Recommendation: Look for an apartment or smaller house near a bus route. Save money for tough times.
***
Please click here for $$ FAX 4
Showing posts with label debt is growing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debt is growing. Show all posts
Friday, August 3, 2012
$$ FAX 5
I’ll be brief. Europe is still hanging on by its fingernails, and many U.S. and Canadian citizens should prepare for lifestyle changes.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
This Old Economist: “Europe’s woes relate to North American lifestyles” Pt 2
["We're eating our planet too quickly"]
As an old economist (and highly qualified - I have a university degree and a valid library card) I often say some brilliant things. To be precise, I said three brilliant things yesterday in Pt 1.
One. “We’re all in this pea soup together, so as Europe's economy falters North America's declines as well, and here in Canada, citizens will have to re-adjust the Canadian Dream downward - if they haven’t done so already.”
No matter how good “our fundamentals” are, i.e., according to Line Dance Minister Jim Flaherty, Canada is up to his arm pits in the mire of the global economy and many of our big export customers aren’t doing so well right now and may never return to their former glory. Canadians who believe bigger is better and that consumer goods are the way to happiness may need to re-adjust their dreams downward - more than a titch - in the near future. (And ‘right now’ would be a good idea, in my opinion).
Two. “I propose we quickly reduce personal and household spending, pay down debts and save money for tough times ahead (just like ants, who put away supplies for the winter).”
I believe those three bits of sound financial advice form the basis of a world economy that fits the planet’s ability to feed, clothe and shelter us in a sustainable manner. Not that many will listen or adhere to advice so simple (while rain forests are cleared to make room for cattle feed), but I give it anyway (i.e., to humans. Ants already know how to handle tough times).
Three. “Living with less now will produce many positive benefits in the future.”
Most of the resources required to feed, clothe and shelter 7 billion humans today are used in excess, especially in countries considered the wealthiest 10 per cent. In 10 years, when the population will be 8 billion and rising, global shortages of food, water, building materials, etc. will raise many concerns, but those who voluntarily practice conservation methods today will be better prepared for the thin times.
Reduce spending and enjoy the following benefits:
you’ll spend less time and money shopping
you’ll have more time for family and friends
you’ll have more money to pay down debt
you’ll spend less time in the car
you’ll save money on gasoline
In ‘A Short History of Progress’ by R. Wright we read “when guano deposits and other natural fertilizers were exhausted, commercial farming became almost entirely dependent on chemical fertilizers made from oil and gas. Fossil energy not only powers but feeds the modern world. We are literally eating oil.” pg. 115
by reducing spending you’ll eat less oil
you’ll have more money for your savings account
you’ll have more time for inexpensive hobbies, e.g., gardening, bicycling
you’ll save more money by gardening, bicycling
you’ll develop new muscles by exercising
your body will look healthier
you’ll feel healthier
In ‘A Short History of Progress’ by R. Wright we read “ecological markers suggest that in the early 1960s, humans were using about 70 per cent of nature’s yearly output; by the early 1980s, we’d reached 100 per cent; and in 1999, we were at 125 per cent. Such numbers may be imprecise, but their trend is clear - they mark the road to bankruptcy.” (pg. 129)
by reducing spending you’ll feel you’re not bankrupting yourself or the planet
you’ll develop peace of mind by reducing CO2 emissions, slowing the trend toward higher temperatures and saving the planet
you’ll become less of a slave to things, material goods, and unsustainable consumption
your life will become simpler
you’ll smile more often
you’ll put your feet up more often and like it
Reduce your debts and enjoy the following benefits:
you’ll feel peace of mind and less weight on your shoulders
you’ll receive fewer bills or threats in the mail
you’ll be able to do less juggling of chainsaws (i.e., personal finances)
you’ll sleep easier
you’ll rejoice when the MINIMUM PAYMENT is zero
you’ll be free from vexing mathematical dilemmas associated with credit cards, e.g., “what is 19.5 per cent of the price of a big screen TV, charged monthly for 4.6 years?”
as debt declines you’ll realize that one day you’ll be paying yourself and not a faceless, excessively rich corporation
you’ll feel that you’re finally occupying your own house, not the bank’s house
you’ll smile more often
you’ll hear unusual but satisfying questions, e.g., “why is Dad or Mom smiling more often?”
Save money for tough times and enjoy the following benefits:
you’ll grow tougher along with the times
you’ll have cash as prices increase
credit card companies cannot charge you 19.5 per cent interest rate on your cash
you’ll have money or a cushion in case of an emergency
you’ll develop a feeling of self-confidence, self-reliance
you’ll develop a healthier attitude about life on earth
you’ll become wiser and more selective about consumption
you’ll feel more whole
[Cartoons by G.Harrison]
***
Sure, I’m just scratching the surface.
Please click here to read This Old Economist: “Europe’s woes relate to North American lifestyles” Pt1
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
This Old Economist: “Good jobs are going up in smoke”
["Feed the pig before it sinks."]
[No matter how Canadian jobs stats are sliced and diced, our Conservative Federal Government has no sustainable plan to bring good jobs back to our country. Thanks to its short-sighted, unsustainable, “business as usual” free market economic plan that includes tax breaks for the wealthiest among us (aka “the job creators”) ...good jobs will not grow in good numbers. Jan. 30, G.Harrison]
As if in support of my recently espoused theory - i.e., reviving the job market will be more difficult than bringing a dead mackerel back to life - a well-written letter to the editor appeared on Jan. 28 in The London Free Press.
Tax breaks don’t create jobs
“Gerry Macartney (London Chamber of Commerce) says corporations should first get their tax reduction and then work with the government to find ways to create jobs. I don’t think so.
Why on earth would a corporation create more jobs and more goods just because it gets a tax break? Short answer: It wouldn’t and never has.
The real problem is 10 years of stagnated or declining wages for the workers, with the resulting decrease in demand for goods and services. The money is now tied up in the assets of rich corporations and individuals who literally do not know how to spend their mountains of money.” Gerry H. Grand Bend
You think we’re in trouble now, Canada, with a government that can serve up no sustainable, viable Plan A for jobs yet rewards corporations for being... corporations.
(Is pushing the toxic tars sands a viable job plan once unmanageable future costs to our natural ecosystems and personal health are considered? Is there any wonder Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has drafted a plan to limit future funding to the health care systems we’ll need in the future?)
Directly related to the letter, just wait ‘til more Canadians, now up to their eyeballs in debt, start paying it off regularly as if there is no tomorrow. What will happen to supply and demand of consumer goods then? Do the Conservatives have a sustainable Plan B for that day, decade, or Age, as in The Age of Austerity, with capital letters?
It’s almost as if the wealthy, in their desire to have it all, missed the lesson the tobacco industry learned years ago. That is, if you kill your customers, you’ll eventually run out of customers.
Don’t let your dreams go up in smoke.
Reduce spending, pay down debt, and save money for tough times ahead.
***
Please click here for more from This Old Economist.
.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Get ready for smaller lifestyles by 2020
A minority of people in North America has already adopted a smaller lifestyle (e.g., live in a small house, drive a smaller car or predominantly ride a bike or walk, purchase fewer clothes, shop for groceries with shorter list in hand, etc.), and has done so out of necessity or because of the many benefits,
Below is a small news clip that affects the vast majority of people and lifestyle, whether it be considered normal or excessive.
[News clip from Nov. 5, London Free Press]
The “forecast price for a barrel of oil by 2035” is $212 (according to the International Energy Agency). Methinks, the 'new normal', as far as lifestyle is concerned, will likely come into play far earlier than 2035.
For example, by 2020, when average debt per Canadian family will be at $160 or higher per $100 of income (it’s at $150 at present), many people will be considering far more than dropping TV cable, cancelling their newspaper subscription, doing without a family pet or ordering Chinese every Friday night. Many will be considering selling their big house in the burbs for something smaller that’s close to work or a good grocery store. Quite a few will definitely get rid of their second car.
Many North Americans will be caught by surprise because governments, corporations and media do such a good job at propping up the illusion (now fading in the eyes of growing numbers of people who have little hope of finding a decent job in their lifetime) that progress will continue unimpeded for as long as they hold the reins of modern society.
[“With higher fuel prices, get used to pushing.”]
Read the last line of the news clipping, i.e., the report’s forecast for 2015 is up about 10% from the same report just last year.
Hmmm, what’s happened in the last year? And have things improved since then? How does 2016 look?
Let’s hang in there for another 4 - 5 years, then we’ll all know. And while we’re waiting, let’s shift our lifestyles down a notch or two.
***
Please click here for more high-priced concerns about the future.
.
Below is a small news clip that affects the vast majority of people and lifestyle, whether it be considered normal or excessive.
[News clip from Nov. 5, London Free Press]
The “forecast price for a barrel of oil by 2035” is $212 (according to the International Energy Agency). Methinks, the 'new normal', as far as lifestyle is concerned, will likely come into play far earlier than 2035.
For example, by 2020, when average debt per Canadian family will be at $160 or higher per $100 of income (it’s at $150 at present), many people will be considering far more than dropping TV cable, cancelling their newspaper subscription, doing without a family pet or ordering Chinese every Friday night. Many will be considering selling their big house in the burbs for something smaller that’s close to work or a good grocery store. Quite a few will definitely get rid of their second car.
Many North Americans will be caught by surprise because governments, corporations and media do such a good job at propping up the illusion (now fading in the eyes of growing numbers of people who have little hope of finding a decent job in their lifetime) that progress will continue unimpeded for as long as they hold the reins of modern society.
[“With higher fuel prices, get used to pushing.”]
Read the last line of the news clipping, i.e., the report’s forecast for 2015 is up about 10% from the same report just last year.
Hmmm, what’s happened in the last year? And have things improved since then? How does 2016 look?
Let’s hang in there for another 4 - 5 years, then we’ll all know. And while we’re waiting, let’s shift our lifestyles down a notch or two.
***
Please click here for more high-priced concerns about the future.
.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Letter to the Editor: PT 3 “Attack the debt and public servants only"
["No doubt, many in our province, even in North America, are going to have to reduce lifestyle expectations now and in the near future." G. Harrison, Oct. 20]
No doubt about it.
R.S.M. Eberhard had some "not half bad" ideas re paying down the rising debt here in Ontario, Canada.
"Raise the HST (Homogenized Sales Tax) to 15%, with 1% going to the provincial government and 1% to the feds."
I'm not opposed to that, for the most part. The HST is a consumption tax that hits everyone, so at a certain level it's fair. It hits our consumption and many would admit we buy too much stuff too much of the time, then have to sell some of it at yard sales in order to clear a path to the washing machine.
The less-fortunate and unemployed would also be hit and would deserve some consideration, in my opinion, and nowhere does RSM address the needy.
As well, some of RSM's ideas are simply "half baked."
"All who receive income directly or indirectly from taxpayers should have an income over $50,000 a year reduced by 10%..."
Let's pause for a moment shall we.
Many will see that RSM is going after a pile of money, starting at $5,000 per household with an income of $50,000. It gets higher per household in which more than $50,000 is made.
Surely, many will also say RSM's idea is outrageous, though a few might at least give him a point for trying to spread the pain of paying off a mountain of debt in an equitable manner without attacking households with wages under 50 Gs. After all, some will say, it at least sounds equitable, because almost everybody in Ontario receives income "directly" from taxpayers" (e.g., politicians, doctors) or "indirectly from taxpayers" (e.g., retailers, lawyers and all others who get paid by billing ordinary citizens, aka taxpayers).
However, upon further reading, RSM may not be trying to be equitable at all.
In his description of "all who receive income directly or indirectly from taxpayers" he includes the following:
"Politicians, doctors, police officers..."
Are you catching a whiff of stink?
"Teachers, nurse, court officials, etc."
Do you know why RSM finished with etc?
It's likely because he couldn't think of any other occupations in the public sector.
To RSM, the private sector must be almost invisible. And as poor as poor can be. Not one occupation in the private sector is mentioned in his plan. "Half-baked" came to mind, as you read earlier.
Attack the debt?
Let's do so, but let's not let the wealthiest among us off the hook while we're trying to keep the next several generations from bearing all the weight.
***
To address provincial or national debt in a serious and equitable manner, what factors need to be considered?
Is there a link between national debts in many countries and the Occupy (Name a city) protests?
Please click here to read Letter to the Editor: PT 2 "Attack the debt. Pay tolls. Pay more for gas"
.
No doubt about it.
R.S.M. Eberhard had some "not half bad" ideas re paying down the rising debt here in Ontario, Canada.
"Raise the HST (Homogenized Sales Tax) to 15%, with 1% going to the provincial government and 1% to the feds."
I'm not opposed to that, for the most part. The HST is a consumption tax that hits everyone, so at a certain level it's fair. It hits our consumption and many would admit we buy too much stuff too much of the time, then have to sell some of it at yard sales in order to clear a path to the washing machine.
The less-fortunate and unemployed would also be hit and would deserve some consideration, in my opinion, and nowhere does RSM address the needy.
As well, some of RSM's ideas are simply "half baked."
"All who receive income directly or indirectly from taxpayers should have an income over $50,000 a year reduced by 10%..."
Let's pause for a moment shall we.
Many will see that RSM is going after a pile of money, starting at $5,000 per household with an income of $50,000. It gets higher per household in which more than $50,000 is made.
Surely, many will also say RSM's idea is outrageous, though a few might at least give him a point for trying to spread the pain of paying off a mountain of debt in an equitable manner without attacking households with wages under 50 Gs. After all, some will say, it at least sounds equitable, because almost everybody in Ontario receives income "directly" from taxpayers" (e.g., politicians, doctors) or "indirectly from taxpayers" (e.g., retailers, lawyers and all others who get paid by billing ordinary citizens, aka taxpayers).
However, upon further reading, RSM may not be trying to be equitable at all.
In his description of "all who receive income directly or indirectly from taxpayers" he includes the following:
"Politicians, doctors, police officers..."
Are you catching a whiff of stink?
"Teachers, nurse, court officials, etc."
Do you know why RSM finished with etc?
It's likely because he couldn't think of any other occupations in the public sector.
To RSM, the private sector must be almost invisible. And as poor as poor can be. Not one occupation in the private sector is mentioned in his plan. "Half-baked" came to mind, as you read earlier.
Attack the debt?
Let's do so, but let's not let the wealthiest among us off the hook while we're trying to keep the next several generations from bearing all the weight.
***
To address provincial or national debt in a serious and equitable manner, what factors need to be considered?
Is there a link between national debts in many countries and the Occupy (Name a city) protests?
Please click here to read Letter to the Editor: PT 2 "Attack the debt. Pay tolls. Pay more for gas"
.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Letter to the Editor: PT 2 “Attack the debt. Pay tolls, pay more for gas”
[“Here in Canada... we (now) have time to talk to one another, and many serious-minded people are talking about the severity of our provincial and national debt.” G.Harrison, Oct. 19, It Strikes Me Funny]
In a recent letter to the editor of the London Free Press, R.S.M. Eberhard shared a few ideas about how to reduce debt in our province.
I commented briefly re his first idea yesterday. (A link will be provided below).
RSM’s second idea relates to major highways in Ontario.
“Make the 400-series highways toll roads. Why should those who never use the 401 pay for those who use it daily? Most of the highway infrastructure... will soon need to be upgraded or replaced.”
I understand that the maintenance of our highways is very expensive.
I agree that tolls might be considered soon to assist with maintenance costs and encourage conservation of non-renewable fuels.
I don’t, however, agree with RSM's selfish attitude.
["RSM wants to attack the gorilla of debt."]
I could be wrong, but RSM sounds like he doesn’t like sitting at home, having to pay for infrastructure costs, while daily drivers are getting off without paying. Aren’t there a few flaws in his thinking?
If RSM eats, drinks, buys clothes, hardware, daily necessities and the occasional Tim Horton’s donut, his purchases are directly and indirectly linked to the 400-series of highways. For example, barrelling down the 401 right now, in a transport truck the size of a small nation and at about 110 km. per hour - to be “just in time” at an unloading dock in London - is some product RSM has ordered or will use some time this week.
As well, those who use it daily likely pay for fuel several times per week and, thanks to taxes on fuel, pay for infrastructure costs already - on a regular basis.
RSM might call for tolls for the sake of fairness (“Why should I pay? I never use the 401!”) but he shouldn’t be let off the hook. He still needs to pay for highway upkeep - to maintain his access to many goods and services he enjoys - along with everyone else.
I would suggest, in place if toll collecting and its accompanying expensive infrastructure, another 1 - 2 % hike in the HST, a consumption tax. More HST (its infrastructure is already in place) would equal less consumption, fewer transport trucks on the highway, and reductions in maintenance costs and carbon emissions at the same time.
Later, RSM recommends that water, electricity and gasoline costs should be increased (e.g., gas to $1.50 per liter) because “we will never conserve if it doesn’t hurt not to.”
Part of me says, “I agree with RSM. Many will move along the path of conservation faster if their wallet comes under pressure.”
And another part of me says, “Is our province helping those who are already stretched financially to the limits? Are we prepared to help the less fortunate if their numbers swell under RSM’s recommendations?”
In my humble opinion, I don’t think we’re ready yet to attack debt in such rapid and rigid fashion. No doubt, many in our province, even in North America, are going to have to reduce lifestyle expectations now and in the near future. Attacking debt in many of its forms is a priority but many will need assistance to transition away from the culture of big.
["Until we get it sorted, reduce spending, pay off debt and save money."]
RSM sounds ready to shift right now. But I think he/she is in the minority.
And RSM has a few other flaws in his thinking as well.
More to come.
***
Please click here to read Letter to the Editor: PT 1 “Attack the debt. Here’s how”
.
In a recent letter to the editor of the London Free Press, R.S.M. Eberhard shared a few ideas about how to reduce debt in our province.
I commented briefly re his first idea yesterday. (A link will be provided below).
RSM’s second idea relates to major highways in Ontario.
“Make the 400-series highways toll roads. Why should those who never use the 401 pay for those who use it daily? Most of the highway infrastructure... will soon need to be upgraded or replaced.”
I understand that the maintenance of our highways is very expensive.
I agree that tolls might be considered soon to assist with maintenance costs and encourage conservation of non-renewable fuels.
I don’t, however, agree with RSM's selfish attitude.
["RSM wants to attack the gorilla of debt."]
I could be wrong, but RSM sounds like he doesn’t like sitting at home, having to pay for infrastructure costs, while daily drivers are getting off without paying. Aren’t there a few flaws in his thinking?
If RSM eats, drinks, buys clothes, hardware, daily necessities and the occasional Tim Horton’s donut, his purchases are directly and indirectly linked to the 400-series of highways. For example, barrelling down the 401 right now, in a transport truck the size of a small nation and at about 110 km. per hour - to be “just in time” at an unloading dock in London - is some product RSM has ordered or will use some time this week.
As well, those who use it daily likely pay for fuel several times per week and, thanks to taxes on fuel, pay for infrastructure costs already - on a regular basis.
RSM might call for tolls for the sake of fairness (“Why should I pay? I never use the 401!”) but he shouldn’t be let off the hook. He still needs to pay for highway upkeep - to maintain his access to many goods and services he enjoys - along with everyone else.
I would suggest, in place if toll collecting and its accompanying expensive infrastructure, another 1 - 2 % hike in the HST, a consumption tax. More HST (its infrastructure is already in place) would equal less consumption, fewer transport trucks on the highway, and reductions in maintenance costs and carbon emissions at the same time.
Later, RSM recommends that water, electricity and gasoline costs should be increased (e.g., gas to $1.50 per liter) because “we will never conserve if it doesn’t hurt not to.”
Part of me says, “I agree with RSM. Many will move along the path of conservation faster if their wallet comes under pressure.”
And another part of me says, “Is our province helping those who are already stretched financially to the limits? Are we prepared to help the less fortunate if their numbers swell under RSM’s recommendations?”
In my humble opinion, I don’t think we’re ready yet to attack debt in such rapid and rigid fashion. No doubt, many in our province, even in North America, are going to have to reduce lifestyle expectations now and in the near future. Attacking debt in many of its forms is a priority but many will need assistance to transition away from the culture of big.
["Until we get it sorted, reduce spending, pay off debt and save money."]
RSM sounds ready to shift right now. But I think he/she is in the minority.
And RSM has a few other flaws in his thinking as well.
More to come.
***
Please click here to read Letter to the Editor: PT 1 “Attack the debt. Here’s how”
.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Letter to the Editor: PT 1 “Attack the debt. Here’s how... maybe”
[“Gasoline (should rise) to $1.50 a litre. We will never conserve if it doesn’t hurt not to.” R.S.M. Eberhard]
Here in Canada, because the World Series isn’t on TV yet, the Stanley Cup finals are months away, the weather is cool and wet, the cottage is all closed up and lawn furniture is put away, we have time to talk to one another and many serious-minded people are talking about the severity of our provincial and national debt.
They’re huge. Getting huger.
R.S.M. Eberhard, London, wrote a letter to his local paper recently and included a few ideas about how to tackle the debt... now!
Few would argue with his preamble:
By our profligate lifestyle, exaggerated expectations and for the most part living on credit, both individually and provincially (I think Eberhard could include ‘and nationally’. GH), we have accumulated a debt burden that approaches that of some European countries. Servicing the debt (Reportedly, Ontario pays $40 billion per year on debt interest) is requiring an ever-increasing part of the provincial budget. (Oct. 15, London Free Press)
Readers of my last couple of posts, e.g., 100 Challenges Ahead 4, have seen some of the frightful numbers and have no doubt started to reduce spending, pay down debt and save for the tougher times ahead. Good move.
["My pig ain't scared of no debt gorilla!": photo GH]
Consider R.S.M. Eberhard’s proposals while you’re getting your household in order.
One. “Raise the HST to 15%, with 1% going to the provincial government and 1% to the feds.”
Now, I assume RSM means to target the debt with the 1% figures. I have no problem with that, because it would be interesting and informative to see if 1% would make any kind of dent. Plus, the HST is a consumption tax, and I’m in favour of reduced consumption all around the market place. After all, as RSM points out, “if you buy and spend wisely, you pay less tax.”
He can say that all day long to me. I’m sitting in front of the computer in a very comfortable pair of used jeans (from the Village of Values store @ $7 plus 13% HST - 91 cents - I would imagine) and drinking freshly brewed coffee from an old metal travel mug - sans handle - that will last me another 30 years if it doesn’t fall off my bicycle’s rat trap sometime on my way to the local coffee shop.
However, some of RSM’s other suggestions need some tweaking.
More to follow.
***
Please click here to read about another solution to debt.
.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
100 Challenges Ahead: 4b “Today’s blind spot about taxes”
[“Ontario is indebted to the tune of $244 billion... taxpayers will be on the hook for almost $500 billion in eight years’ time...” Oct. 14, J. Daubs, London Free Press)]
Today’s generation can spot ‘challenges ahead’ pretty quick - growing debt is hard to miss, eh - but something related to debt remains in our blind spot.
Yesterday I wrote about the blind spot, as seen in a recent letter to the editor of a local newspaper. (A link is provided below).
Below is another example of it.
In a news article entitled ‘Debt must be MPPs’ priority’, Gerry Macartney, CEO of London Chamber of Commerce, sees debt not only as a priority at least for Members of Parliament , but uses several phrases to describe how serious the situation is.
For example, when speaking of serious issues facing MPPs, he says that “chief among them is the 400-pound debt gorilla in the room...”, and every Canadian who has been in a room with, or who has played hockey against, a 400-pound gorilla knows how dangerous one can be in the corners. Why, the smell alone will knock you over!
[Photo link to blirk.net]
As well, we know things are serious when Macartney says “we have to start focusing seriously on debt and deficits - “an unprecedented $236 billion” with “$40 billion in annual borrowing (costs)” - or jobs and the economy may be rendered moot” and adds “we could easily slip into the same ugly predicament many European countries are facing.”
No kidding. Serious details every one.
However, in another paragraph a blind spot concerning debt is revealed once again.
He says, “Annual budget deficits... leave a huge burden for Ontario’s next generation who will face either drastic spending cuts, increased taxes, or a combination to get the province’s house in order.”
He sees that debt is high at the moment (it’s “serious” and “unprecedented”) but not high enough for tax increases for his readership. Future generations will face them, it sounds inevitable, but not today’s taxpayers. We’ll be okay. (Thank goodness we’re alive today!)
But, I have to ask. Why should our generation escape a tax increase and leave our unprecedented debt to the next generation? Why do we have such a blind spot about raising taxes?
Is it because our province’s house isn’t in enough of a mess yet?
["Pay down the gorilla, then feed the pig for tough times ahead": GH]
Is it because modern-day governments, businesses and households want to live like the proverbial grasshopper rather than the ant?
I recommend we take off our collective blinders and face the serious, unprecedented problem of debt head on, not leave it - as if it's inevitable - for our grandchildren. I would say a 0.5 to 5% tax increase spread out among home owners (from middle to high income), businesses and corporations
It’s time to step up and face the gorilla.
***
Here’s a challenge for you to answer.
How long do you think the blind spot will last?
Please click here to read “100 Challenges Ahead” 4a.
.
Today’s generation can spot ‘challenges ahead’ pretty quick - growing debt is hard to miss, eh - but something related to debt remains in our blind spot.
Yesterday I wrote about the blind spot, as seen in a recent letter to the editor of a local newspaper. (A link is provided below).
Below is another example of it.
In a news article entitled ‘Debt must be MPPs’ priority’, Gerry Macartney, CEO of London Chamber of Commerce, sees debt not only as a priority at least for Members of Parliament , but uses several phrases to describe how serious the situation is.
For example, when speaking of serious issues facing MPPs, he says that “chief among them is the 400-pound debt gorilla in the room...”, and every Canadian who has been in a room with, or who has played hockey against, a 400-pound gorilla knows how dangerous one can be in the corners. Why, the smell alone will knock you over!
[Photo link to blirk.net]
As well, we know things are serious when Macartney says “we have to start focusing seriously on debt and deficits - “an unprecedented $236 billion” with “$40 billion in annual borrowing (costs)” - or jobs and the economy may be rendered moot” and adds “we could easily slip into the same ugly predicament many European countries are facing.”
No kidding. Serious details every one.
However, in another paragraph a blind spot concerning debt is revealed once again.
He says, “Annual budget deficits... leave a huge burden for Ontario’s next generation who will face either drastic spending cuts, increased taxes, or a combination to get the province’s house in order.”
He sees that debt is high at the moment (it’s “serious” and “unprecedented”) but not high enough for tax increases for his readership. Future generations will face them, it sounds inevitable, but not today’s taxpayers. We’ll be okay. (Thank goodness we’re alive today!)
But, I have to ask. Why should our generation escape a tax increase and leave our unprecedented debt to the next generation? Why do we have such a blind spot about raising taxes?
Is it because our province’s house isn’t in enough of a mess yet?
["Pay down the gorilla, then feed the pig for tough times ahead": GH]
Is it because modern-day governments, businesses and households want to live like the proverbial grasshopper rather than the ant?
I recommend we take off our collective blinders and face the serious, unprecedented problem of debt head on, not leave it - as if it's inevitable - for our grandchildren. I would say a 0.5 to 5% tax increase spread out among home owners (from middle to high income), businesses and corporations
It’s time to step up and face the gorilla.
***
Here’s a challenge for you to answer.
How long do you think the blind spot will last?
Please click here to read “100 Challenges Ahead” 4a.
.
Monday, October 17, 2011
100 Challenges Ahead: 4a “Today’s blind spot about taxes”
Today’s generation can spot ‘challenges ahead’ around every corner, and one on many peoples’ minds is growing debt.
A recent letter to the editor offered grim details about Ontario’s debt:
“Ontario is indebted to the tune of $244 billion... taxpayers will be on the hook for almost $500 billion in eight years’ time... this year’s budget would need to be slashed by about 40% and left there for the next ten years in order for us to eliminate the current debt.” (J. Daubs, Oct. 14, London Free Press)
Grim details indeed. But Mr. Daub’s next sentences reveal he has a fairly common blind spot. Can you guess what it is?
“Young people in Ontario will not stick around to pick up the tab through higher taxes. As the young workforce leaves to escape higher taxes, the government revenues will dry up and all that will be left is a bloated, bankrupt public sector.”
Some astute readers will spot that Mr. Daubs says the public sector will be at fault for the mass exodus of workers in the future, but is blind to the fact that the private sector, with historically low tax rates, is not as great at job-creating as many suggest (it’s better at profit-taking) and must also share part of the blame. That, however, is not the blind spot I mean.
Please note: Daubs feels that the debt will become very high in the future and higher taxes are not only inevitable but will drive away our young workforce.
But... doesn’t he see that debt is large enough now to consider higher taxes? Are higher taxes only to be considered once the $244 billion debt reaches or exceeds $500 billion?
["Let's pay down debt today, then save for tough times": photo GH]
Perhaps taxes should be raised when the debt reaches $450 billion, or $400 billion. Perhaps the acceptable ceiling should be $350 or $300 billion. Maybe $250 billion is better, maybe even $200 or $150 billion.
I feel many of today’s taxpayers are blind to the need to raise taxes now. Leaving debt and inevitable higher taxes to future generations is definitely the wrong course in life.
Another example of modern day blindness to follow.
***
Please click here to read 100 Challenges Ahead 3.
.
A recent letter to the editor offered grim details about Ontario’s debt:
“Ontario is indebted to the tune of $244 billion... taxpayers will be on the hook for almost $500 billion in eight years’ time... this year’s budget would need to be slashed by about 40% and left there for the next ten years in order for us to eliminate the current debt.” (J. Daubs, Oct. 14, London Free Press)
Grim details indeed. But Mr. Daub’s next sentences reveal he has a fairly common blind spot. Can you guess what it is?
“Young people in Ontario will not stick around to pick up the tab through higher taxes. As the young workforce leaves to escape higher taxes, the government revenues will dry up and all that will be left is a bloated, bankrupt public sector.”
Some astute readers will spot that Mr. Daubs says the public sector will be at fault for the mass exodus of workers in the future, but is blind to the fact that the private sector, with historically low tax rates, is not as great at job-creating as many suggest (it’s better at profit-taking) and must also share part of the blame. That, however, is not the blind spot I mean.
Please note: Daubs feels that the debt will become very high in the future and higher taxes are not only inevitable but will drive away our young workforce.
But... doesn’t he see that debt is large enough now to consider higher taxes? Are higher taxes only to be considered once the $244 billion debt reaches or exceeds $500 billion?
["Let's pay down debt today, then save for tough times": photo GH]
Perhaps taxes should be raised when the debt reaches $450 billion, or $400 billion. Perhaps the acceptable ceiling should be $350 or $300 billion. Maybe $250 billion is better, maybe even $200 or $150 billion.
I feel many of today’s taxpayers are blind to the need to raise taxes now. Leaving debt and inevitable higher taxes to future generations is definitely the wrong course in life.
Another example of modern day blindness to follow.
***
Please click here to read 100 Challenges Ahead 3.
.
Monday, September 26, 2011
A $$ Conundrum: “No, don’t take it. Yes, take it.”
Put the following statements into the air space inside the average Canadian’s head and watch a conundrum occur... or a wee explosion of sorts.
One. Canadian policy makers warn Canadians against taking on too much debt.
I don’t know how the message is being delivered, but I guess it’s out there, at least according to my local newspaper.
Two. In Canada, many mortgages and consumer loans are at historically low rates.
Really, inside the lunch bucket I call a head I hear conflicting thoughts. “Gord, don’t take on more debt. Wait a minute, money is cheaper than ever before. Don’t take out a loan. But it’s so cheap. Stand back. Come here. Go away. Come back. No. Yes. Kiss me. Yuck.”
It’s like the conundrum described in ‘Where Did Our Love Go?’, a famous song by The Supremes.
Sing it with me with help from YouTube:
Baby, baby
Baby don't leave me
Ooh, please don't leave me
All by myself.
I've got this yearning, burning
Yearning feelin' inside me
Ooh, deep inside me
And it hurts so bad.
You came into my heart
So tenderly
With a burning love
That stings like a bee.
Now that I surrender
So helplessly
You now wanna leave
Ooh, you wanna leave me.
Ooh, baby, baby
Where did our love go?
Ooh, don't you want me
Don't you want me no more?
Really? The banks don’t want us no more? The heads of average Canadians will likely soon explode.
However, since I believe many Canadians will face even greater debt concerns in the future than they are at present, I suggest we face the conundrum in the following ways:
Though money is very cheap right now, make every effort to live under your means.
So, reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for the tough times ahead.
Stay in your apartment or small house. Think about getting a roommate to help with expenses.
What will you do to survive financially?
***
Please click here to read more about living small.
.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Austerity Without Anxiety (most of the time): Two people live in this one house
Granted, men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Sometimes, they’re from farther away than that.
Daily I’m reminded that two very different people live in my house. Sorry, our house.
He gets up in the morning, showers, dresses, makes coffee and then hunts and gathers for breakfast before sitting down to think or write.
["He leaves items on the counter to share with her": photos GH]
She rises a bit later, showers, dresses, dries her hair, puts on makeup while listening to CBC Radio news, then thinks about breakfast, often one that includes his leftover coffee (“Drat!”) followed by a toasted bagel from the nearby Little Red Roaster.
Coffee, refills and toast or bagel don’t cost much on a daily basis but over the course of a month or year can top out at a surprisingly high number.
He thinks about the cost everyday and eats the expensive PC Meusli she buys topped with the cheaper, crappier Cheerios on occasion (in his mind and wallet, closely linked, this makes the cost per bowl cheaper than straight PC Meusli). He often hopes she will do the same.
She has been cooking meals for 41 years and more often that not prefers to pay for someone else to toast and butter her bagel even though she buys two or three kinds of cereal just to have something on hand and (possibly) irritate her husband.
He often leaves leftovers out on the kitchen counter near the coffee pot to tempt her to the eat at home and save money. She knows this and thinks he’s a goof (though still quite the catch) and that nothing has really changed since they married in 1970.
He tries not to worry that the two of them aren’t always on the same page. Life is a journey and she recently made great homemade soup and muffins so nutritious and inexpensive lunches would be on hand.
And how much can fresh blueberries cost? (He doesn’t really want to know).
***
To keep the peace - and keep from blowing a gasket - I remind myself often of the things I buy primarily for me, e.g., gas and insurance for the motorcycle, tools for the workshop, bargain books, used T-shirts...
That reminds me, I need a good used, sweatshirt for fall.
Please click here for more Austerity Without Anxiety.
.
Daily I’m reminded that two very different people live in my house. Sorry, our house.
He gets up in the morning, showers, dresses, makes coffee and then hunts and gathers for breakfast before sitting down to think or write.
["He leaves items on the counter to share with her": photos GH]
She rises a bit later, showers, dresses, dries her hair, puts on makeup while listening to CBC Radio news, then thinks about breakfast, often one that includes his leftover coffee (“Drat!”) followed by a toasted bagel from the nearby Little Red Roaster.
Coffee, refills and toast or bagel don’t cost much on a daily basis but over the course of a month or year can top out at a surprisingly high number.
He thinks about the cost everyday and eats the expensive PC Meusli she buys topped with the cheaper, crappier Cheerios on occasion (in his mind and wallet, closely linked, this makes the cost per bowl cheaper than straight PC Meusli). He often hopes she will do the same.
She has been cooking meals for 41 years and more often that not prefers to pay for someone else to toast and butter her bagel even though she buys two or three kinds of cereal just to have something on hand and (possibly) irritate her husband.
He often leaves leftovers out on the kitchen counter near the coffee pot to tempt her to the eat at home and save money. She knows this and thinks he’s a goof (though still quite the catch) and that nothing has really changed since they married in 1970.
He tries not to worry that the two of them aren’t always on the same page. Life is a journey and she recently made great homemade soup and muffins so nutritious and inexpensive lunches would be on hand.
And how much can fresh blueberries cost? (He doesn’t really want to know).
***
To keep the peace - and keep from blowing a gasket - I remind myself often of the things I buy primarily for me, e.g., gas and insurance for the motorcycle, tools for the workshop, bargain books, used T-shirts...
That reminds me, I need a good used, sweatshirt for fall.
Please click here for more Austerity Without Anxiety.
.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Series of Significance: Food bubbles, water bubbles in the air
The following three posts were initially published separately beginning on August 15. They are repeated here inside one bubble for your convenience. No extra charge. gah
It’s “Another Saturday Night” PT 1 and I ain’t got no money
Sing it with me now:
“Another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody
I got some money 'cause I just got paid
How I wish I had someone to talk to
I'm in awful way.”
Sam Cooke sang it right in 1963 but if he was singing his hit song today he’d likely have to change the second line to ‘I got no money though I just got paid.’
Oh, he’d be in an awful way all right.
Why? Because he’d be in debt just like most other people in Canada and the US.
Though there are more troubled waters looming, let's look at the debt issue for one more minute.
A recent article with a Canadian perspective states the following:
The financial situation in the US is bad; Washington is borrowing just to stay afloat. Sadly, the same can be said for many Canadian families. (Aug. 4, London Free Press)
[“Hug your piggy bank. Hang on tight.”]
Though the American family wasn’t mentioned, the outlook is as bleak for our neighbours to the south.
Though we think we live in the land of plenty, it isn’t a prosperous place for all families, says the article.
“Credit card and mortgage debt, combined with everyday expenses like putting food on the table, are keeping Canadians from saving for the future.”
Today is tough for many. Tomorrow will likely be tougher without savings.
Though the US is taking on “six times in debt what it makes in annual revenue” - way too much - the average Canadian, with $1.47 debt for every $1 earned, is in a very vulnerable position too.
“Once interest rates begin to climb from historic lows later this year, it could be too late for many Canadians to dig out,” says the head of online bank ING Direct Canada.
Though some recent news reports “more that half of Canadians say they are making good progress paying down their debt” (Aug. 9, London Free Press), the progress may not be enough to help them stay afloat when other troubled waters on the horizon swamp the fragile boat they have boarded by taking on a lifestyle bigger than their weekly pay cheque can afford.
[My mantra, i.e., reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for the tough times ahead, is getting timelier by the minute.]
More about troubled waters to follow.
.
It’s “Another Saturday Night” PT 2 and I still ain’t got no money
[“Though some recent news reports ‘more that half of Canadians say they are making good progress paying down their debt’ (Aug. 9, London Free Press), the progress may not be enough to help them stay afloat.” Aug. 15, G. Harrison]
Sing it with me:
When you're weary, feeling small
When tears are in your eyes, I will dry them all.
I'm on your side
When times get rough
And friends just can't be found,
Like a bridge over troubled water I will lay me down
Like a bridge over troubled water I will lay me down. (P. Simon, 1969)
I think Paul Simon’s song will come to mind often in the near future when troubled waters on the horizon swamp the fragile boat many have boarded by taking on a lifestyle bigger than their weekly pay cheque can afford.
Journalist and author Gwynne Dyer addresses actual water woes - linked to financial problems I touched on in PT 1 - that are building up behind a weakening dam in his most recent column ‘Food supply depends on water supply’ and we should all take note.
[Please click here to link to Dyer’s article.]
Financial problems will likely sink many families soon, but water and subsequent food troubles will sink whole countries.
Dyer mentions more than water and food bubbles that will one day burst. He says, “There is the Chinese real-estate bubble, the biggest in history, which may take the whole world economy down with it when it bursts.” But then he adds, ominously, “But nothing compares with the food bubble.”
Okay, my interest was piqued.
Some highlights follow:
the average world price of grain soared by 71% in the last year
it’s a catastrophe for poor countries, not a catastrophe for some in rich countries who spend 10% or less of income on food supplies
climate change and water constraints will eventually make the situation more serious
water and food bubbles envelop and will affect everyone and their wallets and purses negatively
Some readers may be old enough to recall a food price crisis in the early 1970s and that “the problem was quickly solved by the famous Green Revolution, which hugely increased yields of rice, wheat and corn.”
And today some might be lulled into thinking that for every problem there will be a technological solution, so why worry.
There are drawbacks to that kind of thinking.
About the earlier food price crisis Dyer says, “The only drawback was that the Green Revolution wasn’t really all that green. Higher-yielding strains of familiar crops played a part in the solution, certainly, but so did a vastly increased use of fertilizer: global fertilizer use tripled between 1960 and 1975.”
Dyer perhaps assumes we know that depending on vast amounts of fertilizer is very short-sighted so goes on to his main point - future water shortages and food crises. But many don’t think about fertilizer, especially when roast beef is on sale at $2.99 per pound.
Here are a few highlights about fertilizer from ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan:
“When humankind acquired the power to fix nitrogen (and thereby produce fertilizer), the basis of soil fertility shifted from a total reliance on the energy of the sun to a new reliance on fossil fuel.” (pg. 44)
[“I highly recommend this book”: photo GH]
“...synthetic fertilizer opens the way to monoculture, allowing the farmer to bring the factory’s economies of scale and efficiency to nature... fixing nitrogen allowed the food chain to turn from the logic of biology and embrace the logic of industry. Instead of eating exclusively from the sun, humanity now began to sip petroleum.” (pg. 45)
“When you add together the natural gas in the fertilizer to the fossil fuels it takes to make the pesticides, drive the tractors, and harvest, dry, and transport the corn (more than half of all synthetic nitrogen made today is applied to corn), you find that every bushel of industrial corn requires the equivalent of between a quarter and a third of a gallon of oil to grow it - or around fifty gallons of oil per acre of corn. (Some estimates are higher.)”
“Put another way, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food... ecologically this is a fabulously expensive way to produce food (especially for beef @ $2.99 per pound) - but ‘ecologically’ is no longer the operative standard. As long as fossil fuel energy is so cheap and available, it makes good economic sense to produce corn (and many other foods) this way.”
Fertilizer. Fossil fuels. Food. The interconnection in modern times is guaranteed. The cheap price of food is not. As long as we rely on factory scale farms where production is driven by oil, the price of oil will determine the price of food.
Today, with the price per barrel at $86.05 (a real deal when compared to the price of $105 just a few months ago), and nations around the world scrambling to find new sources in more hard to reach places, the price of food will likely only go up.
Then there’s Dyer’s water issues.
More to follow.
.
It’s “Another Saturday Night” PT 3 and, that’s right, I ain’t got no money
[“Fertilizer. Fossil fuels. Food. The interconnection in modern times is guaranteed. The cheap price of food is not. As long as we rely on factory scale farms where production is driven by oil, the price of oil will determine the price of food... the price of food will likely only go up. Then there’s Dyer’s water issues.” G. Harrison, Aug. 16]
According to Gwynne Dyer, the Chinese real-estate bubble, “the biggest in history,” could take down the whole world economy when it bursts.
As well, as oil prices go so go food prices, since modern factory food production is highly dependent upon fossil fuel based fertilizers and food transportation is based upon even more fossil fuel.
And before I can holler ‘enough already’, there’s the pending problems related to fossil water (Dyer’s term) to consider and act upon.
Not only has the use of fertilizer grown (“global fertilizer use tripled between 1960 and 1975”) but “there was an enormous expansion of the world’s irrigated area. It has more than tripled since 1950.”
Some highlights from Dyer’s article follow:
- 10% of the world’s cropland is irrigated but that 10% provides about 40% of the world’s food
- most new irrigated land uses water from deep underground aquifers (or “fossil” water) which will eventually be pumped dry
- the world will eventually have to make do with the one-third of the land watered by the weather
- it won’t be enough
Though the world’s aquifers won’t all run dry at the same time, Dyer states most aquifers will be dry in 30 years, and some in the US are passed their peak already (e.g., Texas in 1978, California in 1997).
China and India, the two most-heavily populated regions in the world, are straining water resources as well at this time (grain for 175 million Indians is produced by over-pumping water; 130 million Chinese face a dwindling supply now for grain), Israel imports 98% of its grain now and Saudi Arabia will import 100% of its grain by next year.
[“Chinese fishermen on an almost dried up irrigation canal”: photo by David Gray, Reuters]
Rich countries and families will be able to pay when grain prices double from the current price (already we know that the average world price for grain soared by 71% in the last year), but not every country or family one is rich.
Already mounting debt throughout the world is a daily news story and the pile of solutions is getting slimmer by the minute. Is there a ‘bridge over troubled water’ for those who do not have the means to keep up with multiple rising costs? (Unfortunately, food is but one part of our budget).
Dyer concludes by saying, “Never mind what climate change will eventually do to the world food supply (although we will mind very much when it finally hits). The crisis is coming sooner than that, and it is quite unavoidable. We are living way beyond our means.”
Many will be tempted to say it’s just “Another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody” and that’s the extent of their problems.
If we collectively put off living under our means much longer, however, we may miss the satisfying opportunity to do even that.
***
Please click here to read more about our lovely debt situation.
.
It’s “Another Saturday Night” PT 1 and I ain’t got no money
Sing it with me now:
“Another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody
I got some money 'cause I just got paid
How I wish I had someone to talk to
I'm in awful way.”
Sam Cooke sang it right in 1963 but if he was singing his hit song today he’d likely have to change the second line to ‘I got no money though I just got paid.’
Oh, he’d be in an awful way all right.
Why? Because he’d be in debt just like most other people in Canada and the US.
Though there are more troubled waters looming, let's look at the debt issue for one more minute.
A recent article with a Canadian perspective states the following:
The financial situation in the US is bad; Washington is borrowing just to stay afloat. Sadly, the same can be said for many Canadian families. (Aug. 4, London Free Press)
[“Hug your piggy bank. Hang on tight.”]
Though the American family wasn’t mentioned, the outlook is as bleak for our neighbours to the south.
Though we think we live in the land of plenty, it isn’t a prosperous place for all families, says the article.
“Credit card and mortgage debt, combined with everyday expenses like putting food on the table, are keeping Canadians from saving for the future.”
Today is tough for many. Tomorrow will likely be tougher without savings.
Though the US is taking on “six times in debt what it makes in annual revenue” - way too much - the average Canadian, with $1.47 debt for every $1 earned, is in a very vulnerable position too.
“Once interest rates begin to climb from historic lows later this year, it could be too late for many Canadians to dig out,” says the head of online bank ING Direct Canada.
Though some recent news reports “more that half of Canadians say they are making good progress paying down their debt” (Aug. 9, London Free Press), the progress may not be enough to help them stay afloat when other troubled waters on the horizon swamp the fragile boat they have boarded by taking on a lifestyle bigger than their weekly pay cheque can afford.
[My mantra, i.e., reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for the tough times ahead, is getting timelier by the minute.]
More about troubled waters to follow.
.
It’s “Another Saturday Night” PT 2 and I still ain’t got no money
[“Though some recent news reports ‘more that half of Canadians say they are making good progress paying down their debt’ (Aug. 9, London Free Press), the progress may not be enough to help them stay afloat.” Aug. 15, G. Harrison]
Sing it with me:
When you're weary, feeling small
When tears are in your eyes, I will dry them all.
I'm on your side
When times get rough
And friends just can't be found,
Like a bridge over troubled water I will lay me down
Like a bridge over troubled water I will lay me down. (P. Simon, 1969)
I think Paul Simon’s song will come to mind often in the near future when troubled waters on the horizon swamp the fragile boat many have boarded by taking on a lifestyle bigger than their weekly pay cheque can afford.
Journalist and author Gwynne Dyer addresses actual water woes - linked to financial problems I touched on in PT 1 - that are building up behind a weakening dam in his most recent column ‘Food supply depends on water supply’ and we should all take note.
[Please click here to link to Dyer’s article.]
Financial problems will likely sink many families soon, but water and subsequent food troubles will sink whole countries.
Dyer mentions more than water and food bubbles that will one day burst. He says, “There is the Chinese real-estate bubble, the biggest in history, which may take the whole world economy down with it when it bursts.” But then he adds, ominously, “But nothing compares with the food bubble.”
Okay, my interest was piqued.
Some highlights follow:
the average world price of grain soared by 71% in the last year
it’s a catastrophe for poor countries, not a catastrophe for some in rich countries who spend 10% or less of income on food supplies
climate change and water constraints will eventually make the situation more serious
water and food bubbles envelop and will affect everyone and their wallets and purses negatively
Some readers may be old enough to recall a food price crisis in the early 1970s and that “the problem was quickly solved by the famous Green Revolution, which hugely increased yields of rice, wheat and corn.”
And today some might be lulled into thinking that for every problem there will be a technological solution, so why worry.
There are drawbacks to that kind of thinking.
About the earlier food price crisis Dyer says, “The only drawback was that the Green Revolution wasn’t really all that green. Higher-yielding strains of familiar crops played a part in the solution, certainly, but so did a vastly increased use of fertilizer: global fertilizer use tripled between 1960 and 1975.”
Dyer perhaps assumes we know that depending on vast amounts of fertilizer is very short-sighted so goes on to his main point - future water shortages and food crises. But many don’t think about fertilizer, especially when roast beef is on sale at $2.99 per pound.
Here are a few highlights about fertilizer from ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan:
“When humankind acquired the power to fix nitrogen (and thereby produce fertilizer), the basis of soil fertility shifted from a total reliance on the energy of the sun to a new reliance on fossil fuel.” (pg. 44)
[“I highly recommend this book”: photo GH]
“...synthetic fertilizer opens the way to monoculture, allowing the farmer to bring the factory’s economies of scale and efficiency to nature... fixing nitrogen allowed the food chain to turn from the logic of biology and embrace the logic of industry. Instead of eating exclusively from the sun, humanity now began to sip petroleum.” (pg. 45)
“When you add together the natural gas in the fertilizer to the fossil fuels it takes to make the pesticides, drive the tractors, and harvest, dry, and transport the corn (more than half of all synthetic nitrogen made today is applied to corn), you find that every bushel of industrial corn requires the equivalent of between a quarter and a third of a gallon of oil to grow it - or around fifty gallons of oil per acre of corn. (Some estimates are higher.)”
“Put another way, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food... ecologically this is a fabulously expensive way to produce food (especially for beef @ $2.99 per pound) - but ‘ecologically’ is no longer the operative standard. As long as fossil fuel energy is so cheap and available, it makes good economic sense to produce corn (and many other foods) this way.”
Fertilizer. Fossil fuels. Food. The interconnection in modern times is guaranteed. The cheap price of food is not. As long as we rely on factory scale farms where production is driven by oil, the price of oil will determine the price of food.
Today, with the price per barrel at $86.05 (a real deal when compared to the price of $105 just a few months ago), and nations around the world scrambling to find new sources in more hard to reach places, the price of food will likely only go up.
Then there’s Dyer’s water issues.
More to follow.
.
It’s “Another Saturday Night” PT 3 and, that’s right, I ain’t got no money
[“Fertilizer. Fossil fuels. Food. The interconnection in modern times is guaranteed. The cheap price of food is not. As long as we rely on factory scale farms where production is driven by oil, the price of oil will determine the price of food... the price of food will likely only go up. Then there’s Dyer’s water issues.” G. Harrison, Aug. 16]
According to Gwynne Dyer, the Chinese real-estate bubble, “the biggest in history,” could take down the whole world economy when it bursts.
As well, as oil prices go so go food prices, since modern factory food production is highly dependent upon fossil fuel based fertilizers and food transportation is based upon even more fossil fuel.
And before I can holler ‘enough already’, there’s the pending problems related to fossil water (Dyer’s term) to consider and act upon.
Not only has the use of fertilizer grown (“global fertilizer use tripled between 1960 and 1975”) but “there was an enormous expansion of the world’s irrigated area. It has more than tripled since 1950.”
Some highlights from Dyer’s article follow:
- 10% of the world’s cropland is irrigated but that 10% provides about 40% of the world’s food
- most new irrigated land uses water from deep underground aquifers (or “fossil” water) which will eventually be pumped dry
- the world will eventually have to make do with the one-third of the land watered by the weather
- it won’t be enough
Though the world’s aquifers won’t all run dry at the same time, Dyer states most aquifers will be dry in 30 years, and some in the US are passed their peak already (e.g., Texas in 1978, California in 1997).
China and India, the two most-heavily populated regions in the world, are straining water resources as well at this time (grain for 175 million Indians is produced by over-pumping water; 130 million Chinese face a dwindling supply now for grain), Israel imports 98% of its grain now and Saudi Arabia will import 100% of its grain by next year.
[“Chinese fishermen on an almost dried up irrigation canal”: photo by David Gray, Reuters]
Rich countries and families will be able to pay when grain prices double from the current price (already we know that the average world price for grain soared by 71% in the last year), but not every country or family one is rich.
Already mounting debt throughout the world is a daily news story and the pile of solutions is getting slimmer by the minute. Is there a ‘bridge over troubled water’ for those who do not have the means to keep up with multiple rising costs? (Unfortunately, food is but one part of our budget).
Dyer concludes by saying, “Never mind what climate change will eventually do to the world food supply (although we will mind very much when it finally hits). The crisis is coming sooner than that, and it is quite unavoidable. We are living way beyond our means.”
Many will be tempted to say it’s just “Another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody” and that’s the extent of their problems.
If we collectively put off living under our means much longer, however, we may miss the satisfying opportunity to do even that.
***
Please click here to read more about our lovely debt situation.
.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Way We Live PT 2: Warren Buffett will pay more taxes
[“City hall (London, Ontario) will tap out wallets so long as that is the path of least resistance. Let’s push back. E-mail your councillors just two words: freeze taxes!” Aug. 18, D. Steers, London Free Press]
According to the headline in the Aug. 16 issue of my local paper, ‘Buffett wants to pay more tax.’ I didn’t see that coming.
But Warren Buffett’s timing is perfect. (He strikes me as a leftovers-kinda-guy, and knows when enough is enough. I bet he doesn’t mind getting his hands dirty, stuffing his own sausages, making his own gourmet dog once in awhile. Let me know if I’m wrong.)
[“Thumbs up! Warren and Gord like this sausage tutorial.”: photo link]
At the moment US politicians are struggling to reduce the nation’s deficit and get runaway debt under control. “Added revenue” or taxes might be one way to go as far as Buffett, one of the world’s three richest men, is concerned.
His thinking flies in the face of the common default position for a growing number of North Americans who chant, scream or push the following views:
Freeze taxes!
Cut taxes!
Cut government staff and programs!
Get government out of our faces!
Buffett’s position, that the wealthy “have it better than we’ve ever had it” and that they have an obligation to pay substantially more tax, flies in the face of a philosophy espoused by many government leaders and media pundits (not me, however, ‘cause I don’t even know what a pundit is).
Peter Worthington, media pundit of some renown, shares the philosophy in a recent article re the US deficit and debt:
“The only thing that can, or will, curb the growing national debt is productivity.”
(In other words, to bring unsustainable debt under control we must follow the business as usual path of unsustainable production and industrial growth. Now, that’s radical! Sorry, I digress.)
“The answer is not raising taxes, especially if you want the economy to flourish. Yet for many politicians, raising taxes is the limit of their imaginations - especially on those they regard as “the rich.” What is often overlooked is that it is usually rich people who have the wherewithal to create jobs, and therefore become richer. In the process, American workers have also become richer.”(Aug. 8, London Free Press)
With 9.2% unemployment in the US, maybe the above philosophy needs a closer look. Maybe it’s time the unsustainable production game is dialed back a bit and level of taxation for the millions who can afford to pay more is dialed up a bit.
Though Republicans in the US and certain folks in Canada will continue to resist higher taxes for the wealthy, maybe some of Buffett’s words will carry some weight.
“While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and whilst most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extra-ordinary tax breaks."
A spokesperson for one notably wealthy person (contacted by Reuters) responded to Buffett’s challenge with the following:
“George Soros says he agrees and congratulates Warren Buffett. The rich are hurting their own long-term interests by their opposition to paying more taxes.”
Whatever Buffett is up to, or whatever his motivation, I think the subject of long-term interests must be put on the table for a moment.
More to follow.
***
Definition; pundit - learned expert or teacher. (Concise Oxford Dictionary)
Yeah, that’s not me.
Please click here to read The Way We Live PT 1.
.
According to the headline in the Aug. 16 issue of my local paper, ‘Buffett wants to pay more tax.’ I didn’t see that coming.
But Warren Buffett’s timing is perfect. (He strikes me as a leftovers-kinda-guy, and knows when enough is enough. I bet he doesn’t mind getting his hands dirty, stuffing his own sausages, making his own gourmet dog once in awhile. Let me know if I’m wrong.)
[“Thumbs up! Warren and Gord like this sausage tutorial.”: photo link]
At the moment US politicians are struggling to reduce the nation’s deficit and get runaway debt under control. “Added revenue” or taxes might be one way to go as far as Buffett, one of the world’s three richest men, is concerned.
His thinking flies in the face of the common default position for a growing number of North Americans who chant, scream or push the following views:
Freeze taxes!
Cut taxes!
Cut government staff and programs!
Get government out of our faces!
Buffett’s position, that the wealthy “have it better than we’ve ever had it” and that they have an obligation to pay substantially more tax, flies in the face of a philosophy espoused by many government leaders and media pundits (not me, however, ‘cause I don’t even know what a pundit is).
Peter Worthington, media pundit of some renown, shares the philosophy in a recent article re the US deficit and debt:
“The only thing that can, or will, curb the growing national debt is productivity.”
(In other words, to bring unsustainable debt under control we must follow the business as usual path of unsustainable production and industrial growth. Now, that’s radical! Sorry, I digress.)
“The answer is not raising taxes, especially if you want the economy to flourish. Yet for many politicians, raising taxes is the limit of their imaginations - especially on those they regard as “the rich.” What is often overlooked is that it is usually rich people who have the wherewithal to create jobs, and therefore become richer. In the process, American workers have also become richer.”(Aug. 8, London Free Press)
With 9.2% unemployment in the US, maybe the above philosophy needs a closer look. Maybe it’s time the unsustainable production game is dialed back a bit and level of taxation for the millions who can afford to pay more is dialed up a bit.
Though Republicans in the US and certain folks in Canada will continue to resist higher taxes for the wealthy, maybe some of Buffett’s words will carry some weight.
“While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and whilst most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extra-ordinary tax breaks."
A spokesperson for one notably wealthy person (contacted by Reuters) responded to Buffett’s challenge with the following:
“George Soros says he agrees and congratulates Warren Buffett. The rich are hurting their own long-term interests by their opposition to paying more taxes.”
Whatever Buffett is up to, or whatever his motivation, I think the subject of long-term interests must be put on the table for a moment.
More to follow.
***
Definition; pundit - learned expert or teacher. (Concise Oxford Dictionary)
Yeah, that’s not me.
Please click here to read The Way We Live PT 1.
.
Monday, August 15, 2011
It’s “Another Saturday Night” and I ain't got no money
Sing it with me now:
“Another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody
I got some money 'cause I just got paid.
How I wish I had someone to talk to
I'm in awful way.”
Sam Cooke sang it right in 1963 but if he was singing his hit song today he’d likely have to change the second line to ‘I ain't got no money though I just got paid.’
Oh, he’d be in an awful pickle alright, with nobody and no money.
Why? Because he’d be in debt just like most other people in Canada and the US.
A recent article with a Canadian perspective states the following:
The financial situation in the US is bad; Washington is borrowing just to stay afloat. Sadly, the same can be said for many Canadian families. (Aug. 4, London Free Press)
Though the American family wasn’t mentioned, the outlook is as bleak, if not bleaker, for our neighbours to the south.
Though we think we live in the land of plenty, it isn’t a prosperous place for all families, says the article.
“Credit card and mortgage debt, combined with everyday expenses like putting food on the table, are keeping Canadians from saving for the future.”
Today is tough for many. Tomorrow will be tougher without savings.
Though the US is taking on “six times in debt what it makes in annual revenue” - way too much to handle - the average Canadian, with $1.47 debt for every $1 earned, is in a very vulnerable position too.
“Once interest rates begin to climb from historic lows later this year, it could be too late for many Canadians to dig out,” says the head of online bank ING Direct Canada.
Though some recent news reports “more that half of Canadians say they are making good progress paying down their debt” (Aug. 9, London Free Press), the progress won't help them stay afloat when other troubled waters on the horizon swamp the boat they have weighted down with a lifestyle bigger than their weekly pay cheque can afford.
[My mantra, i.e., reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for the tough times ahead, is getting timelier by the minute.]
More about troubled waters to follow.
***
Please click here to read more about our lovely debt situation.
.
“Another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody
I got some money 'cause I just got paid.
How I wish I had someone to talk to
I'm in awful way.”
Sam Cooke sang it right in 1963 but if he was singing his hit song today he’d likely have to change the second line to ‘I ain't got no money though I just got paid.’
Oh, he’d be in an awful pickle alright, with nobody and no money.
Why? Because he’d be in debt just like most other people in Canada and the US.
A recent article with a Canadian perspective states the following:
The financial situation in the US is bad; Washington is borrowing just to stay afloat. Sadly, the same can be said for many Canadian families. (Aug. 4, London Free Press)
Though the American family wasn’t mentioned, the outlook is as bleak, if not bleaker, for our neighbours to the south.
Though we think we live in the land of plenty, it isn’t a prosperous place for all families, says the article.
“Credit card and mortgage debt, combined with everyday expenses like putting food on the table, are keeping Canadians from saving for the future.”
Today is tough for many. Tomorrow will be tougher without savings.
Though the US is taking on “six times in debt what it makes in annual revenue” - way too much to handle - the average Canadian, with $1.47 debt for every $1 earned, is in a very vulnerable position too.
“Once interest rates begin to climb from historic lows later this year, it could be too late for many Canadians to dig out,” says the head of online bank ING Direct Canada.
Though some recent news reports “more that half of Canadians say they are making good progress paying down their debt” (Aug. 9, London Free Press), the progress won't help them stay afloat when other troubled waters on the horizon swamp the boat they have weighted down with a lifestyle bigger than their weekly pay cheque can afford.
[My mantra, i.e., reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for the tough times ahead, is getting timelier by the minute.]
More about troubled waters to follow.
***
Please click here to read more about our lovely debt situation.
.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
London’s Job Summit: We can dig a grave. Can we climb out?
[What is London, Ontario? “It’s a low, wide city several degrees hotter than surrounding forests and farmland, built in sprawling, extravagant fashion when fossil fuels were cheap.” G. Harrison, Londoner, July 28]
Tomorrow, Mayor Joe Fontana will preside over an emergency summit involving some business leaders, politicians and interested parties that will brainstorm solutions to our city’s jobless crisis.
The mayor and many others now realize that with unemployment at 9.1 per cent, the highest rate of a major Canadian city (the number employed is down 3.5% over last year with reportedly 8,300 fewer people employed), if something isn’t done now to fill the hole we will not only appear to be standing in our own grave but making it deeper.
["I kin dig a hole so deep you can't get out."]
Unfortunately, I feel the summit will fail to reverse the grave-deepening trend if local politicians and business leaders adopt one of Mayor Fontana’s mantras, i.e., that it’s only a short-term problem, that if we can get over this jobless hump we can return to business as usual.
Fontana says we need to “get over this hump for 2011,” that he’s “not so concerned about our future, but... 9.1% (unemployment) causes us all to gasp and say in the short term, there are headwinds we are facing.”
Though I appreciate his confidence and enthusiasm, feigned or otherwise, I think we need to bear the long term in mind, especially now that the ground upon which we stand is sinking.
For several decades London has been growing far, fat and wide - in pursuit of the culture of big - on the back of cheap oil. Many citizens of this fair town have made a show of prosperity with bigger properties, homes, closets, cars, pools and countless material possessions while household, provincial, national and global debt has been growing deeper.
For a dozen decades or more, many cities and countries have become accustomed to growing productivity on the back of finite resources, e.g., petroleum, wood and metals.
Ron Wright, in A Short History of Progress, describes our prosperity in this manner:
“We in the lucky countries of the West now regard our two-century bubble of freedom and affluence as normal and inevitable... Our age was bankrolled by the seizing of half a planet, extended by taking over most of the remaining half, and has been sustained by spending down new forms of natural capital, especially fossil fuels. In the New World, the West hit the biggest bonanza of all time.”
["I'm jist lookin' fer the right way to turn."]
Many citizens and businesses have grown prosperous, even excessively so, and visible signs of increasing wealth (the big houses, cars, closets, computers, etc.) are commonplace, as is associated debt.
Now, trapped by the trappings of the big lifestyle they desire and somehow feel entitled to, many countries and cities face the long term battle of not getting buried in a grave of their own making.
Will a frozen pizza factory on the 401 bail London out? Are more companies like it the answer? Is a stimulus package that will return us to ‘business as usual’ the way to go?
I think not. The Corporation of the City of London needs to make a fundamental shift away from the culture of big.
In my opinion, one part of the answer will be found where some business minds (especially in the home construction industry) would least expect it - inside an 800 square foot house.
***
Please click here to read more about The Culture of Small.
.
Tomorrow, Mayor Joe Fontana will preside over an emergency summit involving some business leaders, politicians and interested parties that will brainstorm solutions to our city’s jobless crisis.
The mayor and many others now realize that with unemployment at 9.1 per cent, the highest rate of a major Canadian city (the number employed is down 3.5% over last year with reportedly 8,300 fewer people employed), if something isn’t done now to fill the hole we will not only appear to be standing in our own grave but making it deeper.
["I kin dig a hole so deep you can't get out."]
Unfortunately, I feel the summit will fail to reverse the grave-deepening trend if local politicians and business leaders adopt one of Mayor Fontana’s mantras, i.e., that it’s only a short-term problem, that if we can get over this jobless hump we can return to business as usual.
Fontana says we need to “get over this hump for 2011,” that he’s “not so concerned about our future, but... 9.1% (unemployment) causes us all to gasp and say in the short term, there are headwinds we are facing.”
Though I appreciate his confidence and enthusiasm, feigned or otherwise, I think we need to bear the long term in mind, especially now that the ground upon which we stand is sinking.
For several decades London has been growing far, fat and wide - in pursuit of the culture of big - on the back of cheap oil. Many citizens of this fair town have made a show of prosperity with bigger properties, homes, closets, cars, pools and countless material possessions while household, provincial, national and global debt has been growing deeper.
For a dozen decades or more, many cities and countries have become accustomed to growing productivity on the back of finite resources, e.g., petroleum, wood and metals.
Ron Wright, in A Short History of Progress, describes our prosperity in this manner:
“We in the lucky countries of the West now regard our two-century bubble of freedom and affluence as normal and inevitable... Our age was bankrolled by the seizing of half a planet, extended by taking over most of the remaining half, and has been sustained by spending down new forms of natural capital, especially fossil fuels. In the New World, the West hit the biggest bonanza of all time.”
["I'm jist lookin' fer the right way to turn."]
Many citizens and businesses have grown prosperous, even excessively so, and visible signs of increasing wealth (the big houses, cars, closets, computers, etc.) are commonplace, as is associated debt.
Now, trapped by the trappings of the big lifestyle they desire and somehow feel entitled to, many countries and cities face the long term battle of not getting buried in a grave of their own making.
Will a frozen pizza factory on the 401 bail London out? Are more companies like it the answer? Is a stimulus package that will return us to ‘business as usual’ the way to go?
I think not. The Corporation of the City of London needs to make a fundamental shift away from the culture of big.
In my opinion, one part of the answer will be found where some business minds (especially in the home construction industry) would least expect it - inside an 800 square foot house.
***
Please click here to read more about The Culture of Small.
.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Climate Change Concerns: Can we afford our present lifestyle?
[The following two posts were recently listed in separate parts. They are here in one piece for your convenience. No extra charge. gah]
Part 1
Climate Change Concerns: Can we afford our present lifestyle?
Summer is coming. Travel plans are being made. Back deck lovers will eat many a gourmet hotdog and overloaded cheeseburger.
Burp. Life is good.
Maybe too good.
Planet Earth is becoming a pretty expensive piece of real estate to live upon. Fire-, weather- and climate change-related events are coming with higher price tags than ever before. Should we be reducing our spending and saving for tougher times ahead?
Relatively recently we’ve read about Iceland’s volcanic eruptions delaying travel, fires in Alberta driving entire populations from their towns and homes, tsunamis crippling some parts of Japan, floods burying large parts of Australia, tornados flattening towns like Joplin, Missouri. The heavy personal and financial tolls of international disasters seem to be rising.
From Dec. 23, 2009:
“A report from the Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters noted that 224 out of 245 international disasters this year were weather-related, causing $15 billion US in economic damage.”
I think the Center for Research must have only been looking at specific kinds of disasters. According to insurance company records, international losses are staggering.
This from The Little Green Handbook:
re The probability of global bankruptcy.
“Perhaps the best and the most convincing short-cut to the problems associated with studying the slow process of climate change and extreme weather lies in weather-related economic losses... i.e., the money we have to pay for weather-induced damage. These records are maintained by insurance companies, and it is in their interest to make them reliable.”
“According to Munich Re, global weather-related economic losses increased from $3 billion per year in 1980 to $80 billion per year at the end of the 20th century.”
(That’s an increase of $77 billion per year in 20 years. Pretty steep. Our years spent on the planet are getting dearer as I speak.)
“Losses per decade increased from $86 billion for 1980 - 89 to $474 billion for 1990 - 99.”
Though I have no records of economic losses for the last, most recent decade, and though not all economic losses were climate-change related, I have to assume global expenses went north.
It begs the question? Can Planet Earth and its inhabitants afford the way humans choose to live?
.
Part 2
Climate Change Concerns: Can we afford our present lifestyle?
Economic losses related to weather and climate change increased from $86 billion for 1980 - 89 to $474 billion for 1990 - 99. (pg. 102, Little Green Handbook)
And though I have no numbers for the last, most recent decade, I have to assume global expenses went north.
Ron Nielsen, DSc and author of the Green Handbook asks, “How long can we cope with weather-related economic losses?”
He then answers his own question.
“If global income is substantially greater than the losses, and if it increases at least as fast as the losses, we have nothing to worry about. There will always be enough money to repair the damage. If global income increases more slowly than the losses, it is worthwhile to calculate how long the money will last.”
Okay, someone has to ask, Dr. Nielsen, how long will the money last?
“To estimate this period I have analysed the data for weather-related economic losses and for gross world product (GWP), both expressed in 2001 US dollars. Preliminary examination of the data shows that the prospects are not encouraging, because the losses are increasing much faster than income.
“As we have seen, global weather-related losses per decade increased from $86 billion to $474 billion, or 450 per cent, in the last two decades of the 20th century. However, GWP increased from $291 trillion per decade to $386 trillion, or 33 per cent, during the same period. GWP is still greater than the weather-related losses, but the losses are increasing much faster, and in time they might match global income. That would mean global bankruptcy.”
Okay, someone has to ask, if present trends continue, when will the planet be bankrupt?
“Weather-related economic losses can be fitted by using exponential function. The best fit corresponds to a doubling time of 4.42 years. GWP can be fitted using a polynominal function, which increases slowly and has no doubling time. The two calculated curves cross in 2045. If about that time we decide to repair the damage there will be no money left for anything else.”
Thank you, Dr. Nielsen. I’d give you a parting gift but I don’t think I can afford one.
2045. Bankrupt. If alive, I’ll be 95, closing shutters to protect myself from extreme weather and dipping into my birdhouse money on a pretty regular basis.
So, as I ask in the post’s title, can we afford our present lifestyle, knowing that the costs related to extreme weather - some undoubtedly related to climate change - will get higher? Or, can Planet Earth and its inhabitants afford the way humans choose to live?
If we think long-term and have half a wit of concern for those that follow in our deep footprints on Planet Earth (maybe we’ll have changed the name by 2045 to Junk Star Galactica), the answer must be NO.
I recommend we reduce spending, pay down debt, and save money for the tough, thin times ahead.
***
Please click here for more Climate Change Concerns.
.
Part 1
Climate Change Concerns: Can we afford our present lifestyle?
Summer is coming. Travel plans are being made. Back deck lovers will eat many a gourmet hotdog and overloaded cheeseburger.
Burp. Life is good.
Maybe too good.
Planet Earth is becoming a pretty expensive piece of real estate to live upon. Fire-, weather- and climate change-related events are coming with higher price tags than ever before. Should we be reducing our spending and saving for tougher times ahead?
Relatively recently we’ve read about Iceland’s volcanic eruptions delaying travel, fires in Alberta driving entire populations from their towns and homes, tsunamis crippling some parts of Japan, floods burying large parts of Australia, tornados flattening towns like Joplin, Missouri. The heavy personal and financial tolls of international disasters seem to be rising.
From Dec. 23, 2009:
“A report from the Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters noted that 224 out of 245 international disasters this year were weather-related, causing $15 billion US in economic damage.”
I think the Center for Research must have only been looking at specific kinds of disasters. According to insurance company records, international losses are staggering.
This from The Little Green Handbook:
re The probability of global bankruptcy.
“Perhaps the best and the most convincing short-cut to the problems associated with studying the slow process of climate change and extreme weather lies in weather-related economic losses... i.e., the money we have to pay for weather-induced damage. These records are maintained by insurance companies, and it is in their interest to make them reliable.”
“According to Munich Re, global weather-related economic losses increased from $3 billion per year in 1980 to $80 billion per year at the end of the 20th century.”
(That’s an increase of $77 billion per year in 20 years. Pretty steep. Our years spent on the planet are getting dearer as I speak.)
“Losses per decade increased from $86 billion for 1980 - 89 to $474 billion for 1990 - 99.”
Though I have no records of economic losses for the last, most recent decade, and though not all economic losses were climate-change related, I have to assume global expenses went north.
It begs the question? Can Planet Earth and its inhabitants afford the way humans choose to live?
.
Part 2
Climate Change Concerns: Can we afford our present lifestyle?
Economic losses related to weather and climate change increased from $86 billion for 1980 - 89 to $474 billion for 1990 - 99. (pg. 102, Little Green Handbook)
And though I have no numbers for the last, most recent decade, I have to assume global expenses went north.
Ron Nielsen, DSc and author of the Green Handbook asks, “How long can we cope with weather-related economic losses?”
He then answers his own question.
“If global income is substantially greater than the losses, and if it increases at least as fast as the losses, we have nothing to worry about. There will always be enough money to repair the damage. If global income increases more slowly than the losses, it is worthwhile to calculate how long the money will last.”
Okay, someone has to ask, Dr. Nielsen, how long will the money last?
“To estimate this period I have analysed the data for weather-related economic losses and for gross world product (GWP), both expressed in 2001 US dollars. Preliminary examination of the data shows that the prospects are not encouraging, because the losses are increasing much faster than income.
“As we have seen, global weather-related losses per decade increased from $86 billion to $474 billion, or 450 per cent, in the last two decades of the 20th century. However, GWP increased from $291 trillion per decade to $386 trillion, or 33 per cent, during the same period. GWP is still greater than the weather-related losses, but the losses are increasing much faster, and in time they might match global income. That would mean global bankruptcy.”
Okay, someone has to ask, if present trends continue, when will the planet be bankrupt?
“Weather-related economic losses can be fitted by using exponential function. The best fit corresponds to a doubling time of 4.42 years. GWP can be fitted using a polynominal function, which increases slowly and has no doubling time. The two calculated curves cross in 2045. If about that time we decide to repair the damage there will be no money left for anything else.”
Thank you, Dr. Nielsen. I’d give you a parting gift but I don’t think I can afford one.
2045. Bankrupt. If alive, I’ll be 95, closing shutters to protect myself from extreme weather and dipping into my birdhouse money on a pretty regular basis.
So, as I ask in the post’s title, can we afford our present lifestyle, knowing that the costs related to extreme weather - some undoubtedly related to climate change - will get higher? Or, can Planet Earth and its inhabitants afford the way humans choose to live?
If we think long-term and have half a wit of concern for those that follow in our deep footprints on Planet Earth (maybe we’ll have changed the name by 2045 to Junk Star Galactica), the answer must be NO.
I recommend we reduce spending, pay down debt, and save money for the tough, thin times ahead.
***
Please click here for more Climate Change Concerns.
.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Bits and Pieces: PT 2 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[In 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes. Spending on food, clothing and shelter added up to 34% of the family income, the study found (i.e., a new study from conservative think-tank the Fraser Institute). April 27, London Free Press]
When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees.
["Where do I stand concerning tax rates?": photo of GH, 1969]
When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.
I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.
So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?
How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.
And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.
Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive, or not receive, compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.
Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.
Stay tuned.
***
Please click here to read PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
.
When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees.
["Where do I stand concerning tax rates?": photo of GH, 1969]
When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.
I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.
So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?
How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.
And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.
Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive, or not receive, compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.
Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.
Stay tuned.
***
Please click here to read PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Bits and Pieces: Will the price of fries rip our heart out?
“Canadians spent more than $4.2 billion eating out in December, according to figures from Statistics Canada... up 1% from November.”
“The sales of restaurant food has been on an upward trend since February 2010... growing by about 2.9%” (March 1, London Free Press)
Is the perfect job that of a cashier at a restaurant?
Cashier: Did you enjoy your meal?
Customer: Heck yeah. I’m stuffed to the eyeballs.
Cashier: Here, have a mint. A toothpick.
Customer: I couldn’t put another thing in my mouth right now. Maybe tomorrow night. Buuurrr-whaaaap. Geez, excuse me.
Cashier: Here’s your change.
Customer: Keep it.
Cashier: Why, thank you so much. Would you like help to your car?
Customer: No thanks. I leave a wheel barrow outside the door. My wife will haul my butt to the car. Haaahh-haaaww.
Meanwhile, back at Reality Ranch, a shift in the lay of the land appears on the horizon. Corn, soy, wheat prices are rising. The dust of grain enriches many of the foods we eat and feeds the animals we use primarily as meat stocks. Oil, the grease on every agricultural wheel, flies North too.
["We should train for tough times ahead": photo link to mojo]
Food costs will likely rise 5 - 10% in 2011 alone and keep bearing North.
A hike in the price of fries will touch a long, unhealthy nerve. Many, many salty tears will fall.
Cashiers at popular diners and watering holes will take a hit.
Is there a perfect job?
***
Please click here for more data concerning rising costs.
.
“The sales of restaurant food has been on an upward trend since February 2010... growing by about 2.9%” (March 1, London Free Press)
Is the perfect job that of a cashier at a restaurant?
Cashier: Did you enjoy your meal?
Customer: Heck yeah. I’m stuffed to the eyeballs.
Cashier: Here, have a mint. A toothpick.
Customer: I couldn’t put another thing in my mouth right now. Maybe tomorrow night. Buuurrr-whaaaap. Geez, excuse me.
Cashier: Here’s your change.
Customer: Keep it.
Cashier: Why, thank you so much. Would you like help to your car?
Customer: No thanks. I leave a wheel barrow outside the door. My wife will haul my butt to the car. Haaahh-haaaww.
Meanwhile, back at Reality Ranch, a shift in the lay of the land appears on the horizon. Corn, soy, wheat prices are rising. The dust of grain enriches many of the foods we eat and feeds the animals we use primarily as meat stocks. Oil, the grease on every agricultural wheel, flies North too.
["We should train for tough times ahead": photo link to mojo]
Food costs will likely rise 5 - 10% in 2011 alone and keep bearing North.
A hike in the price of fries will touch a long, unhealthy nerve. Many, many salty tears will fall.
Cashiers at popular diners and watering holes will take a hit.
Is there a perfect job?
***
Please click here for more data concerning rising costs.
.
Bits and Pieces: A culinary and photo challenge
Food prices are going north. We shouldn’t be surprised.
Maybe we’re disappointed that it’s happening, but not surprised. And already some readers may be learning to cook in order to cut costs.
["Yellow label Frontier Stew. What can be said about it?"]
Years ago, after I retired, I made my first batch of lasagna as a learning experience and a challenge. I learned I could cook great lasagna and - related to a challenge to myself - make more than a large tray of a popular brand of frozen lasagna for the same price.
["Can I make 665 grams of stew for a cheaper price?"]
(I wrote a column about it. The world was turned on its ear. Maybe I’ll look for it. Maybe I’ll reprint it here now that the column is my property again).
["Don't let this nice picture fool you.": photos by GH]
Due to rising food costs and the distinct possibility I’ll find myself in the kitchen more than in the past, I’ve issued myself two challenges.
One. Make something like Frontier Stew (not ‘exactly’ like, fer Pete’s sake) but for a cheaper price.
["With flash. I am looking for the green beans."]
Two. Take a photo of yellow label Frontier Stew that makes it look better than it actually tastes.
["Without flash. I've stopped lookin' fer the beans."]
I’ve got my work cut out for me.
***
Please click here for more Bits and Pieces.
Please click here for a trip to Zoom w a View.
.
Maybe we’re disappointed that it’s happening, but not surprised. And already some readers may be learning to cook in order to cut costs.
["Yellow label Frontier Stew. What can be said about it?"]
Years ago, after I retired, I made my first batch of lasagna as a learning experience and a challenge. I learned I could cook great lasagna and - related to a challenge to myself - make more than a large tray of a popular brand of frozen lasagna for the same price.
["Can I make 665 grams of stew for a cheaper price?"]
(I wrote a column about it. The world was turned on its ear. Maybe I’ll look for it. Maybe I’ll reprint it here now that the column is my property again).
["Don't let this nice picture fool you.": photos by GH]
Due to rising food costs and the distinct possibility I’ll find myself in the kitchen more than in the past, I’ve issued myself two challenges.
One. Make something like Frontier Stew (not ‘exactly’ like, fer Pete’s sake) but for a cheaper price.
["With flash. I am looking for the green beans."]
Two. Take a photo of yellow label Frontier Stew that makes it look better than it actually tastes.
["Without flash. I've stopped lookin' fer the beans."]
I’ve got my work cut out for me.
***
Please click here for more Bits and Pieces.
Please click here for a trip to Zoom w a View.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)