Marvin the Martian

Recently, Holman Jenkins, in his Business World column in the Wall Street Journal, wrote a piece entitled "Tesla is a Compliance Company." His point was that Elon Musk's electric car company is not based on an entrepreneur identifying or creating a market for a product or service and then getting rich, or at least make a living, by supplying that product or service (the traditional free-market route).

He maintains that Tesla generates cash flow by exploiting the system of Gubmint subsidies (carrots) and mandates (the club stick) designed to get us to buy electric cars and save the world from the alleged menace of global warming, and I agree. But that's not what I want to talk about.

I went looking for Mr. Musk's incentives and motivations. Is he in it for the money? Mr. Musk made his first fortune when he and his brother put together a web software company called Zip2 (that no longer exists) and when it was sold off he pocketed $22,000,000.  Personally, I would've retired at this point and assumed the lifestyle I was born for: rich dilettante.

You see, regression therapy has enabled me to discover that I was kidnaped by gypsies as an infant from my wealthy but dissolute family that ultimately refused to pay my ransom (it's complicated) and I was eventually won by my "father" in a poker game in the Gem Saloon in Deadwood, SD.

When he sobered up the next day he realized his mistake. Being a house painter with a large family and a modest income, the last thing he needed was another kid to feed. But his wife (my "mother") and some of his other kids thought I was cute and convinced him to keep me. But that's not what I want to talk about.

Mr. Musk, now a nouveau riche techie, spent about half of his first fortune to become a co-founder of what eventually became PayPal. When the smoke cleared this time he walked away, at the ripe old age of 32, with $165,000,000. But that's not what I want to talk about.

A few years later Mr. Musk invested in, and eventually gained control of, Tesla Motors. To stay busy during the interim, he created SpaceX, a company that delivers supplies to the International Space Station via SpaceX designed and built rockets. But that's not what I want to talk about.

What I want to talk about is why Mr. Musk started SpaceX. It wasn't because he's one of those moguls that can't ever make enough money. It was to fulfill a dream. He believes, as do I, that to survive man needs to find a way to colonize other planets.

 This is not original to him, and certainly not to me -- any number of other dreamers have come to the same conclusion by varied paths for various reasons. Mr. Musk, however, decided to do something about it. The purpose of SpaceX is to lower the cost of, and advance the technology needed to, eventually, colonize Mars. How cool is that!

A theoretical reader erupts. "COLONIZE MARS! Have you lost your mind Pufendorf! (a former nom de plume...). We're up to our ass in alligators because someone forgot to drain the swamp and you want to... ."

"HEY, hey! settle down," replies the Pufenator, in a forceful but nevertheless gentlemanly tone.

Let me explain.

I believe that individuals (as well as personkind for that matter) function best, are more alive, more -- human -- when they are striving for goals, large and small. I also believe that having shared goals takes some of the edge off of our endless struggle to get along with others. This applies to our relationships with snifficant others as well as to all the other kids on the playground.

Mr. Musk wants to go to Mars (and beyond) because, as the Discovery channel never seems to tire of pointing out, there are no shortage of potential catastrophes capable of providing us with the same fate as our late lamented friends, the dinosaurs.

Also, what if the reason we've yet to be contacted by another race, in a universe large enough to make even a Super Sized WallyWorld look small, is because it's common for a given species to be obliterated before they can spread to another planet?

I want to go to Mars and beyond because there's something in it for almost all the kids on the playground and any goal that can pull people together in these fragmented times is certainly worth consideration.

Gaia worshiping climate warriors, cricket eaters, and tree huggers would welcome a chance for Mother Earth to rid herself of some of her ungrateful parasites.

Far right, freedom obsessed wingnuts could live on a planet that features limited gubmint, where the locals get to create all the rules not specifically mentioned in the Cosmic Constitution (crazy huh?). When Texas was a country people from the US in need of a geographical cure could paint GTT, gone to Texas, on their houses and discretely vacate the neighborhood. GTT could now mean gone to Tralfamadore.

There's never a shortage of people who want to get out of Dodge.

And if you elect to stay you could help tear down all the abandoned houses in your neighborhood and fill the empty lots with gardens, already a popular pastime in certain areas of Flyoverland.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2015 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

   

Macroeconomics

I’m not boasting, but I feel that I’m qualified to expound on such a weighty subject because of my extensive background in the field. I've studied both microeconomics and macroeconomics for an entire semester each at a local community college. Macroeconomics is the big picture view of the economy; what sort of economic system is the best for keeping us fat and happy, or lean and grumpy if that's what you're into.

After much pondering and wailing and gnashing of teeth, I’ve drawn a conclusion. When you encounter the phrase, “Most economists say...,” immediately check to see if your wallet is secure and turn your bonkercockie detector all the way up.

In 2009, Econ Journal Watch, “....a forum about economics research and the economics profession,” published the results of a survey of economists to determine areas of consensus (and disagreement) among members of the prestigious American Economics Association, est. 1885. This study, and others since, point to broad areas of consensus, at least on certain economic questions.  

Unfortunately, by the sixth paragraph, we’re told to take all this with a grain of salt because there are all sorts of variables that might render a given supposed consensus, in a given situation, false.      

“Economics,” as defined by Wikipedia, “is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.” Carefully note the phrase social science. We place a lot of faith in the physical sciences because in theory (pun intended) it’s possible to produce the same results from a given experiment, done the exact same way, every time.

Mainstream economists go to a great deal of trouble to collect and analyze the available data about a specific economic question, build computer models, draw graphs and solve equations. Then they come up with different answers and fight over them. For example:

Douglas W. Elmendorf, Ph.D., director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1.22.09 until 3.31.15, has carefully examined the data and has determined, unequivocally, that the Obama stimulus program worked.

J.D. Foster, Ph.D., former senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, former Associate Director of the OMB and currently deputy chief economist at the U.S Chamber of Commerce has carefully examined the data and has determined, unequivocally, that the Obama stimulus program failed.

"THERE ISN’T ANY RELIABLE INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE TO DECISIVELY CONFIRM EITHER SIDE’S VIEWS is everything that’s wrong about macroeconomics and the people who write about it." So says Russ Roberts, one of my heroes. He was specifically talking about Keynesian v. Austrian economics but his statement still holds true in this context.

I won't bore you by detailing each sides position. I'm sure you're sick of your favorite media sources endless analyses of Keynesian economic policies and why our The Gubmint embraces them. I'm just relieved we can still count on the Fourth Estate to do its job.

A current economic issue that affects us all just now is the debate over what policies will get our sluggish economy back on track. There are well-meaning, intelligent folks advocating everything from anarcho-capitalism to the squishy middle to a European-style welfare state (social democracy) to communism. The system we have in the USA is described as a mixed economy, a free market system but with no shortage of (over) regulation and a hefty dash (and growing) of welfare state. This leads me to another conclusion.

[I apologize in advance to anyone that is expecting me to light the nation's path out of the darkness. I do have an opinion, but opinions, as they say, are like...noses, everyone has one.]

We’re drowning in opinions and information. The information age makes it possible for any old fart, like myself, for example, to at least potentially join the deluge. Irony alert: Access to virtually unlimited information and opinions makes the “old school” notion that we need people and institutions we can rely on to act as information filters more important than ever. When it comes to economics my filter is, “Economics In One Lesson”  written by Henry Hazlitt and published in 1946.

The one lesson is, “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups” (my emphasis). Note the phrase, “art of economics.”

The (slim) book expands on this lesson without a single graph or equation. It’s easily available in its original form as well as in updated versions. When I’m king (oh crap, there he goes again) you will have to demonstrate familiarity with this book to get out of high school.

People that disagree with Hazlitt’s conclusions should study it because if you can’t make a convincing argument as to why a given conclusion is wrong, his simple logic will crush you. But you want to know the truth, right? You’re not just out to promote an agenda or confirm your biases, right?

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2015 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

    

 

 

      

     

   

Seven Dirty Words

George Carlin and his famous seven dirty words that you can’t say on TV routine literally changed the world, well, at least for those of us living in the USA. Mr. Carlin’s routine was, and still is, a comic masterpiece. However, it's a perfect illustration of one of my generations (baby boomers) more unfortunate tendencies -- tossing the tot out with the Jacuzzi water.  

We boomers grew up in an era of unprecedented affluence and scientific advances. We took this for granted, we thought this was normal. Even if the Greatest Generation (GG) had made a more determined effort to keep our feet on the ground it probably wouldn’t have done much good. They were our parents. Most parents are wired to want the best for their kids, even the parents that turn out to not be very good at being parents. Most parents will continue to want the best for their kids, even the kids that turn out to not be very good at being human offspring and opt for the high functioning chimpanzee track.

Most parents think (hope) their kids are special, and continue to tell them so, even once they realize their kids may be as flawed as they are, potentially even more so. The GG told the BBs we were special; they were amazed, and grateful, to be sharing a reality with us that was in many aspects even better than the dreams that had sustained them through the Great Depression and the Second World War. They told us we were special and lucky and that we had at least the potential to accomplish things they couldn't even imagine. After all, America put men on the moon less than a decade after JFK made it a national goal, clearly, the future was so bright the sunglasses industry wouldn’t be able to keep up with demand.  

Aside: Before continuing I must apologize if anything above or below triggers an anxiety attack of such magnitude that the reader's hands begin trembling with enough velocity to enable them to tint paint without the benefit of a machine. I know you had a terrible childhood and now thanks to me, your hands are shaking so badly you can’t get the lid off the Xanax bottle. Deep breath, deep breath, there you go, pop a couple of them babies and lay down, ain’t it time for Dr. Phil? So sorry, just relax, the rest of us will carry on without you. No, really, you’ve nothing to be embarrassed about, just chill.

Where was I? Oh, yeah, growing up baby boomer and being raised by parents that literally saved the world. If you were lucky enough to come of age taking food, clothing, and shelter, not to mention TV, stereo sound, various vaccines, McDonald's french fries (not the frankenfries they serve now, the ones made from fresh potatoes and fried in lard, as God intended) and the like for granted -- soup lines and fighting a world war that we could’ve lost resulting in enslavement if you were lucky, death if you weren’t -- is like, hard to relate to man.

Thanks mom and dad but look at all the stuff that's still wrong with the world, you need to get out of the way, we've got a utopia to build and we're in a hurry. We need to blow up a lot of the goofy beliefs you hold that are standing in the way of us establishing heaven on earth. For example, words are words, why are you so uptight about words, why do you want to censor everything?

Which brings us (finally...) to the seven dirty words and tot tossing. Words, obviously, are symbols. The word tree is not a tree, it's a label. If we were to decide that tree spelled backward, eert, was a better label and this new word caught on with our fellow speakers of English, trees could become eerts. Since eert is a bit awkward looking and sounding it would probably morph into ert. Ain't no thing, words are just words. Hunny look! ain't doze erts budafull? 

Bonkercockie! Words are the building blocks of language, language enables the networking of human minds, the networking of human minds enables us to survive, with a touch of style, a reality that is, "...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (Thomas Hobbes). Words, their meanings, and how they are used are important in the same way that the composition of building materials, and how they are assembled, determines whether your home is a hut or a house.  

Words have power. How much, and what kind of power, depends on their context and meaning. Language, how you use words, supplies the context and shapes the meaning. I've been known to use the phrase, what the hell. I've also been known to use the phrase, WTF. I use the world-famous acronym WTF here because I respect the power of the f-word and because the acronym works better within the context of this blog.  

If words are just words why is the psychic shrapnel from F-bombs tossed by tots more lethal than the psychic shrapnel of F-bombs tossed by truck drivers? Why do we want to toss the tots into a Jacuzzi and wash their mouths out with soap?  

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2015 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.