I saw this article in today's San Diego Union Tribune by Brian Skoloff about saving used "hotel" soap and providing it to people who need it. It describes Shawn Seipler's "Clean the World" organization.
MISSION: SAVING LIVES WITH SOAP | UTSanDiego.com There are a lot of organizations who make use of left over hotel soap and toiletries. But this one sounds like it is really doing it on a grand scale!
It is amazing how much we waste. The difficulty, of course, is collection and distribution. It all takes people's time and energy to gather, process and then redistribute.
On the front page of the same newspaper was a photo of food found in dumpsters showing how much usable food is going to trash. Another clear example of waste in our distribution system.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Friday, April 17, 2015
DRUG SEIZURES UP --At what cost?
According to this article in San Diego Union Tribune by Jeanette Steele, there has been a big increase in seizures of drugs going to the US and Canada during the past six months. DRUG SEIZURES UP | UTSanDiego.com
They value the "wholesale" value of the drugs at $848 Million during the past six months alone. Was it worth the expense? How much did those seizures cost to the American citizens? A typical, fully staffed navy ship can cost around $300,000 per day to operate. That is over $100 million per year! The article mentions the names of a couple of the ships involved. But to cover so much geography, the US and Canada must have over ten ships deployed -- that represents over a $Billion! The article also refers to flying a drone. An RQ-4B Global Hawk Drone costs about $49,000 per hour to fly. To keep just one on station over areas of interest 24 hours/day for a year would cost $429 million dollars. Those costs don't include the costs for guards and fences at our borders, inspections of all travelers on ships, planes, trains, cars, buses, trucks etc. I have to assume the Government also uses other sophisticated electronic systems such as sound-monitoring buoys, surveillance satellites and satellite communication links, which are all very expensive. We would also assume that Government spends money to pay for spies who work inside the drug operations in all of these countries. We pay hundreds of millions to South and Central American countries to provide them with training, equipment and operations against drug growers and smugglers. Other costs are the costs of prisons, prosecutors, judges, juries, balifs, courtrooms, probation officers, welfare for families who's breadwinners are in prison etc. None of those costs are ever shown as a cost of our drug war. We also don't talk about the loss of American Citizens privacy through the anti-money laundring laws and surveillance systems that are justified based upon the "war on drugs."
The bottom line is that even though the Government is bragging about their big "catch" in drugs this past year, the cost to the taxpayers was also much bigger. The cost might have been as much as an order of magnitude higher than the value of the goods captured. One of the reasons for the bigger drug haul, might be that the amount of drugs actually being transported is also higher. Are we catching a larger percentage of the total volume being transported? One of the best indicators is the street price for drugs. Has the price of those drugs increased since the interdiction success? Or stayed the same?
It still seems to me that those $billions could be better spent by offering free treatment for drug users, and we should legalize and tax the safer forms of these recreational drugs. Our country would be better, and our neighboring countries would also be beter off.
They value the "wholesale" value of the drugs at $848 Million during the past six months alone. Was it worth the expense? How much did those seizures cost to the American citizens? A typical, fully staffed navy ship can cost around $300,000 per day to operate. That is over $100 million per year! The article mentions the names of a couple of the ships involved. But to cover so much geography, the US and Canada must have over ten ships deployed -- that represents over a $Billion! The article also refers to flying a drone. An RQ-4B Global Hawk Drone costs about $49,000 per hour to fly. To keep just one on station over areas of interest 24 hours/day for a year would cost $429 million dollars. Those costs don't include the costs for guards and fences at our borders, inspections of all travelers on ships, planes, trains, cars, buses, trucks etc. I have to assume the Government also uses other sophisticated electronic systems such as sound-monitoring buoys, surveillance satellites and satellite communication links, which are all very expensive. We would also assume that Government spends money to pay for spies who work inside the drug operations in all of these countries. We pay hundreds of millions to South and Central American countries to provide them with training, equipment and operations against drug growers and smugglers. Other costs are the costs of prisons, prosecutors, judges, juries, balifs, courtrooms, probation officers, welfare for families who's breadwinners are in prison etc. None of those costs are ever shown as a cost of our drug war. We also don't talk about the loss of American Citizens privacy through the anti-money laundring laws and surveillance systems that are justified based upon the "war on drugs."
The bottom line is that even though the Government is bragging about their big "catch" in drugs this past year, the cost to the taxpayers was also much bigger. The cost might have been as much as an order of magnitude higher than the value of the goods captured. One of the reasons for the bigger drug haul, might be that the amount of drugs actually being transported is also higher. Are we catching a larger percentage of the total volume being transported? One of the best indicators is the street price for drugs. Has the price of those drugs increased since the interdiction success? Or stayed the same?
It still seems to me that those $billions could be better spent by offering free treatment for drug users, and we should legalize and tax the safer forms of these recreational drugs. Our country would be better, and our neighboring countries would also be beter off.
House Votes to Repeal Estate Tax and give $269 billion to the very rich
Big news today in San Diego Union Tribune in article by By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
House passes bill to repeal estate tax | UTSanDiego.com. I can't believe that the Republican congress would waste its time passing something that is so ridiculous that they know would not get through the Senate (even with Republican majority) and certainly would not get signed by the President. It is purely symbolic. Its obvious that they are pandering to the very rich in the hopes of encouraging increases in campaign donations. That's because it gives a quarter trillion dollars to those very rich. Congressman Kevin Brady's (R-Texas) legislation clearly benefits only the VERY rich people (estates over $10.9 Million for married couples)--and only those rich people who have not planned their estate well to pass on their wealth to children via trusts or donate it through the various charity options. The bill also had no way to "pay" for the huge cost to the treasury($269 Billion over 10 years) by eliminating the tax. That is a complaint that Republicans scream loudly every time Democrats propose some sort of increase in spending.
The main objection I have to repealing the estate tax is that it would eliminate the "step up" when a person dies, and require estates to pay capital gains tax. That becomes a huge paperwork nightmare for the personal representative of the estate! The tax basis of properties that were purchased, and improved by the deceased and often very difficult to figure out or find historical information about improvements, land divisions, etc. The bill claims that if passed it was employ over a 100,000 people. I'm not sure who would be employed if this bill passes -- but it sounds like it would require an army of accountants and lawyers to figure it all out. We don't need that additional complexity as "financial relief" for lawyers and accountants!
It seems to me that the truly fair way to handle the estate tax would be to index the "deduction" so it adjusts annually with the CPI. The actual tax could be "graduated" so that people with $10-$20 Million estates are taxed maybe at less than today's 40%. However as estates grow larger, the taxes could be reasonably increased to 50% or 60% for the hundred million dollar type of estates. As the article points out, very few people with $100+ million estate will end up paying those higher taxes because of careful estate and tax planning. However, such a bill would help a lot of people, and could end up being somewhat "revenue neutral."
House passes bill to repeal estate tax | UTSanDiego.com. I can't believe that the Republican congress would waste its time passing something that is so ridiculous that they know would not get through the Senate (even with Republican majority) and certainly would not get signed by the President. It is purely symbolic. Its obvious that they are pandering to the very rich in the hopes of encouraging increases in campaign donations. That's because it gives a quarter trillion dollars to those very rich. Congressman Kevin Brady's (R-Texas) legislation clearly benefits only the VERY rich people (estates over $10.9 Million for married couples)--and only those rich people who have not planned their estate well to pass on their wealth to children via trusts or donate it through the various charity options. The bill also had no way to "pay" for the huge cost to the treasury($269 Billion over 10 years) by eliminating the tax. That is a complaint that Republicans scream loudly every time Democrats propose some sort of increase in spending.
The main objection I have to repealing the estate tax is that it would eliminate the "step up" when a person dies, and require estates to pay capital gains tax. That becomes a huge paperwork nightmare for the personal representative of the estate! The tax basis of properties that were purchased, and improved by the deceased and often very difficult to figure out or find historical information about improvements, land divisions, etc. The bill claims that if passed it was employ over a 100,000 people. I'm not sure who would be employed if this bill passes -- but it sounds like it would require an army of accountants and lawyers to figure it all out. We don't need that additional complexity as "financial relief" for lawyers and accountants!
It seems to me that the truly fair way to handle the estate tax would be to index the "deduction" so it adjusts annually with the CPI. The actual tax could be "graduated" so that people with $10-$20 Million estates are taxed maybe at less than today's 40%. However as estates grow larger, the taxes could be reasonably increased to 50% or 60% for the hundred million dollar type of estates. As the article points out, very few people with $100+ million estate will end up paying those higher taxes because of careful estate and tax planning. However, such a bill would help a lot of people, and could end up being somewhat "revenue neutral."
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Innovation Act: For or Against "Patent Trolls?"
Patents and patent law have always been very complicated and controversial. The amount spent for legal support to challenge and protect patents is a huge cost of doing business. With the many international agreements, patent law is getting even more complicated across international borders.
As a national and global policy, we should try to do everything possible to encourage new ideas and inventions. The financial protection provided by patents and copyrights does need to be maintained. This Gallegher Intellectual Property Law Site has good history of the problem. However, the business that "patent trolls" do is generally despicable, counter-productive, and does nothing to help the economy, other than enrich the trolls and their lawyers. Legitimate companies are generally willing to negotiate fair and reasonable fees for rights to use patents. I think the US Government does need legislation to put some sort of controls on those trolls. But what is the right answer? Who can we believe? A new version of the "Innovation Act" is now pending in Congress which purports to resolve this problem.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports the "Innovation Act" which failed to pass in 2014, and may get voted upon again in 2015. See this link: But the San Diego Union Tribune today published an editorial by Bryan Pate, CEO of EliptiGo, who says that his small business would be ruined if the Innovation Act passed, due to the additional legal costs required to defend his patents. This trial lawyer presents a solid argument at this web page, for why the Innovation Act will only benefit the large corporations and not really help the small innovator. Of course, if patent trolls are stopped, lawyers will generally lose business. Who can we believe? This website appears to explain both sides of the issue Fox Business also tries to explain both sides. . From the corporations that are lining up on both sides of the issue, it appears that the very large businesses have lined up in favor of the "innovation act" and the small businesses are against it. It is hard to figure out who's money is behind it -- see this link: Since now corporations can donate as much money as they want to politicians, I am suspicious that the so-called innovation act will actually benefit the very large businesses and squeeze out the little guy. Based upon only that, I would be suspicious of it and would prefer it not be passed. I've often thought that patent trolls could be stopped if they had to show that they were actively pursuing use of the patent they own. After all, the goal of the patent system is to push patent owners to deploy their idea as fast as possible, before the protection ends. A troll typically never actually uses the patent or even licenses it to anyone in good faith to employ in a design.
The same sort of thing happened with Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was a terrible piece of legislation, but was sponsored and funded by Disney and a few other very big corporations. When the act passed, Disney was able to extend the copyright protection for old books and movies from back when Disney first started so probably made hundreds of millions of dollars from the passage. Meanwhile the act generally screwed the public's rights to fair-use sharing of copyrighted material. I wonder if the innovation act will end up doing the same thing?
I have not yet written to Darryl Issa, my congressman because I'm not sure which way I would want him to vote. It does seem to me that if we want to stop the evil of patent trolls, we have to "raise the bar" for litigation, which, in turn, will raise the costs for someone to litigate to protect their patent. I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this subject.
As a national and global policy, we should try to do everything possible to encourage new ideas and inventions. The financial protection provided by patents and copyrights does need to be maintained. This Gallegher Intellectual Property Law Site has good history of the problem. However, the business that "patent trolls" do is generally despicable, counter-productive, and does nothing to help the economy, other than enrich the trolls and their lawyers. Legitimate companies are generally willing to negotiate fair and reasonable fees for rights to use patents. I think the US Government does need legislation to put some sort of controls on those trolls. But what is the right answer? Who can we believe? A new version of the "Innovation Act" is now pending in Congress which purports to resolve this problem.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports the "Innovation Act" which failed to pass in 2014, and may get voted upon again in 2015. See this link: But the San Diego Union Tribune today published an editorial by Bryan Pate, CEO of EliptiGo, who says that his small business would be ruined if the Innovation Act passed, due to the additional legal costs required to defend his patents. This trial lawyer presents a solid argument at this web page, for why the Innovation Act will only benefit the large corporations and not really help the small innovator. Of course, if patent trolls are stopped, lawyers will generally lose business. Who can we believe? This website appears to explain both sides of the issue Fox Business also tries to explain both sides. . From the corporations that are lining up on both sides of the issue, it appears that the very large businesses have lined up in favor of the "innovation act" and the small businesses are against it. It is hard to figure out who's money is behind it -- see this link: Since now corporations can donate as much money as they want to politicians, I am suspicious that the so-called innovation act will actually benefit the very large businesses and squeeze out the little guy. Based upon only that, I would be suspicious of it and would prefer it not be passed. I've often thought that patent trolls could be stopped if they had to show that they were actively pursuing use of the patent they own. After all, the goal of the patent system is to push patent owners to deploy their idea as fast as possible, before the protection ends. A troll typically never actually uses the patent or even licenses it to anyone in good faith to employ in a design.
The same sort of thing happened with Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was a terrible piece of legislation, but was sponsored and funded by Disney and a few other very big corporations. When the act passed, Disney was able to extend the copyright protection for old books and movies from back when Disney first started so probably made hundreds of millions of dollars from the passage. Meanwhile the act generally screwed the public's rights to fair-use sharing of copyrighted material. I wonder if the innovation act will end up doing the same thing?
I have not yet written to Darryl Issa, my congressman because I'm not sure which way I would want him to vote. It does seem to me that if we want to stop the evil of patent trolls, we have to "raise the bar" for litigation, which, in turn, will raise the costs for someone to litigate to protect their patent. I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)