Update no.635

Update from the Heartland

No.635

10.2.14 – 16.2.14

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- Congress passed the Temporary Debt Limit Extension Act [PL 113-xxx; S.540; Senate: 55-43-0-2(0); House: 221-201-0-10(3); 127 Stat. xxxx], which suspends the public debt limit for the period through on 15.March.2015 – after the mid-term elections.  The bill appears to be clean of any pork barrel spending, and is quite atypical of recent Congresses.  It may be too much to hope or expect that our congressional representatives have received the message from the hinterland to amend their wayward performance.  As of this Update, the publicly available information indicates the President has not yet signed the bill into law; however, he is expected to do so.

The European Commission (EC), the European Union’s executive body, decided to up the ante to reduce U.S. influence over the Internet's infrastructure.  While the concern has been simmering for years, the illegal revelations by that fugitive from justice in Russia brought those concerns to a roiling boil.  The EC has “lost confidence” in the global network’s current makeup, and will propose the adoption of “concrete and actionable steps” to globalize essential Web functions.  The unsaid objective is to reduce the perceived ability of the NSA & GCHQ to carry out their missions.  Segmenting or breaking up the continuity of the Internet will not enhance the capabilities or efficiency of the World Wide Web.  I do not see this initiative as a positive turn.

When it rains, it pours!  The non-heterosexual equal rights cases are coming faster than I can keep up with them, and I doubt there are new reflections on the law in these latest cases.  U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II issued his ruling on the Kentucky marriage restrictions in the case of Bourke v. Beshear [USDC KY WD case no. 3:13-cv-00750-JGH (2014)], and U.S. District Judge Arenda Lauretta Wright Allen issued a similar ruling against Virginia in the case of Bostic v. Rainey [USDC VA ED case no. 2:13cv395 (2014)].  Both Kentucky and Virginia laws prohibiting non-heterosexual marriage were declared unconstitutional.  ‘Nuf said!  The inexorable march to freedom continues.

News from the economic front:

-- Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen testified before the House Financial Services Committee that she expects there to be “a great deal of continuity” in the central bank's policies.  Yellen also indicated that recent soft economic data has not swayed the central bank from a strategy of trimming its monthly bond purchases by US$10B at each of its policy meetings this year.

-- The Bank of England (BoE) expects the U.K. economy to expand 3.4% in 2014, a much quicker pace than the 2.8% growth it predicted in November.  Although BoE raised its forecast, they anticipate that the benchmark interest rate will remain low for the foreseeable future to improve unemployment.  They will take a broader look at how many hours Britons are working and other labor-market signals to assess whether they need to tighten monetary policy.

-- The European Union's statistics office reported the Euro-zone Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased 0.3% in 4Q2013, or an annualized rate of 1.1%, marking the third straight quarter of growth. The data suggests the European economy is recovering from the Great Recession in good order.

-- Japan's GDP expanded at an annualized pace of 1% in 4Q2013, much lower than forecast, as expenditures by companies and individuals failed to expand substantially from the previous quarter.  The disappointing results will likely increase worries about how the country’s domestic-driven recovery will fare once the nation's sales tax is raised to 8% from 5% in April.  The action will probably add at least a temporary chill in demand, which would put even more pressure on the nation’s economic recovery.

Continuation from Update no.633:

 . . . Round Five:

“I tire of discussing the Ayn Rand point of view, which ignores a basic fact of human life. We are social animals, interdependent emotionally and economically. Any consideration of human reality must include that factor and one result of that is that the supposedly self-sufficient individual does not exist much in the real world. Those who do so at the emotional level are a known quantity and are called ‘psychopaths.’ Nobody is completely self-sufficient economically.“Also, I will remind you again that the ‘slippery slope’ is a fallacy in logic. No chance exists of raising the US minimum wage to $20 per hour any time soon, much less the $1000 you mentioned in a prior response. Nor will the United States begin providing free food or housing in any direct way, even though the total number of jobs is or will soon be less than the total number of workers as technology replaces people. The slippery slope is simply a scare tactic, very similar to reductio ad absurdum.

“For the discussion of addiction and choice, I refer you to the entire field of study. Plenty of information is readily available. If you choose not to study that information you are free to avoid it, but do not present yourself as knowledgeable.

“Incidentally, your notion that 95% of people would cease working if they won the lottery does not match actual results. Many winners change their fields of work, but most continue doing some sort of work. Only a few of us have better things to do.

“PS: You sent me an article by Robert Samuelson that I failed to notice initially. In any case, I do not read Mr. Samuelson's output. I have no respect for his intellect.”

 . . . my response to Round Five:

            Re: interdependence.  While I absolutely agree in the broad, general sense, we must not lose sight of the reality, there are true psychopaths who care nothing about another human being, and there are others who wish to disconnect from humanity.  Regardless, your observation remains spot on accurate and creates a sub-surface network that drives our motivation and actions.

            Re: slippery slope.  My argument is not a sarcastic tactic; it is a bona fide effort to establish sensitivity to limits or boundaries, i.e., how far can this go?  I have found the process allows us to explore the factors that affect a particular issue, in this case minimum wage, because in most cases we must decide where to draw the line of what is reasonable?  Yes, I know it is highly unlikely to impossible.  But . . . what if?  Point is, there is rarely enough.

            Re: addiction.  My experience is first hand.  I have never made any claim of authority or even expertise.  Yet, my opinion remains valid for my experience and knowledge.  FYI: I’m not quite sure what you are objecting to, or feel the need to put me in my inferior place.  An explanation would be helpful to avoid sensitivities in the future.

            Again, my experience is most folks do not work for the pleasure of work; they work for a paycheck and other related monetary factors.  I suppose in this discussion topic, we need a definition of work.

            There is no requirement to read Samuelson’s opinion, after all he is just another flawed human being as we all are.

 . . . Round Six:

“My point about people being interdependent is a response to the common but false notion that people can and should make decisions that take no others' welfare into account, as presented by Ayn Rand and her modern followers. People's economic well-being depends on the well-being of the society in which they live. Thus, the idea that employers should attempt to pay people wages on which the employees cannot make a living falls through. This shows itself in issues such as turnover, employee (and manager) misbehavior, and declines in sales due to potential customers not having money to buy products or services.

“I never thought you meant your comment about extreme minimum wages sarcastically. That's the sad part. If I thought you intended it comically, I would have let it go. I thought and said that you employed a logical fallacy as a scare tactic. Maybe you scared yourself first; I cannot know that. All the same, there is no chance that the minimum wage will go up to $20. The current debate is an attempt to set for now that reasonable limit you claim to seek.  The statement you made is a textbook example of that logical fallacy of the slippery slope. If we are to have a rational debate, shouldn't we make an attempt to be logical?

“If your first-hand experience of addiction is not that of an addict, you need to study the subject. This is not malice but my sad recognition that very few people have a clear view of this disease. My own experience and study, not some emotional reaction to your wording, brought out that comment. Those surrounding the addict have issues of their own and cannot be objective without recovery, therapy or some other kind of help.

“If people in general do not work because they choose to, why do lottery winners so often continue working? Most of them do, and they work in paid, not volunteer, jobs. Of course, many begin their own businesses but that is still traditional work.”

 . . . my response to Round Six:

            Re: Ayn Rand.  I have not read any of her work, and I do not have sufficient desire to do so.

            Re: cost of living.  Again, we need a clear definition, as the concept is far too easily abused.  I fully recognize and acknowledge there are bona fide American citizens who need help.  IMHO, the number of people on public assistance far exceeds that bona fide number.  There have been numerous attempts to “direct” or “restrict” the expenditure of public funds to absolute bare essentials; but, every attempt has failed.  The task is very difficult to do in a free society.  The issue of abuse cannot be ignored.  I certainly favor helping the bona fide citizen.  I have no interest whatsoever in helping the abuser.  Employee satisfaction or performance is more complex than minimum wage.  Further, when someone is repeatedly told they are not paid fairly and they deserve a share of the executive’s pay & bonuses, they start to believe it – the classic rationale of socialist and communist agitators.  As always, I am returned to balance; how do we find balance?

            Yes, we should make every effort to be logical.

            Re: addiction.  If you wish to discount or discard my observations and opinions, that is entirely your choice.  IMHO, there is nothing we can do to help the addict, only he can decide when he has had enough and seeks professional assistance.  My only interest is eliminating the criminal sub-culture that supplies the addict and the collateral damage done by the addict.

            Again, we need to define work in the context of this discussion.

Comments and contributions from Update no.634:

“I do not remember the title ‘Explosion.’  Has it been too long or is this title something new that pertains to your refresh?  And why are you thinking refresh?  I enjoyed them immensely as they were written.”

My reply:

            I was looking for a subtitle descriptor for that historic period from April to August 1940.  It is just a notional title, just as the cover is just a notional cover . . . until the book is published and they are locked.  You are most welcome to offer other subtitles as you are able, while we are still in the pre-publication phase.

            I was advised years ago that my original m/s’s were too long, so I split them to a more acceptable length.  Each volume has its unique subtitle and unique cover art insert to show the commonality as well as distinctness of each book.

            The short answer for the refresh is a decade more of learning history.  There were also a few mistakes, e.g., “Blinker” Hall was the real RN DNI, but from 1914-1919; so I decided to change him to a fictional character “Jumper” Pike.  As you will note in Book II, I also added in some recently disclosed history regarding the Bank of England that I thought was apropos to the story.  Anyway, refresh as in stuff like that.  The storyline remains predominately unchanged from your last reading.

            Thank you for your kind words.  I hope you will find the refreshed published version even more enjoyable reading than the draft m/s you are familiar with.

            Of course, please give me your candid review.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Interesting.  I understand regarding more knowledge of history gained, and I can certainly appreciate that.  I had no idea how long the manuscripts actually were.  I suppose my current day baseline would be something like a Vince Flynn, James Lee Burke, Brad Thor, Clive Cussler Dale Brown, David Baldacci, Ted Bell, Ken Follett, Frederick Forsyth, Nelson DeMille book (hardback, which I prefer) that probably averages in the neighborhood of 400-450 pages in length.  I don’t know in terms of words.  Do you?

“That said, I am presently reading The Count of Monte Cristo (digital) which must be the longest book I have ever read.  But I have no comparison in terms of my present day baseline.  It just seems extraordinarily long.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            All of the authors you quoted are known, established, successful (in the marketplace) authors; the more monetarily successful, the less the rules apply.

            The page word count can vary widely depending upon font, pitch, margins and such.  Generally, I figure 500 words per page; therefore, 400 page is roughly 200,000 words.  Unknown authors like me are consistently told to keep a m/s to 100,000 words.  Perhaps, someday, I will be able to write as much as I think necessary to tell the story.

            You know, I’ve never read “The Count of Monte Cristo”; I really should, but too many history books ahead of an opening, and I’m falling behind W.E.B. Griffin’s books.

Comment to the Blog:

“Congratulations on your publication and agreement for more. I know how much those milestones means to writers.

“A farm bill has finally passed. I guess I will see this as a starting point. I await progress.

“I see the continuing affirmations of equal legal status for same-sex marriages, including Attorney General Holder's action, as part of a building momentum. History proceeds.

“The economy continues to baffle economists and others. We shall see what happens. I have seen headlines proclaiming House Speaker Boehner's intention to allow a vote on a ‘clean’ resolution to the debt ceiling crisis. This could be a result of the turmoil within the Republican Party. I have read that the relative moderates among the GOP and the Tea

Party radicals have pretty much parted ways. On top of that, they have so thoroughly succeeded in destroying the US government that they have little remaining to achieve.”

My response to the Blog:

            Thank you very much for your kind words.

            I sure hope the Farm Bill is a starting point for more cooperation and compromise for increased productivity.

            The outcome for the equal rights movement is inevitable.  The only question is how much pain we must endure to achieve true equal protection under the law.

            Re: economy.  It will always be hard to predict as it is future human performance.

            Re: Congress.  It does appear the Republican leadership is beginning to assert itself over the Tea Party faction, I hope this is a positive sign of change.  Senate agreed to S.540 after the House passed it; it goes to POTUS for his concurrence.  This is a huge change from the confrontational shenanigans of the last bunch of years.  Again, hopefully, this is a positive sign of change.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)