I’ll come back to this article about product development.
Californians against opportunistic celebrity fuckwads and
Where do people get the idea Howard Dean’s a liberal? OR
Who I am and not going to vote for
I will start a recall petition to moment Arnold is elected governor. Apparently, its easy to do if you have a rich friend to bankroll the signature drive.
We’re all to blame for this. All of us Californians. We’ve allowed this to happen. We have the screwy Constitution that weakens our elected officials. We elect weak state politicians. We have a disdain for leadership and as a symptom have lousy schools. It’s easy to say that the recall is becoming a carnival, but we’re the geeks(2) and freaks in the show.
Oh, also, I’m going to register as a democrat so I can vote for Dean in the primary.
Frankly, I think her belly button is cuter before the touch-up…
Anyway, I was at the make-up counter(s) at Macy’s yesterday …Don’t ask me why… and I was noticing all the hideous women buying makeup. Fat women, ugly women, old women. Their faces had looks of desperation. “I need something, anything, to cover this up!” It occurred to me that that’s all they were doing. Covering up. I’m sure that if you spent one second talking to any of those women you would see that their personalities are as ugly as their bodies.
Don’t get insulted. I’m not being misogynist. There are ugly men, too. But for the most part, we don’t feel the need to hide it. We’re ugly and we know it and we know that you know it.
In the end, I just asked myself why. Why do they do that? Why can’t they just live their ugly, little lives without torturing themselves, and us, with a charade?
Also, yesterday, I saw a very fat woman riding a bike out on Foothill. At first, I was staring at the unusual sight and then as I passed her I noticed a huge grin on her ugly, fat face. I knew then that she knew and that she was ok with me knowing… I almost stopped and asked her to marry me.
UPDATE: Dave wrote on this theme in DaveNet
Ocean breeze cools the blowing sand
Across the beach, onto the road.
The skys, clear, show promise,
A vision of tomorrow.
I saw her tonight strutting
In the Castro, alone, strong.
The wind whispers that it is forever gone,
That Love slips away in the chill summer breeze.
I had a post a couple days again that had this ‘completely different note’:
“why are there no aggregate wealth statistics that are widely reported? I mean you hear about GDP everyday it seems in one article or another. It seems that the health of the economy, as businesses, can be judged by looking at income AND the balance sheet (which I take to mean wealth).”
The Economist also points out this deficiency. They introduce two concepts FI (fiscal imbalance) and GI (generational imbalance). The first measures a sort of national balance sheet and the second measures discounted cash flows of the current generation (a negative value means that future generations will need to pick up the tab, in addition to paying for their own benefits).
The government can no more measure its fiscal health by measuring only its current income than a business can. The business who does this, ignores the revenues to be gained in the future by its current assets and it misses the burden of debts that may not come due but in years hence. The first thing you learn in financial accounting courses is that a good financial analysts take income, cash flow and the balance sheet in to account when analyzing the health of a company. The same is true of the government.
The government makes promises to its citizens that amount to debts that will come due only in the future. These promises are ignored by measures of GDP, deficit and debt. Those debts only make sense in the context of its future assets. Making promises is fine as long as policies also allow for those promises to be paid for. So measuring the difference between the present value of all future debt and assets gives a better sense of the fiscal health of the government.
Similarly, if a government is cash flow negative in the short term, it is borrowing against future generations. At some point cash flows will need to equalize. This is why its important to measure the balance of cash for the current generation to see how much they’re borrowing against us kids.
I’ve started to read the Gokhale and Smetters paper and I’m pretty sure I’m misplacing the analogies between FI and GI and balance sheets and cash flow statements… But its a start. I think this is an important enough issue to look into more seriously.
How can you not love Dolly Parton?
I haven’t seen North by Northwest or Citizen Kane. I guess I better…
I would put Casablanca and Gone with the Wind higher on the list and I would choose episode V over IV.
Sounds like there are no grand theories on connections between unemployment and productivity (at least in the long run).
The article states 2 ways in which technology improvements can cause permanent changes to the natural unemployment rate:
1. Job search technology speeds up the process of finding the right employer for the unemployed worker. The natural unemployment rate is ‘natural’ because all workers spend some time in between jobs. If this in-between time is shorter than fewer people will be unemployed at any one time.
2. Productivity growth increases profit (more output per unit of labor) which encourages firms to want to produce more by hiring more workers.
There’s one ‘it depends’ model presented that shows that examines the fact that some technical progress may destroy more jobs than it creates. The determining factor is the cost of upgrading jobs as capital becomes obsolete. If it costs a lot to upgrade an existing job as the capital used in that job becomes obsolete, that job will be abandoned. The problem with this model is that the relationship between unemployment and productivity depends on the type of job and the technology. In other words, it says nothing of the relationship between the two in aggregate.
Too bad, this last model has appeal. I wonder if we can talk about productivity in terms of its relationship to unemployment by examine its decreasing and increasing components… change in employment equals change in leveraged productivity (technical progress that improves existing jobs) minus change in replicative productivity (technical progress that replaces existing jobs). How would you measure aggregate productivity broken into its leveraged and replicative components? I’m sure I could find out more here, but I’m going to pass on paying $30 to see the article… Berkeley has it, and I guess you can access the article via ScienceDirect if your inside Berkeley’s network.