Every morning I wake up to the local AM station. They play Rock and Roll from the 50s 60s and 70s. At the top of the hour they broadcast the CNN national news feed followed by the local news.
Almost without exception, whenever the CNN economic segment includes some sort of statistical indicators, they are followed by "less than economists expected" or "more than economists expected" or "higher than economists expected" or "lower than economists expected".
Here are some questions to consider:
Just who are these economists that never expect anything, and why does CNN keep consulting them? Could it be that an economy that includes over 6 and a half billion variables is hard to predict? If it is so enigmatic, then why bother predicting anything at all? If the "experts" are wrong so often, why should we listen to them in the first place? Is it possible that their "predictions" are merely wishful thinking, or worse: is the media's indefatigable persistence in broadcasting their failed guesses an attempt to manipulate the economy itself?
Isn't it true that there is not enough printed cash in the banks corresponding to deposits? Isn't it true that bank runs are caused, in part, by lack of public confidence in being able to retrieve their money? If bank runs are no longer likely, can there exist a more or less equivalent chain of circumstances just as damaging? Isn't it also true that the media has been known to affect public opinion? Isn't it possible that the media, belonging overwhelmingly to a single political party, work tirelessly to bend your perception of the economy to their political ends?
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Recommendation for Thesis/Dissertation
Some brilliant young Doctoral or Masters candidate needs to research and write a paper on the savings in fuel/oil/brake pads/pollution/etc. that could be realized by one simple concept: Time the traffic lights properly in urban areas.
We all have witnessed the successful implementation of such a novel concept on some thoroughfare somewhere. Ask yourself why it can't be done on all streets? Too complicated? I think not. Traffic patterns can be studied and predicted. Traffic lights can be programmed to respond to heavier or lighter traffic conditions. Don't tell me we don't have the technology. I've seen the video of men walking on the lunar surface. What were we using back then? Slide rules, abaci, and computers with roughly the same power as your electronic bathroom scale?
Think of all the fuel you are expending idling there, not to mention how much it takes to build up your vehicle's momentum after a stop. Now multiply that by tens of millions. What would it cost for a city to time their lights to promote better traffic flow? What are the savings? There must be hundreds of corollary benefits such as reduced stress, fewer road rage incidents, and fewer fender-benders. That's what I would like our thesis examinee to find out.
It might also be interesting to find out why the-powers-that-be have not already taken the initiative to make their cities more easily navigable. Some reasons might include: the desire for more traffic incidents to occur for the purpose of issuing fines; the desire to sell more fuel for the purpose of collecting more taxes; the desire to slow down the flow of traffic for the purpose of encouraging patronage of local businesses (so as to collect more taxes).
You may notice those examples have one thing in common. I cannot believe that there is any other reason stopping us ("we" the consenting governed) from saving ourselves money, time, and aggravation other than political. After all, when a government collects money, it boils down to politics, doesn't it?
We all have witnessed the successful implementation of such a novel concept on some thoroughfare somewhere. Ask yourself why it can't be done on all streets? Too complicated? I think not. Traffic patterns can be studied and predicted. Traffic lights can be programmed to respond to heavier or lighter traffic conditions. Don't tell me we don't have the technology. I've seen the video of men walking on the lunar surface. What were we using back then? Slide rules, abaci, and computers with roughly the same power as your electronic bathroom scale?
Think of all the fuel you are expending idling there, not to mention how much it takes to build up your vehicle's momentum after a stop. Now multiply that by tens of millions. What would it cost for a city to time their lights to promote better traffic flow? What are the savings? There must be hundreds of corollary benefits such as reduced stress, fewer road rage incidents, and fewer fender-benders. That's what I would like our thesis examinee to find out.
It might also be interesting to find out why the-powers-that-be have not already taken the initiative to make their cities more easily navigable. Some reasons might include: the desire for more traffic incidents to occur for the purpose of issuing fines; the desire to sell more fuel for the purpose of collecting more taxes; the desire to slow down the flow of traffic for the purpose of encouraging patronage of local businesses (so as to collect more taxes).
You may notice those examples have one thing in common. I cannot believe that there is any other reason stopping us ("we" the consenting governed) from saving ourselves money, time, and aggravation other than political. After all, when a government collects money, it boils down to politics, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
