Keep the gouging coming!

The ideal monopoly is formed first by underpricing the competition, even at a loss, and then when the competition goes out of business, jacking up the price to whatever the new market will bear, always adjusting to keep competition underpriced.

Fun fun fun article like here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301465.html Confounding the Experts, A Poll Finds Prices Must Go Way Higher to Alter Driving

I love this line: "The average price that drivers said would compel them to significantly cut back on their driving was $4.38 a gallon. "

A load of nonsense. What would people have said when gas was $2.00/gallon? Probably they'd cut back at $3.50, right?

There's no logical answer to give at what price you'd cut back significantly unless you know what choices were available. What does significant cutting back mean? 5% is sigificant - enough to crash market prices if everyone joined in on the conservation effort.

I've never commuted to work regularly by car, and never really needed to drive more than 4000 miles/year. That's perhaps 85% "discretionary driving" assuming the bare minimums were around basically buying groceries or hauling something too big for my bike, but even groceries are fully carryable by bike on weekly trips.

WELL, back to $3/gallon prices, its fully true, the middle class still will buy their 8oz "sport drinks" or lattes or whatever ritzy beverages along with their gas and think nothing of it.

A funny side effect of high prices is the idea that many people are compensating their increased costs by charging more on credit and not paying the balance off each month. This insideous "option" means people can go much longer before adjusting their lifestyles and balancing their income and expenses.

I imagine an analogy - perhaps a sinking boat. A person starts bailing the front, throwing the water into the back. It might make him feel better for a while to keep his feet dry, but does nothing for the problem, and actually makes it worse, since when he finally does panick, he'll have a much bigger problem and less time to respond to it.

Anyway, I can take a fun middle ground. I conserve by not depending on gas for transportation, and for nondaily travel, like vacations, I see no reason to cut back at all, as long as the gas stations are not dry. Even $10/gallon is a bargain - people expect to spend $1000+ on a week vacation, so what's a little more for gas?

How will this squeeze end I wonder? The "market" says competition will come in - well like plug-in-hybrids. Electricity now costs 1/4 as much as gasoline, so I imagine good incentive for electric transportation to expand, at least in the next 5-10 years.

Until then I guess we'll just keep spending away, and those who are foolish will use credit to pay for the higher prices and hope for the best. I hold little sympathy for them, at least in frustration. If I was bolder, I'd run around evangelizing the "credit free" movement, but I like to do fun stuff too, so I'm sorry.

Okay, really I do worry. I just don't have an answer - we must cut back somewhere sooner or later. Either you choose now while the boat is relatively dry, or choose later when you have to jump overboard and swim to the shore.

I can believe in the market, but I'd take some government leadership too - STARTING with higher gasoline taxes, ending ethanol subsidies, expanding electric travel via light rail and plug-in-hybrids, etc. I'd set goals for U.S. decreased consumption of oil and create adjustable taxes that push the market to the goals, even if we discover it takes $10/gallon gas to get there. Let it be.

Or we can just let the gouging keep coming, and those of us with energy/oil stocks can smile!

Financial bubble - easy credit

I gained some sympathy for bankers from essay at:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2564

I belong to a credit union, unsure how much better they are. They don't even TRY to offer home mortgages, too small, but operate a car sales fleet, or whatever its called.

Trying to be a "responsible" banker seems a hard place, and in the focus 100% on profits, it can be a race to the bottom. Those who can grab the most investments win, and if there's "too much credit" available, THEN they have to give out riskier and riskier loans to keep the money flowing. AND the more loans given, the more credit is available for other loans.

I can't ever be a "gold bug", seeing the return of a gold standard as acceptable or feasible, or seeing investing/speculation in a resource merely for being rate as prudent.

It would be fun to understand the financial system enough to find out how it works, and how wiser policies could compete.

A START might be to challenge the FDIC protection of savings. I don't know, but without SOME risk, people put their money in banks with the best returns, regardless of the value of the investments made. A bank that supports "community values", says no to irresponsible borrowers, that works with people to live within their means, they won't make as much money.

As always I'll be glad when my mortgages are paid off. THEN I'll be MORE in the position like bankers - cash to invest, and hard choices. At least no one will be pushing me to maximize my profits.

For the lust of numbers

Baseball is my favorite pro sport because they keep such great statistics on hitters and pitchers. And every action exists within an illusionary connection to past performance.

Myself, I found a love for running, from the idea that performance can be measured, and that feedback encourags me to see improvement, to test different approaches to training, or running and see what happens.

And global warming, the CO2 records since 1950's show our danger, even if not predictive of effects, proof we are changing the atmosphere. And going back up to 650,000 years, ice samples show CO2 levels higher now than in all geological recent history. Using seafloor sedimentation, other measures allow proediction of CO2 back up to 30 million years or more.

Science is dependent upon measurements and numbers and comparisons of varied conditions for building theories of how things work.

Yet, for all that apparent success, there's still illusions. And even if our statistics are accurate, there may be other things we can't measure, or haven't anyway that drive change in more hidden ways. Study of biology must rely on more difficult analysis than the hard (dead) sciences of simple matter. Correlations and patterns can be found which have no reality except coincindence or parallel development.

And worse than our ability to see patterns that are not there, we have a LOVE to exaggerate - to find "the best", "the highest", "the fastest", and focus our attention on the extremes because they are more fun.

Lusting for numbers is a silly thought, but it is a wish for power, a wish for control. Sometimes this wish allows us to find what we're looking for. Sometimes the search is hopeless, but we keep looking anyway, looking to the stars to explain our lives.

It's hard for me to know how numbers ought to be played in the political world. We all want "hard numbers" if they exist, but numbers can suggest certainty that isn't there, and those interested in an agenda can too easily allow themselves to "overplay" the evidence for effect. Like "the boy who cried wolf". Doomsdayers are exciting, but if they really want to help change things, they must find a way to present both their certainty and uncertainty, boring or not.

I'm a numbers man, to be sure. Not 100% of my being, but I know it dominates easily, as I retreat from my weak points. Whether political debate, or understanding a lover's quarrel, the facts so often can't be agreed on quickly, and something else must step forward in this hole, something that can maintain the tension of ignorance, keeping truth as best it can be played.

Well, just obvious stuff on a warm afternoon, I ought to be outside having fun!

The economic hustle

Just reflecting tonight on fears that the economy is built on a house of cards and could get blown over by the next storm.

I have to wonder about the role of the federal reserve, and the government. Elected leaders like the spin the economy up, ascentuate the positive and all that, keep people's faith that the run away train can keep chugging along.

You could say I fell for it, taking on a mortgage that looked good, a 5-year ARM, in 2003, going to adjust in August 2008. I'm not worried yet, still like my choice, but still will be happier when I can pay off my smaller mortgage next year.

I wonder about all the debt out there, the leveraged investments, those who try to beat the market, borrowing to invest, as well as those who just saw "free money" in their home values to borrow against, or worse, just those who get pulled into "easy credit" of credit cards and keep sliding further over their heads.

I can't figure any of them, and yet it's bad for ALL of us if these risk-takers fail. I wonder about the responsility of government (and the fed) which encourages risky borrowing to keep the economy rolling. AND of course the probability that the government will BAIL out those foolish investors if things turn sour - again we all pay for the extremes of others - I suppose you can say we all benefit when the high rollers gamble and win - I don't know.

I think of "time management", my own ability to let obligations slide, thinking I can catch up. At least "time debt" has some limit and the COST is a less fun future when I have to face my negligence or turn down fun stuff because of needed work.

Debt is much more scary - how many "work hours" can people borrow? Just imagine - $20,000 in credit card debt, 10% interest, perhaps repaying total of $60,000 with all interest changed over 15 years. Take an average wage of $20/hr. That's 3000 hours of debt - 1.5 YEARS of debt.

STUPID people talk about "tax free day" when they've hypothetically paid off their taxes for the year. How about a "debt interest free day" of the year?

I keep playing the game, we all do, but I'm sad we can't do better. When our day of reckoning comes, who will lose out? Who will whine its not fair? Blame is with all of us, even us tightwads.

Okay, I'm done complaining. But get to it people!

Investing in good times

When I was a kid (in the 1970's) my dad LOVED to talk about the power of compound interest, how saving just a small amount every month a person could retire at 65 with a million dollars.

Overall I wasn't impressed by his argument, not at 12, nor at 39. My argument then would be be pretty similar - basically that inflation changes the exponent significantly. Even my dad should have got this in the high inflation 1970's, although I guess our house did pretty well, at least holding with inflation.

Useful things like homes do well as long as people can afford them. Looking at a graph of home value for the last 40 years, the only REAL significant increase over inflation would be since 1999. Between 1964 and 1999, my home, in 1964 dollars was worth between 13k-18k, steady, low actually in 1995. Since 1999 the value has doubled to $26k (again in 1964 money).

These graphs are based on the CPI figures from:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIAUCNS/downloaddata

Interestingly some claim inflation figures are manipulated now. Obviously if "actual inflation" was running at 6% people would not be loaning money at 5%. I don't know if I believe such things, not to say there's not inflation, but I accept it is "hidden" in cheap imports and trade deficits and of course the "energy bubble" that has dominated the years since WWII.

Some may call me foolish to pay off my (partial) mortgage in 5 years, hopefully finishing next year. I've got a ARM that adjusts after 5 years, and at 5% fixed now. When its paid off my "minimum expenses" will drop $500/month, even excluding extra principle I pay now. I'll then redirect the extra to a rental property mortgage, also a 5-year ARM, now 4.75%, but could increase to 10.75% cap.

For me reducing my debt is a "no brainer". My coworker, when he moved, invested all of his first home's equity into stocks, and full mortage on new home, right around 1999. He said he's only now got back his "principle" stock investment. Meanwhile even with his 5.2% mortgage, he's lost money on interest because of his gamble. I say "haha", but assuming "smooth sailing economy" he'll always win the long run.

For me, I see an insane money system, exponentially expanding. America is taking advantage of our historical position as "world currency". We can say "haha" that the world has to pay for our excesses, but as anything when accountability can be avoided, we're the one's who'll have to recognize our delusions when self-interested competition pulls away our easy street.

It's hard to be a pessimist in good times. I've gotten unexpectedly good stock awards at work, bonuses, and dividends for a few years now. I'd rather they do that than raise salary which might be unsustainable, AND I don't expect it. BUT I do try to invest it. I'm somewhat corruptable by apparent easy wealth, but still a pretty small fraction of my cash flow.

Overall I'm content to put extra money into mortgage reduction, even at the expense of my 401(k) or Roth IRA.

Overall I judge my dad's view of compounding interest as delusion. A young person who puts away money for retirement must be dependent upon others to earn interest on that money for him, while that money invested directly in reducing debt is a better use for a young person's money.

Maybe its not true for low interest student loans or even prime mortgages (interest tax free), but for me it's reduced simply to the idea that I want control over where my money is invested, even if that investment never benefits me directly, like a donation, or helping somone.

I do have some tricky questions coming up, if the boat keeps sailing a few more years - how much do I invest in my own well being (my own future), versus investing in community OR even investing in a small business that can help more people than I could ever help alone by charity.

As much fun as it is to call rich people "stingy" for keeping their millions, I accept the argument that investments NOW are what create prosperity in the future. As much as I would LIKE to idolize government's power of wise spending, I accept at least half as much, individuals with vision, perseverence, and "capital" can do some amazing things (even as much as they can do very silly things that move us further in the WRONG direction.)

Anyway I suppose a time will come when I will have to decide:
1) Do I continue investing to "minimize" my expenses?
2) Do I start investing in ways to minimize my community's expenses?

A friend suggested not only can I invest to improve the world, but get a healthy profit as well. I get STUCK there - the profit motive is necessary BUT it also risks looking too closely at "investing as wealth generation" rather than "investing as responsibility".

On the other side, I'm not a risk taker anyway. At least when I feel secure in my fianances I can see surplus income as something I don't expect to gain anything from, and find others who have a good use for it, I'm just as happy to surrender it and hope for the best, even if THEY make a million saving the world.

Anyway I'm mostly just disturbed how spoiled Americans are for their sense of entitlement for energy and opportunity. We're all a lot weaker than we admit in the daylight, and it doesn't help how wasteful we are.

I talked to a guy at a party on Saturday about an online community called "Second life", a virtual world. He said his specialty was designing waterfalls. I'm sort of curious, like a sociologist would be looking at a primitive tribe, wondering what brings them fullfillment and what structures keep the tribes together. Overall I "don't get it". Under you can get a virtual world where you can get all 5 senses involved, it seems pretty dry and unattractive.

I suppose ONE interesting thing about virtual worlds, how people can find value in them, similar to how people can believe they live in the "real world" around them, but have no real idea what is supporting them or how long it can last. It's just a black box - input and output, and hope that it keeps working.
I can think of this fun essay:
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html "Cargo Cult Science", by Richard Feynman

And on prediction of what reality is, you gotta have fun with the doom cults:

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/arnett05.htm

The most probable, critical sequence time-line:

• 1979 US per capita energy use peaked; still floundering on a plateau in 2006, but ready to fall precipitously (‘cliff’) at any time
• 2005 World crude oil probably peaked; still on an undulating plateau in 2007; starts off the ‘cliff’ ~2010-2012 or before
• 2005 World food production (grains) peaked
• 2008 World Natural Gas peaks (or sooner)
• 2010 NG ‘cliff’ arrives (or sooner)
• 2012 US electricity blackouts and brownouts become the norm (or sooner)
  2012 US potable, available water peak and ‘cliff’; shortages and waterborne diseases increase
• 2015 US Health Care System in complete chaos, breakdown and failure; sanitation, drugs, return of communicable diseases, poorer nutrition, etc.
• 2015 World “Dieoff” begins in earnest; largely starvation, disease and poor healthcare caused
• 2030 US per-capita energy consumption hits the “30% mark-AFTER peak”, equaling year 1930 lifestyles again (probably much sooner than 2030)

Always like predictions, and if they're wrong, add a few years, and repeat!

Until then, I hope I'll make the right choices, and appreciate our unearned affluence!

Sermonized issues

Are there issues worthy of invoking public shame and guilt?

Global warming is certainly an easy target for those wannabe ministers to satisfy our need to feel guilty for something, perhaps to strengthen our resolved to say no to the next siren call of easy street, the death spiral of the sinner and addict.

I do my own sermonizing on ennumerable topics of excess and greed. Its easy enough, especially on topics I imagine I have some part of the solution at least - if only everyone could be like me, our ills would be over, right, but too bad everyone else is having too much fun to notice the consequences of their collective actions.

I'm on the highest ground against greed. I consider myself virtuous for resisting the urge to buy the next great thing, a digital camera or whatever toy that sparkles its new and improved eye at me.

Harder for me to hold the high ground is again the lure of "free". The BEST sorts of free things are things that someone else is WASTING and I know how to waste it less. Should I consider it an achievement to spend an average of $40/month on groceries? Sure I spend more than that a month average on eating out, even paying for my girlfriend, but really it is the crazy fact there's always interesting food around to eat. I can't quite explain it.

And here I type on a FREE blog site, in a FREE employer paid internet access, reading free online news. I have a free checking, free credit card service. I'm often skeptical of something claimed to be free, wondering what's the catch. Sometime's the catch is that most people are STUPID, and let themselves get caught, so if I know the danger, then perhaps I can avoid the costs - all upside!

A coworker said he has a 30-year fixed mortgage at 4.6%. I expect he paid some points (precash) as well as closing costs which if amortized into 30 years would still raise the rate signficantly, but now that he has it, he can play investment games - whether safe ones like 5% savings accounts, or smart stock picks or whatever.

Myself, I can imagine playing games, but ultimately it doesn't appeal to me - I'd rather give more money to the government in taxes than pay more in mortgage interest.

It could be I'm still already corrupted into the system, by taking on property ownership and debt. It seemed a deal too good to pass up - low interest, a good job, and debt-free property at the end of the rainbow. I got silly friends who are "military tax resisitors", refusing to pay federal taxes because it supports war. Some honest ones keep their income low. Some less honest ones hide their income, own no seizable assets, and prepared to move on when taxes catch up. Most don't have kids, like me, so they can "play small fish" and risks relatively low of the law catching them.

Anyway, on the "free lunch" side of things, there's many ways for people to live OFF the system while not directly adding to it, merely living off its waste.

Okay, back to sermons, I could for example defend a position that "car ownership" is the fundamental roadblock to social justice and all the good stuff. Humans lived 200,000 years without a car, so we ought to be able to also. Critical mass says if enough people support a value, that cooperate action can allow NEW action not reachable by individuals - building community that is not centered around fossil fuels. I could say I don't have a car because I'm waiting for this to happen, but really I'm not going to fight too hard. It's just cheaper, and lots of opportunity around me, AND if I find a "higher purpose" than my own amusement, I hold no moral high ground against owning a car, especially if for a limited period of time and goal.

I can't take absolute position, but prefer strategic compromises - cost and benefit. I believe I can invest time and money in ways that strengthen the future.

It's all fun and cute to call Gore a hypocrite for his energy guzzling home and lifestyle - always kill the messenger if you can. True, he puts himself out there for judgment, and perhaps accepts it as good if it encourages others to do better.

The hardest thing for me is to remember than ordinary things add up to extraordinary costs, when multiplied by 6.5 billion. (On the good side, ordinary work can add to extraordinary benefits when equally multiplied.)

Whatever truth we serve, none is easier to forget than the fact that we consume much more than the average person on earth, and they aspire to copy us AND there's not going to be enough for all in this game of infinite growth. Our success exceeds reality sooner or later.

We ought to be leading to a better world, investing in being smaller, in accepting compromises as helpful for our body, mind and spirit, all in different ways.

And lastly in my sermonizing, I know I have my own daily fight, much harder than judging others. I just want to believe in a future that is credible. A small wish, but so hard. I still take the easy choices, and time is short and perhaps harder roads I might see if I was ready to see.

And Jesus said "Open your eyes and you shall believe."

Maybe he said that, sounds credible!

Patience and power

I like the quote from Gandhi:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

I don't believe it, but I like it. I mean if by "You win", he means you're dead and people idolize your subbornness to resist overt agression, well, he's heroic, but seems pointness still. I mean sure like the fall of Camelot, people can remember a time and place existed where peace and justice existed, a shining light. Sure good, but its still sort of a different story. I'd rather SKIP the first, or TAKE it as history rather than LIVE it (the fall).

I like the quote mainly because to me it suggests there's some power in the long haul, and weakness in impatient uses of power.

Of course the same argument can be used by President Bush and the civil war in Iraq. He pretends to think we can outlast our opponents, while in fact its the complete opposite. Its a war of attrition where the side with greater wealth can spend 1000 times more and still lose in the end.

If Bush had really believed in patience, he wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place. War and violence may be called "the last resort", but I imagine more it is just hard to sell in a democracy, unless an event like 9/11 comes to create fear in people's hearts.

Even closer to home, in my own heart, I see how the VICE of impatience creates at least one sort of evil. Somehow impatience is related to fear, perhaps a sense of impotence, not a good feeling to a warrior's heart.

People talk about moral questions in the abstract and define their enemies as immoral for doing ugly things. I won't deny evil or self-interested blindness. I just can look enough at my own heart and sense of impatience, and I see times when I'm willing to ignore the inconvenient truths of the consequences of my actions.

You can look at the American spirit - the Manifest Destiny and you see an impatient people striving to find their own place, hard workers, but also willing to ignore the uglier consequences, the wasteful killings of the bison, the brutality towards the Native Americans, faithless negociations, easily equal to the evils committed by Hitler in the lead up to WWII.

Civilization as it becomes more complex requires more surrender of this overt brutality, even if it can get sublimated into more hidden forms.

The tricky thing to me is that impatience can be a sort of asset to those on the bottom trying to rise because it gives the ambition and energy to keep fighting for what you want, but equally it is a deficit - allowing others to take advantage of your stream, to TRICK you into serving their interests because you don't slow down enough to look at the bigger picture. Promises of "instant wealth" - lotteries to pyramid schemes, all exploit impatience.

And after you start succeeding in your ambitions, especially in wealth, impatience if retained, along with repressed pain, helps blind us to what we REALLY want and only focus on what we can get, like things that take money versus things that take time.

I think of a friend, her front yard tree split down the middle in a big storm and had to be cut down. She wants a new tree, but doesn't wish to wait 20+ years for it to replace what she had before. Of course to degrees MONEY can speed up success - and large trees can be transplanted if you have big equipment.

If your time frame is 10 years, you generally can't get some things, like a big tree, but given a lifetime or TWO, trees will grow, and future generations will appreciate.

Another saying "Judge your day not by what you've sown, but by the seeds you've planted." Something like that. That's something of the power of patience, hidden slow change that moves mountains one grain at a time.

I try to wonder how patience itself can be nurtured, if we need practice, if it needs quiet time to reflect and imagine. I mean yes, it needs these, but what do we DO when we feel impatient, when we're unhappy and looking for a quick fix to our suffering.

I think an old poem I wrote nearly 10 years ago now, contrasting city and country living, like the mind and body. It's got a bit of implied moralizing, possibly saying the second is better, but more as a reminder than a simple replacement. We need both.

Our Garden
7/7/97
The City:
where brick and concrete lie,
where people come to feed,
where time races and culture rises,
where wealth and influence may grow.

The Country:
where woods and pastures lie,
where people come to work,
where time seasons and culture deepens,
where health and relations may grow.

Between these worlds,
We search,
For our garden.

Circling home

Many years ago I read a book of essays by Wendell Berry called "Home Economics", and his primary point that I remember, in my words, is in seeing a "household" as a primary economic unit, and that there was a wide range of responsibilities that a household required, AND lastly that modern specialization and marketing has corrupted these internal responsibilities into economic activity, making us more dependent on money and less capable of taking care of itself.

At least that's my take, not to say there's ever been an ideal time, not to say the opportunities and affluence allowed in modern life is to be fully rejected, but to me it comes out as a question of where you want to draw a line. Our time is one where opportunities are wide and vast, much bigger than we can take in, and there's a danger in just following the path of least resistance, and not trying to seriously prioritize what deserves our care and attention, and what must be dropped for being too low on the list.

I have a sort of fantasy that my goal is to maximize my time doing what I want, and that more money usually demands more time (to earn, invest and spend), so it's better to earn less if I do something I like more, OR work less if I can get away with it!

The other side of the fantasy is my goal to try to live without debt, and that means I have to save money for future expenses which means I have to earn more than I need NOW, which means I have to work now more than I might if I merely worked to pay for the bare necessities of life now.

Well, when I was 26, self-employed, but no work at the moment, I took a job at Rainbow foods, doing night stock work part time for 3 months, figuring my minimum hours I needed so my savings would stop depleting. At only $5.15/hr, it was more hours than I'd have liked, BUT I sort of thought it was "free exercise", AND once I got going, I could "daydream", or at least zone out and it was pretty low stress. The 9pm-3am shift worked well, but the 3am-11am shift was bad for me, couldn't get used to it.

Anyway my little dreams of cheap living worked pretty well, sharing an inherited debt-free house with two siblings. I never aspired seriously to make more than $20,000/year, seemed like more than enough money, but did computer programming contact work for $15-$25/hour, so I could work part time and earn more. Now I live in a different world, with a regular job, and much more money, BUT paying down a mortgage on my house and another mortgage an investment property I rent to a friend. Money flows in outrageous levels compared to my old thinking, but if I continue I could have two debt-free houses in 6 years, a crazy idea, but seems a prudent investment in my conservative views of what it means to invest.

The main weakness of my position is I have a 3-bedroom home to myself, and don't really spend much time there. My connection to my neighbors and community is minimal, compared to my renting friend, with 3 kids, and home daycare. In short, its rather a wasted asset, at least my house.

My security issues just say, okay in 10 months, my house can be mortgage free again, but its still empty in my imagination, useless. I do gardening, but less active in recent years. The yard could use more attention.

I wonder if things turn down, like a depression. On the good side perhaps I have a house I can share, but no real process to feel safe letting strangers share it with me, especially those most in need. I feel safe if I have no mortgage because then if I lost my job, my expenses would be lower, but still higher than when I shared expenses with siblings. I probably could still get down to $12k/year spending, but harder to imagine $6k/year, even without a car, without sharing my space with someone who can seriously help with bills, not that $500/month is a high rent, but I'm too used to people who don't seem to even be able to afford that, whether due to income or spending habits.

It is a curious question, if I'm feeling generous, if I wanted to merely share my home to help others, without consideration for rental income. Anyway, I see there's great value in owning a home, in having something to offer, but no great vision how it could be done. AND some past uglier visions, living with a brother and brother-in-law for a while, both smokers, even outdoors, most annoying, and not even getting into drug use.

I think Berry's vision is for a household to not require every adult to work outside of the home. I share that vision, at least by full time employment - life is too short to fight for a career unless it falls into your lap or you have a great drive for one. Otherwise I wish the world could support lifestyles that didn't require 40k/year/adult to sustain.

I suppose my ideal might be to share my house with a single parent, 1-2 kids, at least that works for my house space. I say parent mainly because I think being a single parent is crazy, so they could use help, but also nice to have kids around, noise and all. I'm not even against a couple and 2-kids, but gets a bit tight, AND the reality of modern couples is they generally don't WANT to share a house. They want their privacy, and can't easily imagine sharing a house. If I didn't have a house myself, I might as well look to rent a room from someone with a spare room, but again, probably at best a retiree/widow, and not as likely with a family. Sharing a house means inconvenience and always possible to appreciate a spare room when you got one.

Mostly there's no great point to sharing. I suppose when more hardships come, people will share more space. It just sort of seems a sham to have such homes as we have now, such nice yards, and have them neglected because we're too busy working, or driving, or spending our money.

I guess the SECRET I'm looking for is to make a home "interesting/attractive", a place to want to be, besides hiding in front of a TV (or computer!). And neighborhoods too. Large cities (and their circling 'burbs) and good transportation options make it easy to make everything interesting too far away to walk or bike, and make places neglected.

I suppose I'm just a dreamer mostly, content to live with less money, but for now glad I can earn more and invest it in a home or two. Our neighborhoods are not super dense, but not bad, and perhaps when transportation gets more difficult we can create more interesting things closer to home. Who knows?

I read tonight an article and opinions on high gas prices at:
http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_5806986
http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=4396&nav=messages&webtag=mn-comments&redirCnt=1

I'm one of the bad persons hoping for $4-6/gallon gas, thinking it's the only medicine that will get us off our butts and into action, to reduce our dependence on oil, our foolish life decisions that encourage the average person to spend 2+ hours/day in a vehicle, and worse behind the wheel, as their life energies slowly get drained away.

I just can't easily have sympathy for those who have "chosen" lifestyles that require them to drive 100 miles/day. The future can't support that luxury for the majority, so we have to change sooner or later.

A nicer article at:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1244 Failing the Energy IQ Test

What’s our immediate strategy for averting the worst impacts of peak oil?
1. Start with education.
2. Focus on efficiency.
3. Switch fuels substantially from liquids to electricity.
4. Improve land-use planning.
5. Ramp up investments in mass transit.
6. Conserve.
7. Reconsider alternative fuels.

I'm in agreement that electric cars seem the best bet, at least for city driving. Most people don't drive more than 100 miles/day, so batteries that support that range ought to be acceptable.

I like the idea of plug-in hybrids, but seems rather a waste, to have all the extra weight (and cost) of a gasoline engine if most of your driving can be done 100% on electricity. So to me its sort of a marketing failure - there's perhaps a failure of imagination, to consider the possibility of "downsizing", that less could be more. Admittingly the same issue exists for people who drive trucks and SUVs because SOMETIMES they need to haul big stuff, but most of the time are just wasting energy on dead weight of an empty truck.

Fuel efficiency would suggest our vehicles are always running at peak capacity, so you might have 6 vehicles and swap which one you use based on need. Of course this duplication fails on construction costs. A few people might have 6 cars, but its pretty much a waste of money in insurance and upkeep costs.

As well, city buses are pretty inefficient at times, sometimes a capacity 40 bus will be only carrying a couple people, and so the cost of a bus, averaged per passenger mile, unsubsidized can be more than the costs of owning your own car.

Well, must go. Someday again perhaps homes can be for more than sleeper and couch potatoes!

Reason to fear - Meth addiction

Just a quick THREAT to accept, nothing like the big stuff I usually worry about, but chemistry:
http://peety-passion.com/peetypassion/2007/05/01/world-most-dangerous-drug/ Meth video

My brother died a year ago, used many drugs including Meth, and I had to evict him in 2003 because of drug use and lack of trust. He told me before he died that he accepted my decision and said nothing else would have gotten through to him, gotten him into a treatment program.

Anyway, mainly I realize how much we NEED community. Sometimes law enforcement and professionals to handle things, but individuals and families will sometimes have to deal with dangerous people on drugs.

...Interesting that Meth was invented 100 years ago and used by soldiers in Japanese WW II! And used to give energy and work harder. YOU really have to imagine a future where NEW SLAVES will exist and be given drugs like Meth.

Overall, exploitation and drugs go together. Knowledge used by those in power can be abused in horrible ways. I believe the danger.

It could be for all my BIG fears, the small stuff is what really will create unnecessary tragedy and suffering. And those who are CLEAN must deal with this, must try to protect themselves AND try to help addicts who may be violent or dangerous.

Good or bad, I see danger is the primary "common ground" that gets people to work together.

Most of us can live our lives pretending we'll doing well and the world is full of wonder and opportunity, and sad when we are forced to admit how much suffering is close around us.

Piss on you politics

I ought to be a Machiavellian in my political leanings. Left or right, true power throws the teddy bears and babies out the window, ignores what "OUGHT TO BE" and takes what IS.

It's just so easy to follow the naive road of "Let's make the world a better place." The FLAW of this path of course is when you actually try to do something, you'll be at best patted on that head for a pretty thought, and usually ignored.

Why worry about (1) Nuclear war (2) Global warming (3) Energy crisis (4) Debt (5) Murdered unborn babies? Or whatever cause that works for you. The BEST you can hope to do is become a "special interest group" that scared politicians enough to smile and nod at your cause, and finally if you're lucky they'll co-opt your language and say it back as if they really care.

REAL politics is life stuff they're facing in Iraq today - fear of suicide bombers - the cost of corruption - brute hatred and murder of those that don't think like you.

Okay, maybe not, but at least when you have to deal with "other people's shit" on a daily basis, your interest in politics rises quickly, at least if you have any hope things could be better someday.

Well, basically I'm sort of thinking "Secret society" sort of politics is more interesting than the overt expressions of power. I mean we've got a government that allows us to keep more money than almost every other country. If we'd just buy a few less cabins up north or cruises to the Carabean, we'd have some serious cash to stick to gether and make something.

Ultimately I accept true power comes through wealth and the opportunity to buy access to "representatives of the people", but even that power is somewhat useless.

My Machiavellian Manifesto goes something like this:
(1) People are fools. This is bad.
(2) There's too many damned people - many must die. This is good.
(3) Some of them can be saved, but make sure its the useful ones who can serve your interests. This is called artificial selection.
(4) Greedy rich bastards are also thinking like you. They have MORE money and power than you. They believe 1-3 above. If you can't hide from them, play along with #3 and make yourself useful to them.
(5) Build up your own secret terrorist cell, less than 20 people, those you can trust who think like you, and have something to offer.

Ooops, did I say terrorist? Well, it was just a figure of speech. The POINT is individuals alone are too weak, so you gotta get some people together. Large groups are too unwieldy to action. Groups of 10-20 people can get something done when the shit hits the fan.

While things are still doing well, the most important thing for every cell is to focus its energy on building economic strength. This means paying down debt, accumulating land, buildings, and equipment that can offer a productive use when external employment is not available.

Well, I think I'm going to have to stop, mainly because I don't exactly know how to build a terrorist cell. I mean "Who do you trust?" And what the fuck is your mission anyway?

Okay, I can do a mission statement. The good thing about a secret society is you can still have a slightly naive mission:
Our mission is collect together hard working people who know the future will be harder than the past, who know they're screwed if they are limited to their own resources, who would rather spend their time and energy building an ark than trying to convince anyone that a storm is coming.

Our mission is to build a collective trust that will allow our individual security to be protected, AND share resources for common goals, and work together to define those goals.

Overall, I guess this is "Mission Ark". Each group is forming a lifeboat, and networking with other groups allows a vision for a larger Ark to be defined and promoted.

I wonder how much it needs to be a "secret society". I'm not sure. I suppose a best bet is to do BOTH - have a public image AND a private one. The funny thing is on the surface I imagine my ideas are worthy in public. So my only guess is that I recognize even if the goals are worthy, the MEANS and POWER we may wield may be less pretty. PLUS, a public organization is more likely to attract attention of scum suckers, criminals who will see our wealth as a target.

Overall fun thoughts. I think mostly delusional, but only because it seems so hard to imagine power when fully dependent upon a doomed empire. And most delusional since however romantic is seems to play secrets, it wastes a lot of TIME, and even if I think things will get bad sooner than later, thinks could muddle along another 10 years before serious survival issues are at hand.

It is just difficult to imagine any other life, other circumstances. I mean EVEN if I KNOW there's such lawlessness in Iraq, and that MILLIONS of people are already suffering through poverty, fear of violence, injustice, and lack of opportunity.

How much of my own selfish time am I really willing to throw away for "a game"?

I think of the funny "Polyamory" world out there, not my game, but it offers a learning environment - how to reach out, how to judge common ground, how to trust, how to build something together beyond what you could do apart.

I think politics is as useful as anything for learning too, for larger groups, perhaps even the opposite scale of empowerment.

I think of the "lifeboat" cell much closer to the polyamory, maybe WILL be considered the nuclear family for most people, and just reach out to see how much farther it can be extended.

Lifeboat is an interestesting image, suggesting its purpose is to save a small group of people, while perhaps surrounded by a larger group which it can't all help. Resources are limited.

Going deeper away from delusion, or at least into thoughts of real people, I see there's so many issues in people's inner lives, as well as external demands. It really is hard to imagine ANY group of people any size that can devote a sizable portion of their energy into theoretical survival issues.

Even imagining marriage, one spouse is a bit loopy in the brain (like me, but single), and thinks things can't really continue, and the other spouse not really getting it, or at least not really believing there's anything to do. I mean it might be for most people, focusing on getting their kids grown up a bit more might be the best use of their time and love.

Well, and in loopiness, whatever's true, I accept my perceptions are limited to a strange inner world that things we ought to be worried and remembers things that support this concern, like any hypocondriac.

Okay, better end this. Piss-on-you politics is an attitude that says communication is useless when people don't want to hear the truth. Rather than fighting for common ground which doesn't exist, its better to LIVE YOUR CONVICTION rather than imposing it on others.

That's kind of backwards, piss-on-you politics, is mostly a sort of surrender to guilt. A person thinks he has special truth, and others won't listen. I suppose better to just say "Peace to you politics", live-and-let-live.

Not really true for change, but mainly about grass roots democracy. Until a critical mass understand an issue, or recognize it as a problem at least, there's little value in a public debate.

As always impatience is the biggest enemy. Religions at least have things right in some ways. They help worriers step back and believe in a higher power also aware and watching so you can know danger and just do what you can.

I just don't know about collective action. I believe in it, but it seems impossible. I mean just the idea of SHARING is difficult, accepting the needs of another exceed one's own. A fully compassionate person really could give up ALL POWER except to serve the needs of others.

I think to "intentional families" or "intentional households" again. I don't necessarily mean living in one house, but that's the starting point.

Anyway, if I was nice I'd change the title to "Peace to you politics", but it wouldn't be as fun.

Postscript - My most interesting reflection after writing this is the closeness of my soul to that of Scrooge of Dicken's A Christmas Carol. Fear of loss and weakness makes us all hide our compassion for the suffering of others. It is too easy to withdraw from believing you can help others, too easy to judge others as unworthy for compassion. Helping others is surrendering power to help yourself. A worthy fairy tale is Hansel and Gretel, a world where children can be sacrificed to the forest. I suppose I just have to accept the nature of my soul is to fear I don't have enough to give when the "greatest needs" come.

Wealth and freedom

They say you gotta have money to make money, but the next best thing to money is credit, borrowing someone else's money, paying a little interest until your investment can earn it back to pay off the debt.

I read somewhere that ARM mortgages started as options for wealthy and self-employed home buyers who wanted more flexibility for payment options. The lower rate at the start of the loan more than compensated for higher rates later since the property was either expected to be paid off early or sold sooner than later. But then the lower starter rate of ARMs became a selling point for lower income borrowers looking to have lower payments for a while, without careful regards of the later risk of higher repayments.

I think as well of examples, like "Free trade", of third world workers with manual labor trying to compete not only against mechanized farming, but subsidized farming as well. One of the arguments in support of keeping our subsidies is we have to protect OUR farmers from low prices, and third world farmers ought to mechanized as well if they want to compete.

On other case, I heard the failures of NAFTA to help Mexico stem from an unfortunate world market where cheaper exports from China can underprice the production from Mexico, again probably partly because of subsidies, and partly through better capitalization, automating what can be done best by machine, and cheap labor for the rest.

I think also of the flow of illegal labor from Mexico to perform cheap labor in the U.S. Obviously it would be better for more good jobs to exist in Mexico, but apparently there's not the capital investment available for development that can compete well in the global market.

It seems to me there's a HUGE waste to purely competitive systems. An investor might borrow millions of dollars to set up an enterprise in Mexico, and when it comes to final price, it finds itself undersold by comparable products from China or where ever, and no market to buy the products.

I certainly can understand why there ought to be some protection for local production, subsidies for local consumption, to protect investments and security. On the other side, subsidies for exports seems crazy, worthy of a call of "dumping", selling products below cost to undersell and drive competitors out of business. This is a tricky issue, can even be done accidentally by large producers. I mean if you expand production by a factor of 10, there's fixed costs to expand production, and those costs must be amoritized over some period to define profitability. A hopeful producer might claim they're not selling for a loss merely for selling just above production costs ignoring repaying start up costs (and interest). Larger businesses can afford to cover costs over a longer period of time and can outcompete in the short run.

Dumping is still a problem when there's a surplus. If the demand is less than supply prices will fall. Inventory has a cost to hold, so in the short run selling under production costs (and taking the loss) may be the best option.

If the U.S. consumer purchases hit a fall because of fears or whatever, and demand decreases the immediate response is surplus and cheaper prices. It's a hard place for producers to properly predict demand (and competition) to make a profit.

It is scary to think the U.S. consumption (and debt) is being fueled by foreign investment into our debt. If China stops investing in U.S. debt, our economy falls, and their exports fall. It's a strange relationship.

I sort of think of Robinson Crusoe, his servant "Friday", and his payments to Friday from a fixed set of coins, and eventually after enough years, his ever saving servant holds all the coins. I don't remember what happened, except things turned around, master and servant by the change of wealth.

I worry the U.S. is like Crusoe, and our day of reckoning must come if we keep spending what we haven't earned. Overall I still imagine China is in a weaker position, dependent upon our senseless consumption.

Internationalists want free trade in everything, empowering their wealth to flow freely where ever it can earn the greatest return. They imagine this freedom benefits all because the more resoures that can be extracted from the earth, the most there is for people to have, cheaper prices, more jobs, more everything. PLUS it sets their power ABOVE that of any government. Then governments themselves must compete for capitalists attention, and money will flow where there's the lowest taxes and most freedom (along with some security of stability).

Capitalists admit the concentration of wealth means the concentration of power and influence. They can offset any possible guilt at their wealth by philantropy, for at least a fraction of their wealth. Thus freed, their benevolent power helps us all.

As you will guess I don't easily support this concentration of power, even if I have no ultimate solution to it. Perhaps if we lived in a transparent age, where the origins and history of our things could be told and compared, but without knowledge it risks being a race to the bottom, moving capital to where ever the lowest costs can be found, lowering standards for workers and the environment.

Again capitalists will say third world workers are HAPPY to get more income in sweatshops and such, than there old human-scaled activities that supported their local economy. And I'm not saying they're competely wrong. It's good to give people choices, and higher income CAN help them get ahead, move to greater prosperity and freedom. Still I think the game is cooked against them - the more you earn, the more your tastes go up. First you make the capitalists rich by your cheap labor. Then you make them rich by buying the products marked up. The game can only be won if people are wise enough to save for real prosperity over just short term trinkets and babbles. Like "Friday", you gotta save, and those who don't will be WORSE off when the factory closes down, moved somewhere else where labor is again cheaper.

It is hard for me to reject capitalism, but hard for me to accept it blindly. It is NOT for the weak-willed, those easily lured by instant gratification, especially when debt is offered. There's too damn much exploitation, perhaps much of it voluntary - I mean there's freedom, but short sightedness, and a failure to measure costs and benefits in the long term.

Perhaps we are just animals afterall, and those who can't rise above the lure of the cheese in the mousetrap, will get caught by their own greed. Very hard to escape personal responsibility, but I do have pity, and I can't even feel superior, just fortunate to have a fair doorway into a job where I can earn more than I need.

There's surely lots of heroics on the bottom, people working together as families, traveling to opportunity, sending money home to support family.

As always, I believe wealth is about having more income than you need, and I'm glad I learned there's more power to influence "need" (above a level of sustenance) than influence income. I mean "moving up" exists, especially when you start on the bottom, but whatever level you're at, there's always room to question where the best gains are - to get by spending less, or fighting to earn more.

I'm sure I'd be a bad leader, having sympathy, but fully unsure what policies give more than they take. ESPECIALLY given an unknown future where collective wealth may fall, and we'll all have to readjust our expections and hopes for the future.