nice day.” ☞ My guess is that if JKG were alive today he would stand by his quote and consider it provocative rather than intolerant. Michael Albert: “I’m not really surprised Galbraith thinks conservatives are selfish. It’s certainly a popular belief with liberals, but where’s the evidence? Maybe you should look to this: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. I haven’t read it yet, but I heard an interview with the author. As I recall he said he’s a liberal and was surprised to find that measuring several different ways, liberals as a group are more miserly and conservatives more compassionate. He said he hated to say it, but if he was down and out he’d much rather it be in the company of conservatives than liberals. It’s always seemed to me that liberals are compassionate when gifting other people’s money, but cheap when the money is their own. This book appears to back that up with studies of where the money, time, and personal effort of each group really goes.” ☞ I don’t think Galbraith had in mind the religious conservatives likely to make up a large portion of any “conservative” population studied (and who I have no doubt tithe and volunteer generously); but rather the wealthy who believe they should pay less tax. That group may be compassionate, too – but not when it comes to taxing them to fund social programs or raising the minimum wage or encouraging collective bargaining. My guess is that neither liberals nor conservatives much like to pay taxes – and that both are compassionate. (Don’t most of us have a mix of selfishness and compassion?) But wealthy conservatives tend to want to cut taxes on the rich, while wealthy liberals tend to think the Clinton/Gore levels were about right. Galbraith would say that in arguing for the elimination of capital gains taxes and any tax on large estates, the wealthy are being selfish – but that, not wanting to be selfish, they look for moral justifications for their position. That was certainly true of slave-owners, quoting Colossians (3:22) and Ephesians (6:5). They were compassionate, and they sought moral justification for a policy that – coincidentally – added greatly to their wealth. In arguing that the estate tax rate on billionheirs should be cut from 55% to 0% – a steep cut by any measure – conservatives seek, and find, moral justification. Is there any parallel in these two examples? Conservatives would presumably say: no. Liberals might linger over the question.