Global Warming Tiger - Data Bias

This is the second of the series Global Warming - Tale of the Tiger.

Read the Tale and a description of the figure to the left. I believe the apparent 0.8ºC increase in Global Temperature over the past 150 years is due to three major causes and one minor one, as indicated by the parts of the "tiger".

DATA BIAS

This posting is about DATA BIAS which I think is responsible for about 30% of the apparent warming. In other words, 0.2ºC to 0.3ºC of the apparent 0.8ºC temperature increase is not actual warming.

(However, the remaining 0.5ºC to 0.6ºC is actual warming, and needs to be addressed.)

NASA/NOAA GISS MODIFICATION OF THEIR OWN BASE DATA

The figure below is a "blink comparator" of the official NASA/NOAA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) USA temperature anomaly (from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/. Credit for the graphs goes to http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif.)

More about the above graph near the end of this posting!

CLASSES OF OFFICIAL MEASUREMENT SITES

NASA/NOAA specifies measurement sites in five classes, with the best at least 100 m (over 300 ft) from any source of artificial heating or land development and the worst located right on an occupied building. According to a 2009 survey, only about 3% of official sites in the US are at Class 1. About 8% are in Class 2, at least 30 m from a source of artificial heat. About 20% are in Class 3, between 10 and 30 m. The remaining stations are closer than 10 m to an artificial heat source (58%) or right on a heat source (11%).

Thus, only about 11% are in the best two classes, reasonably distant from artificial sources of heat, while 69% are in the worst two classes, easily affected by nearby heat sources. Over 2/3rds of the official reporting stations in the US are close enough to artificial heating sources to be affected. We have no idea if the situation is better for foreign stations, but it is likely even worse!

Of course, since Global Warming has to do with changes in temperature, if a station has been at the same location for decades, any change in reported temperature should be consistent with actual trends in that area, right?

WRONG! Stations in urban areas, even if they have been in the exact same place, have been affected by lifestyle changes, such as installation of air conditioning in buildings that had none fifty years ago, more auto and truck traffic, and construction of nearby buildings. But, many stations have been moved from time to time and thus have not been in the same place all this time, and most have been affected and encroached by civilization and changes in land use.

Why are the stations so close to artificial heat sources? Well, fifty or more years ago, all the readings were taken manually by volunteer observers twice a day. They were not about to walk the length of a football field to do so. Even as automatic reporting stations were introduced, the stations had to be close to buildings so the telephone and power wires could be run to them.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE (Source)

"One swallow doesn't make a spring." (Aristotle). Even two doesn't prove it is spring. Likewise, the following anecdotal evidence does not prove the case for measurement bias. However, human beings seem to be moved more by specific examples than by statistical evidence. So have a look at these two stations about 50 miles apart in north-central California with very different temperature plots.

Orland, CA has a well-located station that has been in the same place for 100 years. The period from 1880 to 1900 shows a precipitous dip in mean annual temperature of about 2ºC. Mean temperatures have been in the same approximate range since 1900, with a small dip in the 1940's.
Marysville, CA, around 50 miles away, has seen considerable encroachment by development. The shelter that houses the MMTS temperature sensor is close to air conditioning exhaust fans and you can see their effect in the 2ºC mean temperature rise from 1940 to the present.

Sadly, the second example is far more representative of reporting stations than the first.

How could two temperature measurement stations, only 50 miles apart, experience such large differences in annual mean temperature trends? The only explanation is measurement bias due to encroachment of development at the second station.

THAT IS WHY NASA/NOAA GISS CORRECTS THE RAW DATA

Indeed, NASA/NOAA has retroactively corrected the data to account for measurement error. Here is that "blink comparitor" again.

Remember, this is OFFICIAL published data from NASA/NOAA GISS in 1999 and then in 2008. They have adjusted the data by about 0.3ºC which is more than 30% of the apparent Global Warming over the past 150 years.

Since the data has been biased by proximity to artificial heating sources which tend to increase over time, you would expect them to adjust the data to show less actual warming in later years. However, they seem to have made the "correction" in the wrong direction!

Check the blinking graphs! For data before 1970, they have REDUCED the temperatures by up to 0.1ºC. For the years after 1970, they have INCREASED the temperatures by up to 0.2ºC. This retroactive "correction" has added 0.3ºC o the apparent warming.

CONCLUSIONS

I have only scratched the surface on reasons to suspect data bias. There are dozens of photos showing official temperature measurement sites that are clearly too close to artificial heat sources that have obviously encroached relatively recently. There is evidence that painting the sensor enclosures with modern, longer-lasting latex paint rather than the old method using whitewash has increased temperature readings in the warm part of the summer.

What if I suggested that all official sites in Class #4 and Class #5 should be abandoned and replaced by new sites that met the requirements of Class #1 (or at least Class #2)? Well, the Global Warming alarmists would be up in arms, and for good reason, because that would wipe out most of the apparent temperature increase.

I agree with them! Since much of the data from years ago came from stations that were in very close proximity to human development, the old data is biased towards higher readings.

On the other hand, I think everyone should agree that encroachment of measurement sites by human development, especially over the past 40 years as air conditioning and vehicular traffic became more common, has biased recent data towards higher readings.

I don't have the power to correct the measurement stations that have been encroached, nor do I have the base data to make exact corrections. However, I think it is clear that a substantial portion of the apparent Global Warming increase is definitiely due to data bias. I estimate this bias as about 30% (+ 0.2ºC to +0.3ºC). Does anybody agree or disagree with that estimate? On what basis?

(However, I hasten to repeat, the remaining 0.5ºC to 0.6ºC is actual warming, and needs to be addressed.)

Ira Glickstein

Cap and Trade

Apparently not signing the Kyoto treaty wasn't such a blunder. The objections to exemptions for China appear to have been valid (see http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/top-stories/carbon-credit-dollars-to-flow-through-china-dams-but-may-do-little-for-climate-3984.htm). Cap and trade provisions enrich China at the expense of Europe. Considering how much of our debt the Chinese already hold, it seems insanity to give them yet another opportunity to take our wealth away. With respect -Joel

The Female-Mind vs the Male-Mind

Here is a hillarious video by Mark Gungor on how male and female brains are different! PLEASE CLICK AND VIEW IT - YOU WILL ENJOY!

It seems male brains are composed of separate boxes that never touch while female brains are totally interconnected and wired with emotion.

We've discussed the Liberal/Conservative-Mind on this Blog and this video may help to explain why men seem more likely to be C-Minds and women L-Minds according to political polling data.

We have a couple of women Authors on this Blog and, most probably quite a few women Lurkers, and I would especially like to see comments on this video from them.

Ira Glickstein

Global Warming: Tale of the Tiger

Once upon a time, long ago and far away, a tiger was terrorizing a village and four brave young men decided to do something about it.

The first approached the tiger's head and whacked it with a stick. The tiger ate him!

The second approached the tiger's fore quarters and struck out with a knife. The tiger clawed him to death.

The third approached the rear quarters with the same result.

The last brave young man decided to sneak up on the tiger from behind and he managed to snip a piece out of the tiger's tail and get away.

Of course, nipping the tiger's tail didn't do much to solve the problem. Nevertheless, the villagers celebrated his pluck and luck and everybody felt quite satisfied - until the next tiger attack.

This is the first of five postings about the causes and cures for Global Warming. There is no doubt the Earth has warmed significantly over the past 150 years. The IPCC claims the warming trend is mainly (over 50%) due to rising CO2 levels caused by human burning of formerly sequestered carbon (coal, oil, natural gas). They demand immediate action to reduce carbon emissions by 75% within the coming decades.

I believe they are right about our being in a global warming trend. I believe continued warming will affect our way of life. However, I think the IPCC will be proven to have been wrong about the percentage of global warming due to human activities and, especially, about our ability to stabilize and reduce carbon gas production.

LET'S LOOK AT THE "TIGER" OF GLOBAL WARMING

Let’s imagine Global Warming as that tiger, and let us divide it up into three large sections, leaving 10% for the tiger’s tail. The sections represent the causes of the 0.8 ºC (about 1.4 ºF) apparent temperature rise.

I say apparent because around 30% is due to bias in measurements, due to encroachment of local development and land use on temperature measuring stations. (The second posting is about Data Bias.) An additional 40% is real warming, due to natural cycles, mainly variability in the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s orbit. About 20% is due to "greenhouse" warming effects of the carbon gases that have fizzed out of the oceans due to natural cycle warming, especially over the past fifty years.

The remaining 10% is due to human activity generating greenhouse gasses. I suggest we are attacking the “tiger’s tail” –that last 10%- because we really cannot do much about the other causes and we need to find some satisfaction! I also suggest that efforts to reduce carbon footprints, some of which I support (Carbon Tax), are unlikely to have much practical effect.

After celebrating the successful, but futile, attack against the tiger's tail, the villagers had to face reality. They had to adapt to living with the tiger by fencing their village and being extremely careful when venturing out. They also prayed the tiger would go away.

Ira Glickstein

Earmarks and pork

[from JohnS]

A few days ago, I listened to Neil Cavuto, Fox News, rant at a Congresswoman about earmarks in the budget submitted by Congress. When she could squeeze a word in, she tried to explain that earmarks endorsed by her were justified. She had no opportunity to argue her point. Cavuto simply talked over her implying she was trying to justify the unjustifiable.

My curiosity was aroused. What are earmarks? What is pork? Are earmarks and pork the same? Are they justifiable?

Wikipedia encyclopedia gave me the best definitions I could find of both earmarks and pork as follows:

Earmarks
Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:
"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]
In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.

Pork or Pork barrel
Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.
Citizens Against Government Waste outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork":
1. Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
2. Not specifically authorized;
3. Not competitively awarded;
4. Not requested by the President;
5. Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
6. Not the subject of congressional hearings;
7. Serves only a local or special interest

Reading these definitions, my conclusions are that earmarks are appropriately authorized by congress in the legislative process. Pork, on the other hand is inserted into legislation without being appropriately authorized by Congress.

I think we can agree that pork is a misuse of the legislative process. Is it illegal? Not being a constitutional lawyer, I don’t know, but I think it is. I would like to see it tested before the Supreme Court. Apparently, both the legislative and executive branches intend to keep sneaking pork to into legislation.

What about earmarks? We can probably agree that they are a permitted part of the legislative process, however, are they an appropriate part of the process? I’m not sure. In a bill to improve our road and bridge infrastructure, earmarking certain sections of road or certain bridges would be appropriate if there was a justifiable necessity to expedite these repairs. On the other hand, in a defense bill earmarking a project in favor of one of two equally qualified contractors wouldn’t seem appropriate even though one might argue that there was a justifiable reason such as the preferred contractor was located in a depressed area where the project would have benefits broader than just the project. This would worry me. There is too much opportunity for favoritism however, my concerns are immaterial earmarks are a part of the system, providing a necessary function.

Is it appropriate to return some of the tax money to a congressional district through earmarks? I think so as the Congresswoman was trying to explain to Neil Cavuto. A representative is just that, she represents her constituents. She should receive a fair proportion of the funds returned to the states and congressional districts and be allowed to specify where this money will be spent through earmarks.

Bottom Line, as Ira would say.

Earmarks are an authorized and appropriate part of the legislative process. Pork, on the other hand is a misuse of the legislative process, is probably illegal and corrupts the system.

Carbon Tax YES! - Cap&Trade NO!

According to an AP story today:

"Eight Senate Democrats are opposing speedy action on President Barack Obama's bill to combat global warming, complicating prospects for the legislation and creating problems for their party's leaders.

"The eight Democrats disapprove of using the annual budget debate to pass Obama's 'cap and trade' bill to fight greenhouse gas emissions, a measure that divides lawmakers, environmentalists and businesses. ..."

"'Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy,' wrote the Democratic senators, mostly moderates. They were joined by 25 Republicans. 'Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate.' ...

"The Democrats who signed the letter, addressed to the chairman and top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, were: Robert Byrd, W.Va.; Blanche Lincoln, Ark.; Mary Landrieu, La.; Carl Levin, Mich.; Evan Bayh, Ind.; Ben Nelson, Neb.; Bob Casey Jr., Pa.; and Mark Pryor, Ark."

This Blog avoids partisan politics but this issue cuts across party lines and is somewhat "philosophical".

Although I am not a Global Warming "alarmist" and I do not believe human burning of previously-sequestered carbon (coal, oil, natural gas) is responsible for most Global Warming or most of the rise in atmospheric CO2, I am concerned about rapidly rising CO2 levels. I do believe we (humanity) should take action to reduce carbon footprints. I do not believe that action should be precipitous or extreme, but I do believe action is necessary. The sooner the better!

HOW TO REDUCE CARBON FOOTPRINTS ?

There are two general approaches:

1) Cap & Trade Carbon Permits and

2) Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax.

Both approaches will have the effect of raising the price of energy derived from sequestered carbon as a way to reduce demand and encourage more use of alternative energy sources.

CAP & TRADE CARBON PERMITS is a complex scheme where industrial concerns estimate the amount of CO2 they are currently spewing into the atmosphere and how much they could reduce those emissions by adopting new technology. Each country adopts a "cap" on the total amount of CO2 that may be emitted and imposes shares of the cap, as carbon permits, on individual companies. Companies that can reduce their emissions below their caps may sell the excess allocations to companies that cannot. The idea is that this will encourage companies to adopt new emission-reducing technology and use the money for the resultant sale of their carbon permits to pay for the costs of the new technology. This is an idea that is great in theory, but an invitation for cheating and scheming and massive government regulation and political influence.

REVENUE-NEUTRAL CARBON TAX is a simple scheme for taxing coal, oil and natural gas at the source (or at entry to the country) on the basis of carbon content. The money raised by that tax would be immediately refunded to the population, perhaps by reducing the payroll tax or by simply mailing a check to each holder of a social security card. The carbon tax will raise the price of energy (for example by about $1/gallon of gasoline and proportionately for coal and natural gas) and provide an economic incentive for industries and consumers to reduce their usage of fossil fuels and products that are manufactured using fossil fuels. Rather than have the government regulate and check on estimates of CO2 emissions, the carbon tax will allow industries and consumers to adapt according to their own benefit.

ALL IN FAVOR - SAY "AYE!"

Those in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon tax include a broad range of people, including:

James Hansen of NASA (who I said has gone overboard in his dire predictions regarding human-caused Global Warming) wrote:
"In my testimony [to Congress] I noted that a 'Cap' raises the price of energy, just as does a simple honest carbon tax on oil, gas and coal at the first sale at the mine or port of entry. 'Cap' is a pseudonym, disguising the fact that it is a tax, assuming that the public is a bunch of dummies, who will never catch on. With all its hooks and eyes, Cap&Trade will allow a lot of funny business. At least we would get a few Wall Street millionaires back in business, via speculation and gaming the Cap&Trade system (funded by John Q. Public, of course). ...

"A Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend would not let Congress enrich their favorites or divine winning technologies. Instead, the winners would be innovators who invent products with improved energy efficiency or develop carbon-free energies, which allow people to reduce their carbon tax."

Charles Krauthammer (Right-winger, writing in The Weekly Standard):
"The Net-Zero Gas Tax - A once-in-a-generation chance. ... High gas prices, whether achieved by market forces or by government imposition, encourage fuel economy. In the short term, they simply reduce the amount of driving. In the longer term, they lead to the increased (voluntary) shift to more fuel-efficient cars. They render redundant and unnecessary the absurd CAFE standards--the ever-changing Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations that mandate the fuel efficiency of various car and truck fleets--which introduce terrible distortions into the market. As the consumer market adjusts itself to more fuel-efficient autos, the green car culture of the future that environmentalists are attempting to impose by decree begins to shape itself unmandated. This shift has the collateral environmental effect of reducing pollution and CO2 emissions, an important benefit for those who believe in man-made global warming and a painless bonus for agnostics (like me) who nonetheless believe that the endless pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. ...

"Today we are experiencing a unique moment. Oil prices are in a historic free fall from a peak of $147 a barrel to $39 today. In July, U.S. gasoline was selling for $4.11 a gallon. It now [Jan 2009] sells for $1.65. With $4 gas still fresh in our memories, the psychological impact of a tax that boosts the pump price to near $3 would be far less than at any point in decades. Indeed, an immediate $1 tax would still leave the price more than one-third below its July peak. ...

"What to do? Something radically new. A net-zero gas tax. Not a freestanding gas tax but a swap that couples the tax with an equal payroll tax reduction. A two-part solution that yields the government no net increase in revenue and, more importantly--that is why this proposal is different from others--immediately renders the average gasoline consumer financially whole."

Others in favor: The Wall Street Journal, Ralph Nader (pardon the expression :^), Exxon-Mobil, and me (July 2007, May, October, and November 2008).

Ira Glickstein

Prediction: Big Market Recovery This Year!

[Double-click graphic for larger view]

My neighbor is not a racist. He is a Democrat who would vote for the proverbial "yellow dog" if it was a candidate of his party. Yet, back in May when Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be headed for the Democratic Party nomination, he told me "the country is not ready for a Black president." Of course, the country proved him wrong - we have a Black President, elected by a substantial majority of the population, including a near-majority of whites.

As I looked at the highlights of last year's presidential campaign and the precipitous fall of the Dow Jones Industrials (DJI) amid the current economic collapse led by the popping of the housing bubble, I began to wonder what contribution racism -and in particular the unjustified fear of racism- might have had.

My conclusion is that racism and what turned out to be unjustified fear of racism had a substantial effect on the market decline, along with what turned out to be an unjustifiably bloated valuation of the market and of real estate.


The good news is that the market will probably recover nearly as fast as it dropped. I predict we will see it around 9,000 or more by year end and over 10,000 in a few years. The bad news is that the high levels of the last decades, and in particular the peak of 14,000 in 2007, were unjustifiably optimistic and will not be seen again for many years.

LET'S LOOK AT THE GRAPHICAL RECORD



The base graph above shows the actual DJI from 1930 to the present (jagged blue line). It also shows my estimate of the "true" value of the corporations represented in the DJI (green dotted line), based upon the idea that the stock market, an imperfect instrument, seeks to find the "true value"as it oscillates above and below, overshooting and undershooting on its merry way. It is nearly impossible to project the future course of the "true" value, but, given the actuals from 1930 to the present it is possible to draw a smooth curve, called a "regression line", that approximates the "true" value.



As you can see, the period from about 1995 to last year saw the market 2000 to 4000 points above the "true" value. I believe it is now around 2000 to 3000 points below the "true" value. My projections for the future (the fan of red dashed lines) indicates the market will soon go up sharply, most probably matching the "true" value by 2012. Optimistically, it could overshoot the "true" value by 2012 or 2013 (upper dashed red line). Pessimistically, it could undershoot the "true" value for decades (lower red dashed line). But, even my most pessimistic prediction shows the DJI on a steep incline for the coming few years.





WHY WAS THE MARKET OVERVALUED?



Government policies, starting in the 1990's, overstimulated the housing market. Fannie and Freddie, quasi-government organizations, assumed increasing responsibility for mortgages. This created the government-backed "moral hazard" that allowed -even encouraged- local banks to hand out mortgages to marginal borrowers, knowing they could offload these mortgages to Fannie and Freddie. As these mortgages were sliced and diced and "securitized", the SEC failed to properly regulate the securities and companies like AIG that insured them.


Everybody believed (or pretended to believe) that real estate could not go down. Well, maybe it could go down in some local geographic area, but it could never go down all over the country at the same time. Thus, "securitizing", by creating "diversity", was a way to insure stability and growth of "affordable housing".


The constituents of both political parties loved these policies. Republican developers and housing material corporations saw their businesses boom. Democratic workers got good paying jobs in the factories and building trades and the lower middle-class got affordable housing. Home ownership was preferable to renting because it gave people a stake in the community and a path to the middle-class. OK so far, but then the banks started giving loans to people who could never pay them off -even in good times- and some lenders even helped borrowers phony up their applications to get them approved. ("Countrywide is on your side!")


WHAT ROLE DID FEAR OF RACISM HAVE IN THE MARKET CRASH?


Investors hate uncertainty. The inset graph above shows the actual DJI track from April 2008 through March 2009. (It is to the same vertical scale as the base chart for ease of comparison.) The DJI was around 13,000 when McCain became the presumptive nominee for the Republicans and a bit lower when Obama appeared to have a clear lead over Clinton in the Democratic race.


After McCain and Obama were nominated by their parties (end of August, beginning of September) the DJI was down to around 11,500. As it became clear that Obama was likely to win, the market dropped precipitously (777 points on September 29th), and by a month before the elections, with Obama 6 points ahead of McCain, it was in free fall, crossing below the 9,000 level.


From election day, with Obama's big win, to his taking office on Jan 20, 2009, the market tumbled down to around 8,000. Two months into his term it hit a low around 6,500.


I believe only a relatively small number of people (genuine racists) pulled their money out of the market or cut back on their workforce because they did not think a Black president could do a good job. On the other hand, I believe a much larger number pulled their money out because of their unjustified fear that the actions of the racists would cause the market to go down. That accellerated the fall.

OTHER REASONS FOR THE MARKET CRASH

As I mentioned above, the market was ripe for a "correction" down to 10,000 or so. There were fundamental problems in the housing market caused by government-backed "moral hazard" policies and lack of proper regulation.

There may have been some organized effort by some leftish-oriented members of the moneyed class to take advantage of these weaknesses and push the market down temporarily to guarantee an Obama victory. I have no proof of this allegation and only mention it in case further investigation shows that some hedge funds were manipulating the market in the September-October time frame last year.

Also, some rightish-oriented members of the moneyed class might have been worried that an Obama victory would bring about more "socialistic" policies that would hurt the economy and pulled their money out for that reason.

Finally, the major media, nearly all of which supported Obama, always like a crisis story. They jumped on the highlighted phrase when McCain said: "... Our economy is in crisis ... there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street ... people are frightened by these events. ... still the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times. And I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street. We will reform government."

I believe the fundamentals -American workers and industry- are strong and will recover almost as fast as we went down. Markets tend to over-react in crisis -both on the way up and the way down- so, hold on to your hats for the ride up!




BOTTOM LINE


I believe President Obama is very smart and intellectually flexible and basically honest.

I hope he can overcome his work experience in an activist law firm, as a community organizer, and on the left in the Illinois legislature and the US Senate. His entire career has been based on pushing policies that take money from those who earned it and give it to those who (for whatever reason) did not. On the other hand, he has demonstrated that he, personally, is a very hard worker. At Harvard, the law firm, in Chicago communities, and the legislatures, he has demonstrated tremendous intellect and industry and work ethic.


I want President Obama to succeed because I want to see our country emerge from this economic crisis stronger and more "mean and lean" to compete better in the globalized marketplace. This "correction" in our economy was overdue but perhaps it has been overdone.


I see hope in the availability of more affordable housing (due to the foreclosures), the reduction in energy prices (due to the economic slowdown), the elimination of some unproductive factories and wasteful union work rules (due to bankruptcies and threats thereof) and people willing and anxious to work harder and smarter (due to the reduction in job availablity).


I do not want all of President Obama's stated policies to succeed. For example, I am worried that the printing of a few trillion (thousand-billion) "stimulus" dollars will inevitably lead to roaring inflation a couple years from now. Much of this money will go to politically-connected states and cities and companies and unions and will probably be wasted (think of Boston's "big dig" on steroids and spread over our entire Nation).

But, I remain optimistic.


My wife and I "hung on" during the stock market downturn and saw losses of about 50% in our stocks and 401K accounts, as well as a substantial drop in the value of our home. But, even counting these substantial declines, we are still above our cost basis in both stocks and our house, so all we have lost is some "paper profits". Let us all hope for a substantial recovery in the market this year and next.

Ira Glickstein