Lessons From the Lame-Duck Tax Rates Battle

n the recent debate about ending or prolonging the Bush tax rates, the Democrats subtly staked out a new fiscal doctrine — not increasing tax rates costs the government money and increases the deficit.

What we heard ad nauseam from President Obama and congressional Democrats was that keeping the Bush rates in effect for those earning more than $250,000 will “cost” the government $700 billion in lost revenue over the next ten years and increase the federal debt by the same amount. That supposedly is the difference in revenue generated by the top income Bush rate (35 percent) relative to the Clinton era top rate of 39.6 percent.

The Bush tax rates had been in effect for seven years and represent what had become the status quo. Although they were originally passed with an expiration date, that hardly makes them unique in any meaningful sense. Since tax rates have been increased and decreased numerous times in the past, no one could assume they are ever permanent, whether they have built-in expiration dates or not.

The top rate decreased under President Reagan (from 70 percent to 28 percent), increased to 31 percent under President G.H.W. Bush, increased to 39.6 percent under President Clinton, and decreased to 35 percent under George W. Bush.

If we are going to calculate revenue lost when tax rates are not increased by 4.6 percent, why stop there? Following the Democrat logic, it “costs” the government money whenever taxpayers are allowed to keep any of their earnings. Accordingly, any tax rates below 100 percent on everyone are costing the government money and adding to the national debt.

This Democrat position reveals a profound difference in fundamental beliefs between liberals and conservatives. For liberals, the basic premise is that all wealth is, or should be, the property of government or the collective. That’s their starting point.

The basic conservative belief is that wealth belongs to those who created it. Conservatives believe tax increases damage the economy. Conservatives are much more concerned about the health of the overall economy than they are about the well-being of the government.

The Democrats desperately need to believe that all wealth rightfully belongs to the government. They have a bottomless pit of wonderful things they want to spend the money on. Their avarice defines their ethic. Big-government Democrats have a desperate need for money. Wealthy people have money. Ergo, go get it!

The Democrats implicitly assumed that, for those earning more than $250,000, the Clinton era tax rates are “the way it’s spozed to be.” They projected federal tax receipts under the assumption that those rates would be reinstated. In anticipation of that revenue, they spent the money. In fact, they spent a lot more than that. As usual, the Democrats created their own problem by spending revenue before it existed. They literally could not wait to get their hands on your money. Republicans, of course, were not innocent bystanders in this shameful behavior.

One interesting inconsistency the Democrats maneuvered themselves into was their less than total rejection of the Bush tax rates. The rate structure they wanted was a Bush/Clinton hybrid, what you could call a political Prius, or maybe a genetically modified rate structure. They wanted the Bush rates for incomes up to $250,000, and the Clinton rates thereafter.

The Democrats have maintained for years that there was absolutely nothing good about anything George W. Bush did while he was in office. We were told that the only people he cared about were his rich cronies. Apparently that was not the whole story.

Something else revealed in the tax rate debate is that many on the left, including some in Congress and the administration, despise anyone earning high incomes. You can almost see their eyes bulging when they say “tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.” The left want these people not just to provide additional revenue, they want them punished. They apparently consider upper income tax rates as more of a fine than a tax. Exactly what millionaires and billionaires are guilty of is never specified.

Democrat politicians will rarely admit what they really want top income tax to be. It would be great if they could be up front about how much progressivity they want in their heart of hearts. They don’t want to tell us that, of course, because they are well aware of how politically devastating it would be.

One exception is Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. In a recent column he advocated a top rate of 70 percent. He did not specify how much it’s costing the government not to have a 70 percent top rate.

The expiration or retention of the Bush tax rates has not been permanently resolved. The rates have been extended for two years only. This brief extension adds to the climate of uncertainty that is one of the biggest obstacles to economic recovery. Furthermore, in two years or less we will again be treated to a new round of class warfare.

Republicans were able to buy time for the full range of the Bush tax rates, but they had to hold the country’s entire middle class hostage to do so (according to President Obama). They need to be well prepared for what we know will happen two years from now. If the economy is recovering by then, they will not be able to use the argument that you can’t increase taxes in a recession. There are numerous reasons why raising taxes is a bad idea and the Republicans better be ready to articulate them.

____________________

◼ Lessons From the Lame-Duck Tax Rates Battle January 6, 2011

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Security Screening and Probability Denial

“Probability is the very guide of life.” — Joseph Butler, 18th century theologian

The Transportation Security Administration’s controversial passenger screening policies demonstrate just how distorted our priorities have become. We have maneuvered ourselves into being more terrified of being accused of racism than we are of death.

Political correctness is the equivalent of a societal lobotomy. Political correctness prevents us from using basic logic and common sense when we make large and small choices. We know what we need to do to make ourselves safer but we’re in denial about what we know.

As John Smith, a columnist for Las Vegas Review-Journal, asked in a recent column, “Patting down my disabled daughter makes us safer?” The answer to that question is no, and everyone knows the answer is no. The obvious absurdity of our policies is the backdrop of why so many travelers are frustrated and angry.

How ridiculous is it to pretend that all passengers have an equal probability of carrying weapons or explosives? Our rejection of profiling is a rejection of behavior that we use so much we lose sight of how essential it is in our lives. The TSA is behaving as if there are no outward signs of a passenger’s likelihood of committing a terrorist act.

Our policy makers are pretending that probability is irrelevant in making choices and designing policies. Taking into account probability is second nature to any normal person. If probability didn’t matter, you might as well go fishing on dry land as on a lake or river.

When we refuse to consider probability we severely reduce the probability of achieving our objectives—in this case preventing the violent deaths of innocent people. Refusal to consider probability in making choices is a symptom of insanity. A strong intuitive sense of probability is an indicator of intelligence.

Political correctness is making us look like fools who don’t even have an instinct for self-preservation. We demonstrate a lack of seriousness. Is that a message we want to send to our enemies?

We do not have unlimited resources at our disposal to combat terrorism (or any other objective, for that matter). Resources we devote to preventing low probability problems are unavailable for high probability problems. There is no free lunch and there is no free PC. Patting down 80-year-old ladies and three-year-old children is actually making us less safe.

Even animals, whether by instinct or experience, consider probability. Predators look for prey where they have had previous success. That’s where the probability for future success is highest. Taking probability into account is essential to their survival.

The public’s strong reaction to the latest TSA policies goes beyond scanners and body searches. Nobody appreciates being inconvenienced or feeling violated. What makes it especially infuriating is feeling that it is not necessary or useful and that there are more effective alternatives staring us right in the face.

The traveling public has shown admirable patience with screening procedures to date. People are far more tolerant of necessity than they are of stupidity. Much of the travelling public seems to have reached the conclusion that the new security measures are more the result of cowardice than necessity.____________________

◼ Security Screening and Probability Denial December 2, 2010

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Understanding the O’Donnell Voter

Establishment politicians think voters made a big mistake when they nominated Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware primary for Senate. Were the voters irrational or are the political pros just not seeing the whole picture?

Maybe it would help the political experts if they considered the situation from the perspective of a basic tool of probability theory — “expected value.” Expected value can be an immensely useful concept, especially in the context of decision-making. It is the payoff of some outcome times the probability of it happening. For example, the expected value of winning $5 if a coin flip results in a “heads” is $2.50. Any good poker player is at least intuitively skillful in calculating expected value.

Now apply that concept to analyzing the thinking of voters in the O’Donnell vs. Castle primary contest. The “experts” (Karl Rove, most notably) told voters that even though they might prefer O’Donnell, she would not be able to win in the November general election. According to the pundits, it simply is not possible for a conservative to win in a liberal-leaning state like Delaware. They think nominating O’Donnell reduces the probability of Republicans gaining majority control of the Senate.

Now assume that voters put some credence in the predictions of the analysts and believed that the probability of O’Donnell winning the general election was lower than Castle’s chances would have been. Those are the relative probabilities, but what are the relative values of the two possible outcomes?

Voters may have perceived relatively little difference in results between Castle or a Democrat winning in November. An event with a high probability still has a low expected value if the payoff is low. The voters could well have been acting logically and rationally by going with the long-shot. They were taking a calculated risk.

Voters simply did not place much subjective value on helping someone get elected just because he calls himself a Republican. The voters wanted to aim higher. They are extremely concerned and worried about the direction career politicians are taking the country. Their objective goes well beyond just maximizing the number of politicians with an “R” behind their names.

Castle’s biggest asset, supposedly, was experience. Unfortunately for him experience is not perceived as a plus in the minds of today’s voters. Because of the disgust about what politicians have done with their power, experience and incumbency have virtually become negative qualifiers. Chris Coons, O’Donnell’s opponent in the general election, is also touting his greater experience as a campaign theme. That might or might not work for him.

Voters may also have been skeptical about the predictions of the experts. There have been numerous electoral surprises since the beginning of the year, starting with the Scott Brown victory in liberal Massachusetts. The “experts” have been wrong as many times as they have been right. It’s plain for all to see that their predictive model is deeply flawed. When there is this amount of uncertainty, you might as well go with your gut.

One factor that will make a profound difference in the general election across the country is the “intensity gap.” Some polls are showing an unprecedented 25 percent advantage for Republicans.

That large a difference in enthusiasm could have such an impact on turnout that all the close races across the country could end up in the Republican column. An O’Donnell candidacy provides the opportunity for the Delaware voters to be included in the nationwide tide against incumbents and politics as usual. Candidates such as Mike Castle are not the kind who could ever generate much voter excitement.

O’Donnell has received an inordinate amount of attention from the main-stream media, most of it unfavorable. “Saturday Night Live” and late-night comedians are having a field day with her. Judging from recent history, however, it’s not clear whether such attention and ridicule will help or hurt her. She is certainly not going to suffer from lack of name recognition.

No one can say at this point if Christine O’Donnell will win in the general election. According to the polls, the odds are still against her. The Democrat party, however, is reportedly spending a significant amount of money on the Coons campaign. If O’Donnell has no chance of winning, what are they worried about? Why waste their money?

All things considered, it is not at all clear that Delaware’s primary voters didn’t know what they were doing. One thing is clear — they unquestionably converted a contest that would have been a yawner into something worth watching.

____________________

◼ Understanding the O’Donnell Voter October 1, 2010

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

How to Defeat Liberals

If we listen up, liberals are telling us how they can be defeated. The challenge for conservatives is to listen closely and build our strategies accordingly.

Recently conservatives have been making major strides in the battle for the hearts and minds of voters. Liberalism in its various manifestations — Democrats, global warmists, organized labor, for example — are hemorrhaging support and influence. Conservatives are on the ascendency.

Liberals and Democrats are dispirited and in disarray. They are rapidly losing support and their reactions are making matters even worse for them. By analyzing why this is happening, conservatives can keep them stumbling backwards and be even more effective in the future. The political battle will go on long after the November elections. Why have conservatives been successful, and what can we do to build and continue to gain support?

One of the keys is to remember that in any battle strategy, “intelligence” is crucial. Knowledge of the enemy, his strengths and weaknesses, is often the deciding factor in who prevails. Football teams, for example, expend great effort “scouting” their future opponents. The “game plan” is largely based on what’s in the scouting report.

What, for example, are liberals telling us about themselves? Why, for instance, do they accuse tea partiers and conservatives in general of being racists? Partly it’s because that’s all they’ve got. They are frustrated and out of ammunition. It is a clear indicator of their weakness and lack of sound ideas.

Liberals are telling us what they fear. Let’s give it to them. Let their squirming and discomfort be our guide. When they squeal like stuck pigs, stick them again. It’s not just effective, it’s fun!

For example, one of Rush Limbaugh’s most effective and influential innovations is his use of audio clips and reading quotations of liberals. This is not something that had not been done before, but he definitely has taken the practice to new levels. Rush turns the words of his political opponents against them and demonstrates the absurdity and inconsistency of what they say and believe. He listens carefully to what they say, takes it seriously, logically dissects it, and then shows just how nonsensical it is. This is not what liberals want to happen. They would prefer that no one actually think about the things they say and do.

Rush is a teacher and most of his classroom materials are provided free of charge by his opponents. This is, no doubt, one of the things about Rush that drives them crazy and makes him an object of their hatred. Also driving them crazy is one of Rush’s favorite riffs, “Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.”

When Democrats and their enablers say something, our challenge is to step back and decipher what they say. What’s even more important than their intended message is the “meta-message.” The website Enclyo defines meta-message as “A message about a message…Meta-messages are higher level messages about: 1. The type of message being sent. 2. The state/status of the messenger. 3. The state/status of the receiver. 4. The context in which the message is being sent.” We can use an awareness of their meta-messages — that their reactions are signs of weakness, for example — to our advantage.

The U.S. is without doubt a center-right country. Part of the proof of this is that even Democrat candidates try to sound like conservatives when they are in tough election fights. Here in California Jerry Brown’s campaign commercials make it sound like he has joined the tea party. Across the country Democrat candidates are distancing themselves from the liberal policies of the Obama administration. Liberals cannot be open about what their beliefs and policy objectives actually are.

Liberals have to hide the fact that they’re liberals. Why can’t they admit and be open about who they are and what their real objectives are? One reason is their realization that voters are not nearly as socialistic as they are.

Conservatives do not have to hide the fact that they’re conservative. Conservatives are proud to be conservative and need to realize that they are playing in a friendly environment. They have the home-field advantage and do not need to act like underdogs. Too many conservatives seem to have self-esteem issues. Conservatives have ideas that people are buying, liberals don’t.

Liberals have also shown that they can’t stand clarity. They don’t really want to communicate, they want to obfuscate. The latest and somewhat comical example is Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, claiming that the term “global warming” is a “dangerous misnomer.” He wants to replace it with “global climate disruption.” If we can’t figure out ways to exploit that kind of nonsense, we need to be trying harder.

Liberalism is essentially the “muddled-talk express.” Political correctness is about as helpful to communication as a mouthful of marbles. We need to answer their wussy double-talk with clear, muscular words that actually mean something. (The Urban Dictionary defines “wuss” as “characterized by being, feeble, cowardly, and generally no fun.”)

You may have noticed lately that liberal commentators can’t resist offering advice to Republicans. Such advice is not offered in good faith. They are not concerned about the well-being of the Republican Party. Whenever liberals give advice and sympathy, do the opposite. They do not wish us well.

Democrats are scared out of their wits that the Republican Party might stand for something. Democrats love liberal Republicans. They can be even more useful to them than liberal Democrats.

The above are only representative of the universe of opportunities available to conservatives. A political-philosophical war is underway and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Conservatism can win the war, but we will need to employ every advantage we possibly can. And the more fun we have in the process the more likely we are to keep up the intensity. Liberals certainly don’t seem to be having much fun lately.

____________________

◼ How to Defeat Liberals September 24, 2010

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Are We ‘Rushing to Extinction’?

The California Academy of Sciences, located in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, is one of the finest natural history museums in the country. If you get the opportunity to go there, I urge you to do so. Unfortunately, not everything in the museum deserves to be called “science.”

The following statement is one of the informational posters that’s part of an area called “Climate Change.” It is like other such claims I’ve seen numerous times in similar venues over the past several years. The poster is titled, “Rushing to Extinction,” and has been part of the exhibit for at least two years that I know of.

Today, we are living through the sixth mass extinction of life in Earth’s history. This is due in part to climate change triggered by the carbon dioxide we pump into the air as we burn fossil fuels for energy. The resulting greenhouse gases are altering the biosphere, which is causing the loss of plants and animals around the world. If we don’t change our actions, we could condemn half of all species to extinction in a hundred years. That adds up to almost a million types of plants and animals that could disappear.

I urge you to read the statement again and consider what it says. Although the statement is extreme and sensationalistic, it is not unusual. It is typical of the conventional wisdom. It is ironic that it is found in what is called the California Academy of Sciences. It is reckless fear-mongering propaganda, not science. It cannot be substantiated and is a total distortion of reality.

For example, it is simply not true that “Today, we are living through the sixth mass extinction of life.” About 770 plants and animals have been identified as having gone extinct in the past 800 years. That’s about one per year. We are discovering far more species we did not know about than identifying extinctions.

The poster implies there are a total of two million species now existing. Biologists don’t actually know how many species there are. Educated guesses range between five million and fifty million.

Even if the total number of species is only two million, it means that if half go extinct in the next hundred years, the rate of extinction will have to increase from one each year to 10,000 each year. What’s the probability of such a massive change? How, specifically, is that going to happen?

Previous mass extinctions were the result of asteroids or ice ages. Have we had one of these lately that I didn’t hear about?

Is the statement defensible? It’s a statement made in a certain context, the Academy of Sciences. Apparently it’s an assertion that is supposed to be accepted based on authority. If you’re going to make such a cataclysmic prediction, shouldn’t you provide a little documentation and support? Is it supposes to be self-evident?

To this point “climate change” has not increased the rate of extinction. We definitely are not currently “living through the sixth mass extinction of life.” To say we will in the future is speculation, about which there is much disagreement, to put it mildly. There is definitely no “consensus.”

The poster is worded as if what it says is beyond dispute. The statements are not qualified in any way. I assume the designers of the exhibit intend for it to be taken seriously.

“If we don’t change our actions, we could condemn half of all species of life on earth today to extinction in a hundred years.” You can get away with about any outlandish prediction you want to make if you hide behind the word “could.” In the context of basic scientific protocol, any such statement should be presented in terms of probabilities as well as a discussion of the specific preconditions to such an event.

Judging from the numerous groups of children I see when I go there, the Academy of Sciences is possibly the most popular destination for Bay Area schools’ field trips. The statement, which is truly frightening if you believe it, is seen by hundreds of school children almost every day. What kind of impact do you think such statements have on young, impressionable minds? It verges on emotional child abuse. The Academy staff should be ashamed of themselves, but I doubt they are.

Environmentalists are so fanatical about their Armageddon beliefs that they think terrifying school children is justified. Do these people ever think about the implications of what they say? Do they care?

The purpose of the “Rushing to Extinction” poster and similar statements is to deliberately frighten whoever reads it. Environmentalists apparently get a perverse thrill from scaring people and making them feel guilty for being members of the human race. The California Academy of Sciences is allowing itself to be used as a venue for manipulative propaganda.

The natural world is fascinating and magical. The best way to illustrate that is to stick with the facts. It’s too bad natural history museums don’t do so.

____________________

◼ Are We ‘Rushing to Extinction’? August 20, 2010

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

This Recession Is Not Like the Others

As they used to say on Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not the same.” The current recession “is not like the others.” At 33 months it is already more than three times longer than the average length of the other ten recessions we’ve had since WWII. There are no clear signs it will be ending anytime soon. Glimmers of a recovery appear from time to time, but most indicators remain depressed and many are worsening. On balance, the outlook is more negative than positive. Not since the Great Depression have we had two consecutive years of unemployment in excess of nine percent. What we’re seeing is economic stagnation.

Something else about the current situation that “is not like the others” is the defeatism of those in charge. President Obama’s economic advisors, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers specifically, have been warning that unemployment could remain painfully high for years to come. Vice President Biden has declared that we may never regain the eight million jobs lost over the past two years. I don’t think an administration’s spokesmen have ever before been so pessimistic, especially for the long term.

Mr. Obama and his advisors are not draftees. They asked for this job. They asked to be put in charge. They wanted us to believe that they were “the ones we’ve been waiting for.” In no uncertain terms they convinced voters that they would do a vastly superior job than that dufus cowboy George Bush. Now they have been reduced to pleading, “No one told us it was going to be hard!”

This raises a crucial question — why is the current recession so long and deep? A frequent focus of scientific research and analysis is the attempt to explain and account for differences or anomalies. This recession is “not like the others.” A new name has been invented — the Great Recession. It’s being said that 10 percent unemployment is “the new norm.” Why, exactly? What’s changed?

Past recessions have been largely self-correcting. Furthermore, they have self-corrected in a matter of a few months. Why is it taking so long for that to happen this time around? What’s standing in the way of the self-correcting mechanism?

Geithner, Summers, Biden and Obama are all saying “this time it’s different.” They can say that, of course, but they need to elaborate. They are making assertions that cry out for explanations. If you’re going to make a dramatic, unprecedented proclamation, you really ought to provide details and support. If you make a bold statement, you must have some idea as to why it’s so.

The answer is relatively obvious to anyone with open eyes. The overarching factor that is making this recession different is that the Obama agenda is qualitatively and quantitatively different from any previous president’s agenda. The anomaly of the current recession is the anomaly of Barak Obama’s political philosophy and worldview.

A fundamental conclusion of financial economics is that there are two main dimensions to investing — risk and return. What space and time are to physics, risk and return are to investing. When evaluating an investment opportunity, return is the good, risk is the bad. Another basic conclusion is that risk and uncertainty are just two ways to looking at the same thing. Risk is uncertainty in work clothes.

The Obama administration’s reckless and unprecedented restructuring of the economy has greatly increased the level of uncertainty for anyone thinking about investing, starting a new enterprise, or making consumption expenditures. Mr. Obama has turbo-charged the amount of uncertainty in the minds of decision makers. This is an administration with no brakes, and the ride is frightening.

The massive and rapidly growing federal debt overhanging the economy portends future tax increases. Those probable tax increases reduce the expected return of investments. The lapse of the Bush tax cuts is little more than four months away. The bad news is relatively certain, the good news is highly doubtful.

Mr. Obama and his spokesmen need to explain what’s going on with the economy, and how exactly their policies will cure our serious economic difficulties. If they can’t explain the nature of our problems, what are they doing? Are their policies based on nothing more than a hope and a prayer? Why should anyone have confidence in your corrective action if you don’t show that you understand the nature of the problem?

Mr. Obama and his advisors act as though they themselves are hapless victims of the Great Recession. They imply things have gotten so bad we’re just going to have to get used to it. This is pathetic. Rather than rising to the occasion and dealing with the challenge, they whine and blame the previous administration. They need to be rethinking their strategies and analyzing why their previous solutions have not worked. Unfortunately, because of their doctrinaire attitudes, that is extremely unlikely. They will never admit that the fundamental problem is them.

The president is losing the support of even his most ardent supporters. Arianna Huffington, for example, said recently, “The president put all his trust in the wrong economic team — an economic team that didn’t understand what was happening.”

The injuries done by the Obama administration are painful but not fatal. The U.S. economy has fundamental strengths that will allow it to recover eventually in spite of the damage done by the Obama administration.

More and more, voters are recognizing that electing Barak Obama president was a terrible mistake. In November they will have opportunities to begin reversing that mistake and start undoing the damage. As Sarah Palin said recently, “From my house I can see November.”

____________________

◼ This Recession Is Not Like the Others August 12, 2010

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

'We interrupt your vacation fun for this important announcement...'

Recently I had the pleasure of spring skiing for three days in the scenic Lake Tahoe area. In almost all ways it was a completely enjoyable and positive experience. The snow was good, the lift lines non-existent, and the sun was shining (most of the time).

I gained useful and valuable tips in the lesson I took on the first day we spent at Squaw Valley. The best payoff from a lesson is practicing and seeing if you can apply what you've learned. Our second day was spent at nearby Alpine Meadows, another large and excellent facility. My time at Alpine Meadows, however, was slightly diminished by what you might call a gratuitous and incongruous distraction.

If you've ever been skiing you're familiar with riding on the chair lifts. Moving cables take the attached chairs up the slopes at about five miles an hour. The cables are held aloft by lift towers roughly 200-300 feet apart.

On the lift towers at Alpine Meadows are attached signs conveying the following fascinating bits of information: "Milk cartons take five years to decompose," "Plastic six-pack beverage holders take fifty years to decompose," "Aluminum cans take fifty years to decompose, "Leather takes five years to decompose," and "Styrofoam never decomposes." There were about a dozen other messages along the same theme, but you get the idea.

These informational gems raised a number of questions in my mind: Why are they telling me this? What am I supposed to do with this information? What led them to believe that a ski resort is an appropriate venue to educate people about relative durations of decomposition? Is the fact that it takes five years for a milk carton to decompose a good thing or a bad thing? Is that too fast or too slow? Since Styrofoam never decomposes, should I avoid it like the plague? If I need to be educated (or re-educated) why do they assume it's about waste management?

You and I could both at least guess about some possible answers. One purpose of the signs is to take advantage of a captive audience to enlist them in the great recycling crusade, whether or not they actually want to be enlistees. What kind of reaction are they hoping to generate? Remorse, despair, indignation, resolve, I'm not sure.

Skiing could be considered a somewhat decadent activity. It's not cheap. Lift tickets typically cost $60-$80. Renting skis, boots, and poles is another $50, about the same for a snow board and boots. A group lesson is $50, a private one is $120. Lodging adds another $100-$300 a night. For a family, it can be a very expensive weekend.

The patrons might be feeling guilty about how much fun they're having. They're probably a good "target of opportunity" for making them feel guilty about their selfish and profligate use of resources. The implicit message is "Don't go enjoying yourself too much, your lifestyle is generating residue that takes too long to decompose."

I've seen information posted on ski towers many times before, but it's always been relevant to skiing safety or courtesy, "Stay within designated boundaries," for example.

The primary purpose of a ski resort, I assume, is to make a profit by making it possible for people to have fun. Why compromise that experience? Why spoil the fun? I doubt that it's in the best interests of the resort owners. When I go someplace for recreation or entertainment it would be nice if that were the exclusive focus of the proprietors.

I imagine most readers of these signs don't react as I have. They're just the kinds of statements you commonly see these days. They're not exceptional or unexpected. For all I know other skiers might be fascinated by decomposition trivia.

My frustration, of course, is not really with the owners and management of a particular ski resort, but rather with the cultural climate that spawns such intrusive and annoying nonsense. It's a climate that gives far too many people a license to nag. ____________________

◼ 'We interrupt your vacation fun for this important announcement...'

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.