Meet Intrepid: The New Notebook

Intrepid

Back in March I built Excelsior, my first home-built PC. It has been serving me wonderfully and I have no serious complaints. It did run a little hot since I’m always pegging the processor at 100 percent with my Boinc projects, so I added an aftermarket cooler and an extra couple of fans after the initial build (which has reduced processor temps by over 10°C), but otherwise it’s been performing pretty much flawlessly.

Meanwhile, I continued using Katia 2 (my five-year old MacBook Pro) and Selina (my Google Cr-48 coffee-table machine) for my mobile purposes, but each of these machines had serious shortcomings. The MacBook Pro always seemed to run too hot—especially when booted into Windows—and had an increasingly anemic battery life with its age. The Cr-48 had an excellent battery life, but was little more than a web browser and didn’t allow me to do web development, remote access to my home or work machines, and so on.

In other words, it was time for a mobile upgrade. Since I moved back to a desktop as my ‘primary’ machine, I didn’t need a speed-demon as my notebook, but I did need something than ran cool, had a decent battery life, and ran a real operating system. In the end I settled for a refurbished Asus UL80J with Windows 7 Home Premium, which I was able to get from TigerDirect.com for only $559.97 (including the additional 1-year warranty, since Asus refurbs only come with a 90-day warranty).

Somewhat surprisingly, the MacBook Pro (15″, Core 2 Duo 2.16ghz) was still worth about $500 despite being a half-decade old. We sold it to a friend of ours at a discounted $400, but even then my real out-of-pocket cost for the new machine was only about $160. Not bad, if you ask me, and I still have the Cr-48 to play around with (or sell, or give away, or whatever . . . I haven’t decided on its disposition yet).

Too Little . . . Maybe Too Late

Last week, Congress reached a bipartisan agreement to increase our statutory debt ceiling and make about $2.2 trillion in budget cuts spread over the next ten years. The agreement has been generally characterized as a triumph for the ‘radical right wing’ of the Republican Party, namely the ‘Tea Party’ wing, because it did not include the tax increases requested by President Barack Obama (D) and many Democrats, and because it included more cuts than many on the ‘left’ (or even ‘center’) wanted to see.

The absurdity of this is that the ‘radical right wing’ plan was actually far less than we needed to do. Like the budget plans flying around Congress back in April, our two political parties were fighting to the death between plans that all fell far short of actually solving our problems. The math is pretty simple: the approved plan makes $2.2 trillion in cuts to our national budget over ten years when we run over-1 trillion dollars in deficit spending annually. In other words, we are still careening toward the cliff . . . we’ve just let off the accelerator a little bit. I don’t call that success. I’m not even sure we can really call it progress, although this faux-radical plan was nominally better than any proposed alternative. We’re still careening toward the cliff. We are still in the midst of a very serious debt crisis.

The international rating agencies—Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s (S&P)—estimated that we would need to make about 4 trillion dollars in cuts to ensure that we could keep our AAA bond rating, the highest possible, which we have enjoyed since 1941. The ‘radical’ Republican debt ceiling compromise was for $2.2 trillion in cuts—a bit more than half of what the agencies wanted to see. Obama and the Democrats wanted to do even less! Both Moody’s and S&P warned us over and over for months and months that we were at risk of a downgrade, and told us exactly what we needed to do to avoid it. Our government chose to ignore that guidance. As such, S&P has downgraded our rating to AA+ with a negative outlook (indicating another downgrade is possible within 12-18 months). Moody’s has chosen to let us keep our AAA rating for now, but has also lowered our outlook to negative (indicating a likely downgrade within 12-24 months).

While I am saddened by the S&P downgrade, I’m not surprised by it. Indeed, the most surprising thing about this debacle is that that Moody’s chose not to downgrade us and that S&P only downgraded us by one level. Last week’s debt compromise was terribly insufficient. An honest review of our national finances would indicate that we are not a safe investment. It is clear that only one relatively-small faction of our Congress has even a passing interest in solving our debt crisis, and even they are not as clear-headed about it as they ought to be. A default on our debt obligations—either in the traditional way of missing payments, or the alternative of debasing the dollar the wipe out the real value of the debt—is more likely now than it has ever been.

It is obvious that our government has so-far done far too little to stave off an unprecedented fiscal disaster. The important questions now is this: Is it too late to fix it? I’m starting to think that maybe it is.

Conan Fan Correction: The Flaming C’s Beard

Another attempt at a ‘Fan Correction’ for Conan O’Brien’s late-night show in TBS, Conan. This time it’s an error with Conan’s comic book alter-ego, the ‘Flaming C.’ Seeing as how the Flaming C is just like Conan in every way imaginable, it seems incongruous that the Flaming C would still have a beard when Conan has been shaved by Will Ferrell.

Gridlock Is Good

Whenever I hear somebody decry the political ‘gridlock’ in Washington, I am reminded of just how poor a job our public schools do of teaching basic American history. Gridlock is exactly what the founders intended from our government. They crafted a beautiful system that is meant to be ever-embroiled in political struggle, never swinging too far or too hard in any direction, never able to implement any broad, far-reaching, anti-liberty policies for any length of time. Its hands were intentionally tied, its officials forced to navigate the treacherous waters between the federal government and the states; between the co-equal executive, legislative, and judicial branches; and between the two houses within the legislative branch itself.

Yes, our system of government was designed to spend most of its time fighting with itself and accomplishing little. The red tape and roadblocks aren’t a flaw in our government’s design, but are among its most redeeming and timeless features. The founders knew that a small, limited government with broadly distributed power, always busy fighting with itself, would be much less likely to spend its time fighting with us and encroaching on our individual liberties.

This attitude is pervasive throughout the writings of the founders. Thomas Jefferson said, “The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases,” and that “It is not by the consolidation or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.” In this same vein, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay—authors of The Federalist, a seminal work of early American political thought explaining the yet-unratified Constitution—went to great lengths to describe the various forms of administrative gridlock they and the other founders had intentionally foisted on the young American republic.

Chrysler: Good News, Bad News

Was It Worth It?

First, the good news: The U.S. Federal Government no longer owns any portion of Chrysler LLC. This one small part of the Bush/Obama Bailout Bonanza is now over. As of right now, Chrysler is 53.5 percent owned by Italian automaker Fiat, 45.7 percent by the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, and 1.7 percent by the government of Canada (a lingering holdover from the bailouts). You and I are no-longer reluctant shareholders in this once-venerable American icon.

But, as has been the case all throughout the Bush/Obama Bailout Bonanza, the bad news far outweighs the good.

This once-venerable American icon is now majority-owned by a foreign automaker, so now it is no better or different from Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Hyundai, or Kia—all of which produce many of their models for U.S. sale at U.S. factories, but neither received or needed an ‘investment’ of your tax dollars to stay afloat (mostly because they were making a decent, desirable product at a reasonable price). But surely, despite all this unconstitutional redirection of TARP money, unconstitutional short-circuiting of the federal bankruptcy laws, unconstitutional government ownership of an auto manufacturer, and unconstitutional investment of U.S. tax dollars in bolstering an Italian car company . . . well, we at least got our money back, right? Well, no. The U.S. Treasury did get about 90 percent of its money back from Chrysler, which is admittedly a lot more than I expected, but that still means that we lost $1.3 billion on the deal.

Not only did we lose over $1,300,000,000.00 we desperately needed for other, more important things, but we still left Chrysler in roughly the same untenable position we found it—saddled with destructive UAW contracts, bereft of quality products, and unlikely to ever recover its former glory. Fiat apparently intends to make Chrysler an American proxy for its Italian products; in other words, Chrysler is effectively dead as a truly American automaker. If this is what Presidents George W. Bush (R) and Barack Obama (D) call a successful government intervention into the free market economy, I would hate to see what an unsuccessful intervention looks like.

And what of ‘old’ Chrysler, the company once known as Chrysler LLC but now known as Old Carco LLC? You may recall that the company now known as Chrysler was fabricated out of thin-air by a short-circuited, government-orchestrated, unconstitutional bankruptcy process. It then purchased (with your tax dollars) the ‘good’ assets from the old company and left the ‘bad’ assets behind. Old Carco LLC is still in the bankruptcy process, and the vast majority of its creditors stand to receive far less than the 90 percent return that the U.S. Treasury got out of its ‘investment.’ I have little sympathy for those who willingly ‘invested’ in a mess like Chrysler; they deserved to lose much of their investment. I do, however, object to the government placing itself in the position of ‘investor #1’ in order to provide the political cover of a 90 percent return while screwing everybody else Old Carco LLC and Chrysler LLC owes money to.

Of course, in the age of the Bailout Bonanza, some investors are more equal than others.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.