Hire a Sheepdog to Babysit Your Daughter? And How to Unblock Your Sheepdog's Caller ID March 31, 2009March 13, 2017 But first . . . MATZOH – IMPORTANT RECYCLING TIPS YOU CAN DANCE TO Contrary to the lyrics in this video, Passover’s not over. Observation begins at sunset April 8 and runs through April 15. That said, it is always a good idea to plan ahead. And now . . . NO MORE BLOCKED NUMBERS If the caller ID that shows up on your cell phone reads, “Blocked,” here is a free service – trapcall.com – that promises to unmask the caller. With extra features, if you want to pay for them, like keeping a recording of all your incoming calls or even having a human transcribe voice mails and text them to you so you can discreetly glance down during a business meeting or a history seminar and see the message. It’s sister service, spoofcard.com, described here, not only lets you defeat trapcall.com and remain truly anonymous, it actually lets you pretend to be someone else and disguise your voice, changing it from male to female or vice versa. I have not tried either service, even though most of their features would be legal in all situations and the rest would be legal – even ethical! – in many situations*, depending on how you used them. Whether or not you try these services, be aware that others may. If you’ve been assuming your own caller info shows up blocked (because you told the phone company you wanted it that way), be aware trapcall users will in fact be able to see it. And if you get a call that shows up with, say, my phone number and caller ID, it may not really be me – it could be a spoofcard customer. We live in interesting times. *Certainly not these. LEDs AND ISAAC NEWTON (OR SOMEBODY*) Chris McMahon: “You say that an LED bulb gives off no heat. This is untrue. In comparison to a higher watt incandescent bulb, it gives off much less heat, but it does still emit heat. If it truly gave off no heat it would probably be breaking the first law of thermodynamics or something.” *Carnot? Joule? LEDs AND SHEEP Stewart Dean: “You ask, ‘how did they get the sheep to do that?’ You haven’t watched top-class sheepdogs work a flock. Dunno where you could see it in your area, but a top dog can be a near telepathic extension of its master, and they live to do it. I could tell you stories . . . about a friend in upstate New York who came across a sheepdog herding cows from one field to another across the road with NO handler . . . when he came to a halt in front of the stream of cows, the dog turned to face him and barked as if to say, ‘yes, I know you’re there, I’m getting them across as fast as possible.’ When all the cows had passed into the other field and the road was clear, the dog again faced my friend and barked as if to say, ‘You can go now.’ . . . Another friend grew up in the Carolinas with a sheepdog and was baby-sat by it on occasion . . . and the dog knew it was in charge and was less tolerant of BS than her parents. Stories of sheepdogs/border collies are legion. One of the definitive books on man and dog (and we’re not talking gooey pet stories) is Nop’s Trials by Donald McCaig. Get to a trial. You will be astounded. Though dogs exist now almost exclusively as pets, they were bred originally for tasks, and much of the mischief they can get into comes from not having an outlet for the activities that they have been bred to do. Border collies have an incredible work ethic, so much so that they are often difficult without it.” CFLs Charles McChesney: “On January 23, 2006, I bought two six packs of “60 watt equivalent” GE CFLs for $7.50 per pack. The ‘Limited Warranty’ asserted that they would last 5 years. Five have already failed. I sent three of the failed bulbs back to GE with copies of the warranty and my sales slip and they have responded each time with a $10 coupon to buy ‘one package of GE bulbs’ per coupon. [After postage, I make] $6.50 profit on each bulb. BTW, my experience with Feit bulbs was even more abysmal. They all failed in less than two years. ☞ What I conclude from this is that we need to keep buying CFLs anyway, to provide a market as the quality standards improve. Even with a shorter-than-advertised life, they save a lot of money and energy. Several of mine have failed – especially the dimmable ones – but most have been just fine.
A Cheap Way to Light Sheep March 30, 2009March 13, 2017 CFLs JWS: ‘In case you missed this article, it describes the same disappointing experiences I have had with a couple of dozen CFLs (which you have lauded from time to time).’ ☞ I’ve had some die, too. The dimmable ones seem most problematic. But most just keep burning and burning, saving a ton of energy. That said . . . $7 LEDs FOR YOUR CANDLEABRA Bill Bruno: ‘OK these are not very bright (billed to take the place of 40-watt bulbs) … but 1.5 watts! And unlike CFLs they don’t put out all kinds of radiofrequency interference, don’t have mercury, and don’t have high frequency flicker.’ ☞ And give off no appreciable heat. I bought 4 for $40 with the shipping despite the fact that we have no candelabra. (This little converter solves that problem nicely for under $2.) It’s a stretch to say they’re equivalent to a 40-watt incandescent. But one bulb is enough to light a small room sufficiently to keep you from banging into things. And one clamped to a shelf just above my head makes for an acceptable reading light. Leaving all 4 on night and day for a full year would cost about $6. Compared with $160 to run 4 40-watt bulbs all year . . . a saving, if you have some reason to leave lights on all year around the clock – which I hope you do not – of $154 a year on a $40 investment. The saving is lower in comparison with CFLs, but still significant. This brand is not recommended for dimmers. SIMPLE ELECTRIC MATH An easy benchmark from which to make back of the envelope estimates: One Watt, One year, One dollar by Eric Drexler on March 8, 2009 For residential customers in the U.S., the average price of electricity has recently been at $0.115 per kilowatt-hour. This works out to almost exactly $1 per Watt-year: Leave a 100 Watt light bulb on for a year, pay $100. I found this surprising when I calculated it. The number is simple, memorable, and encourages conservation. Pass it on. ☞ Pass it on, indeed. (A kilowatt is 1,000 watts. Draw 1,000 watts for 1 hour, and you’ve consumed 1 kilowatt-hour. As there are roughly 9 thousand hours in a year, running 1 watt all year requires 9 kilowatt-hours of electricity, which at 11 cents or so each costs $1.) LED-LIT SHEEP But how exactly did they get sheep to do this?
Perspective March 27, 2009March 13, 2017 HOT CAKES Rick (and others): “You ask: ‘Why do hotcakes sell so well? (And if they do, how come I – who buy everything – have never bought one?)’ From ‘Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins’ by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997): SELL LIKE HOT CAKES – “Hot cakes cooked in bear grease or pork lard were popular from earliest times in American. First made of cornmeal, the griddle cakes or pancakes were of course best when served piping hot and were often sold at church benefits, fairs, and other functions. So popular were they that by the beginning of the 19th century ‘to sell like hot cakes’ was a familiar expression for anything that sold very quickly effortlessly, and in quantity.” Emerson Schwartzkopf: “You think that one’s bad? How about: ‘Doing a land-office business in …’ Here in Southern California, you’d be hard pressed to pay for hotcakes if you were running a land office.” OF WITCH HUNTS AND LYNCH MOBS In case you missed the AIG letter – one of the bonus guys quitting and explaining why – it’s here. Undoubtedly, there are villains out there. Insofar as possible, we should string them up. But I doubt you will conclude that this guy, or many of his colleagues, were among them. SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND) GOT IT RIGHT 15 YEARS AGO For those with 10 minutes for rueful hindsight, here is Senator Dorgan – in 1994 – anticipating the current financial crisis and trying to avert it. (Thanks, Eduardo.) KEEPING PERSPECTIVE One of you sent me this two-minute web-circling video, with the entreaty that we keep it circling. Corny? Perhaps. But in its own way, it’s as compelling as Tuesday’s two minutes of cascading beer bottles. The two actually make a pretty good contrast between First World and Third World challenges.
Read Less to Know More March 26, 2009March 13, 2017 MARKETING QUESTION Why do hotcakes sell so well? (And if they do, how come I – who buy everything – have never bought one?) FROM THE MIND OF LESS Here is a thoroughly engaging world-class Q&A with our very own Less Antman. If you come to this page with an interest in investing, don’t miss it.
Supremely Confident Predictions March 25, 2009March 13, 2017 The President is doing exactly what he should, setting us on a hopeful long-term path with . . . an energy direction that will make us more efficient, more competitive, more prosperous, more secure, lower our balance of trade deficit and help to keep our planet habitable a health care direction that will make us more efficient, more competitive, more prosperous, and help to keep us healthier an education direction that will give our kids, and thus our country, the competitive skills to prosper in a global economy . . . and accelerating embryonic stem cell research, and lifting the global gag order, and signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and treating with respect those who disagree with these and other initiatives. The Republicans are quite sure the President’s approach is a disaster. But how is that any different from the last go-round? It was “the economy, Stupid” in 1992. And again – only worse – in 2008. An outgoing George Bush each time . . . and in incoming Democrat whose first budget received nearly unanimous Republican scorn. Clinton’s first budget got not a single Republican vote in the House or the Senate – not one – and met with supremely confident Republican predictions of failure. Thanks to Peter Stolz for collecting some of them: Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy. [Nope – this budget set the nation on a course toward job growth, deficit reduction, and unprecedented prosperity.] Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93: I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine’s recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable. [Nope, no recession – recovery.] Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93: The votes we will take today will not be soon forgotten by the American voter. (They) will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth. [Nope – lower inflation, faster growth.] Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93: It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending. [Nope – it did create jobs, did cut the deficit.] Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93: They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream. [Really?] Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93: This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I’d have to become a Democrat… [It worked. Kasich remained a Republican.] Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), 8/5/93: The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse. [Nope – just the opposite.] Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. [Nope.] Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), 8/5/93: …This bill is a disaster waiting to happen. [Nope.] Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 3/17/93: …will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit. [Nope.] Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), 3/18/93: …a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster. [Nope.] Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), 3/17/93: …It will be the kind of impact that this country can’t absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal deficit…. [Nope.] Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), 8/4/93: …It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over one million jobs. [Nope.] PeterStolz: “The Republicans’ dire predictions were completely and totally wrong then just as they are now. Today’s predictions are those of a party that drags out the same old mantra and dogma no matter how many times their predictions prove to be the exact opposite of what actually happened.” ☞ Hear, hear. Pass it on. Tomorrow, which you can read today: From the Mind of Less
This Could Work March 24, 2009March 13, 2017 DON’T FIGHT THE FED There is an old line on Wall Street: “Don’t fight the Fed.” Meaning that, if the Federal Reserve (or in this case the entire Federal Government) is determined to make something happen, you’d best not bet against it. That seemed to be the case yesterday – gloriously – and it may mark the beginning of a virtuous cycle . . . tentative and halting at first, but then perhaps gaining momentum as people gain confidence the world will not end and that houses (and mortgage rates) this cheap are too good not to snap up, and the same with stocks. Or not. Lots of “old Wall Street lines” work wonderfully except when they don’t, and it’s the “or not” aspect of this that is likely to make the virtuous cycle tentative and halting at first, or possibly abort it altogether. I don’t know. But I do know it won’t go back to being “like it was.” If we are to succeed, it will be with some wrenching dislocations as we become a nation slightly less of shopkeepers and real estate agents – wonderful as shopkeepers and real estate agents are – and slightly more a nation of infrastructure strengtheners and medical records digitizers. A nation of somewhat smaller homes and cars and cheeseburgers – wonderful as big homes and cars and Big Macs are – and slightly more a nation that consumes less than it produces instead of more, saving, rather than borrowing, the difference. I also know we have a tremendously talented leader, with an awful lot of talent right beneath him (and off to the side, over at the Fed), and quite a cadre of leaders in the G20, meeting in London April 2, who also have reason to try to get the world through this. So there’s reason for hope, reason for caution, reason to throw your support behind the President (take the pledge!), and reason to stick to all the basics of living beneath your means, saving for the future, and diversifying that always make sense. Note: For details on all the initiatives rolled out in the last few weeks – a truly impressive arsenal when you see them all on a single page – click here. Yesterday’s stands a good chance of applying the skills and competitive juices of the private market to valuing frozen assets and unfreezing the system. Yes, Wall Street stands to make a lot of money from taking these risks (or to lose it all, which is what sharpens their minds to the task); but so does the taxpayer, who will be investing alongside Wall Street. FROM THE MIND OF MAN . . . But only if you have two minutes you can truly afford to lose. Tomorrow: From the Mind of Less
Tax, Spend, Borrow – And Win March 23, 2009March 13, 2017 IS THE DEFICIT TOO BIG? It was, when it was being incurred to fight a needless war and to lower taxes on hedge fund managers. It’s not now, when it’s being used to avert depression and put Americans to work doing the work America needs doing. We don’t need more T-shirts or casinos. We do need energy efficiency, a smart electric grid, a massive shift to alternative energy, digitized health care records, repaired infrastructure – Parade’s recent cover story suggests 150,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete – and schools up to the challenge of 21st Century global competition. The Republican mantra that the President’s proposed budget “spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much” is misguided. It evokes Hoover’s tight rein on spending (that got the 1930’s off to such a great start). It’s a call to lower taxes even more than the President has requested (the President’s budget would lower taxes on 95% of working Americans). And it would cause us to borrow even more (because where else would we get the money to lower taxes even further?). I know, I know – if you just lower taxes on those at the very top, the economy will boom. They are still saying that! But look how well the economy is doing now, after eight years of enormous Republican tax breaks for the very wealthy. Look what those Reagan/Bush/Bush tax breaks did to the National Debt, which was 30% of GDP when Reagan was elected and is 85% of GDP now. Look how slashing the top tax bracket in the early 1920’s – from over 70% to 25% – preceded the Great Depression. So . . .. is the answer really more tax cuts for people with jobs or wealth – much as we all love tax cuts . . . or is it spending to employ people without jobs or wealth, to begin transforming our economy? Look at one more thing: World War II. Massive government spending (and taxing and deficits)* with a compelling purpose: a war that simply had to be won. And was. And then the government spending came way back down, private enterprise – by then booming – picked up the slack, and a powerful nation went on to great things. *Federal tax receipts in 1944 were $44 billion, up five-fold from 1939. Federal spending was $91 billion, up tenfold, leaving a gargantuan deficit. Today we face another extreme threat . . . but fortunately, instead of bombers and tanks, we could be building windmills and solar panels; instead of blowing up Japanese subs, we could be greening our buildings and rationalizing our health care industry and strengthening our schools. It’s a “war” that simply has to be won. And then government spending can come way back down and private enterprise – by then booming – can pick up the slack, and a newly shaped-up nation can go on to further great things. So c’mon, Hooverites and ditto-heads: get with the program. Oh – and here’s a thought . . . FORGET SELLING THEM CITIZENSHIP – SELL THEM HOUSES Joel G. recently suggested we offer citizenship to 2 million foreigners at $1 million a pop – $2 trillion. Okay, every $2 trillion helps. But here, espoused by John Mauldin, is a plan aimed not at selling passports, but at stabilizing the housing market by selling houses to foreigners – perhaps a million a year for two or three years – with the promise of a green card, under certain conditions, as a sweetener. . . . Let me put up front a few benefits of a program that would allow legal status to immigrants buying a home. Housing values would stabilize and in many cases rise. The massive losses because of bad loans that are being subsidized by US taxpayers would be stemmed, saving many hundreds of billions, if not a trillion or more dollars. The excess inventory of homes would quickly disappear and the millions of jobs that were lost as home construction fell into a deep depression would come back. If housing values rise, many families would be able to refinance their homes at lower rates and have more income left over after paying their mortgages. $12 billion in commissions would end up in real estate agents’ pockets, helping a very battered and bruised group. Hundreds of billions will flow into local businesses, as these new immigrants will need to furnish their homes. This could mean as much as a half trillion dollars in sorely needed stimulus in the next few years, without one penny of taxpayer money and actually adding taxes back to governments from local to national. And we are not bringing in 1 million foreigners, we are attracting 1 million mostly middle-class new Americans, which, if we are smart in how we do this, will result in more jobs for all Americans. So let’s jump right in and look at the details. . . . ☞ I have a lot of quibbles (do we even want to go back to homebuilding at the previous pace? or would our efforts better be redirected for the next few years at greening existing homes and building schools and the smart grid?) – but it’s an interesting notion.
Our Whiz Bang Future March 20, 2009March 13, 2017 HOW TO DISABLE THE ADS ON THIS PAGE Okay, there are no ads on this page.* But what if there were? Blinking, flashing, blocking, annoying ads. Kevin Rasmussen: “I bet you’ll like arc90’s Readability tool. When you’re trying to read a longer web page like a news article, it isolates and reformats the text and makes it a ton easier to read. It works entirely online, too – no download necessary. More info (including a demo video) here. Download the tool itself here.” ☞ It works! Takes about 15 seconds to select your preferences and install on your tool bar. No need even to restart your browser, let alone your computer. And if/when you want to switch back to the “regular view” of a page, just click your browser’s “refresh” button. *Self-serving plugs and rants, but no ads. SIXTH SENSE Mark Langenderfer: “You may enjoy this awesome application of existing technologies. Ray Kurzweil would be impressed!” ☞ What a terrific presentation! (Watch the 8-minute video.) Our luxuries may need to be be less materials- and energy-intensive for a few decades, but this is an example of how technology can add some pretty good whiz bang of its own. BATTERY SPEED And won’t this change a lot – imagine being able to fully charge your cell phone battery (for example) in 20 seconds. BROADBAND SPEED Imagine being able to download at 40 gigabits per second – an entire high-def DVD in two seconds. One old gal in Sweden has been able to do it for four years now (click here), so there’s still room for improvement. DON’T BLAME WEBSTER – HE’S FROM MASSACHUSETTS Lynn Smith: “Regarding marriage according to Merriam Webster: After all, Merriam Webster is based in Springfield, MA, where marriage is available to all.”
Redefining Consistency REALLY: TAKE THE PLEDGE March 19, 2009March 13, 2017 SHREDS OF CONSISTENCY Steve Sutton: “A paradox is brought to mind reading about ‘Mr. Dan You-sure-have-a-lot-to-say…’ Namely: Anyone who takes your advice on individual stocks would seem to be ignoring advice in your books!” ☞ The only shred of consistency here is that I have for quite some time suggested a strategy (for those with enough assets for it to make sense) to do MOST of your stock-market stuff via index funds, but to do enough in specific stocks to control the tax consequences – using the losses to knock $3,000 off your taxable income each year, and using the long-term gains to fund your charitable giving through (say) the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. That way, even if you just break even, you can come out nicely ahead after taxes. (The glaring flaw in 2008-2009: few stock market investors achieved a 0% break even return. The only GAIN I was able to suggest in recent memory was the “safe-ish way to short the market”; other than that, I’ve only provided wonderful losses to knock $3,000 off your taxable income.) The other possible shred of consistency: We’re human. A lot of us want to feel we have a shot at outsize results. We want a little excitement. Why else accept the odds on a lottery ticket? So to the extent people are going to do this anyway, my hope has been to provide some suggestions, with lots of caveats, that might improve the odds. Some have worked out very well; on some the jury is out (to the best of my knowledge, the plane really did move; silt really does continue to accumulate in our waterways); and all too many, as our friend Dan wisely notes, have been awful. REALLY: TAKE THE PLEDGE As I suggested yesterday, “here’s a way to help in 30 seconds.” But if you count the time it takes to watch the video, call it three minutes. REDEFINING MARRIAGE From merriam-webster.com/dictionary (thanks, Rex): Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: ‘mer-ij, ‘ma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Earmarking Tax Brackets in Firefox TAKE THE PLEDGE! March 18, 2009March 13, 2017 EARMARKS President Obama wants to reform “earmarks.” And, as Bill Press points out in his latest column, there’s already been improvement: Democrats agreed in January to limit earmark spending to 50 percent of 2006 levels. There are fewer earmarks in this year’s spending bill than in the last bill passed by a Republican-controlled Congress: 8,750 compared to over 11,000. And, for the first time, under Democrats, transparency reigns. Earmarks must be posted on committee websites. Every voter can find out who put in how much in the spending bill and for what purpose. That’s real change. . . . On the same day President Obama reluctantly signed the Omnibus Spending Bill, House Democrats adopted new measures to reform the earmark process even further. From now on, earmarks will be subject to a 20-day review by the relevant executive-branch agency, which can give them a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Earmarks will be limited to no more than 1 percent of the discretionary budget. And any earmark for a private, for-profit company will be subject to competitive bidding. ☞ With earmarks, we’re talking about way less than 1% of total Federal spending. Most earmarks go to worthwhile projects – only those easily mocked get attention. It is that mockable sliver of one percent that 80% of media attention to Federal spending. TAXES I’ve been writing this for years; but never as succinctly as MoveOn just now: Dear MoveOn member, This is ridiculous. The media has been obsessing about President Obama’s plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a socialist.1 But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan’s first term? 50%. Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%! Shocking, right? And for all the whining about rolling back Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama’s plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.2 We saw a great chart in The Washington Monthly that shows just how absurd Republican complaints about Obama’s budget are. Check it out and pass it on. ☞ When you click the link to look at that chart, don’t miss how the the top rate was slashed in the early 1920s, from over 70% to barely over 20%. Ah, the Roaring Twenties! Remember the “permanent plateau” of prosperity the stock market reached in 1929? The Republicans believe you can never cut taxes too low: only good things follow. Like the 1930s. THE REAGAN REVOLUTION Matt Ball: “My favorite chart of all time.” ☞ The chart Matt refers to is the last one, showing how the top 1% have fared relative to everyone else. But the whole blog entry is worth reading – and the comments that follow are interesting as well. The trick, it seems to me, is to find a good balance – not to go overboard with incentive-stifling taxation, but not to overshoot in favor of the top 1%, either. TAKE THE PLEDGE Here’s a way to help in 30 seconds. VIEWING THIS IN FIREFOX I’ve really tried, but this column looks terrible in Firefox. These ☞ ☞ ☞ ☞ pointy fingers now seem to work. But the type fonts have a mind of their own. But with this little Firefox add-on that you told me about last month, I just click the little icon at the extreme bottom right corner of my screen and toggle back and forth between Firefox view and faux-Explorer view. In the latter, it looks the way it was intended to. Take a minute to get that add-on, and then a second or two each day to read this the way it was meant to be seen?