Of course there are side issues as well, as in the case of North Hills in the San Fernando Valley where 85% of the kids speak spanish; the costs of teaching them English and the fact that these kids are more than likely the children of illegals should cause a moment of thought, as it is one of those things ignored when times are good. The article ignores that point as well, which I suppose is like spitting in the soup of disaster we all must eat, legal or not.
Why is California proposing these cuts? Because with the economic slowdown and falling revenue from sales and property taxes, the state faces a budget deficit that could top $20bn this year.
One good sign of things about to turn around will be when financials stabilize. That won't be soon, though a bonanza for investors when that inflection point comes. Right now banks are in a scramble for funds and obtaining them in a manner least pleasant for existing shareholders: issuing more stock and cutting dividends. The god of economics is surely not mocked, and whatsoever a bank sows, that shall it also reap: as in a crop of losses. But as surely as "Investors Face Risks Risk From Banks," as the Time article puts it, the more astute mental framework, with rosy side up, is to look to the opportunity when dividends start moving back up, and not for the dividends, but the stocks themselves.
That the price movement we are getting (in real goods) is not the price movement we want is not helped by the wipeouts of cropland in Iowa and neighboring states. Never have Iowans had such a long tail, as their woes impact your Christmas goose.
The floods impact feed costs, which forces meat producers to trim their flocks, causing rises in meat prices. Time Magazine points out:
The floods engulfed an estimated 2 million or more acres of corn and soybean fields in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois and other key growing states, sending world grain prices skyward on fears of a substantially smaller corn crop. The government will give a partial idea of how many corn acres were lost before the end of the month, but experts say the trickle-down effect could be more dramatic later this year, affecting everything from Thanksgiving turkeys to Christmas hams.
Those ecology minded folks will probably take this moment of topsy turvyness to capitalize on the "evils" of many things, whether driving that car you drive, or eating that meat you eat, though sometimes, and while watching certain shows on the PBS's Create channel, I wonder if the whole concept of sustainability and environmental correctness is just another means for the wealthy to distinguish themselves from the riff raff, now that we can all get out hands on certain luxury items.
You might be able to buy the low end of famous designer's pocketbook or sunglasses line, paying $200 or $300, but can you afford to change YOUR LIFE, buying organic day in day out? Can you afford the extra miles to the local market filled only with "sustainable, locally grown" produce? Can you afford a new Prius or to go electric? Or retrofit your house to leave you with a negative infinity carbon footprint? No you can't. The linked article is interesting in that some of the stars mentioned are only willing to buy the biggest ecologically minded house they can get their hands on. One can assume that when you are thus well endowed, a partial castration is better than none, no?
There is true cost to ecological living, so it's interesting that such a message can get traction precisely as incomes and the entire economic structure are coming apart. Will such environmental initiatives come apart as economic woes mend?
This time, I think, will be different (no really).
No comments:
Post a Comment