Infrastructure?

Amtrak Locomotive
image via Wikimedia CommonsFirst, as a libertarian, I'm of course holding my nose even just writing this post... things should be funded by private enterprise rather than government. But since it's being talked about, and it's going to happen anyway... might as well make some constructive suggestions

Everyone has ideas for what sort of infrastructure the big stimulus should build. Everyone says be smart, and avoid pork... way easy to say but hard to do.

Some stuff is obvious:

• Improve the electric grid so that renewable energy can be routed to where it is needed.
  
• Fix bridges, tunnels, water mains, and so forth that really need it

Those are both "construction" sorts of things. Manufacturing has been hit too, though.

Amtrak has seen a surge in ridership of late, as other modes of transportation have become pricier. But they're running into limits. Why? Amtrak has a rolling stock shortage. For years, their capital budget has been far short of replacement, and there are lines of passenger cars in need of repair, awaiting funds. New trains or more frequent service are proposed and often deferred because there just isn't the rolling stock available.

So then... build some... increase Amtrak's capital budget, and get the shops going repairing things. That has the advantage of not only stimulating manufacturing, it also produces something that's actually needed, and when used, will reduce energy consumption.

And don't limit it to Amtrak, review all the other mass transit modes and see what capital improvements for rolling stock have been lacking. We need that more than we need new freeways that promote urban sprawl.

Bail out the Big Three?

Image via WikipediaEveryone's talking about it, so surely this is just one more voice in a sea of noise...

Bailing out the Big Three (Chrysler, General Motors, Ford) automakers is a bad idea. They should be allowed to restructure. Even if that means bankruptcy. Why? Because without restructuring, we are just postponing the day of reckoning and making it worse when it does come.

Look, I'm from Michigan. It will be painful. Hugely. People will lose their jobs. But the alternative is worse. The Big Three made some bad decisions. Bankruptcy is a way to take the useful assets and try something different.

Some will say that bankruptcy means everything shuts down. Nope. The automakers will still be making autos, still be making spare parts. Just not under current management and with current contracts. Airlines keep flying. Railways keep running. Stuff just gets cut.

Some will say that no one will buy cars from a bankrupt maker. If the maker is bankrupt it doesn't mean the car that was OK to buy yesterday all of a sudden falls apart. Nor does it mean that parts will never be available or that cars can't get repaired. Parts come from a network of suppliers. Ford hasn't made Model T parts in over 70 years, but they're out there, in the aftermarket. Repairs are carried out by dealers. And dealers make most of their money from service, not sales... dealers will continue to repair things, they'd be foolish not to.

So... let them fail, if they're going to. And let them KNOW they will fail if they can't sort things out themselves... that will give them incentive.

Schumpeter speaks of creative destruction. Let it create. This is a case where the village has to be destroyed in order to save it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Seeking Aid, Automakers Have a Friend in the U.A.W.
• UAW chief: No more concessions
• Here Comes Auto Industry Bailout Bills
• Showdown Over A "Dinosaur" Auto Industry
• POLL: Would you buy a car from a company in bankruptcy?

Finger pointing

Barney Frank
Image by Getty Images
via DaylifeSo the bailout failed. Count me in the glad camp, maybe now a second try will come up with something more reasonable, something that really gets after the problem. Taking up toxic paper and leaving taxpayers holding the bag wasn't going to solve this mess.

But in among the finger pointing for the failure going on here (and there is a lot of it going on isn't there?), where is the finger pointed at Barney Frank? I think most agree this mess is due in large part is the vast number of bad loans given out during the housing bubble. Bad money drives out good, and when you had Fannie May and Freddy Mac competing against private lenders, but using loose underwriting standards, it only caused investors to clamor for other lenders to do the same...

Frank's irresponsible comments and actions to sabotage reining in the two GLCs are among the causes of that cause. His attempts to deflect inquiries into that by harping on CEO pay ought to be treated as what they are... BS. If you want to know the root cause, start by looking into which lobbyists gave which legislators how much, and when, and what the effect was on bills that would have required GLCs to follow the same standards as private companies.

You're no doubt tired of hearing it, but my party was against this well before it was fashionable.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fannie Mae's Patron Saint :: WSJ
  An editorial giving more detail on my allegations of Mr. Frank's irresponsibility
  

SpaceX, making it easier to get the heck out of Dodge?

Falcon 1 at launch complex
Image via Wikimedia CommonsWhen I was growing up, I wanted to be an astronaut. I suspect I wasn't the only person who felt that way. Heck, I even wrote NASA for an application.

In a previous posting, I questioned the value of Constellation and wondered why NASA isn't just farming the job out to SpaceX. That reminded me that I haven't written about one of my favorite new companies yet.

SpaceX, one of several companies started by Elon Musk, of PayPal fame and fortune, is trying to make space travel cheaper. This is a non trivial task, and the first two launches did not achieve orbit, but the company insists they were successful in the sense that they learned and refined a lot.

They have a novel approach to PR, they seem to be willing to put a fair bit of stuff right out in public... in particular they had live feeds of their first two launches, which was pretty cool.

Dragon and Falcon 9
Image via WikipediaSpaceX has three different projects going... the Falcon 1, and the Falcon 9, two different sized mostly reusable launchers, and the Dragon vehicle, which is a crew and cargo vessel that can be launched atop a Falcon 9.

With the activity at Scaled Composites (including winning the X prize) going on, it really looked like the 2000s were going to be the decade where space travel really went commercial. But both Scaled and SpaceX have suffered some delays. Scaled Composites had a damaging accident and the first launch of the Falcon 9 has been pushed back. They've tried to put a good spin on it, but still.Image by jurvetson via Flickr
So I'm still hopeful, but maybe not quite as. Maybe it will take a bit longer. Maybe it can't be done at all and we're doomed to government space? I certainly hope not! Is the fact that SpaceX have won some NASA contracts a good sign? A bad one? What do you think?

Is Constellation just a rehash of Apollo?

Image via WikipediaNASA has proposed "Project Constellation", which aims to put men back on the moon by 2020. Part of the project are the "Orion" manned vehicle, launched by the "Ares" (in versions I and V) rocket, and using the "Altair" lunar lander.

Some have evaluated the program and see it as another big expensive project that will compete for funding with science, and also will compete with the Commercial off the shelf (COTS) initiative.

While I've been a big fan of space exploration all my life, I have my doubts about this whole thing.

Except for some semi reuse at the beginning, it sure seems like the entire thing is more or less "Apollo, but bigger and better" ... Aries I and V (which use Shuttle SRB derived first stages) launch a crew module and lander separately, a rendezvous in orbit mates those and the crew module stays in orbit around the moon while the lander lands. The descent stage is left on the moon, just like the LEM.

Why do this at all? We already know how to do this. Instead of developing new government rockets, (and make work projects) why not just pay for launch capacity from SpaceX or whoever? Or better yet, how about actually building some industrial capacity on the lunar surface? I want the transformative activity in near earth space that science fiction promised us. It's 2008, where's my lunar catapult?

What do you think? Rehash or value add?

Money can't buy happiness?

Sometimes following tangents finds you interesting things. Danny's "White Fathers" blog post yesterday on what really would help folk in Africa, whether the WMF's mission of knowledge sharing was the most needful thing started the wheels turning for me.

Those wheels got a push from this thread on Wikipedia Review, and from Danny's "Congo" response to it here. I think maybe sometimes we lose track, in our situations, of how things really are and aren't, and what we can do about them. What I'm about to say should in no way be taken as diminishing how tough things are in places like the sub Sahara, the Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe and the like. They're tough, make no mistake, way tougher than in the rich world...

So when I hear people saying "Money can't buy happiness?" I want to call BS. First, take a look at this classic essay by John Scalzi, "Being Poor" It's a rich world essay to be sure, but it drives home the point... being poor really really sucks.

Then take a look at this New York Times article... Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All ... Granted, its a study of the rich world, and of the well off people within it, but (quoting)

The fact remains that economic growth doesn’t just make countries richer in superficially materialistic ways.

Economic growth can also pay for investments in scientific research that lead to longer, healthier lives. It can allow trips to see relatives not seen in years or places never visited. When you’re richer, you can decide to work less — and spend more time with your friends.

That's rich world stuff... but the same thing is true in the less rich world. As Ben Yates cited in a "White Fathers" reply, cellphones can make a difference, and that says to me that aid isn't the solution. Changing society is the solution. Economic growth is the solution. Knowledge is the solution. Danny's right when he says an encyclopedia per se isn't the answer, that more thought is required, it has to deliver the things that are needed. But those who decry encyclopedias and economic and societal change in favour of direct aid? They miss the mark.

Money can't buy happiness? Tell it the the lady in Alabama with the 800 dollar car. Tell it to the mother in Gambia without the money to buy a sack of maize.

Money CAN buy happiness.... but the best kind of money is money you control because you earned it, because your society enabled it, not money that dropped in your lap.