An Unexpected Consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Black Swan events, such as the COVID-19, have numerous unexpected consequences. One such observation, a shortage of COBOL programmers. There have been a series of recent newspaper articles concerning this shortage, now implying that this shortage is a crises. Actually, this shortage has been widely known for many years; but because we were not suffering from a black swan event at the time, the issue was largely ignored.

What captured my attention, was the Verge COVID-19 related article: "Unemployment checks are being held up by a coding language almost nobody knows". In that article, the vacuous statement is made: "States have been starved of modernization funding for years". 

Regretfully, "starving" programs with little public visibility is what governments do, as there is minimal interest in helping them until there is a crisis. This is similar to what happened to the US Army Corps of Engineers with its levee maintenance programs. Funds (over the years) were reallocated to other (manufactured) "crises" that would provide government leaders with media coverage and high visibility. That was until, Hurricane Katrina occurred. Then the hysterical hyperbolic finger-pointing began, demanding to know why the allocated funds "disappeared".

The Verge article goes on to whimsically state: "Without additional funding from the federal government, it’s difficult for states to modernize their COBOL code and invest in hardware that can withstand the mounting number of unemployment requests they’re receiving this year.". Missing from the Verge's article is an acknowledgement that it is the obligation of state governors to provide adequate funding for state programs, such as maintaining COBOL dependent systems. Consequently, the Verge should be pointing the finger-of-blame at the state governors for not providing adequate resources.

American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress

My daughter just sent me this Onion tongue and cheek article: "American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress".  Humor can be a very powerful tool that exposes the hypocrisy of today's politicians.

In announcing the hiring of Jack Weldon the Onion noted that: "His daily presence in the Capitol will ensure the American people finally get a seat at the table," the statement continued. "And it will allow him to advance our message that everyone, including Americans, deserves to be represented in Washington."

The Onion also noted that that: "Before today, I'd actually never heard of this group," Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) told reporters. "But if Jack says they're worth my time, I'll take a look and see if maybe there are some areas where our interests overlap."

Deficit Allegory - Theater of the Abusrd

Obama's proposed budget is nothing but smoke and mirrors to promote a "bread and circuses" economy.  Unfortunately some in the news media seems to be deficient in the critical analytical skills necessary to expose what is happening. Maybe some these individuals lack the to will to be independent and prefer to blindly regurgitate the Democratic party line.

Obama is the head of a household.  The household previously budgeted $20,000 for a brand new shiny car that they were looking forward to for a nice summer road-trip vacation.  Obama happens by a car dealership and sees a $50,000 car they he just has to have for his trips to the golf course.  After hearing of this revised plan, the household gets a bit testy and insists on a more reasonable solution.  In the spirit of comprise, Obama goes out and buys a new $30,000 car suitable for his trips to the golf course claiming that he has now saved the household $20,000.

 Not mentioned, Obama has still spent $10,000 more than originally proposed.  As for the household, they never will get their summer road-trip vacation.  It is unfortunate that some elements of the news media remain silent concerning this blatant "bait and switch".

Why Isn't the Political "Right" Creating Jobs???

The Washington Post on June 20, 2011 had this article: Scott Walker finds making bumper stickers is easier than creating jobs. The significance of this article is that highlights the extreme schizophrenia of the political "right".  On one hand the political "right" claims that the government is evil and stifles business.  Without any apparent recognition of their hypocrisy the political "right" goes on to demand with extreme arrogance that government create a business environment that fosters job growth by cutting so-called impediments such as regulations that protect the consumer.

Instead of laying perpetual blame on the government, why isn't the political "right" stepping up to take the leadership role in job creation?  Where are the entrepreneurs? Why aren't Jobs, Gates, Buffets creating job opportunities? After all this is what the private sector is supposed to be good at.

The reason that the private sector is laying people off and creating unemployment is that they have no need of non-productive employees. Yet they claim that the government must create unnecessary jobs to benefit the corporations.  Translation: "Corporate Welfare".  Gee, I thought the private sector was against welfare.

This insanity will continue. I will bet that if the government rolls over as demanded to create make work jobs that the private sector will continue with their mind numbing zombie mantra that the government is wasting millions of tax dollars having people do useless work.  I guess you just can't win.

Should the political "right" wish to restore some credibility to their claims that government should stay out of business, then they should take the responsibility to create jobs themselves. After all isn't it the claim of the political "right" that government does not create wealth and that it is the private sector that creates wealth. If that is true, when will the political "right" put its foot where its mouth is and start creating jobs?

Creating Jobs

On the way home from work today we happened to have the local talk radio station on.  I was pleasantly surprised by the statement that the responsibility of government is to provide a level business playing field; not job creation.  Normally this talk radio person espouses the government is evil mantra.  But his comments today did display some introspection that government should not be in involved in promoting job creation.  Too many of those on the political  "right" who claim to want smaller government unbelievably seem to accept the proposition that government should have so-called programs for stimulating employment and business growth.  That is wrong.  For those who want small government and claim to be capitalists, I would argue that the private sector needs to take the lead and responsibility  in creating jobs. I fully agree with the premise that one of the roles of government is to establish a level playing field for business competition.

As a clarification aside.  I would not have problems with government hiring people for public sector jobs, such as highway construction.  I would have a problem when companies receive tax incentives to hire employees.  That is a form of corporate welfare.

Oppresive Evil Government Regulations

One of the outfalls of the populist Tea Party movement is the demand for smaller government, less taxes, the elimination of regulations, and that government stay out of our personal lives.  I'm not going to go into too much detail at this point, but the devastating earthquake in Japan points out one of the benefits of strong government regulations. Japan’s Strict Building Codes Saved Lives.

After  reviewing the New York Times article, I did some internet slumming to find out how Christchurch's  saved lives and I ran across this article: "Proper Building Codes Save Lives" that referred to an earlier (September 2010) earthquake in Christchurch. The article notes that: "The quake was about the same magnitude as the one in Haiti, yet they had a vastly different outcome – due to proper building codes."  Another article: "Building codes saves lives – main message on anniversary of Chile earthquake and lesson learned from NZ"

Compare that to China's 2008 Sichuan earthquake where (according to Wikipedia) 69,197 were confirmed dead, including 68,636 in Sichuan province, and 374,176 injured, with 18,222 listed as missing. Of particular concern was the substandard construction of schoolhouses that collapsed. The earthquake left about 4.8 million people homeless.  Of course the full extent of the devastation in Japan is unknown, so it is too early for a valid comparison with the current Japanese earthquake.

So before demanding the wholesale abolition of government in the name of promoting "liberty" and eliminating "oppression", be careful of what you ask for in terms of a small castrated government.

A Long Battle for the Hudson River

In scanning the New York Times, I ran across the interactive time-line: "A Long Battle for the Hudson River". This time-line and related editorial deal with: "the decades-long duel between the Environmental Protection Agency and General Electric to purge the Hudson River of toxic chemicals." Now, its not unusual for a company to attempt to squirm out of cleaning-up the environment. What is interesting is the back-story.

The election of Obama, as President, promised a "Green" revolution. General Electric has joined this revolution and its moto is "Imagination at Work". The CEO of General Electric happens to be Jeff Immelt. Mr. Immelt also appears politically close to Obama who has appointed him to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. So instead of dragging it's feet, one would assume that General Electric would be leading the charge to clean-up the Hudson River. It would make for good public relations and would be a superb demonstration of commitment to cleaning up the environment. Deeds over empty words.

Back in July of 2006 Vanity Fair wrote: "Vanity Fair Profiles GE's Jeffrey Immelt", which stated:

"While Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott is likely the corporate chieftain that perplexes Treehuggers the most, General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt runs a close second. The 125-year-old company bears responsiblity for massive environmental damages over the years, including the infamous contamination of the Hudson River with PCBs in the mid-20th century. Many observers would claim that Immelt has staked out a position not far from that of his combative predecessor Jack Welch on the Hudson River issue:he is unapologetic even as he seeks to settle decades of litigation. At the same time, Immelt is also the driving force behind Ecomagination, a company campaign to revolutionize the way GE makes products and produces energy. The campaign's motto, "Green is Green," signifies a commitment to increasing shareholder value through clean technology, sustainable design and complete accountability."

While the Times is to be commended for keeping this environmental concern alive, what is regrettable is that the Times, in typical fashion, has not challenged a supposedly green CEO on why General Electric has not demonstrated leadership in meeting the green obligation of cleaning up the Hudson River. The Times does report that dredging began in May 2009, so maybe things are looking up. Finally substance over stonewalling rhetoric?

PS: We own shares in General Electric, unfortunately not enough to make a dent in how the company is managed.

Private Property - Don't Touch!!!

Private property is one of the fundamental building blocks upon which the United States is built. Regretfully the concept of private property is increasingly being abused. Specifically the claim that you are entitled to tell others what to do should you believe that your "property" is somehow being affected.

A recent illustration of this process appeared in the "StarNewsOnline.com" a local newspaper out of Wilmington, North Carolina. So I thought that I had better jump on this story as it also complements my beliefs that those who believe in so-called intellectual property are claiming property rights that they don't possess.

The Star News writes in the article "Ocean Isle Beach homeowners, officials battle over native landscape" that:

Beauty, it's said, is in the eye of the beholder. And for Doug and Jane Oakley, their house in Ocean Isle Beach surrounded by thick and lush native vegetation is a beautiful sight.

“This is the glue that holds this island together,” said Jane Oakley as she pointed out the yaupon, wax myrtle and cedars amid the green canopy in her backyard. “Mother nature isn't wrong.”

But some of their neighbors, along with officials in this Brunswick County beach town, have a different opinion.

They see the trees and shrubs, many covered in thickets of thorny vines, that surround the house at 9 Isle Plaza as an eyesore and a haven for rodents and snakes.

The town has now taken the couple to court in an effort to get their property cleaned up

....

The house, built in 1964, also looks out of place and a bit dilapidated when compared with the newer and larger beach homes that line the quiet street.

The Oakleys think that might be the real reason they're under pressure to clean up their lot.

So here we have the neighbors and the local municipality asserting that they have a "right" to "force" a property owner to do things on their property to protect the property values of others.

On the nature of property from the Libertarian point of view, S. Balasubramanian wrote that one of the most basic principles of Objectivism is that no man may claim the right to initiate force against another. (An Objectivist Recants on IP). I am not an Objectivist (in fact I consider it to be a bankrupt philosophy), nevertheless there is an important fundamental take-away from this Libertarian concept. One does not have a right to "force" another on their property to protect your so-called property interests.

Unfortunately, neighbors (as the Oakley story points out) seem to believe today that they can tell you what to do on your property based on the fact that it affects their property values. The Oakley case regretfully is not unique, when we lived in California the local papers would occasionally have articles on how trees on private property and public parks, blocking coastal views, would be mysteriously cut down.

In terms of so-called intellectual property, those who have "sold" you the content believe, like the Oakley neighbors, that they maintain an entitlement to reach out and tell you how you can use your property. S. Balasubramanian phrased concept this better with the following question: "How do you reconcile the facts that recognising and enforcing IP essentially gives some people a right to the physical property of others?"

The situation that the Oakley's are in is really quite similar to what is happening with so-called intellectual property. The figurative "neighbors" assert that they have an unjustified right to "force" you to protect their property even if it places a needless burden on you. It is time to recognize that "neighbors" do not have a right to "force" you to protect their property rights (which in some cases is fictitious anyway).