Summer vacation done, my first post since June and back on the war path...
An esteemed professor from my Business School (Ross Michigan (Ann Arbor)) gave the Chicago alumni a nice presentation recently. Andrew J. Hoffman summarized his new book entitled Carbon Strategies. He made it clear that some companies are way ahead of the Bush administration on the issue of climate change.
And a good thing it is, for all concerned. From his summary I gather that the big Fortune 500 companies are all or mostly addressing the issue of carbon consumption. That they know some type of carbon tax is coming. The Bushies contribution is to delay, delay, delay the day that companies will have to face this. The F500 have plenty of money to face it, and products to protect (like Exxon, GE, etc.). The mid to small companies will follow the leaders in time. His book lays out strategies to deal with the issue for those who are not ahead of the curve. So it is not concerned with whether carbon is an issue, but how to address it and deal with it as a risk management issue - and when companies do we will all be better off.
As a country we'll need the national government, possibly following the lead of far ahead states, to address the overall issue of who and how much companies must pay to comply with carbon limits. It should be interesting to see how fast this all happens once we get a leader with a clue...
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Tax Equity
So the rubber meets the road, or the money meets the politicians. Can Schumer tax his private equity firms fairly, those who make obscene money (2% plus 20 standard), gave him over $50,000 in the 2003-4 election cycle. Probably not.
Can Michigan's senators (Carl are you there?) help the environment with higher levels of fuel economy up to 40% higher than now, or the car companies? Sorry, he said even though the senate past it, it's not over yet.
Testing the Dems here, money from the big guns, or stick with your regular folks who count on you to do the right thing for America. Looks like the money wins out again. Time to change the system, ya think??
Can Michigan's senators (Carl are you there?) help the environment with higher levels of fuel economy up to 40% higher than now, or the car companies? Sorry, he said even though the senate past it, it's not over yet.
Testing the Dems here, money from the big guns, or stick with your regular folks who count on you to do the right thing for America. Looks like the money wins out again. Time to change the system, ya think??
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Bubble behavior - the Sun, metals, and beer
So beer and the Sun are really more connected than we thought, eh? Seems the foam of beer behaves very much like the heat granules on the Sun (and the microstructure of metals) that heat our Earth, as described in this recent Nature article abstract (subscribe for the full article).
The article in summary states (with help from the NYTimes writer Kenneth Chang) that the authors have solved the mathematical equations for the time based behavior of 3 dimensional micro-structures. It is based on a theory that van Neumann solved for 2 dimensions more than 50 years ago.
Would this solution work for huge dimensions as well? The average size of a sun granule is equivalent to an Earth continent, but the described behavior sounds the same as for the beer bubbles or molten metal.
This is one of those solutions that sounds like a universal connection, and I hope these folks know about and are speaking with each other since math and astrophysics are very close. In any event you can decide.
The article in summary states (with help from the NYTimes writer Kenneth Chang) that the authors have solved the mathematical equations for the time based behavior of 3 dimensional micro-structures. It is based on a theory that van Neumann solved for 2 dimensions more than 50 years ago.
Would this solution work for huge dimensions as well? The average size of a sun granule is equivalent to an Earth continent, but the described behavior sounds the same as for the beer bubbles or molten metal.
This is one of those solutions that sounds like a universal connection, and I hope these folks know about and are speaking with each other since math and astrophysics are very close. In any event you can decide.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Zingerman's in the News
The May 3rd NY Times business section has an article on Zingerman's, that great deli turned all things food that serves Ann Arbor locally, and everyone on the web. I have great feeling for this place since I was in Ann Arbor for Bschool from 1983-1985.
In fact, I saw a presentation several years ago sponsored by the UM alumni club here in Chicago. Learned many of the things that the article said, the leaders and co-founders of Zingerman's, Paul Saginaw and Ari Weinzweig, are unique in their outlook, as Weinzweig is quoted, "Our goal in 2020 is to leave our world better than it was when we came here." Nicely said, read this at www.nytimes.com if you can.
Also that day, a long time known issue with stocks was cited by Hal Varian in the Economic Scene. He describes a paper by UM accounting professor Dichev that says that stock market investors who buy and hold are way ahead of buyers who use average dollar investing, that is moving in and out. For the NYSE a buyer in 1926 who held their investment until 2002 would have earned an average annual return of 10%. By contrast, a like buyer who moved in and out based on market sentiment would have earned 8.6% per annum. Of course, Dichev discovered this in 2004, http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Dec04/r121504a, something you can see here for yourself, so what's the big deal in rehashing this now?
In fact, I saw a presentation several years ago sponsored by the UM alumni club here in Chicago. Learned many of the things that the article said, the leaders and co-founders of Zingerman's, Paul Saginaw and Ari Weinzweig, are unique in their outlook, as Weinzweig is quoted, "Our goal in 2020 is to leave our world better than it was when we came here." Nicely said, read this at www.nytimes.com if you can.
Also that day, a long time known issue with stocks was cited by Hal Varian in the Economic Scene. He describes a paper by UM accounting professor Dichev that says that stock market investors who buy and hold are way ahead of buyers who use average dollar investing, that is moving in and out. For the NYSE a buyer in 1926 who held their investment until 2002 would have earned an average annual return of 10%. By contrast, a like buyer who moved in and out based on market sentiment would have earned 8.6% per annum. Of course, Dichev discovered this in 2004, http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Dec04/r121504a, something you can see here for yourself, so what's the big deal in rehashing this now?
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Cost of Holding Sex Offenders in Civil confinement
Lots going on here folks. Bad guys, actually very bad guys, and the cost of holding them. The community politic has been dancing around the issue of how to treat sex offenders for several years. The consensus up to now at 20 states is that after the convicted person's prison stay is over, then they must go to an after-service psychological location to solve the problems. Can't the prison do this, oh sorry it probably gets worse with what goes on there among men.
The NT Times (3/4/07 issue) did a cost breakdown for the states that have these Civil Commitment Programs ("CCP") and found that rehabilitation results have been poor, and that the costs are very rich, Doubts Rise as States Hold Sex Offenders After Prison, as reported by Monica Davey and Abby Goodnough.
The average annual cost per person committed at a CCP program was a minimum of twice as expensive to seven times as expensive versus the respective prison cost. I know doctors are expensive, but wow!
Now, I believe these are heinous crimes and that the offenders should be put away for a long time. Speaking today about New York state's newly passed law, State Senator Eric T. Schneiderman of Manhattan, said in reference to the plans for a CCP program, "If you’re honest about it, why don’t you just say you want life without parole for anyone who commits a serious sex offense?” Given the cost differentials, and the lack of viable solutions the existing programs provide, why not indeed?
The NT Times (3/4/07 issue) did a cost breakdown for the states that have these Civil Commitment Programs ("CCP") and found that rehabilitation results have been poor, and that the costs are very rich, Doubts Rise as States Hold Sex Offenders After Prison, as reported by Monica Davey and Abby Goodnough.
The average annual cost per person committed at a CCP program was a minimum of twice as expensive to seven times as expensive versus the respective prison cost. I know doctors are expensive, but wow!
Now, I believe these are heinous crimes and that the offenders should be put away for a long time. Speaking today about New York state's newly passed law, State Senator Eric T. Schneiderman of Manhattan, said in reference to the plans for a CCP program, "If you’re honest about it, why don’t you just say you want life without parole for anyone who commits a serious sex offense?” Given the cost differentials, and the lack of viable solutions the existing programs provide, why not indeed?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
A macro and micro view of US Health Care
An issue at the base of the system (me the consumer), and a big, overview of the whole enchilada...
The guy who writes the Health Care blog has written a nice summary of the overarching problems with US health care, you can read it at:
http://abcnews.go.com
Mr. Holt makes an informed case about the problems, and does point out that vested interests will fight any change. The insurance companies, as payers, are the obvious opposition, they benefit in employment and profits from the way things are. The providers (doctors, hospitals) are less obvious. The thinking is that providers get payed no matter who is paying. But Holt points out that there are so many inefficiencies in the system, such that any rational fix will lower payments to the end providers. A majority of doctors see this problem and oppose any fix, but they are not all together on this, witness the Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org). Some estimate that 40% of physicians are for a National program, probably to rationalize it and keep more of their power.
Holt's conclusion is that it will take much political will to overcome the opposition, and I think we'll have to wait for 2008 for that to happen.
My trip to my dentist shows a basic problem with the current system in action.
During my last trip for a cleaning I was given an option for a wipe swab in my mouth which would more easily show early signs of oral cancer. Currently, without this option, the doc looks around and tries to see anything unusual. The new option is unproven, but if it works would be a benefit to all...hmm or maybe just to me as the system would possibly lose a full-blown cancer patient - BIG BUCKS!
Now, the hygienist told me if they get enough evidence of success, then the insurers would pay for the procedure. The insurers are not paying for this procedure since evidence is lacking, but why should I pay for research?? Because, if I can afford it, it's to my benefit. But how do I know if it works?? Is $50 cheap enough to make me participate in a study? Not in this case. I have faith in my dentist.
Shouldn't this be the wipe maker's problem? The problem for the maker is they have multiple insurance company payers to deal with, raising costs and squeezing out good but marginal solutions. But is it rational for the maker to ask me and other individuals to pay?? In this crazy market why not?
If we had a single payer system it would be much cleaner, easier and successful for all. A procedure/solution set for all would be defined, and whether the wipe procedure is in or out, and it would only be accepted if proven.
The guy who writes the Health Care blog has written a nice summary of the overarching problems with US health care, you can read it at:
http://abcnews.go.com
Mr. Holt makes an informed case about the problems, and does point out that vested interests will fight any change. The insurance companies, as payers, are the obvious opposition, they benefit in employment and profits from the way things are. The providers (doctors, hospitals) are less obvious. The thinking is that providers get payed no matter who is paying. But Holt points out that there are so many inefficiencies in the system, such that any rational fix will lower payments to the end providers. A majority of doctors see this problem and oppose any fix, but they are not all together on this, witness the Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org). Some estimate that 40% of physicians are for a National program, probably to rationalize it and keep more of their power.
Holt's conclusion is that it will take much political will to overcome the opposition, and I think we'll have to wait for 2008 for that to happen.
My trip to my dentist shows a basic problem with the current system in action.
During my last trip for a cleaning I was given an option for a wipe swab in my mouth which would more easily show early signs of oral cancer. Currently, without this option, the doc looks around and tries to see anything unusual. The new option is unproven, but if it works would be a benefit to all...hmm or maybe just to me as the system would possibly lose a full-blown cancer patient - BIG BUCKS!
Now, the hygienist told me if they get enough evidence of success, then the insurers would pay for the procedure. The insurers are not paying for this procedure since evidence is lacking, but why should I pay for research?? Because, if I can afford it, it's to my benefit. But how do I know if it works?? Is $50 cheap enough to make me participate in a study? Not in this case. I have faith in my dentist.
Shouldn't this be the wipe maker's problem? The problem for the maker is they have multiple insurance company payers to deal with, raising costs and squeezing out good but marginal solutions. But is it rational for the maker to ask me and other individuals to pay?? In this crazy market why not?
If we had a single payer system it would be much cleaner, easier and successful for all. A procedure/solution set for all would be defined, and whether the wipe procedure is in or out, and it would only be accepted if proven.
Monday, February 19, 2007
A solution for rational Health Care in the USA
Well, it didn't make the top 25 emailed articles in the past week, or even the top 10 in the Business section of the NY Times (I am a watcher and subscriber), but the Robert Frank article of February 15 entitled "A Health Care Plan So Simple, Even Stephen Colbert Couldn’t Simplify It", http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/business/15scene.html, was a nice, short, thoughtful piece on our Health Care problems. It might be the most detailed proposal out there so far. Our Democratic hopefuls should take a look.
The Fuchs/Emanuel Plan outlines a single payer voucher plan that can work. Unlike the President's latest proposal, which is kinda goofy as per the Colbert quote in the article, and it focuses on strengthening the hold of private insurance and taking away the tax exemption that people who pay their insurance premiums though company plans. The latter is a good idea, to continue the dominion of the former is goofy. Why? Because as is we end up spending double what other advanced countries do for administrative costs, and we still have some 45 million uncovered Americans. Under the Fuchs/Emanuel plan, a single payer voucher system would save us $300 Billion per year in administrative costs. It would also:
This plan make so much sense economically (full coverage and more efficient), maybe not politically, but that's for the politicians to try.
The plan cited is actually from Victor Fuchs, a respected health economist at Stanford University, and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, chairman of the department of clinical bioethics at the National Institutes of Health.
The Fuchs/Emanuel Plan outlines a single payer voucher plan that can work. Unlike the President's latest proposal, which is kinda goofy as per the Colbert quote in the article, and it focuses on strengthening the hold of private insurance and taking away the tax exemption that people who pay their insurance premiums though company plans. The latter is a good idea, to continue the dominion of the former is goofy. Why? Because as is we end up spending double what other advanced countries do for administrative costs, and we still have some 45 million uncovered Americans. Under the Fuchs/Emanuel plan, a single payer voucher system would save us $300 Billion per year in administrative costs. It would also:
- cover every American under the age of 65
- allow free choice of health plans
- freedom to purchase services beyond the standard allotment with after-tax dollars
- the private delivery system remains in place
- eliminates the need for Medicaid and other means-tested programs
- would eventually replace Medicare
- managed by a Federal Health Board modeled on the Federal Reserve System
This plan make so much sense economically (full coverage and more efficient), maybe not politically, but that's for the politicians to try.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Free Speech and money for war
The President, he respects the Senators (both Democrats and Republicans he noted) who disagree with him but are currently speaking and debating about his Iraq plan and the current situation, describing them as "honorable citizens". He knows they have an opinion, and have a right to express it. Isn't it refreshing to know that he knows the Constitution, which does allow freedom of speech. He also warns them to be aware of your audience as he does when he speaks. Well, when democracy stops at the border, should we shut down our free speech there? So that we don't "embolden" the militants? As the President said himself, sometime after 9/11 in trying to get people back on airplanes, if we don't get back to normal then they've won. Well, this holds for our Constitutional rights as well, if we, and especially our representatives, can't speak freely, then they've won.
The President also has studied the separation of powers between the Congress and the President, most importantly that the Congress has the money to dole out. In his news conference today he lobbied for the money for his plan, strongly playing the wimp card (implying the Democrats are such) by implying that if the Congress does not give him the money for his plan it would endanger our troops. Isn't that his problem for putting them out there before the money is approved?
Ah, it always gets down to the money in politics....
A short summary of the news conference is at: www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070214-112903-2899r/,
rob
The President also has studied the separation of powers between the Congress and the President, most importantly that the Congress has the money to dole out. In his news conference today he lobbied for the money for his plan, strongly playing the wimp card (implying the Democrats are such) by implying that if the Congress does not give him the money for his plan it would endanger our troops. Isn't that his problem for putting them out there before the money is approved?
Ah, it always gets down to the money in politics....
A short summary of the news conference is at: www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070214-112903-2899r/,
rob
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Frontrunner picks
In just the recent history of presidential politics, we can see how the Republicans and Democrats differ. Coming from the NY Times, by Marjorie Connelly http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/hey-i-know-that-guy/, (loggin needed)
this review of NYTimes/CBS news polls showed that early front runners in the Republican party in 2000 and 1996, George W. Bush and Bob Dole, respectively, were the also the Rep candidate for that year. For Democrats, it was Lieberman in 2000, Jerry Brown in 1992, and Gary Hart in 1998. None of these folks were the Dem candidate for President.
What this might indicate is that for good and bad, the Rep's know who they want early. For Dem's, it takes a process, or is it a village? My pet theory is that Rep's know not only who they want, but what they want and know, based on beliefs, while the Dem's struggle to find the who and the what among many good choices, still searching for answers? I know I am, and will continue to do so...
this review of NYTimes/CBS news polls showed that early front runners in the Republican party in 2000 and 1996, George W. Bush and Bob Dole, respectively, were the also the Rep candidate for that year. For Democrats, it was Lieberman in 2000, Jerry Brown in 1992, and Gary Hart in 1998. None of these folks were the Dem candidate for President.
What this might indicate is that for good and bad, the Rep's know who they want early. For Dem's, it takes a process, or is it a village? My pet theory is that Rep's know not only who they want, but what they want and know, based on beliefs, while the Dem's struggle to find the who and the what among many good choices, still searching for answers? I know I am, and will continue to do so...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
