Matt Taibbi analyzes Jamie Dimon’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone found it hard to watch all of the U.S. Senators giving homage to Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase. You can read his detailed report here. And here's the lesson Dimon doesn't get:

You can either be a commercial bank, with all the federal support that entails, or you can be a high-risk gambler. But you shouldn't be allowed to be both. We could have Chase Commercial Bank, and Chase Investments Inc., and they can each be as big as they want, but those companies should be separate. Why do we need companies like Chase that are both things, under one tent? The real answer, from Jamie Dimon’s point of view, is simple – there’s no way he could have a $350 billion hedge fund if he didn’t have mountains of federally-insured money to play with, and a steady stream of low-interest loans from the Fed.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi analyzes Jamie Dimon’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee

Dear Mom and Dear Dad: new ads regarding legalized marijuana

I've never used marijuana and I'm not trying to encourage other people to use marijuana. But neither am I discouraging adults who want to responsibly use marijuana the same way as many people responsibly use alcohol and prescription drugs. The reason I promote the legalization of marijuana is that I am horrified by the way that our politicians make personal marijuana use a criminal justice issue. Arresting 800,000 people each year (the equivalent of the population of the state of South Dakota) is a waste of taxpayer dollars and it makes our streets violent. We should tax and regulate marijuana for the same reasons we did away with Prohibition. This position is advocated by many people with careers in law enforcement, including all members of LEAP. Colorado is soon going to vote on Amendment 64, which would do the following:

• makes the personal use, possession, and limited home-growing of marijuana legal for adults 21 years of age and older;

• establishes a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed similarly to alcohol; and

• allows for the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp.

Amendment 64 (here's the full text) also does the following:
Amendment 64 removes all legal penalties for personal possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and for the home-growing of up to six marijuana plants, similar to the number allowed under current medical marijuana laws, in an enclosed, locked space. The initiative creates legal marijuana establishments – retail stores, cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, and testing facilities – and directs the Department of Revenue to regulate a system of cultivation, production (including infused products), and distribution. . . . The general assembly will be required to enact an excise tax of up to 15 percent on the wholesale sale of non-medical marijuana applied at the point of transfer from the cultivation facility to a retail store or product manufacturer. The first $40 million of revenue raised annually will be directed to the Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund. . . . The initiative does not change existing laws regarding driving under the influence of marijuana, and it allows employers to maintain all of their current employment and drug testing policies. . . . Take a look at two commercials being run by the proponents of Amendment 64, on which the people of Colorado will vote in November:
Colorado has some smart and media savvy people working on this campaign, including Mason Tvert: By the way check out Tvert's comments on industrial hemp at the 3 minute mark. How bizarre is it that our politicians are so dysfunctional about the false alleged dangers of marijuana that they also outlaw industrial hemp, with which people cannot possibly get high? Listen to Tvert talk about the economic benefits of making marijuana and industrial hemp legal.

Continue ReadingDear Mom and Dear Dad: new ads regarding legalized marijuana

Cost of raising a child

How much does it cost to raise a child? According to the Associated Press:

For $235,000, you could indulge in a shiny new Ferrari — or raise a child for 17 years. A government report released Thursday found that a middle-income family with a child born last year will spend about that much in child-related expenses from birth through age 17. That's a 3.5 percent increase from 2010.
This immense amount of money required to raise a child has serious ramifications. At this time, though, I would merely like to note that there are (assuming a child sleeps 8 hours a day) a child is awake almost 100,000 hours over 17 years (17 years x 365 days x 16 hours waking time per day). That means that it costs parents about $2.35 for each of their children's waking hours. But parents don't necessarily get to enjoy the company of their children during every one of their child's waking hours. I'm going to make a great leap and guess that parents only spend about 4 hours per day in the company of each of their children each day over a period of 17 years. Therefore, parents spend about 24,820 hours in the company of their children over 17 years. Therefore, it costs parents ($235,000/24,820) $9.47 for each hour that they actually get to spend with each of their children during the first 17 years. Quite often, this can be a great bargain, at least in my experience.

Continue ReadingCost of raising a child