Does Not Compute Part I: My Computer Sucks

I do not often write about technology, however this week will be devoted to a series on computers. We will return to our regular diet of economics, business, world events, and general silliness next week. Over the last few years, I have become increasingly frustrated with not only my computer, but computing and computer performance in general. This is a huge topic. There are multiple journals on computers and computer industry news that publish weekly, and there is no way to cover the state of All Things Computer in one column. As for my own limited musings, I will break things down as follows: My Computer Sucks; Software Sucks; Browsers Suck Even Worse; and Buying a New Computer Sucks.

My Computer Sucks.

I am writing this post on an Apple Titanium PowerBook with an 800 MHz G4 processor, 40 Gig hard drive, and 512 meg of ram. It doubled the speed of the 400 MHz TiBook that I used previously (and which still sits 15 feet away). I am using Mac OS X (pronounced “ten”) version 10.4.1, which was released within the last few months. At this moment, currently launched applications are Finder, Dashboard, iChat, Mail.app, Drop Drawers, Firefox, and Omniweb. Yes, that’s two web browsers, more on that later this week. Applications I have used within the last week or three include Safari, MS Internet Explorer (yes, a third and fourth browser, I said I’d get to that later), Word, Excel (both from Office 2004), Terminal, Quicken 2005, iTunes, iCal, Address Book, Preview, Quicktime, Garage Band, X-Chat Aqua, and a few relatively low tech games (Bejeweled, Mike’s Cards, Snood, BableBlox, Age of Empires II).

As you can see, I do not have the latest greatest computer, I should probably consider a new one, but it’s not like I am trying to calculate the size of the universe or find a cure for cancer or anything of the sort. Truth be told, my computing needs are not all that different from Joe and Jane Average’s needs. I use the internet for pretty standard web browsing, email, instant messaging, and hanging out on a computer oriented IRC (Internet Relay Chat) channel (we call them channels, not chatrooms). Like most people I need to write the occasional document, calculate some figures, balance my checkbook, look at documents (like tax forms) in PDF format. Like most people I like to listen to music, watch film clips, and play games. Oh, and I write music and the posts on this site. Nothing big here.

One serious frustration with my computer is the display. My current resolution is set at maximum, 1280 x 854. I live with many things going on at once — as you can tell from the list of currently running applications — and the extra pixels are darn nice to have. However, sometimes it can be quite difficult to read the screen. A peek at a friend’s Sony Vaio leads me to believe the problem is not a need for new glasses, but rather my screen. It is hollow reassurance that “the reviewers” raved about how much better this monitor was than its predecessor. Current model PowerBooks do not necessarily improve this situation.

As if the readability problem were not bad enough, there is also a really awful glare problem. It is not practical to use this TiBook in bright light. Between that and the somewhat less than optimal WiFi reception, taking it outside to work on a nice day is only theoretically possible.

Another problem is the battery life. I can get maybe 2 hours on battery, if I am careful to clamp down java right away. Theoretically, I can tweak the System Preferences to give me greater battery life, but only at the expense of usability. Foolishly, I thought the idea of a portable computer was that I could leave my desk and still, you know, get things done.

I am aware that some of the problems I experience with my TiBook stem from the fact that Apple made a conscious decision to emphasize style. There is no question about the fact that Apple notebook computers look fantastic. I know multiple people who decided they had to have a TiBook within moments of first seeing one. However, sometimes style trumps utility. For example, because they use a fabulous looking metal (Titanium or Aluminum) case, wireless reception suffers. Greatly. So not only is this not a machine to take wardriving, this is not even a machine to take any meaningful distance away from the wireless base station.

Style trumps utility when it comes to the optical media drive as well. Because the CD/DVD drive is a slot loading unit, it is a pain in the butt to use. If the computer is on a desk, it is hard to get the disk in. If the computer is on a stand, the feet which keep the computer from sliding off get in the way. Non-standard disks are non-usable; there is no way to load a minidisk or an unusually shaped disk. Such disks are often used for promotional materials. Good thing I have access to a PC.

A problem which has actually been fixed in the newer models relates to travel. If you are planning on toting a TiBook, it is important to use a screen and keyboard protector. This will keep the keys from rubbing on the screen during transit. The scuff marks the keys can leave behind are mostly annoying, but as I noted above the screen is hard enough to read in the first place.

Another style over substance issue which has only sort-of been fixed is the power supply. The original TiBook came with a power supply that, well, looked like a UFO. It had a slot around it, horizontally, for cable that went to the computer. The cable that went to the wall socket was wrapped around the saucer vertically for travel. Not only was this inconvenient, but made airport screeners nervous. Furthermore, it was difficult to find an appropriate place to put it because of its unusual size and shape. Since then, Apple has moved to a small power supply, about 3.5″ square by 1″ high. Little tabs fold out to hold the wire that goes to the computer, but the one that goes to the wall still has to be haphazardly wrapped around the unit, poised to come apart in the least convenient possible way when you open your laptop bag. Another unfortunate detail is that it is almost exactly the same shape, size, and color as an iPod power supply or an AirPort Express. It could be a little confusing to sort out which white block is which. At least it has flat edges.

Be sure to come back in a day or two to read Part Two, Software Sucks.

Concise Encyclopedia of Dotcom Business Blunders

Google has become so large a brand that it has turned into a common verb. They are now a publicly traded company with an $81 thousand million market capitalization (number of shares total times price at which they sell). Here we are in the year 2005. Surely any internet company that has survived to this day has learned from the mistakes of the heady internet bubble days. Right?

Wrong.

Google does not appear to have learned a darn thing from the failed and floundering businesses that preceded it. Nor do they appear interested in the lesson. After all, they are Google and their corporate motto is “Don’t be evil.” Let’s look at some of the foolishness.

They tried to take Wall Street’s money without playing by Wall Street’s rules. Perhaps you remember that, when Google went public, they auctioned the shares. This was an attempt to get the highest price possible; if there was to be a big first day pop, they wanted the money to go into their own pockets, not the broker’s pockets. In the end, they had to settle for a little less money up front. The shares have risen quite a way since then. Google thought they had a way to prevent Wall Street from making a killing on their shares the way they had on such companies as TheGlobe.com. The truth is that shares do not trade without Wall Street.

They tried to publicly release information about their business without actually saying anything. The earnings statement filed with the SEC was sufficiently complicated that it was the next day before CNBC’s Joe Kernen felt comfortable he had an accurate earnings per share number to announce. Playing the cards close to your chest is one thing when you are privately held. It is another thing altogether when you are publicly traded. This is part of the reason Google traded down on the news. The other part is that when you announce that your profits quadrupled over the previous quarter, it’s really hard to continue that trend.

And I haven’t even gotten to today’s stupidity. Parts of the online community have been up in arms over the last sentence of this article. I’ll start there.

They are capriciously withholding information from certain news outlets. Why? It seems that last week, C|net Googled the Google CEO and published the results. They were demonstrating that search engines are a powerful tool for finding information about people as well as companies. Since I was employed as a research analyst during the internet boom, I know this only too well. There are two problems with Google’s reaction to the article. First, it’s childish. “You did something I don’t like so I’m not talking to you” was a strategy most of us left behind in High School if not before. It’s just not something you do in the business world. Even if the policy is to not say anything to certain people, you don’t make that policy public. The second problem is legal in nature. SEC Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) says that publicly traded companies cannot “selectively disclose” information. The regulation was designed to prevent management from giving insider information to selected analysts and not telling the public. If Google chooses to not let C|net in on information disseminated to other news sources they may be in big trouble.

Focusing on this one line, however, masks a potentially serious ongoing labor issue. Google has stepped up hiring lately, adding to the job creation numbers (what a shame that nationwide 100,000 people a month are still getting laid off). Google has some unusual fringe benefits according to C|net: “Tasty victuals–free breakfast, lunch and dinner–are only one of the many perks the company offers its burgeoning number of employees. Others include a staff doctor, dry cleaning pickup and delivery, onsite car wash and oil change, gym, personal trainers, tuition reimbursement, proximity parking for pregnant employees and nursing rooms for mothers.”

At some point, they are going to have to give up the dotcom era luxuries. It is one thing to have an executive dining room, or even a company cafeteria. It is quite another to commit to serving every employee ” Ahi Tuna & Avocado Poke, Calypso Rice Salad, Roasted Pork Loin and Hazelnut Shortcakes with Plum Compote” three times a day. There will come a quarter when, to please stockholders, they will have to cut such extravagance in order to focus on the bottom line.

When that day comes, they will have a few thousand unhappy geeks on payroll.

All that Meat and No Potatoes

Ok, I am going to say this one more time. Nutritious food does not naturally grow in bar form.

I have never been a fan of “diet” plans whose “plan” is for you to give them money for the rest of your life. Did you ever notice that the skinny girl who used to be fat in the diet shake ad mentions that she still drinks her lunch every day? Or that the big weight loss club wants you to be a member for ever and oh yes don’t forget to buy their frozen entrees? These plans make that guy who lost weight eating fresh sandwiches seem like a genius; it’s the only sustainable plan, and he’s also the only one who seems to keep the weight off. And note: all these plans involve you giving them money; only the sandwich guy’s plan can be done without paying someone. You can figure out how to make a sandwich at home, right?

In the beginning, the Atkins Diet was about eating plenty of protein, adequate fat, minimal carbohydrates, and no refined sugar. In the practical realm, this meant plenty of meat, dairy products, legumes, nuts, and non-strarchy veggies — anyone who says no veggies are allowed does not know what they are talking about — but no junk food. It helped people be honest with themselves and say “I am on a diet, therefore I cannot have cookies and cake and candy.” The protein helped people keep from feeling hungry all the time. People lost a lot of weight doing this. Because little pre-processed food met these dietary criteria, people ended up eating relatively unprocessed foods: cheese instead of Cheez-Whiz; roasted nuts instead of Chex Mix; steamed veggies instead of “vegetable mix with creamy sauce”; hamburger without bun instead of Hamburger Helper.

There are two basic problems with this. For the dieter, the problem is that food must be thought about and prepared. Dinner was more complicated than sticking a frozen pre-cooked meat-wad in the microwave. On the go food was an even bigger issue, given our hectic daily lives and the fact that many low-carb foods require refrigeration. Just about the only diet friendly item you could keep in your desk drawer was a package of nuts. Never mind that this “problem” actually kept you from eating calories you probably didn’t need.

The other problem was even more serious, at least to the big food conglomerates. There were entire aisles of the grocery store that low-carb people weren’t even going down! Entire categories of food they weren’t buying! This could negatively impact profits.

Atkins Nutritionals is the company founded by Dr. Atkins in 1989 as essentially his promotional arm. Around this same time, according to the site’s timeline, they started selling vitamins. By this time, Atkins himself had already been writing books on diet and nutrition for well over a decade. By the turn of the millennium, they were selling meal replacement bars. At present, they sell meal replacement bars, low carb “candy” bars (never mind that dieters shouldn’t be eating candy), quick breakfast foods (apparently a hard boiled egg or a hunk of cheese or some lunch-meat is too complicated), supplements, and “quick cuisine” (mostly baking mixes). They also have “partnerships” with such companies as TGI Friday’s and eDiets.com.

They solved the “no pre-prepared foods” problem themselves. And one must assume they made some money doing it.

Made. Past tense.

Due to a combination of reduced popularity of the diet and increased competition, Atkins Nutritionals filed for bankruptcy. This is a debt restructuring type of bankruptcy, and contrary to what the LA Times says, not a going away forever type of bankruptcy. According to the company, they will adjust their focus and continue onward.

The bottom line is that they misread their market, over-expanded, and tried to sell stuff people did not want or need. It’s one thing to have one of those bars in your desk in case you just can’t get away for lunch. It’s another thing for that to be a regular meal.

With a handful of exceptions, diet food is not about making you skinny, it’s about making some company rich.

A few things in closing: what some real diplomats have to say about Bolton, a bad idea with a great tagline (unless you like libertarianism turning to anarchy, in which case enjoy!), consumer spending rising faster than consumer incomes although some of the rise was thanks to GM’s employee price for everyone promotion, and finally Medicaid now covers a third of the population, meaning a single payer health care system is a lot closer than anybody thought.

Shorties 3D

It turns out that the very people who thought they were getting a big tax break from President Bush’s tax break on dividend income are getting socked with Alternative Minimum Tax instead. Ooops.

Journalists and people with actual degrees in economics sitting in high places like the Boston Fed are noticing what I have told you for well over a year, that the official unemployment number does not tell you the whole story, and there are millions more people out of work — honest, hard working people who would like to have an honest, decent paying job — that don’t show up in the official statistics.

The cost of the War in Iraq, both to the United States and to Iraq. Randi Rhodes will gladly explain to you how all rhodes — I mean roads — lead to Iraq. Bolton, Rove, Plame, Downing Street, the Sixteen Words; it all intersects at one point, the desire to invade Iraq. Support our troops: pray for peace or enlist.

A moment of silence for James Doohan, the man who played “Scotty” on the original Star Trek. He passed away this morning.

And finally, in case you should ever need to ship a hippo, the United States Postal Service has some tips for you.

If I Were Education Czar

If someone in the Capitol were to suddenly lose his/her mind and say “Let’s put the ShortWoman in charge of the educational system,” I know what I would do.

My first day, I would call for a great conference to discuss High School Graduation Requirements. Specifically, I would assemble a small committee, maybe a dozen people, recruited to more or less equally represent parents, business leaders, community leaders, and front line teachers. These people would be encouraged to solicit a wish list from their peers before the first actual meeting.

The goal would be to come up with a list of knowledge and skills that most parents, communities, businesses, and teachers can agree every single high school graduate should have. This list would be broken into broad topics, but get very specific. For example, “Ability to read” would be followed by a list of the types of documents that any high school graduate should be able to read and understand (IRS instructions, newspapers, cookbook, etc.). “Broad understanding of Social Studies” would be broken down into specific requirements for History, Geography, Cultures/Customs, Economics, and the like. Some of the requirements will not be things that can be determined on a multiple choice test. Being able to reason through a multi-disciplinary problem can be that way. These requirements would then be compared to the entry requirements for state universities, with the goal of completely eliminating remedial college coursework after implementation.

Some people are coughing and sputtering that such requirements will make it more difficult for students to receive high school diplomas. Yes, yes it will. But at the end, it will be clear that someone who has obtained a high school diploma has accomplished something, and has a practical, minimum level of education which employers and the community can depend upon. Besides which, it turns out that many students want to be challenged and will surely rise to the occasion, given the opportunity. It will also change the meaning of the “dropout rate,” which currently means the percentage of kids who can be pushed through the system minus those who the school can pretend are attending elsewhere.

Once this comprehensive list was compiled, it will be broken down into age appropriate grade level requirements. So, at the beginning of the school year, Little Jimmy may come home with a bit of paper for his parents that says “Your child is in third grade. By the end of this year, as a prerequisite for continuing to the next grade, he will know the following….” Social promotions will stop, because it will be clear when a child arrives at the next grade unprepared. Summer school will continue to be an important piece of the puzzle, both for students catching up and brushing up, and for teachers who are learning valuable teaching methods. Teaching methods, by the way, will be measured against whether or not they actually work.

By way of follow-up, it turns out that Real ID (Good! Fight it in court!) and bus and train safety (Hello! London! Madrid!) are unfunded mandates. Other items to consider: FOIA reveals FBI has thousands of pages on peaceful groups, another opinion on the “shrinking” budget deficit, and two views on biofuels.

Budget Def-Jam 2005

Today, President Bush announced good news for the Federal Budget. It looks as though the budget deficit will be almost $100 thousand million less than expected, because the government is taking in more tax money than expected. Now, keep in mind, they are still going to spend $333 thousand million more than they intend to take in, and add that $333 thousand million to the national debt, which currently stands at $7,843,596,586,237.71. With a population of 296,608,542, that brings your personal share to $29,092.54. If it helps, think of the national debt as representing a nice mid-sized sedan for each and every man, woman, and child in the country. With the magic of compound interest, if we wait much longer to get serious about paying down the debt we will be talking about large luxury sedans.

Mr. Bush cautions that we are on track to reduce the deficit — not the national debt — by half before 2009 but only “so long as Congress holds the line on spending.”

There’s a little problem with that.

No, it isn’t the “Tax and Spend Liberals” in Congress, who to their credit understand that you really ought to have money before you go spending it. Nor, really, is the problem the side order of pork that gets stuffed into the federal budget. Pork costs us a lot of money, but it still accounts for less than a third of the budget, and grumble it does at least get spent in local communities stimulating local economies. I am not saying we shouldn’t demand Congress moderate the pork, but I’m saying there’s a bigger budget buster to consider.

The problem is unfunded mandates, unpaid commitments, and upcoming expenses.

Strictly speaking, an unfunded mandate is when Congress says that state/local governments or private businesses must do something, and then does not put enough/any money in the budget for it. The net effect is that in order to do what must be done, your state or local government must put it in their own budget and raise your taxes accordingly — most states don’t have the option of deficit spending. The deed is done, Congress pats itself on the back for keeping expenses low, and you have a cow when your state income tax, sales tax, and property taxes go up. In the case of a private business, they have no choice but to suck up the costs of compliance and pass the expense on to their customers, resulting in inflation. Wikipedia cites No Child Left Behind, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act as examples.

Needless to say, nobody outside Congress likes unfunded mandates. In some cases, such as NCLB, there are lawsuits over the unfunded mandate. Opponents reply that it isn’t an unfunded mandate, just a condition of receiving money and if you don’t like it you can leave your federal education dollars on the table and go. Bottom line on that one is that Ted Kennedy was promised full funding for NCLB, and I don’t know of any Congressman who wants to run for re-election in 2006 on the platform of “less money for public schools.” There’s $40 thousand million that might be tacked onto the budget, a bit less than half the reduction of the budget shortfall that Mr. Bush announced today, in one line-item.

On to unpaid commitments, by which I mean money that has been promised that has not made it into the budget. Sure, we could probably continue to blow off these expenses, but we shouldn’t. Things like the $15 thousand million President Bush promised to send as aid to Africa. Or the $1300 million the United States owes the United Nations. Or worse yet, those War on Terror expenses that seem to be shunted off into “supplemental spending” measures.” The last of these measures was $82 thousand billion and a side order of unfunded mandate Real ID, demonstrating that Mr. Bush’s estimate of reducing the budget deficit at all is predicated on no more military spending. It isn’t that Congress isn’t aware that we are “at war,” but rather that funding the war is like having a teenager who asks you for spending money at every opportunity.

And I didn’t even have to mention that the Veteran’s Administration could sure use another $975 million, minimum.

The final problem with “congress holding the line on spending” is the future. We know that there will be certain expenses in the future. We know we will need to spend more on Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits. This issue is still thrashing around Capitol Hill, but the bottom line is that if the problem is Social Security not having enough money, they will have to cut benefits, increase taxes, or reduce the number of eligible people.

We also know that we will need to spend money upgrading and repairing highways; this is a vital issue to the American economy, since as one friend puts it, “If you’ve got it, a trucker brought it.” You should be aware that highway spending has remained unchanged since 2003, because Congress and the President cannot come to any kind of middle ground. This is despite the fact that our roads are getting older, our highway expenses are getting higher, our population is getting bigger and more dense. The day will come, soon, when we can no longer put off a real highway bill.

Let’s not forget the money that will be needed to overhaul this nation’s newest executive branch department, the Department of Homeland Security. We need better border security, and that will cost money. If an illegal immigrant can find work cleaning highrise office buildings and processing this nation’s food, then so can Al Qaida operatives. Yeah, I’m willing to pay a bit more to know my food has been processed by legal American workers earning a decent wage. We also need better port surveillance, and to do that right will cost millions if not thousands of millions of dollars.

And just think, that’s only the money we know we need to plan on spending. It does not account for disasters, emergencies, future economic difficulties, or any other thing that might come up.

Let’s not count our reduced budget deficit for the year 2009 just yet.

In closing, I bring you Why Costco is Better than Wal-Mart, the fight to renew the Patriot Act, and Molly Ivins points out that regulations were imposed because they were needed.

Return of the Estate Tax!

Once more, the rhetoric has turned to the Estate Tax. When we last checked in on the Estate Tax, opponents were calling it the “Death Tax,” a way of framing the issue which erroneously gives the impression that average Americans are taxed for the act of dying. Back at the beginning of the Bush Administration, a phase-out of the Estate Tax was put into the Tax Cuts For The Wealthy That We Hope Will Trickle Down Act of 2001. The Estate Tax itself will be gone in the year 2010, but because the tax break was “only temporary,” the Estate Tax will be with us again at year 2000 levels unless Congress can pass a bill (and get it signed) to make the tax cut permanent.

This brings us to the present day, when some Senators are being pressured to vote “the Right way” on permanent repeal of Federal Estate Taxes.

The most important thing to remember when we are talking about the Estate Tax is that, at year 2000 levels, the first million dollars is exempt. Your estate consists of a $250,000 house and a five-digit bank account balance? Your estate owes no taxes! None! Be honest, do you have a net worth of over a million dollars? The fact is that 98% of Americans are never effected by this tax.

And as for those of you that do in fact have a million dollar plus estate, there are plenty of ways to see to it that the taxes are paid without undue stress on your widow. If you are worth a million bucks and can’t afford a couple grand for estate planning, you have much bigger problems than what happens after you are dead.

Opponents of the Estate Tax — the sort of people who insist on calling it the Death Tax — say that the real problem with it is that there are “many” small businesses, farms, and ranches that have big assets on paper, but on the death of the owner will have to be sold to pay the taxes. I have three things to say about that. First, a few hundred bucks thrown at a company like The Company Corporation solves that problem by making the company a separate entity. Likewise, an estate planner can put together an insurance package designed to pay the taxes on your estate upon your death — there are two types of people, people who can’t afford an estate planner and people who can’t afford to not have an estate planner.

Second, some of the Senators in question support a bill that would exempt $100 million on the estate of “small” businesses and farms. Sheesh, that’s $100,000,000. I’d like to be that sort of small business owner!

And lastly, if there are so many family businesses, farms, and ranches being put out of business, how come President Bush can’t find one to put in the balcony of the House and talk about in the State of the Union when he talks about “why we need to repeal the Death Tax permanently”? Because they are very, very rare. They would have better luck trying to find a Unicorn breeder to put in the balcony.

The other “argument” against the “death tax” is that it is “double taxation.” The reasoning is that Granddad paid income tax on that money when he earned it, and that makes it wrong to tax it again when he dies and Junior gets the money. If we applied this standard broadly enough, no taxes would ever be paid on anything. The nice folks at Tom the Dancing Bug drew a nice picture to explain how many times the same dollar gets taxed. His point was regarding dividends, but the same logic applies here. You earn money and pay taxes. You buy something and pay more taxes with already taxed money. The store owner pays taxes on his profits from selling you stuff. The guy that wholesaled the stuff pays taxes on his profits. The employees of the store, the wholesaler, the manufacturer, the shipping company all get paid and all pay taxes on their income. Rinse, repeat. This whole double taxation thing makes a good soundbite, but is empty noise.

So why exactly should your Senator support repealing a tax that few people pay, and that there are many ways to get around paying it anyway?

In closing, I bring you some light reading for the weekend: “Who’s Watching the Watch List,” How exactly does one lose track of $8800 million dollars and — literal light reading — Congress is talking about making it legal for electricity to be controlled by a small group of companies. It’s as if they forgot Standard Oil and why trustbusting happened.

Postcards from Africa

Today, I bring you two articles by prominent Africans that basically say:

Dear G8 nations,

Please stop sending us aid! Not that we aren’t grateful for what you’ve given over the years, but we are starting to think that we are coming out on the short end of the stick.

For example, subsidized food is great — that is, when it actually gets to the people who need it instead of being hijacked by greedy dictators or sitting on a dock rotting or being withheld for favors — but our farmers can’t compete with “almost free.” Famine relief is driving them out of business!

And AIDS. It turns out that when you actually run tests, it isn’t anywhere near as prevalent as we thought. We have discovered the hard way what you learned over a decade ago, you can’t tell whether someone has AIDS from looking at them and hearing them cough. It turns out that Malaria is a much bigger problem.

You know what you can do? Get more nations in on debt relief. And don’t erect artificial barriers to African immigrants in your countries that want to send money home to their families. And help us get our education infrastructure in order so we can make the best of our resources and tell when our government is the problem.

Thanks!
Africa

The Profits that Ate the Economy

How many horror flicks have you sat through where some problem started out small, but by the middle of the film grew to terrifying proportions?

A little business news story from the Associated Press was released this morning — a Saturday morning on a holiday weekend — letting us know that profit growth at America’s largest companies is just not going to be as big as expected. Guess what, there’s only so many quarters that a company let alone a group of companies can deliver 12-20% year-over-year increases in earnings. That’s only about three to five times the growth of our entire Gross Domestic Product. Now please keep in mind, nobody is talking about these huge companies losing money, nobody’s even talking about them making less money than last year. We are talking about the fact that they maybe only grow profits by 7-8% over last year. That’s a little less than twice GDP growth.

Now, how can these companies grow so much faster than the economy in general for so long? Accounting regulations have firmed up enough that we can — crossing our fingers of course — assume no Enronian fraud in the numbers. And these are not tiny startups that have relatively small, easily increased profits. These are huge corporations, 500 of the largest businesses and employers in the nation. The money certainly isn’t coming from overseas trade, since we yet again have a record trade deficit: more American money is being spent on foreign goods than foreign money is being spent on American goods. I believe CAFTA will not improve this situation.

But wait a minute, maybe the profits of these companies are bringing the GDP up. Maybe the high-lfying profits are the only thing keeping “Supertanker America” afloat. If that is the case, the rest of the economy really stinks.

Where is the money coming from and where is it going?

The short answer that it is coming from us and going to them.

We are spending the money that results in these companies having earnings, and frankly a lot of us are borrowing money to do so. There are signs this may be slowing down. In any event, it’s a dangerous game to keep running up debt in a nation where rules for getting out of debt are tightening and the number of debtors may be shrinking. (For the record, I think that Band of America buying MBNA is a bad idea and shouldn’t be allowed to go through. I also thought this about B of A buying FleetBoston, the Chase/J.P. Morgan deal, and the Citibank/Traveller’s deal. My opinion clearly carries no weight over at the Federal Trade Commission.) This is an even bigger deal if there is anything to yesterday’s news item that 15 states representing 35% of the American economy are vulnerable to a housing “correction.”

This wouldn’t be such a bad thing if the money these companies were earning went on to be paid to employees, or spent with other companies (that have employees) that in turn would stimulate the economy. However, if this were the case, the money in question would be an expense, not part of the profit. Accounting wonks will note that if money is spent on capital expenses — big ticket items like manufacturing equipment that helps a company make money in the future — has to be depreciated; only a portion of the expense can be claimed each year the equipment is in place. That still doesn’t account for the long term profit growth in question.

Since dividends — money a company pays to it’s shareholders — can only be paid from profits, it is reasonable to expect that some of this money will be paid out as dividends. Needless to say, this only benefits people who own shares of companies that pay dividends. Since on the whole, rich people own more stock than middle and lower class people, any dividends paid will mostly benefit rich people, who by the way are getting a tax break on the deal too.

And to top it all off, a lot of these companies are laying people off. Remember, it isn’t that these companies are losing money, it’s that they are not earning as much more money than last year as they thought. Companies that provide “good jobs with benefits” like Ford, GM, Lear HP, IBM and others. Even “new economy” Silicon Valley feels the crunch of businesses getting bigger, but few additional jobs being created.

So now you see why the economy looks great from Wall Street and kind of anemic from Main Street.

In closing, I don’t want to say much about the esteemed Ms. O’Connor’s resignation, but she has been a pretty decent Supreme Court Justice, and I would hate to see her replaced by someone like, oh, Pricilla Owen. I recommend reading and acting upon this list of suggestions from Daily Kos. As Ms. Marcotte at Pandagon points out, “Women are 50% of the population. People who know women are 100% of the population. Women’s rights are not a minority issue.” We need a Supreme Court nominee who will apply the Constitution, the Law, and his/her Conscience, in that order.