Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said in response to a question about the lack of evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction linking Iraq to terrorists:
“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”
While there might be some political avoidance in his answer, the answer itself actually provides valuable insight into the role knowledge plays in not only political decisions, but also risk assessment in economics, project management, and other fields.
I also think these ideas apply philosophically to the wonders of the universe.
For me, as an agnostic, my known knowns would be that which is either inherent in life or that which science has proven. For example, we inherently know that we will all eventually die. However, in the bigger picture, science has offered with certainly the Big Bang universe creation principle and that life changes over time through evolution. Though many of the details, especially those in astrophysics, are still being tested, the known knowns offer an explanation of life from moments after the Big Bang through our current existence. Evolution, through biological and geological study, particularly the fossil record, makes this natural phenomenon a known.
Moving beyond the known knowns to the known unknowns, we consider those things that we are familiar with but are yet unknown due to a lack of evidence or perhaps indistinguishable probabilities. In my philosophical consideration, there is both the time before the Big Bang, of which all I know is a possibility (unless something is created from nothing) and the time after we die. Regarding the latter, there are many known unknowns, such as religion, spirituality, and a host of other belief systems.
It is unknown to me who gets it right. Are Christians right? What about Islam and the other major religions? Do we go to heaven, hell, or are we reincarnated? Do we survive spiritually in some form of energy? Or maybe, nothing happens. So while I know there are many possibilities, I cannot assign probabilities—making them unknowns.
The unknown unknowns are of course the most difficult. It’s also referenced as, “We don’t know what we don’t know.” For example, I cannot comprehend the idea that something is created from nothing— which makes the time before the Big Bang mystifying. Even if there is a god, he or she (or it) also had to be created from nothing. With unknown unknowns, nearly anything is possible.
I’ve often explained that that our whole universe may be just some experiment of an advanced population, like a child’s ant farm. “God” may actually be some middle school kid who one day might get bored with us and end our existence. As for the end of time, most believe that the universe is expanding, but into what? Will it eventually contract and repeat the entire process? Are there multiple universes? The scope of the conversation is bigger than we are and subject to those things we have not even conceived — truly unknown unknowns.
Obviously my observations may not resonate well with others. Those who believe in monotheism have moved the scope of the conversation considerably. They have put the god of their particular religion into the position of a known known. I am not quite sure how, but doing so for many also means moving science out of the discussion. Though there is a spectrum of convoluted beliefs mixing science and religion, for some, the Big Bang and evolution are not only not known knowns, they are scientific lies. It’s hard to debate those who are sure they know all there is to know.
The idea isn’t original to Rumsfeld. In fact, in his memoirs, Rumsfeld credits NASA administrator William Graham. It seems appropriate that unknown unknowns might have been derived from an entity charged with exploring our universe.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
246. Take some interest in interest, save thousands
Most people work hard for their money and it is then with good reason that they hate paying taxes.
Taxes take up a significant part of our income and it seems every time we turn around there is another one. It’s not just federal income taxes, there are state taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on individual items like gasoline and cigarettes. Then there are local levies and taxes, which include schools, mental health, and even football stadiums.
The questions should be: Where are our tax dollars going and are they are being spent wisely? But of course, not everyone agrees with where their tax dollars are spent. Some get upset over their tax dollars being spent to help others but feel having the largest military on planet is purposeful spending. I might think it is ridiculous that we pay for football stadiums for billionaire owners and their millionaire employees and that more money should be spent on education, regulating clean air, infrastructure, and veteran services.
However, there is something worse than taxes that many people seem to ignore, even justify. Perhaps it’s an accepted consequence of materialism. For me, the money I hate paying is interest.
It’s not just credit cards, where if you don’t pay the balance off each month, the dinner at Roadhouse went from costing $50 to $60; or the living room couch went from $600 to $700. And it’s not just student loans, where interest on the cost of education takes an already ridiculous tuition to an outrageous amount and ties students to years of debt.
For me, the biggest waste of money is home mortgage interest. Even at the best rates, mortgage interest can take years of your salary from you, as total interest payments on a home can easily reach the $100,000 mark or in many cases double the amount of money you pay for your home.
People will often engage in tense negotiations over the smallest charges, or drive five miles to save three cents on a gallon of gas, but then readily accept the cost of time they pay for their house.
For me, it is not just the cost, it is where the money is going. Taxes provide many functions in our society. They employ people, provide services, keep us safe, educate us, help the needy, and provide infrastructure. Interest goes… where? Interest goes to the banks, their executives, and shareholders.
If someone purchases a $150,000 house for 30 years at five percent, after 15 years they have paid around $100,000 interest. That money is gone, poof! And if you pick up and move after 15 years and take out another mortgage for 30 years, the bank is basically charging you interest on your own money.
Home-buyers will haggle and debate over a couple of thousands of dollars on the cost of a house — mostly because they want to feel like they got a good price — and then freely engage in decades of throwing thousands of dollars down the drain. Just like buying a car, where salesman push the monthly payment, people don’t often consider the actual cost of what they are purchasing. Mortgages are built around monthly payments and the sales price, but not the total cost of the home.
And, as I wrote in an earlier column about mortgages, not many people stay in their homes for 30 years — they move and pay even more interest on the new mortgage. If someone owns three homes at the $150,000 level and stays an average of 15 years, they may spend as much as $300,000 just in interest over 45 years. That is more than $6500 after taxes (maybe about three months’ take-home salary) thrown away year after year.
Many justify this decision because of the mortgage interest deduction; however, the deduction is highly overrated for modest home purchases. Not surprising, the biggest benefactors are the purchasers of very large homes.
For good reason, it’s advisable not to touch retirement funds, but some out-of-the box thinking might wonder if whether the money is better spent paying off the mortgage, which is both an investment in itself and saves up to hundreds of thousands in interest. It pays to do the math and consider the many options, but paying off the home and accepting the tax consequences might be a win for everyone except the banks. Certainly there has to be a better way than having 70 percent of your early mortgage payments vanishing into essentially the cost of the loan.
Most people follow the expected financial path and understandably most people can’t pay for their homes in cash. But I might suggest, like buying a car, look at the big picture, not the monthly payment.
Consider the total cost of home ownership, including interest costs and private mortgage insurance, and compare it to other saving projections and tax implications. Also strongly consider 15-year loans, putting as much down as possible, never taking out a second mortgage, and making biweekly instead of monthly payments.
Of course, this is just my opinion and the take-away from this column is, I hope, that people work hard for their money and should consider where it goes. Taxes, despite their bad reputation, are the foundation of this country. When spent wisely, it provides the framework that not only ensures a First World existence but also creates free enterprise, preserves our freedom, and most importantly, affords opportunity.
On the other hand, most of us end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest over the course of our lives. It is money wasted, and it is what people should really be upset about.
Taxes take up a significant part of our income and it seems every time we turn around there is another one. It’s not just federal income taxes, there are state taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on individual items like gasoline and cigarettes. Then there are local levies and taxes, which include schools, mental health, and even football stadiums.
The questions should be: Where are our tax dollars going and are they are being spent wisely? But of course, not everyone agrees with where their tax dollars are spent. Some get upset over their tax dollars being spent to help others but feel having the largest military on planet is purposeful spending. I might think it is ridiculous that we pay for football stadiums for billionaire owners and their millionaire employees and that more money should be spent on education, regulating clean air, infrastructure, and veteran services.
However, there is something worse than taxes that many people seem to ignore, even justify. Perhaps it’s an accepted consequence of materialism. For me, the money I hate paying is interest.
It’s not just credit cards, where if you don’t pay the balance off each month, the dinner at Roadhouse went from costing $50 to $60; or the living room couch went from $600 to $700. And it’s not just student loans, where interest on the cost of education takes an already ridiculous tuition to an outrageous amount and ties students to years of debt.
For me, the biggest waste of money is home mortgage interest. Even at the best rates, mortgage interest can take years of your salary from you, as total interest payments on a home can easily reach the $100,000 mark or in many cases double the amount of money you pay for your home.
People will often engage in tense negotiations over the smallest charges, or drive five miles to save three cents on a gallon of gas, but then readily accept the cost of time they pay for their house.
For me, it is not just the cost, it is where the money is going. Taxes provide many functions in our society. They employ people, provide services, keep us safe, educate us, help the needy, and provide infrastructure. Interest goes… where? Interest goes to the banks, their executives, and shareholders.
If someone purchases a $150,000 house for 30 years at five percent, after 15 years they have paid around $100,000 interest. That money is gone, poof! And if you pick up and move after 15 years and take out another mortgage for 30 years, the bank is basically charging you interest on your own money.
Home-buyers will haggle and debate over a couple of thousands of dollars on the cost of a house — mostly because they want to feel like they got a good price — and then freely engage in decades of throwing thousands of dollars down the drain. Just like buying a car, where salesman push the monthly payment, people don’t often consider the actual cost of what they are purchasing. Mortgages are built around monthly payments and the sales price, but not the total cost of the home.
And, as I wrote in an earlier column about mortgages, not many people stay in their homes for 30 years — they move and pay even more interest on the new mortgage. If someone owns three homes at the $150,000 level and stays an average of 15 years, they may spend as much as $300,000 just in interest over 45 years. That is more than $6500 after taxes (maybe about three months’ take-home salary) thrown away year after year.
Many justify this decision because of the mortgage interest deduction; however, the deduction is highly overrated for modest home purchases. Not surprising, the biggest benefactors are the purchasers of very large homes.
For good reason, it’s advisable not to touch retirement funds, but some out-of-the box thinking might wonder if whether the money is better spent paying off the mortgage, which is both an investment in itself and saves up to hundreds of thousands in interest. It pays to do the math and consider the many options, but paying off the home and accepting the tax consequences might be a win for everyone except the banks. Certainly there has to be a better way than having 70 percent of your early mortgage payments vanishing into essentially the cost of the loan.
Most people follow the expected financial path and understandably most people can’t pay for their homes in cash. But I might suggest, like buying a car, look at the big picture, not the monthly payment.
Consider the total cost of home ownership, including interest costs and private mortgage insurance, and compare it to other saving projections and tax implications. Also strongly consider 15-year loans, putting as much down as possible, never taking out a second mortgage, and making biweekly instead of monthly payments.
Of course, this is just my opinion and the take-away from this column is, I hope, that people work hard for their money and should consider where it goes. Taxes, despite their bad reputation, are the foundation of this country. When spent wisely, it provides the framework that not only ensures a First World existence but also creates free enterprise, preserves our freedom, and most importantly, affords opportunity.
On the other hand, most of us end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest over the course of our lives. It is money wasted, and it is what people should really be upset about.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
245. It’s clear: Obama should appoint SCOTUS justice
I had not yet heard of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing when I turned on the Republican Party debate last weekend.
The first question was whether or not President Barack Obama should name the next Supreme Court justice. Candidates, one after another, said that he should not — that the next president should choose. Granted, what else could they say? However, most genuinely seemed to have convinced themselves that the next president should make that call.
And it wasn’t just the presidential candidates. Mitch McConnell said that it should be the American people who choose who the next justice is, referring of course to the next presidential election.
Certainly Supreme Court appointments are important, as they rule on this country’s most divisive issues. The Supreme Court interprets the law on federal questions, but not without a political perspective. It’s clear which justices are conservative and which are liberal.
They are, unfortunately, lifetime appointments. This causes some problems as presidents often choose young judges so that they can influence the social and political direction of the country long after their terms end. The other problem is that this can put the pressure on justices to serve well past retirement. In the present case, Scalia would not have retired while Obama was in office because of the fear of a liberal appointment.
While brilliant in his understanding of the law, Scalia’s conservativism and original intent was of some angst for liberals. Some of his opinions and perspectives were not only outdated but blatantly offensive. I not will provide detail so soon after his death, but simple research will easily provide numerous examples. One may want to start with Lawrence v. Texas. Comedian Patton Oswald said, “Scalia was born in 1936… and never left.”
In response to Mitch McConnell’s shortsighted statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren stated that the American people did decide who would name the next Supreme Court justice when they elected Obama by more than five million votes.
She’s absolutely correct and it’s ridiculous that the Republicans are going to try to run out the clock with almost a full year left in his presidency. The next president doesn’t get sworn in until next January — are they seriously considering that the Supreme Court wait until at least a year from now before someone else is selected? Obama has just less than 25 percent of his term remaining. While the Constitution details no timetable for lame duck presidents, it surely would not have been a year. I might consider the argument if the amount of time left were a few days, but even then, that suggests a cut-off date and the Constitution does not provide one. Scalia would be appalled at the Republicans’ rationale.
It is often said that fairness could be realized by considering what might happen were the situation the other way around. Does anyone think that Republicans would not have supported a Republican president naming the next justice were the situation reversed? Of course not. How about Democrats? Maybe they would fight it as Republicans intend to, but I would remain consistent. I would just as quickly call them defiant bullies trying to make up their own rules.
Because justices receive lifetime appointments and considering the political implications I mentioned above, there have not been many Supreme Court justices nominated in the final year of their presidency. But consider the last time it happened.
In 1987, Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate 97-0. He was nominated by Ronald Raegan on Nov. 30.
Ouch, so much for precedent.
American did overwhelming elect Obama and he should nominate the next Supreme Court justice. And Republicans need to act responsibly and perform the constitutional duty of approving a qualified individual.
I would say that they are acting like spoiled children, but if you have seen the debates, you already know that
The first question was whether or not President Barack Obama should name the next Supreme Court justice. Candidates, one after another, said that he should not — that the next president should choose. Granted, what else could they say? However, most genuinely seemed to have convinced themselves that the next president should make that call.
And it wasn’t just the presidential candidates. Mitch McConnell said that it should be the American people who choose who the next justice is, referring of course to the next presidential election.
Certainly Supreme Court appointments are important, as they rule on this country’s most divisive issues. The Supreme Court interprets the law on federal questions, but not without a political perspective. It’s clear which justices are conservative and which are liberal.
They are, unfortunately, lifetime appointments. This causes some problems as presidents often choose young judges so that they can influence the social and political direction of the country long after their terms end. The other problem is that this can put the pressure on justices to serve well past retirement. In the present case, Scalia would not have retired while Obama was in office because of the fear of a liberal appointment.
While brilliant in his understanding of the law, Scalia’s conservativism and original intent was of some angst for liberals. Some of his opinions and perspectives were not only outdated but blatantly offensive. I not will provide detail so soon after his death, but simple research will easily provide numerous examples. One may want to start with Lawrence v. Texas. Comedian Patton Oswald said, “Scalia was born in 1936… and never left.”
In response to Mitch McConnell’s shortsighted statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren stated that the American people did decide who would name the next Supreme Court justice when they elected Obama by more than five million votes.
She’s absolutely correct and it’s ridiculous that the Republicans are going to try to run out the clock with almost a full year left in his presidency. The next president doesn’t get sworn in until next January — are they seriously considering that the Supreme Court wait until at least a year from now before someone else is selected? Obama has just less than 25 percent of his term remaining. While the Constitution details no timetable for lame duck presidents, it surely would not have been a year. I might consider the argument if the amount of time left were a few days, but even then, that suggests a cut-off date and the Constitution does not provide one. Scalia would be appalled at the Republicans’ rationale.
It is often said that fairness could be realized by considering what might happen were the situation the other way around. Does anyone think that Republicans would not have supported a Republican president naming the next justice were the situation reversed? Of course not. How about Democrats? Maybe they would fight it as Republicans intend to, but I would remain consistent. I would just as quickly call them defiant bullies trying to make up their own rules.
Because justices receive lifetime appointments and considering the political implications I mentioned above, there have not been many Supreme Court justices nominated in the final year of their presidency. But consider the last time it happened.
In 1987, Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate 97-0. He was nominated by Ronald Raegan on Nov. 30.
Ouch, so much for precedent.
American did overwhelming elect Obama and he should nominate the next Supreme Court justice. And Republicans need to act responsibly and perform the constitutional duty of approving a qualified individual.
I would say that they are acting like spoiled children, but if you have seen the debates, you already know that
Thursday, February 18, 2016
244. Not just how, but why Clinton is losing ground
Bernie Sanders lost the primary caucus by the closest of margins. But if you watched the post-election speeches, there were different atmospheres in the two camps.
Clinton gave her typical cadence-ridden speech and her supporters laughed, clapped, and smiled. She carefully hinted at victory even before the evidence supported that claim, but more notably she looked relieved. Since Sanders is expected to win in New Hampshire, a loss would have been devastating when less than a year ago she had a very comfortable lead.
Conversely, in the Sanders camp… wow!
Bernie Sanders walked to the podium to the loud chant of “Feel the Bern, feel the Bern!” The excitement, even in a narrow loss, was unbelievable. Sanders could barely get a word in. His commitment to lead a revolution threw the crowd into a frenzy.
While I certainly would vote for Clinton in the general election, as she is probably the most experienced candidate in history, and far better than anything the Republicans can nominate, I have longed for socio-economic reform. I was a big supporter of Sanders even before he announced his candidacy. His message has consistently been spread across decades of service. He is a passionate fighter for the middle and lower classes.
The middle class been dwindling for decades. The standard of living has decreased even as people work longer and harder. Most rely on large amounts of credit. Student loans hang over graduates for years. Our health care system often means one critical illness creates years of debt or even bankruptcy. The minimum wage is not only unsustainable for anyone to survive on, it keeps other wages down.
On the other side, partisan decisions like Citizens United and campaign Super PACs have ensured that our democracy will be at the mercy of the wealthy. The inequality of wealth is shameful for any country, let alone any one that claims to be a Christian nation. The game — that of hindering socio-economic mobility — has been purposely rigged. A health care system out of control not only pours profits into corporate hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies, it also keeps wages down as companies keep paying more of the employee share for medical benefits.
Yet nearly every single candidate over the last couple decades, and probably longer, whether Republican or Democrat, claims to be a fighter for the middle class. How can that be? How can they fail so miserably term after term in improving the lives of the middle class?
The answer is not just partisan politics. They fail because their political careers are directly related to the power of wealthy corporations. And the wealthy are not interested in improving the lives of the middle class. As long as we have just enough to get by and enough credit to buy their products, they are winning.
I believe Clinton has good intentions and is moderately progressive, but she is part of the political machine that is destroying our democracy. She is content to move the country forward slowly. She is unwilling to give up her Super PACs. She once commented she was broke after husband Bill’s presidency, which is ridiculous considering their ability to make millions for simply giving a speech to wealthy corporations. And even though Sanders moved on from her emails, it does bring forth a question about, at best, a terrible lapse in judgement or, at worst, arrogance and secrecy. On many of the issues, she has an authenticity problem.
Sanders wants a revolution. He doesn’t care about his ego or popularity. He isn’t bought by corporate interest nor is he willing to accept meaningless compromises that only appear to help the lower and middle classes. He is willing to take on powerful industries and the one percent, which are negatively affecting both our economics and democracy.
When Sanders announced his presidency, I immediately proclaimed support. Many people on Facebook and other social media laughed at my backing. Sanders is a “socialist,” has no chance of winning, and too old, they said. From the beginning, I knew his campaign was a longshot but relished that his message on one of the country’s most important issues, that of wealth inequality, would finally be heard. In that respect, he has already won and his popularity is moving Clinton left. And, more so, his young supporters have heard his message and may offer help move the country forward as they get older.
Trump supporters say they like that he tells it like it is and is using his own money to finance his campaign. The trouble is Trump’s message. Sanders speaks the truth with principle and message. His passion is the American people and the most important issues affecting their lives — such as income equality, national health care, and the democratic policy.
Clinton gave her typical cadence-ridden speech and her supporters laughed, clapped, and smiled. She carefully hinted at victory even before the evidence supported that claim, but more notably she looked relieved. Since Sanders is expected to win in New Hampshire, a loss would have been devastating when less than a year ago she had a very comfortable lead.
Conversely, in the Sanders camp… wow!
Bernie Sanders walked to the podium to the loud chant of “Feel the Bern, feel the Bern!” The excitement, even in a narrow loss, was unbelievable. Sanders could barely get a word in. His commitment to lead a revolution threw the crowd into a frenzy.
While I certainly would vote for Clinton in the general election, as she is probably the most experienced candidate in history, and far better than anything the Republicans can nominate, I have longed for socio-economic reform. I was a big supporter of Sanders even before he announced his candidacy. His message has consistently been spread across decades of service. He is a passionate fighter for the middle and lower classes.
The middle class been dwindling for decades. The standard of living has decreased even as people work longer and harder. Most rely on large amounts of credit. Student loans hang over graduates for years. Our health care system often means one critical illness creates years of debt or even bankruptcy. The minimum wage is not only unsustainable for anyone to survive on, it keeps other wages down.
On the other side, partisan decisions like Citizens United and campaign Super PACs have ensured that our democracy will be at the mercy of the wealthy. The inequality of wealth is shameful for any country, let alone any one that claims to be a Christian nation. The game — that of hindering socio-economic mobility — has been purposely rigged. A health care system out of control not only pours profits into corporate hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies, it also keeps wages down as companies keep paying more of the employee share for medical benefits.
Yet nearly every single candidate over the last couple decades, and probably longer, whether Republican or Democrat, claims to be a fighter for the middle class. How can that be? How can they fail so miserably term after term in improving the lives of the middle class?
The answer is not just partisan politics. They fail because their political careers are directly related to the power of wealthy corporations. And the wealthy are not interested in improving the lives of the middle class. As long as we have just enough to get by and enough credit to buy their products, they are winning.
I believe Clinton has good intentions and is moderately progressive, but she is part of the political machine that is destroying our democracy. She is content to move the country forward slowly. She is unwilling to give up her Super PACs. She once commented she was broke after husband Bill’s presidency, which is ridiculous considering their ability to make millions for simply giving a speech to wealthy corporations. And even though Sanders moved on from her emails, it does bring forth a question about, at best, a terrible lapse in judgement or, at worst, arrogance and secrecy. On many of the issues, she has an authenticity problem.
Sanders wants a revolution. He doesn’t care about his ego or popularity. He isn’t bought by corporate interest nor is he willing to accept meaningless compromises that only appear to help the lower and middle classes. He is willing to take on powerful industries and the one percent, which are negatively affecting both our economics and democracy.
When Sanders announced his presidency, I immediately proclaimed support. Many people on Facebook and other social media laughed at my backing. Sanders is a “socialist,” has no chance of winning, and too old, they said. From the beginning, I knew his campaign was a longshot but relished that his message on one of the country’s most important issues, that of wealth inequality, would finally be heard. In that respect, he has already won and his popularity is moving Clinton left. And, more so, his young supporters have heard his message and may offer help move the country forward as they get older.
Trump supporters say they like that he tells it like it is and is using his own money to finance his campaign. The trouble is Trump’s message. Sanders speaks the truth with principle and message. His passion is the American people and the most important issues affecting their lives — such as income equality, national health care, and the democratic policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)