Now, what happens if your car’s computer crashes?

Rep. Henry Waxman sent a terse letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, complaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn’t have the expertise to properly evaluate technical problems in cars, such as those that have plagued Toyota:

According to some accounts, autos now contain more computer code than some fighter jets, nearing 100 million lines of code. Yet, NHTSA officials told the Committee staff that the agency does not employ any electrical engineers or software engineers. As a result, NHTSA appears to lack the technical expertise necessary to analyze whether incidents of sudden unintended acceleration are caused by defects in the cars’ electronic systems.

Waxman makes a good point. Cars and trucks today have extremely sophisticated computers, and a software defect can cause all kinds of problems. And yet apparently there’s no real government oversight when it comes to all that code.

Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo wrote a great essay a while back about the “beta” culture that has become the norm in the technology world:

I’m tired of this. This sense of permanent discomfort with the technology around me. The bugs. The compromises. The firmware upgrades. The “This will work in the next version.” The “It’s in our roadmap.” The “Buy now and upgrade later.” The patches. The new low development standards that make technology fail because it wasn’t tested enough before reaching our hands. The feeling now extends to hardware: Everything is built to end up in the trash a year later, still half-baked, to make room for the next hardware revision. I’m tired of this beta culture that has spread like metastatic cancer in the last few years, starting with software from Google and others and ending up in almost every gadget and computer system around. …

Clearly, the problem is the development process and the time to market, with product cycles shortened and corners cut to keep a continuous stream of cash flowing in. The rush to feed these cycles with increasingly more complex engineering seems to be at odds with shortened development and quality assurance processes, resulting in beta-state first-generation products. This beta culture, the same one that already plagues the web, breeds people who are willing to accept bugs in the name of cutting-edge gear.

Diaz was clearly talking about consumer electronics and the Internet, but the same arguments can be applied to auto manufacturers, who face the same market pressures that any other technology company does: produce more complex, more capable, and yet more efficient products year after year at a lower cost and market the hell out of them to gain whatever slight edge you can over your competitors.

If you’re talking a website or a computer operating system or a smartphone, manufacturers can probably afford to cut corners in the development cycle if they know most bugs can be patched later. After all, in the vast majority of cases a software failure is at most an inconvenience and an annoyance. But a software failure in a car can — and does — endanger lives.

It’ll be interesting to see how Toyota and other auto makers respond to these issues. Hopefully they can improve the quality control on their own, but I’m willing to bet the government will also have lots to say. It usually does.

Previously:
What the auto mileage bill really means for consumers

Staring at the images of Haiti, though, I realize how petty I’ve been.  Even in the best of times, the people there live in unimaginable poverty.  According to Encyclopedia of the Nations:

Most Haitians live in small, often remote, villages or isolated settlements, with no access to electricity, clean water, or social services. Some rudimentary education is offered by church and other charitable organizations, but the distances children must travel to school, the costs of books and uniforms, and the necessity for them to work from an early age means that illiteracy is estimated at over half of the adult population. Illness can often spell financial disaster, as meager savings or investments such as a pig must be sold to pay for medicines. In some areas large numbers of people are dependent on aid agencies for food supplies.

Existence in the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince is perhaps even grimmer, with overcrowding, disease, and squalor widespread. Those who work can expect to earn no more than US$2 a day, hardly enough to buy food, let alone other necessities. The majority, however, must scrape some sort of living from the informal sector. Figures for child mortality, communicable diseases, and life expectancy reveal the country’s poverty and deprivation. According to the Pan-American Health Organization, approximately 380,000 Haitians—over 5 percent of the population—were infected with HIV/AIDS by 2000.

Meanwhile, my family and I live in a nice house in a nice suburban neighborhood.  We have electricity, heating and air-conditioning as needed, clean water, plenty of clothes, and more than enough food.  Our kids are getting a great education in a public school only a mile from our house, and I have a full-time job that pays well.  We also have health insurance and easy access to some of the best medical care in the world.

We’re blessed beyond measure.  And yet I’ve spent the better part of the last two weeks feeling sorry for myself.  Why?

The earthquake that hit Port-au-Prince on Tuesday was simply tragic.  My heart is broken for the countless numbers of people impacted by the devastation, for the thousands who died, and for the possible millions who are left homeless.  I’m thankful, though, that even in the midst of so much suffering, God is still in control.  That much, at least, I can take solace in.

More photos here.

“I want to ensure that never again we stick the American taxpayer with another $700 billion or even larger tab to bail out the financial industry,” Mr. McCain said, referring to the Treasury bailout program of financial firms.

Mr. McCain said he isn’t opposed to investment banks taking risks to pursue greater returns, but he doesn’t believe these risks should be taken using retail banking depositors’ money.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, it’s unlikely that the call to separate the banks will go very far in Congress, and Newsweek has compared it to “unscrambling an egg”.  So why is it so interesting?  Because McCain voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999 and because one of the authors of the bill, Phil Gramm, was McCain’s chief economic adviser during his presidential campaign.  Which makes me wonder if McCain would be making the same call had he won the election.  My guess is, probably not.

Previously:
The root cause of the subprime meltdown

But did she?

First, the ProPublica report goes on to show that even if some parts of TARP make money, overall the government is still in the red when you factor in the rest of the program as well as all the other bailouts (AIG, Fannie Mae, GM, etc.).  So Burka’s point is moot.

But let’s assume the government did actually end up profiting from all the various bailouts.  Does that make them OK?  Or are they still unacceptable based on principle alone?

Senator Hutchison wrote in September 2008 that:

With every bailout, each American taxpayer becomes more invested in these markets. And we all have the right to ask the question, why is one firm rescued, when another must face the consequences of its actions? In a capitalist system, some risks will yield big rewards and some will lead to failure. When possible, it is better to let free market economics pick the winners and losers, not the federal government. Corporate bailouts set a dangerous precedent and stand to negatively impact market dynamics over the long-term.

So do big government bailouts still set a dangerous precedent if they not only help the market stabilize and recover but also yield a profit for taxpayers?

Again, that’s just a theoretical question since we have yet to see (and almost certainly won’t see) a return on our investments.  But in my opinion, a bailout’s potential profitability doesn’t make it right.  Otherwise, the government simply becomes a massive investment manager whose motives are driven more by the bottom line than the public good.  Which would make it just as “evil” as the Wall Street firms that the bailouts were designed to save us from.

Previously:
Report: Bailouts hurt the government’s credibility
TARP is the financial equivalent of the Vietnam War
Actual cost of TARP bailouts: $2.9 trillion

Now we get the sequel.

First, we find out that Texas employers hired 41,700 new employees in October (a number almost identical to the jobs lost a month before).  But then in another article (also from the DMN), we find out that Dallas-Fort Worth “lost about 60,000 jobs in October compared to a year earlier.”  Both stats, conveniently, come from the Texas Workforce Commission.

OK, so I guess you could argue that the DFW area lost 60,000 jobs while other parts of Texas gained 101,700.  If so, how do you explain the unemployment rate rising from 8.2 percent in September to 8.3 percent in October?  Something’s not adding up.

Further, the first article states that “Dallas-Fort Worth lost 59,100 jobs between October 2008 and last month”, while the second article (quoting the Dallas Federal Reserve) says that DFW has “lost almost 115,000 jobs this year”.

Huh?

Have we lost 59,000 jobs in the last year or 115,000?  Did we gain 41,000 jobs in October or lose 60,000?  Honestly, I don’t think anyone really knows.

And that’s why our economy is so screwed up.

Previously:
Texas gains jobs, Texas loses jobs
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs

Under the House bill private health insurance companies will still exist, but to what end? They will be legally prohibited from competing in any meaningful sense. They will be required to issue substantially the same coverages at substantially the same rates, changes in which must be justified to the government. They will be prohibited from underwriting insurance risks in any rational way: they must pay all bills resulting from preexisting conditions, and they will be prohibited from charging lower-risk customers lower rates.

As I wrote here, you can force insurance companies to “cover” preexisting conditions, but the resulting product is not insurance. You cannot insure against something that has already happened. It is merely a bill-paying mechanism. …

Under the House bill, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that health insurance companies are no longer in the insurance business. They can’t rate and underwrite risks, which is the essence of insurance. That’s illegal. They can’t decide to whom they will issue policies; that’s illegal, too. They can’t offer novel or innovative coverages; their coverages are dictated by law. To a limited extent they can make decisions on paying claims, but under the watchful eye of government regulators. Meaningful competition among insurance companies will be, in effect, illegal.

I’m not saying insurance reforms aren’t needed, but regulating any industry to this extent simply can’t be good.

The mixed and blunt assessment by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general in charge of oversight for the bailout fund, appears in a quarterly report scheduled for release Wednesday. Barofsky said the Troubled Asset Relief Program has come at great cost to taxpayers, to the integrity of the financial system and to the public’s perception of the federal government.

“Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success,” he wrote, “Treasury’s actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP.”

Of course, the report assumes that Americans had any faith in the government in the first place, which is questionable.

There’s a reason our currency says “In God We Trust”.

Previously:
‘Dude, where’s my $700 billion?’
TARP is the financial equivalent of the Vietnam War

“As the global economy recovers and trade volumes rebound, however, global imbalances my reassert themselves,” Bernanke warned. For the United States’ part, “the most effective way” to boost national savings in this country “is by establishing a sustainable fiscal trajectory, anchored by a clear commitment to substantially reduce federal deficits over time,” Bernanke said. He didn’t suggest ways to do so.

Bernanke may not have any ideas for how to cut the deficit, but I have a few suggestions.  How ’bout no more bailouts for starters?  Maybe stop buying banks, auto companies, and insurance companies?  Also, we could stop paying people to trade in their old cars.  And — call me crazy! — maybe we should abandon plans for a massive, multi-trillion-dollar health care overhaul.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.  You’re welcome.

Previously:
The real ‘death panel’? The federal budget

Wait, wha?

Have we gained jobs or haven’t we?

See, this is why you should never let politicians do math.

Previously:
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs

Spring’s proposed amendment to the Constitution, focusing on education, features three primary goals, he said. The first goal is equality in education, especially in funding. The second component in the proposed amendment would center on the right for education in different languages and cultures. The third concentrated on academic freedom for teachers and students, Spring said. This would allow teachers to choose their own methods and materials to teach, while still following a curriculum guide.

Spring’s primary argument for such an amendment is that the textbook publishing industry is more interested in maximizing profits than in furthering education, and through political contributions, they’ve forced schools into using their products, thereby removing the freedom to choose other methods.

While that argument sounds good on the surface, though, it isn’t really necessary.  First off, teachers, while bound to the curriculum chosen by the state and school district, do have some degree of freedom with how they teach that curriculum; it’s just that many of them don’t deviate too far from the norm.  Second, if you really wanted to give teachers and school districts more freedom, there are a couple of other things you can do that would be much more effective and wouldn’t require a vague constitutional amendment: (1) eliminate or at least de-emphasize standardized tests, and (2) get rid of No Child Left Behind and other federal regulations.

Ideas such as guaranteeing academic freedom or extending the number of hours kids are in school may be good soundbites, but they’re not necessarily good solutions.  Instead, we should be looking at using the time our kids are in school more effectively.  And besides, any solution should be left up to the states and local school districts to decide, not mandated at the federal level.

Previously:
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution
History to be (re)written by the victors?
How much emphasis should be placed on Christianity when teaching history?