Let's Leave Children Behind

Yes, 82% of US schools will be failing due to President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. Apparently, the law is too tough for US schools.

"No Child Left Behind is broken and we need to fix it now," Duncan said in a statement. "This law has created a thousand ways for schools to fail and very few ways to help them succeed."

I agree with Duncan. We should find ways for these schools to pass, like the Health Care Reform Wavers. If schools are inner city schools that has many disadvantage students, we should let these students pass at 30 or 40 points instead of 70 points that's required by the law, lowering the standard of course. This is how everything gets done in school systems, why make this an exception.

Duncan said the law has done well in shining a light on achievement gaps among minority and low-income students, as well as those who are still learning English or have disabilities. But he said the law is loose on goals and narrow on how schools get there when it should be the opposite.

Duncan apparently implies that minority students and people with low income are stupid. Duncan isn't saying that they are smart. So, Duncan wants minority and low income students to pass at - I don't know, like at 10 points instead of 70 points.

"We should get out of the business of labeling schools as failures and create a new law that is fair and flexible, and focused on the schools and students most at risk," Duncan said.

Yes, Duncan... We are all winners. No labeling. Such labeling can hurt their self-esteem. We need to call failing students as passing students. In fact, we should call them as excellent students, give them all A's via affirmative action. Maybe, they can go to Harvard Law School and become the President of US in the future like your boss. Excellent idea.

Chinese or Indian students in their country are mostly from poor households. In fact, weighing their income with USA income standard, they mostly live under severe poverty. I wonder whether they all fail. How do they even manage to get up in the morning? Can they walk and chew gum at same time? They are probably very stupid since they are from low income households.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPmjfDMN5nHOpeSIZYLwkVfKAHGQ?docId=c7dc0757afd54b5ca2836c00de44535f

Lookie, who is expanding the freedom of expression

I love when politicians make laws preventing people from doing things - regulations - specially with cameras and gadgets. I love when these gods make laws in order to teach everyday morons how to speak, how to eat, how to behave, and so on. I love it.

I am still waiting for them to pass laws that teaches how people should take poop. San Francisco already passed law that teaches how people should flush toilet. So, we are very close for this pooptastic law.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/04/bill-would-ban-photos-at-accident-scenes/

Wisconsin Protesters Improve the State Budget

Protesters have caused $7.5 million damages to the State Capitol in order to improve the state's budget. Fabulous...

"She said certain kinds of tape can leave lasting residues on surfaces such as marble or wood if they are improperly removed. But she said only a professional cleaning service experienced in such work and familiar with the situation in the state Capitol could estimate any possible costs.

“They need a quote from a company that specializes in cleaning historic surfaces,” Curran said."

I hope that these cleaners use eco-friendly stuffs... Because that's cool.

Protesters are planning to do bigger protests in Wisconsin, and protesters in other states are planning to do the same kind of budget improving protests. I am a big fan of these protests. Fantastic...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117340918.html

Riches Inside the Gate

CEO of Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Salary: $632,333 in 2009

CEO of Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) Salary : $369,514 in 2009

Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR: $1,200,000 in 2009

Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell: $956,513 in 2008

Me: Not so much

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576176663789314074.html

Mining Death and Comparison.

I was right about the mining accidents and deaths, even when I didn't know the actual numbers. Because, mining related accidents and deaths were obvious to me. If there were a lot of death, media wouldn't talk about it. But, since there are so few, media sensationalizes the mining news as if mining incidents are somehow more worthy news than other news. The fact is, mining accidents are rare, and that’s why the Main Stream Media, ABC/CBS/NBC hype stories up.

MSBNC’s Mining Story by Rachel Maddow

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-PTgbYa58M ].

"… it's really really really important..,” says Rachel Maddow. Everybody knows risk of mining, even with those risks; deaths and injuries are very low compared to other activities. She is merely hyping up the story to make a story for her show. Here, she has no perspectives. Her viewers left to think that mining operators are cruel and they want to kill workers to make extra money, and they violate these safety rules on purpose to save money. This is further from the truth. Mining has gotten safer every year. In 1940s, there were about 1,500 deaths with 70,000 injuries due to mining. In year 2006, there were 69 deaths and 11,800 injuries. Mining industry is doing everything they can to minimize human casualty and loss due to such incidents. Here she is talking about mining operators are some uncaring villain. Mining companies are making work place safer not because they are good people versus bad people. Incidents at work place are like a friction force that needs to be taken out, it’s a simple math. N + Ff = W, Normal Force + Friction Force = Work. Extra work here is a cost in terms of time/effort/energy. Unlike what she is presenting here, the fact says otherwise. You can't have deaths and accidents going down such rate while same time talking about it as if it is a death trap. In fact, mining is safe than most activities. It’s not a pretty job but a lot of jobs aren’t pretty either: Crab fishing, farming, day care, etc..

Comparison

I wonder whether Rachel Maddow has done story about bicycling, alcohol drinking, or sex related deaths and injuries. 240 people die every year due to construction related accidents. Approximately, 700 people die due to recreational bicycle riding every year with 52,000 injuries. Over 20,000 people die over sex related behaviors. Over 100,000 die due to alcohol consumption related accidents. In perspective, mining is far safer than other economic and none economic activities

Here, she cites all these violations, .. then what? These violations are something that happens. People get traffic tickets all the time. Like Fannie and Freddie, all this happened while there were regulations like the BP gulf incidents? After this report, what is Rachel going to do? Nothing... she will go on to another report targeting another company to fill up her stories. Rachel Maddow is being nothing more than a character of the drive-by-media.

What is drive-by-media?

The Drive-By Media. It's a like a drive-by shooter except the microphones are the guns, and they drive into groups of people they report a bunch of totally wrong libelous stuff about people. They create a giant mess. Sometimes people get really harmed. They go out and try to destroy people's careers. Then they get in the convertible, head on down the road and do it all over again.

---

Robbery in convenient stores

[http://www.crimedoctor.com/convenience1.htm]

[http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/173772.pdf]

[http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/Resources/Research/Pages/ConvenienceStoreSecurity.aspx]

[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/]

[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n2_v38/ai_16793706/]

[ homicide : http://www.athenaresearch.com/research/bls_workplace_violence_2006.pdf ]

Construction

[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/construction/]

Mining

[http://www.msha.gov/mshainfo/factsheets/mshafct2.htm]

[http://www.wvminesafety.org/wvcoalfacts.htm]

Bicycle

[http://www.edgarsnyder.com/bicycle/accident-statistics.html]

[http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/statistics.cfm]

[http://www.anapolschwartz.com/practices/bike/bicycle-accident-statistics.asp]

Alcohol & Sex

[http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30]

[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_249.pdf]

[nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2006/810686.pdf]

[http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/feb/17/un-warns-rise-alcohol-related-deaths/]

Taxcut and Money Multiplier

When a person deposits $100 into a bank, that $100 becomes some where between $400 to $500 due to money multiplier effect/lending.

Therefore, when there is a tax of $100, not only government is taking the $100 but it is also taking additional $300 to $400 away from the money market.

Of course, when the government takes that $100, there is a coefficient of government's marginal utility, which is at 0.4. So, every $100 that goes into the government, only $40 comes out as output. Government is essentially making the $100 worth 1000% less.

This is why tax cut is so important. Tax cut increases the government revenue in a long term because there are larger pools of money to tax. Tax increase decreases the government revenue in a long term because there are smaller pools of money to tax.

When a tax cut is given to people who has large sum of money, those moneys are in the circulation in form of savings, bonds, investments, ect... More money in circulation in respect to the rational GDP growth the better. The rate of money circulation indicates the health of the economy.

Tax increases on people who has large sum of money do not increase the tax revenue collected by government in a long term, 2+ years. Taxes discourage investments. Businesses don't pay taxes. Individuals pay taxes. Taxes on businesses are the cost incurred, thus passed onto the consumers, individuals. More taxes on businesses in a certain geographic area encourages businesses reduce the cost of taxation. If the margin cost of moving its location is less than the cost of taxation, then the businesses move. If a computer manufacture has a computer that costs $1000 with a added taxes/regulations $50, the computer is sold at $1000. If a computer manufacturer can reduced that $50 taxes/regulation, and sell the computer at $950, the computer manufacturer has a price advantage.

Tax increase also has very bad long term effect, lowering the GDP in a long term. 0.1% lower GDP rate over 10 years is like $20 trillion loss on US economy. This is like a losing a 1.5 years.

When people favor a tax increase, they are favoring worse economy for all. Tax increase helps no one but the competing cities, counties, states, and nations. It's a self inflicting loss.

The debt exists independent of tax cut or tax increase. You could incur a debt without you being taxed more or taxed less in your own life. In order for an individual to pay down the debt is to direct the income to paying down the debt. This also means that outflow has to be decreased.

In the case of government, it doesn't make money like you and me. They merely transfer money from productive usages to unproductive usage, like paying down the debt. Since, the government doesn't make any money, way they should pay off the debt would be decreasing the spending else where in order to accommodate the gap. When the government takes the money from the productive usages, the government is decreasing the marginal utility by 1000%, thus in a long run, it is decreasing overall pull of money. This also means, they are decreasing overall productivity.

Tax cut doesn't come from the government coffer. It's other way around. Government gets the money from the people to fill up their coffer. You don't want to decrease the productivity to pay off the debt. If the government didn't increase the spending for next 10 years, it would not only pay off the debt but give more back to the people they have taken.

Taxes = regulations.

California will have 725 new laws this year. For example, If we say that the compliance cost for the each law is about $1, every company in California will be paying $725 more this year than last year, that’s after the regulations that they have passed the year before. Every law they pass are taxes. So, every year, California imposes 700+ new laws. In a decade, that’s 7000 new laws. The cost associated them is compounded…. Accumulative compliance cost for last 10 years for this year alone would be $7,320 +/- per company.

I don’t know the accurate number, but let’s suppose that there are about 2.7 million companies in California. For this year, the 2.7 million companies will pay $19.7 billion just to comply with these regulations for last 10 years. They aren’t doing anything productive or useful with these costs. In 2008, California’s GSP was at $1.87 trillion. So, the tax imposed on Californian by this law about 1%. Thus, last 10 years of regulation effectively decreased the productivity of California by 1% at least. Even if these numbers are slightly off, I think the point is that the cost of compliance hurts. If you look at the states where they have the most problems, you will find that they are all states with high taxes, high regulations, and high debts.

Consumers in general didn’t cause this debt or deficit. It’s the politicians increased debt and deficit with ever increasing government regulations and government programs and people who voted these politicians in the first place. About 77% of the government spending is on none defense spending. The state entities like UK and Bangladesh are required by their very existing function to protect their borders, intruders, and at time, go to war. States are not required and created to pay for high school educations, school lunches, bus passes, or health insurance.

In 90s, there were persistent deficit. And during that time, any projected surplus is useless because politicians will find ways to spend them to get votes. That’s how politicians get their votes, with other people’s money. I love how these politicians pat themselves on the back while spending other people’s money. I love how these politicians claim how they solved some nebulous problems after their predecessors who were in same position who passed laws made same victorious claims.

Way to slower and eventually stop the deficit and debt is for the government programs to freeze or decrease, and the politicians stop voting for programs like the Universal HealthCare, the ObamaCare, a Medicare version 2.0. These pages are filled with interfaces/abstracts. Actual Implementation could be in many multiples. If you have a single page law that says a school should not carry any sodas. How many pages would it take to describe the actual implementation of the law? I would say at least several pages if not more than tens of pages. What’s would be the compliance cost for these pages of law/regulation? That’s before anyone receives any harm or benefit. People who passed these laws won’t be around or be responsible for these laws. In fact, they are never ever responsible for what they have passed. 

The automobile world order as of 2010

Toyota has great technical assets and manufacturing capacities even if they are slightly down for the moment. Toyota may not able to keep up with #1 ranking. However, I don't think this is a big deal.

VW has myriads of super technical assets. However, they are weak on sub $20,000 cars. I think, this fact will hurt them. VW can't buy their ways into better position forever.

Hyundai/Kia is a fast growing company. They have the basic fundamental technical assets, including 8 speed transmission, 5L V8 Engines, DI, Hybrids, Diesel, and other techs. Hyundai/Kia lacks super cars. But, super cars aren't necessary, although they are indicative of entity's technical boundaries.

Renault/Nissan is a good synergy company. Renault taking on the UI works and Nissan focusing on core technical assets. The Nissan GT-R is a technical marble. And their designs are very good. Their latest is the Nissan Juke with their 1.6L DIG Turbo.

Ford is the best US automaker by a big margin. It has good technical assets, still. Ford has great truck, passenger, and sports car line ups. Their vehicles are better than the GM and Chrysler counter parts.

GM is a big money loser, and it will be like this for a long time. GM is really bad at execution. GM has wealth of technical assets but it seems that GM can't pull them together correctly.

Fiat/Chrysler is a matter of time before Chrysler needs another host it can feed off of.

Honda will be a marginal car company, and that's how Honda likes it. It doesn't have the 6-speed transmission, V8 engine, Rear wheel drive platforms, or Direct Injection. Its hybrid vehicles are inferior to its competitors offerings. Acura brand doesn't perform well in US. Their SH-AWD isn't all that either. Their Prelude is gone. S2000 is gone. The NSX is marginal. Honda's truck is from Isuzu. Isuzu is a gonner, too. That's why the Honda's Ridgeline doesn't have the truck chassis. Isuzu is in a worse position than the 0-0-0- Mitsubishi.