How too much easy money in the wrong places can make income discrepancy worse

The world awash in money, but it doesn't necessarily help. I watched this very interesting documentary on You Tube from DW German TV. It lays much of the blame for income disparity on low interest rates and the flood of money mostly available to big time borrowers. This situation fuels real estate inflation, corporate mergers and national debts. It means small savers get practically no interest on regular savings in the bank due to low interest rates. It doesn't do much to help startups or new innovations as banks tend to favor big outfits with recognized track records for loans. Doesn't do much for needed infrastructure either as governments borrow and then feel the pressure to pay back the debt leading to austerity measures.

In my opinion the easy money, low interest situation is created for basically two reasons. To reduce unemployment and to help indebted governments remain solvent. I think that both of these goals could be addressed in different ways.

As for unemployment, society does have an addiction to materialism. More wealth is seen as the solution to every problem. Instead, maybe we could aspire to a philosophy that I saw on a protest sign one day.

"Consume less, work less, live more fully."

Solutions, such as working less, could be seen as improvements to society. Less economic activity to harm the environment, more free time for quality of life things like friends, family and volunteer activity. Less harm to environment at least until green technology can be in place. A way to buy time for the earth while waiting for green technology. To some extent, unemployment can be addressed with better distribution of wealth and work. Shorter working hours, more flexible schedules, job sharing. This could take some pressure off the need to stimulate the economy.

I don't feel like we have to go back to the dark ages, however. Prosperity is good, but, like so many things, it needs to be balanced with other values.

I realize that there is the danger of a downward economic spiral if people strive to work less, earn less and consume less. Consumer spending props up the economy. This philosophy of less consumption would need to be applied carefully. Applied as just one part of a balanced picture.

Reducing consumption shouldn't be that hard as a lot of technology pushes that direction anyway. Miniaturization. Like going from incandescent lights of the past that were energy hogs to LED technology. Solid state electronics versus the vacuum tube. Telecommuting versus driving.

Seems like technology keeps advancing whether the economy is booming or not. Advances in manufacturing can reduce the need for hard work. We are awash in low cost products to buy and free information on the internet. The big problem is that certain important things, like housing and healthcare, have become so expensive that living the less hassled life becomes improbable. One must work two jobs just to rent a studio apartment in many cities. This is a problem caused by too much money inflating certain sectors of the economy while other sectors bring abundance at low cost.

Idealistically, the true bottom line should be quality of life, not just amount of income, but it's hard to strive for that quality when an astronomical rent is due. In spite of great abundance due to prosperity, we seem to be facing a problem of inflation in certain sectors such as housing that is fueled by too much money. Money in the wrong places.

As for the problem of funding governments, here are some ideas that people might think are "off the wall." I've read some of these suggestions before so they aren't just out of my hat. Of course collecting taxes is the idea way, but given Republican style politics in the US and other places, tax collection is difficult. The need for government spending continues anyway as even Republicans want bigger defense outlays and practically no one favors big cuts in things like Medicaid.

Since central banks are printing money anyway, why can't they just give part of that money to governments? Yes, just give it for free. At least part of the time. Give it out rather than loaning it to be paid back. If they want to stimulate the economy, why can't they just print the money and give it to the government to spend on infrastructure, scientific research and other "big picture" needs of society?

I think a lot of economists would think this is a preposterous idea that would lead to uncontrolled inflation. Well, the world is awash in money now and we have high inflation in many sectors today, such as housing. In some cases, governments are so far in debt, that money isn't likely to be paid back anyway. Even if the money is given to governments for free, central banks can still, conceivably, cut back on that money supply to curb spending and inflation.

Maybe the central banks could provide government revenue as a combination of loans and free money.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical about Republican tax cuts and spending (military) plans. We might have to give up on the idea of paying back the loans. That admission could rock the economic boat, but we really have to rethink economics anyway.

We should figure out some soft landings and thoughtful transitioning of in our way of doing things. Hopefully we can avoid panic.

How can we subscribe to that many publications? How about pay per article?

In trying to find a business model that pays for journalism, lots of media, like New York Times, is putting content behind paywalls. Not being able to subscribe to all the hundreds of publications that I see headlines for on social media, I've often thought there could be a pay per article system set up.

Recently, there was a show on KQED that talked about problems in the advertising business; advertising also a revenue source for journalism. Someone suggested that sites like Facebook should pay for the news content they use.

Bingo, a light came on in my head. There could be a premium version of (for instance) Facebook that could get people past paywalls of various participating publications. Maybe a pay per article feature that would keep track and deduct from one's subscriber account or maybe a flat fee that would cover participating media.

Years ago America Online had something like that. Free access to certain magazines that came with your membership in AOL. Remember the 1990s?

Should the children have not been born before they get to our borders?

That's my provocative statement pointing out the hypocrisy of right to lifers that want to put walls at our borders and possibly send people back to the gang violence and deadly situations where they came from.

It's true that more people want to come to the US than are legally allowed by our outdated immigration quotas. Seems like our quotas, for legal immigration, were created when there were less people in the world. Less people to be knocking at our doors.

In recent years, Congress has been pretty gridlocked about updating things like the immigration quotas. Updating to better reflect not only world population, but also the number of people working in our economy. Many of the undocumented immigrants are a vital part of today's economy, so I hear.

While people talk about immigrants taking jobs, it seems like the bigger problem is housing. The economy tends to expand as more people, more consumers, more workers arrive. A bigger problem is the amount of affordable housing near our metropolitan areas where most of the jobs are and most of the people need to live.

We need to keep looking at the big picture. How many people are migrating around the world, including people coming to the US? How are we planning for our population?

Maybe we can't expect to have as much free parking as we had in the past since that takes up too much space in our growing metro areas.

We need to evolve toward things like denser development, lower footprint living, better transit and more walk able neighborhoods. It all interconnects and we need to talk about the big picture story. How best to accommodate people living on this planet and how many people are living on this planet. Family planning is a big part of the picture also.

A more useful game. The goal of who can create the cleanest, best sorted stream for recycling.

If I had the bully pulpit, one thing I would tweet about would be recycling. We could create a game that would have the goal of producing the most usable recycling stream for industry. Teams could be formed from companies, organization and so forth to compete over how useful their recycling streams become. Similar to organizations competing on Bike to Work Day over what percentage of their employees bike. The contest would be about the recycling and garbage streams we produce. Are things cleaned and separated? What type of bins do we need. More than one bin for different types of plastic? This could be a game of strategy. Especially needed, these days, now that China no longer wants to sort our waste. If we lived more intentionally and thought about things like this, rather than just sports and video games, our recycling could become more useful to our industry and our planet could be cleaner.

Hypocrisy of pro life organizations with children at the border

Very good editorial written by someone that is pro life.

From article.

Because it regularly forces children into places where their lives are under threat, Bishop Flores argued, it is “not unlike driving someone to an abortion clinic.”

So why can’t the biggest pro-life organizations join these religious leaders in condemning the administration’s treatment of children?

Where is National Right to Life? Where is the Susan B. Anthony List?

I would say, maybe there are too many children being born into this world. Overwhelming at times, but there are better ways to deal with that situation than this hypocrisy. Family planning before the children are born for instance. Also compassion and accommodation once the children are born, even if they are the neighbor children.

Maybe Trump's video at Summit with North Korea could have put bicycles in a better light

The White House created "propaganda" video that so many people are talking about. Some news commentators are scoffing at this saying the White House just made a North Korean propaganda video. Those commentators might have missed the point. It seems like it's not a praise of North Korea, today, but instead, it's a sails job about what North Korea could become if it were to lay down it's nuclear weapons and have more normalized relations with the US and other countries.

When I watched it, the video reminded me of a corporate sales pitch. I think it was designed, not for general audiences, but for the North Korean leadership. A style of video they might appreciate. Looks kind of cheesy to us, but I have a feeling that a lot of our corporate videos, for things like new employee orientation, are similar.

I should be offended as I think the only bicycle shown was not very appealing. A few black and white pictures, placed in the video, reminded people of what North Korea is more like today, I guess. Fences, military things, poverty and a broken bicycle. This, as opposed to the whiz bang world of bright lights, economic prosperity and tall buildings. Photos from other cities such as Asian cities gaining prosperity. So much for their (the White House's) image of the bicycle. It's about wealth. Really, the bicycle can be wealth also, but they don't include everything. They also, of course, don't show our border wall.

Living the life

Some friends of mine that live in a collective household had a house party where the public was invited. I thought I would just drop by, but got to talking with quite a few folks. It was a fun and intelligent time for me tho I am not a big party person. I'm also getting up there in the years, but maybe that shouldn't stop me.

At one point, two folks passing through, from Seattle, invited me to join them as they checked out a few other weekend parties around the college neighborhood. I said, "this is probably the most interesting of the parties right here." They agreed and decided to stay. As they put it, "this party had a naked guy that looked like Jesus serving lemonade."

At the party, I saw that the house had installed a hot tub out in their garden. Next day I decided to ride past on my way to another errand to get a better look at the new addition. Didn't think anyone would be using the tub, but someone, I know, saw as I biked by and invited me to join in. I did for a bit. A serendipitous change of plans as I was on my way across town for something else.

If the male clerk looks cute and friendly, I'll stand in the longer line. I've got the time.

More and more automation in the grocery business. See this little video about Ocado's grocery technology. I'm not a Luddite, but one wonders what role humans will play in the future.

This may sound outside the box, but as a customer, I sometimes find myself choosing the supermarket line that I stand in by how attractive the clerk is. In my case, how attractive the male clerk is.

This is a different criteria than the pure efficiency of the shortest line. I'm usually not in a hurry so there are other criteria than just getting out of the store the fastest. I realize, tho that conversation with the clerk is usually very brief. I'm not one to hold up the line when others are waiting. I have had some good, but brief conversations with clerks, especially when no one is waiting behind me. The looks of the clerk really doesn't matter that much once there is conversation. Looks just motivate my choice of checkout line, sometimes, especially when I don't know any of the clerks.

These are some of my thoughts on what humans can provide. The personal connection. Most of the time, however, the personal connection is not really that valuable in the efficient setting of a supermarket. In the future, maybe people will engage in deep conversation while machines take over the routine tasks.

On the other hand, even doing routine tasks can be meditative so we will need to keep some of those jobs around. It's just that pure efficiency shouldn't be the only criteria in life. Sometimes the slower checkout line is worth it.

Ideas about naked bike ride. Another fun year.

Here's a link to a few photos and mostly thoughts about riding in Bellingham's Naked Bike Ride for another year, 2018.

Below is text from one of the images that I set to "adult" in Flickr just to be on the safe side. You can see the text here if you haven't set your Flickr for adult. Other photos, in that tag, are safe and on open web, including one of me partially clothed. Even the "adult" one is taken from a distance, so not that risque. This year's display, on my gallery, is more about the commentary.

Dance party after 2018 ride

Taking part in the ride and the dance was wonderful. The feel of the energy, music and the friendliness of the people.

The staging area has been in photo zones during recent years so I keep my camera in my pannier not being one who rocks the boat. Along the South Bay Trail was a different matter. This is the one photo I got as I also didn't fumble with my camera while riding. Hard to capture the energy in just images anyway.

It's always sort of like a Shangri la aside from mainstream society. A bit like drinking from a fountain of youth tho folks from all ages, including my own, nearing retirement, were there. Most of the crowd was skewed toward the 20 somethings, but it seemed like people were mingling beyond those arbitrary boundaries. Soon after I arrived at the painting party before the ride, a young woman offered to paint me.

Weather was a bit cooler than last year so the gathering of riders and onlookers was slightly smaller. I think they counted 315 riders this year and more like 385 last year. Still enough.

The cool breeze added to my Shangri la feeling of the dance. Dancing generates heat and the breeze was refreshing. Air was flowing up from a wooded area across the South Bay Trail from the HUB Bike Shop where folks were gathered.

Some of the dancers were on top of a metal shipping container, up above the rest of the party.

Authentic art from the heart versus non discrimination. Maybe rules could be slightly bent to avoid a winner take all battle

Here in Washington State we have another artist versus non discrimination case. I guess it's similar to the case in yesterday's news about the baker in from Colorado. Here in Washington, the case is about a florist.

I can somewhat sympathize with the florist even though I am a supporter of LGBTQ civil rights. While I think civil rights that are based on sexual orientation are as valid as civil rights based on anything else, I also believe that there are lots of grey areas in laws. In some cases, rules can be bent versus trying to force everyone into a single mold. If I was getting married, I wouldn't want the person baking my cake or arraigning the flowers to be doing it under duress. For that important milestone in my life, I would want an artist who's heart was in my favor.

While saying this, I realize that our society is in a culture war and I do worry, a bit, about my side (basically left) often seeming to try and be reasonable, to acquiesce in the name of civility if the "other side" doesn't ever compromise or give an inch. There's a phrase that goes, "nice guys (or I should say nice people) finish last." It's too bad that we have gotten into such a "winner take all" culture war that each side feels we can't try and be reasonable.

Apparently, according to this video, the florist and the gay couple had a good understanding and respect for one another. She didn't mind referring the couple to another florist. They were even able to remain customers for other items, like buying flowers off the shelf that wouldn't require something from the heart of an artist. It wasn't until Washington State Attorney General got involved making this a test case for LGBTQ civil rights that it became a high stakes battle.

I believe civil rights laws, including LGBTQ rights, should stand, but I also believe in trying to be reasonable before things have to end up in court or in a winner take all war.

That being said, I do still worry about Republicans controlling pretty much all branches of Federal Government, these days. As for the culture war, we do need to elect more Democrats to office. At the same time, we, on both sides, can try and be, at least somewhat, accommodating of our fellow citizens.

This discussion about the Colorado case was interesting. I continue thinking flexibility in interpretation of laws can help versus a winner take all case before the Supreme Court. Especially this Supreme Court at the federal level as it's likely to not rule in our favor. Trump is breaking records appointing justices to federal courts that Congress seems to be all but rubber stamping.

Personally, I feel like sexual orientation is similar to religion in one way. People will sometimes say that race is genetic while sexual orientation is not. Well, religion is not genetic either and it's still one of the first 4 protected classes. Race, Religion, Creed and National Origin. Of course I also realize that sexual orientation may have deep biological roots; deeper than religion, but some would still dispute that.

As for whether religious rights has anything to do with the artist's claim for protecting her free speech, I don't feel religion should create a special exclusion. I would base my leniency, toward her, on the First Amendment and the right to not be compelled to express ideas one disagrees with.

I'm socially liberal and fiscally not necessarily conservative, but realize we can't have it all. Life's trade offs.

Many people say they are socially liberal while being fiscally conservative. I can't really say that I am fiscally conservative as I have tended to vote for most taxes (except the recent jail measure). I also support quite a bit of domestic spending for things like parks, infrastructure, social services and so forth. Rather than saying I am fiscally conservative, I do understand that lots of things in life are trade offs. We can't have it all, tho it does seem like people, on both the left and the right, tend to be spoiled in American culture. I'm not really fiscally conservative, but I do realize we can't have it all. I also realize business has to remain viable to create a paycheck. It's basically a matter of balance.

One example of a trade off is the McCleary decision about school funding in Washington State. McCleary, as well as the subsequent hike in property taxes.

Lots of people, especially on the left, applauded that decision, but now folks are saying their property taxes have jumped up this year.

In the past, Washington voters have voted against state income taxes so most of our money, for education and so forth, comes from sales and property taxes.

I was never jumping up and down demanding more funding for schools, but I do realize that schools do have legitimate needs and the job of teachers is not easy. I did vote for Bellingham's recent school bond for some school expansions in our growing city. I also have tended to vote for ongoing levies for school operation.

Now it looks like taxes are going up, but property values keep rising. Teachers need to be able to afford to live in the districts they serve. I guess I realize that there is never a totally free lunch. Much of life is trade offs.