Month: March 2019

Should lottery winners be exempt from wealth tax?

by philg

“Elizabeth Warren to propose new ‘wealth tax’ on very rich Americans, economist says” (Washington Post):

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will propose a new annual “wealth tax” on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, according to an economist advising her on the plan, as Democratic leaders vie for increasingly aggressive solutions to the nation’s soaring wealth inequality.

Since announcing her presidential bid, Warren has pitched herself a champion of the working class against elites, arguing “billionaires and big corporations” have rigged the political and economic system to their advantage.

One billionaire who has been in the news lately is anonymous. She is the winner of $1.5 billion (pre-tax) in a government-run lottery (i.e., the same government that says it wants to fix the “problem” of wealth inequality will periodically create billionaires at random).

Should she have to pay Sachem Warren’s new wealth tax? It was a government-run lottery that made her rich. How is it reasonable to complain about her being richer than neighbors and impose a new tax to further trim her winnings?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Gillette versus Dorco Shaving Test 4

by philg

After four weeks of shaving alternating sides of face with a Gillette Fusion 5 ProShield with FlexBall and a Dorco Pace 7, the Dorco was plainly doing a better job and also holding its edge better.

Blind test data: I told friends in Manhattan about my experiment, two days after a mixed Gillette/Dorco shave, and both husband and wife identified the right side of my face as cleaner. It was the Dorco side.

At roughly the two-week point, we conducted the following test:

  • back of neck, unshaven for three weeks
  • Gillette Fusion 5 ProShield with FlexBall on left side
  • Dorco Pace 7 on right side
  • neutral operator (she had never seen the Gillette ad)

Result: “The Dorco is much better. It gets all of the hair in one swipe. But maybe that is because it is new and the Gillette blade is old?”

In other words, the performance of the Dorco was so much better that she imagined it to be a test of a brand-new Dorco versus a weeks-old Gillette. (As noted above, the blades were of identical age and had performed an identical number of shaves, each on half of my face.)

Loosely related: Opinion from a Harry’s subscriber: The Dorco 6 (not 7) Korean blades and Harry’s Germany steel were comparable in shave quality.

From a man with a light beard (maybe an ancestor was a cousin to Elizabeth Warren’s great-grandparents?): The almost-free Dorco 4-blade system is far superior to the older Gillette system (pre-Fusion) that he had been loyally using.

From a woman: The unfortunately named Dorco Shai 3+3 (why not “bold” rather than “shai”?) system is far better than the Gillette Venus she had been using. The cartridge is truly massive! (Dorco makes some more conventional razors for women as well.)

Next project: Dorco Pace 6 Plus versus Dorco Pace 7 (Preliminary results: The trimmer blade on the Pace 6 Plus surprisingly does not result in more precision under the nose; the Pace 7 seems to feel and work better (I doubt my own sanity as I write this).)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Mediocre U.S. average income makes it tough to reduce health care spending?

by philg

One thing that I learned during a month at Harvard Medical School is that health care spending is inversely correlated with income. The poorer people are, in other words, the more they cost for an insurance company (or the “plan sponsor”, such as an employer, behind the insurance company).

In some cases, of course the causation may go in the other direction, i.e., a person who has a chronic health problem can’t work as hard or as effectively and therefore earns less. But the consensus within the public health and insurance industry seems to be “lower income, therefore higher cost.”

Singapore is notable for low health care spending as a percentage of GDP (only 4.5 percent; compare to 18 percent for the U.S.) while simultaneously enjoying better outcomes, e.g., longer life expectancy. How much of that, though, could be attributed to Singapore simply having a higher-income population? The CIA shows that per-capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power, in Singapore is $93,900 per person, 58 percent higher than the $59,500 for the U.S. (Singapore and the U.S. are close to each other in rankings of countries by income equality/inequality, so the median incomes should be similarly related).

Plainly this cannot explain most of our off-the-charts spending on health care. Canada and the big European countries spend much less, as a percentage of GDP, despite having lower per-capita income. But if we assume constant waste due to our more-or-less constant system design (fee-for-service, half government, patient doesn’t pay directly), the stagnant U.S. median income (FRED data) could perhaps explain some of why it is so tough for us to achieve incremental improvements.

The “U.S. population” is a moving target, especially due to immigration. Immigrants have a lower income than native-born Americans (see data below), but they also change the median age of the population, which is a big determinant of health care costs (older people are more expensive): “Without immigration since 1965, the U.S. today would have a median age of 41, not 38.” (Pew). Our incompetence at delivering health care may be masked to some extent by immigration, which has reduced median age. Also complicating matters is that immigrants may be less likely than average to have some chronic medical issues. A morbidly obese person, for example, might have trouble making it over the border.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Virtual reality and augmented reality: the technologies of the future

by philg

Part of our Austin experience was visiting the virtual/augmented reality lab at Capital Factory. Folks there have decided that the best current VR hardware is the HTC Vive. They aren’t in love with the much-hyped Oculus, but have it available to demo.

We did a 3D drawing game, browsed around in Google Earth, and played a first-person space-themed shooting game with the Vive. With Oculus, I played Angry Birds.

The good news is that we didn’t get sick, even flying around in Google Earth. On the other hand, I would rather have just covered the walls with more TVs for a more immersive experience.

I asked the folks running the lab for their theory on why VR hasn’t caught on. They cited the cost, noting that a complete HTC Vive rig is about $600. Yet that’s nothing compared to what hardcore gamers spend.

Readers: What do you think? Is it fair to say that “VR/AR is the technology of the future, and always will be”?

Full post, including comments

Generation Wealth

by philg

The movie Generation Wealth is currently streaming on Amazon. I loved the director’s previous The Queen of Versailles, so decided to give this one a try.

The movie is a mishmash of the director’s family history (retired parents and teenage children get a fair amount of screen time), musing regarding modern-day materialism, and interviews with people whose lives have been affected by parental or personal earnings.

One interesting character is Florian Homm, a fugitive from U.S. justice due allegations of fraud while running a hedge fund, resulting in investor losses of up to $200 million. He is back in his native Germany, which supposedly refuses to extradite its citizens (would that be true for an accused murderer or is it that they won’t extradite for a financial crime?). The filmmaker interviews Homm’s adult son and the son’s girlfriend for an all-around perspective.

Another interesting subject is a New Yorker who works on Wall Street. She refuses to consider the idea of marrying a lower-income man (a prudent policy in light of New York State’s winner-take-all family law) and explains that the pool of available men is thus quite small. At around age 40 she does find an old rich guy to marry and goes through exotic fertility treatments and the hiring of a surrogate. He eventually leaves her for a younger woman (i.e., the 70-year-old found a 30-year-old sex partner).

Kacey Jordan was featured as someone who went from minimum wage to high-paid porn star and then back to minimum wage. There was plastic surgery during this journey, which is another theme of the movie. Lauren Greenfield, the director, follows a bus driver “single mom” to Brazil for a life-changing investment in plastic surgery.

One interesting aspect is that the born-in-1966 Greenfield follows her classmates from a rich kids’ private high school into their adult lives.

The movie takes some swipes at Donald Trump and his supporters (they’re exposed as crass idiots!) and also takes a variety of standard 21st century feminist positions. Yet the filmmaker’s own life story contradicts the feminist complaints. Her college boyfriend-turned-husband is the person cited for maximum encouragement and facilitation of her career. He urges her not to quit in the early days when she’s discouraged and he takes care of an infant child while she travels to Asia on an assignment.

The central thesis is poorly supported. The film shows people today saying things about money-obsessed Americans that the film also shows people saying in the 1990s. Do we know that people didn’t have similar things to say in the 1970s about young Arab royals or circa 1900 about the children of industrialists? The world is richer so maybe there are just more rich kids running around.

One idea that does seem worth exploring is whether people are now less likely to aspire to be like their richest neighbor. The film says that, due to increased availability of media, Americans aspire to be like the rich crazy spenders that they see through electronic media. I wonder if this can be true. As the population booms and jobs are concentrated in a handful of cities, the realistic trajectory for a young American is a 2BR apartment shared among 4 people. Do the occupants of that crammed apartment look at an 8,000-square-foot house in Beverly Hills as a realistic aspiration?

My big take-away from the movie is that sending kids to a fancy private school is risky. Teenagers with a lot of unearned money to spend are not the best role models.

Full post, including comments

Folks who identify new victims can’t figure out why the old victims are forgotten

by philg

“‘Women Here Are Very, Very Worried’: Afghan women used to be championed by almost everyone. Now they’re all but forgotten.” (nytimes):

It was once a prominent and bipartisan cause: the liberation of Afghan women from the tyranny of the Taliban.

These women were championed by an array of strange bedfellows: feminists like Eleanor Smeal, celebrities like Lily Tomlin and stalwarts of a conservative administration like Laura Bush and Dick Cheney.

In the early days of the invasion, the world heard vivid stories of the changes the war had brought. Women could walk freely outside their houses and put on makeup; girls could go to school. It was a narrative that helped buoy public support for the fight in Afghanistan and deflect criticism about American empire.

Nearly two decades later, Afghan women are all but invisible to an American public thoroughly weary of the war.

My comment:

A lot of new classes of victims have been discovered right here in the U.S. since 2001. For example, the NYT was recently running stories about Federal employees victimized by getting 35 days of paid time off in exchange for a delayed paycheck (one of my friends is a senior FAA employee; he said that he enjoyed his vacation trips to Arizona and Europe during the shutdown). Human sympathy and attention are not unlimited. If paid-late-for-not-working Federal employees are front-and-center victims then Afghan women cannot be front-and-center victims.

Example: “As Shutdown Drags On, Some Step Up to Help Unpaid Federal Workers”:

Predictions of pain that had been theoretical, or theatrical, in shorter shutdowns are now a reality for around 800,000 federal workers, scattered through states red and blue.

“The public does not realize the impact that a shutdown has on the F.B.I. or on our families,” a bureau official wrote in an email this week to supporters of the nonprofit Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI.

Readers: What do you think? Is there something special about women in Afghanistan, or is it simply that the victims of 2001 must yield mindshare to the victims of 2019?

Full post, including comments

Jussie Smollett case shows how much faith Americans have in government officials

by philg

If a prosecutor had disliked Jussie Smollett for any reason, he could have been tried for 16 felony counts and been sentenced to as much as 64 years in prison (CBS).

The prosecutor, however, decided that $10,000 and two days of community service would be appropriate (i.e., 0 days in prison rather than more than 23,000). See this AP story in the New York Times:

Defense attorneys said Smollett’s record was “wiped clean” of the 16 felony counts related to making a false report. The actor, who also agreed to do community service, insisted that he had “been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one.”

“I would not be my mother’s son if I was capable of one drop of what I was being accused of,” he told reporters after a court hearing. He thanked the state of Illinois “for attempting to do what’s right.”

I think that this illustrates how much faith Americans have in their government, being willing to vest decision-making over whether this guy would spend the rest of his life in prison or walk free after paying over a few hours of wages (he gets paid more than $100,000 per episode of a TV show).

I don’t think that Europeans live with this kind of unpredictability or subject to the personal whims of government officials. Smollett’s alleged actions would be matched up as closely as possible with something in the big code book(s) and the appropriate punishment looked up.

[The situation in family law is analogous. European countries tend to have straightforward rules, e.g., “the mother will always win custody of minor children” (Denmark) and limits on profitability for both plaintiffs and attorneys (Germany). Contrast to a classical U.S. state, such as Massachusetts, where a child support plaintiff who had sex with a dermatologist could end up with (1) larger after-tax profits than the earnings of a primary care doctor plus 50%-100% custody of the resulting child, (2) profits capped at $1 million (23 years times $40,000) and half-time or primary custody, (3) 0-49% custody of the child and zero revenue. Much of this would be entirely unpredictable until there was a judge assigned to the case (see our statistical study of Middlesex County Probate and Family Court for how dramatic the judge-to-judge variation can be). From the Washington State chapter:

What if a case doesn’t settle? “My main concern with the courts is that lack of consistency from judge to judge,” says DeVallance. “I have two cases with similar facts. In Case 1 Dad has a shared parenting schedule. In Case 2 Dad has supervised visitation [his children can see him only in a facility run by social workers]. The only difference is the judge that was drawn in each case. I could take the exact same facts and make the exact same argument in front of five judges and get five different rulings. This is such a challenge for family law litigators because clients come to us asking for advice.”

The Washington State lawyer’s comments were consistent with what we heard from attorneys around the U.S., except in the handful of states with 50/50 shared parenting presumptions. It costs hundred of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to find out where a judge’s personal biases and prejudices will fall.]

Readers: Why would we give single individuals so much discretion? Is it because we think that Americans are uniquely talented and therefore individual Americans, in this case prosecutors, must be exceptionally capable? The same reasoning behind the often-expressed belief that Americans will play an important role in solving global challenges, such as reducing atmospheric CO2? (Our best engineers can’t make a safe airliner, but the Germans and Chinese will look to us for guidance when they’re building solar cells, windmills, and CO2 vacuums?)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Transgender solution to the Boeing 737 MAX problem

by philg

How to handle the public relations challenge of operating a new two-pilot two-jet-engine airliner with a safety record far worse than that of a 50-year-old single-pilot piston-engine plane such as the Cessna 402 (when used in airline service)? United Airlines seems to have found a way. From a friend on Facebook:

I ❤️ #United #LGBTQ #nonbinary

(Over a link to “United Becomes First U.S. Airline To Offer Nonbinary Gender Booking Options”)

What did the database programmers at United accomplish?

The U.S. airline will offer multiple gender options for customers booking flights, including M (male), F (female), U (undisclosed) and X (unspecified). United added that the title “Mx.” also will be available for travellers to select.

The gender option chosen by the passenger must correspond “with what is indicated on their passports or identification” in order to satisfy the Transportation Security Administration, United said. Anyone regardless of identification can choose the title “Mx.”

For whom can this work as a practical option, then?

More and more states have added gender options on identification. Oregon, California, Arkansas and Washington state currently offer a third gender option on birth certificates, while Washington, D.C., offers a third gender option on driver’s licenses. Most recently, the New York City Council announced it will offer “X” as a gender category for people who don’t identify as female or male.

What about for international travel? The U.S. Department of State offers a helpful page for those transitioning from one officially recognized “sex” to another. On the other hand, it seems that male/female are the only options. From “Victory! State Department Cannot Rely on its Binary-Only Gender Policy to Deny Passport to Nonbinary Intersex Citizen”:

The State Department denied Dana’s passport application because Dana could not accurately choose either male or female on the passport application form, and the form does not provide any other gender marker designation.

This is the second time Zzyym has won against the U.S. State Department for denying them a passport. In November, 2016, the same district court found the State Department had violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and ordered the department to reconsider its binary-only gender policy.

The State Department doubled-down on its discriminatory male-or-female-only policy to deny Zzyym a passport, leading to today’s ruling.

So the nonbinary traveler making a domestic connection before an international flight would need a reservation with two genders: X for the domestic leg to correspond to the driver’s license and M or F for the international leg to correspond to the passport.

Backing up a bit… if the airline’s record must correspond to the gender stated on the passenger’s ID, did United have any choice but to task its database programmers with this project? Wouldn’t every airline have to invest in updating its systems to the modern world of gender-on-a-spectrum if the governments issuing IDs are changing their policies? So the PR folks at United are possibly even more brilliant for getting positive press for an expensive IT project that they were forced into doing.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Germany reparations at 200% of GDP were unpayable; national debt of 200% is no problem

by philg

An Economic History of the World since 1400 by Donald J. Harreld takes the conventional view that the reparations Germany was obligated to pay following World War I were so large that they forced the company into an economic death spiral. The professor says that Germany was to pay $30 billion over a 70-year period that this was roughly 2X the German national income (a book that I reviewed in 2011 puts the number at 83 percent of GDP) at the time. Germany could “never hope to pay” this amount and the debt made World War II more likely.

The lectures also say that Germany made things worse by printing money to meet government expenses. [Though the Germany government stopped making reparations payments in 1933 after Hitler was elected.]

What are Americans’ best ideas in the econ department lately? Pushing government debt from its current 106 percent of GDP (already more than the Germans owed, according to the 2011 book) up and over 200 percent so that we can pay for things we want such as the Green New Deal. At the same time we will apply Modern Monetary Theory so that we can simply print more dollars whenever we need to buy something. (I like this idea, but I think it would work even better if we ask Zimbabwe to print Zim Dollars to pay for the stuff that we need/want. They’re already doing a lot of printing so if we send them some paper and ink they shouldn’t mind printing more.)

The professor himself seems unaware of this apparent contradiction. He is a Big Government, Keynesian Spending, and Welfare State enthusiast. He does point out the Keynes said that governments should spend less during boom times and that modern governments never implement this part of the theory. But he never explains why it is obvious that Germany could never pay an amount comparable to its GDP while it is simultaneously obvious that modern Welfare States can meet their debt and entitlement obligations (closer to 500 percent of GDP for the U.S. when you add in Medicare and Social Security; see this 2010 chart in the New York Times in which Greece owed 875 percent total while the U.S. was at 500 percent (i.e., the U.S. owes 5 years of GDP)).

Separately, the professor notes that the U.S. and Germany had the longest and deepest economic depressions during the 1930s and pursued similar economic policies:

The two countries hardest hit by the Great Depression were the United States and Germany—countries that hadn’t left the gold standard. And both Germany and the United States adopted several practices to stabilize their domestic economies in the 1930s that were amazingly similar. … Both countries used similar strategies to combat unemployment and poverty in their populations, including poor relief and public works programs. Both governments also set up work camps for young men from rural areas, primarily to keep them from migrating to the industrial workforce.

Countries such as England that relied on market economics came out of the Depression much faster, according to the class.

Related:

Full post, including comments

City rebuilding costs from the Halifax explosion

by philg

Catching up on 2017 must-reads for Bostonians, I recently enjoyed The Great Halifax Explosion: A World War I Story of Treachery, Tragedy, and Extraordinary Heroism by John U. Bacon.

The main story is familiar, but worth retelling.

All explosives require two components: a fuel and an “oxidizer,” usually oxygen. How destructive an explosive is depends largely on how quickly those two combine. With “low explosives,” like propane, gasoline, and gunpowder, it’s necessary to add oxygen to ignite them and keep them burning. If a fire runs out of oxygen, it dies. Another factor is speed. The rate of the chemical reaction, or decomposition, of low explosives is less than the speed of sound, or 767 miles per hour. In contrast, a “high explosive” combines the fuel and the oxidant in a single molecule, making each one a self-contained bomb, with everything it needs to create the explosion. To ignite, a high explosive usually requires only extreme heat or a solid bump. Once started, the dominoes fall very quickly, ripping through the explosive material faster than the speed of sound.

“She had a devil’s brew aboard,” Raddall states of the Mont-Blanc, a perfect combination of catalysts, fuel, and firepower. The ship’s manifest included 62 tons of gun cotton, 250 tons of TNT, and 2,366 tons of picric acid, the least understood of the chemicals on board, but the most dangerous.

After the shipwrights had so carefully built the magazines, hermetically sealing each compartment, and the stevedores had packed it all systematically, the French government agent operating out of Gravesend Bay received a last-minute order from his superiors in France to pack what little space remained on Mont Blanc with urgently needed benzol, an unusually volatile fuel, the latest “super gasoline.” The stevedores followed orders, swinging 494 barrels containing 246 tons of the highly combustible accelerant into a few unused spaces belowdecks, on the foredeck, and at the stern, where they stacked the fuel three and four barrels high and lashed it with canvas straps, a somewhat slapdash approach compared to the thoroughness with which the shipwrights had built the magazines. When the crew walked past the drums on deck, they could smell the unmistakable reek of the benzol. With the final addition of the benzol, Mont Blanc now carried an impressive array of the most dangerous chemicals known to man at that time. While benzol can’t match the pure power of gun cotton, TNT, or picric acid—all high explosives—what the stevedores probably didn’t know when they stacked the barrels of benzol on deck was that the airplane fuel needed only a spark to ignite, while picric acid doesn’t explode until it reaches 572 degrees Fahrenheit, and TNT does not detonate until it reaches 1,000 degrees. But by making the last-minute decision to store most of the fuel on the deck and the TNT and picric acid below, the crew had unwittingly constructed the perfect bomb, with the easy-to-light fuse on top, and the most explosive materials trapped in the hold below.

Canada had a much larger stake in the war than did the U.S.:

Halifax sent 6,000 sons to the Great War, roughly a quarter of its male population. It seemed almost every home had sent a brother, a husband, a father, or a son. The Great War drained the town of its able-bodied young men and left behind women, boys, girls, and men too old or infirm to fight.

One question worth pondering is why more people didn’t chicken out and escape to the U.S. They knew what the trenches were going to be like:

When fresh recruits got to Halifax, they frequently made a beeline for any place that sold alcohol, where they met soldiers who had been recently discharged, were on leave, or were about to head back to the trenches. They told the recruits stories so horrifying that they might have been tempted to think they were exaggerating. The experienced soldiers knew the average infantryman lasted only three months before getting wounded or killed, so they were determined to make the most of their time on the safe side of the Atlantic. Their hard-earned fatalism fostered a devil-may-care disposition and all the elements that came with it, including scores of prostitutes from across Canada and bootleggers so fearless that they set up shop in the downtown YMCA—which was probably not what the YMCA’s benefactor, Titanic victim George Wright, had had in mind when he wrote his will. During the war years, Halifax experienced a spike in venereal disease and out-of-wedlock births. Local orphanages had to expand.

The Mont-Blanc makes it from New York to Halifax without incident, but before the sailors can go to the YMCA for a drink, there is a low-speed collision with another ship. The author describes the impact that resulted in the explosion as entirely the fault of the Imo‘s captain and pilot (see Wikipedia for a quick summary, but I highly recommend this part of the book). More than 10,000 people were killed or wounded. The book covers this staggering tragedy, but this post is about the physical destruction and the estimated cost of rebuilding:

The explosion destroyed 1,630 buildings and damaged 12,000 more, leaving some 25,000, almost half the population of Halifax-Dartmouth, without adequate housing and dangerously exposed to the elements.

After the fires had been extinguished and the wounded tended to, Colonel Robert S. Low assembled an army of carpenters, masons, plumbers, and electricians to rebuild the city, which had incurred more than $35 million in damages in 1917 U.S. dollars, or $728 million today.

It cost only $728 million to rebuild a whole section of a city. Our town will soon spend $110 million to renovate/rebuild a school that can hold only about 600 students. I talked with a guy recently who is involved in a $1.5 billion project to create 2,700 “affordable” apartments here in the Charlestown section of Boston (story). That’s $555,555 per apartment (less than 1,000 square feet on average) on land provided for free (city already has a housing project on the same footprint). Presumably these will be higher quality than whatever was built in Halifax in 1918.

[Note: poor people who are selected by the housing ministry to move into one of these apartments would actually be rich almost anywhere else in the world if they could only get their hands on the $555,555 capital cost as a direct grant instead of as an in-kind service! If they could also get their hands on the monthly operating cost and combine that with interest on the $555,555 they would be able to enjoy, without working, a middle class or better lifestyle in many of the world’s beach destinations.

How about folks who work at the median wage? That’s about $23/hour in Massachusetts (BLS) or $46,000 per year. NerdWallet says that someone earning this much in MA can afford a $258,500 house if he or she has saved $60,000 for a down payment, has a top credit score, and spends $0/month on food and other non-housing expenses. Zillow says $274,416 on a nationwide basis. So a dual-income couple in which both partners earn the median wage wouldn’t be able to afford one of these units without a taxpayer subsidy, even if land were free and the unit were sold at zero-profit construction cost. The U.S. has apparently become a society in which Americans can’t afford to live like Americans!]

Maybe costs are lower up in Canada? Yes, but only a little:

Instead of drifting back into another long sleepwalk, Halifax has been accelerating, spending $11.5 million in 1955 to build its first bridge across the channel, another $31 million to build the second, right over the Narrows, and another $207 million in 2015 to raise the first bridge a few meters so container ships could get all the way to a dock in Bedford Basin. The city has spent $350 million to build a boardwalk along the bay and $57 million for a shiny new library downtown, an architectural centerpiece CNN judged to be the ninth most beautiful library in the world.

How about some other costs? A survivor of the explosion gets “$100 to enroll at the University of Michigan in 1919”. That’s $1,500 in today’s money, less than 1/30th of current tuition. He marries an American (same word “marriage” used, but really a different activity in those days before no-fault divorce):

Shortly after that invitation, Barss asked Helen to marry him. She said yes, but asked him to keep it between them until February, “so that if either of us wanted to get out of the deal, no one would be hurt.” Further, if Barss’s professors found out he was getting married, which med school students were forbidden to do, he could be expelled. “My father liked Joe & asked if he were a Republican or a Democrat,” Helen wrote. “He said he was a Canadian and voted for the man—Father said ‘If you ever live here and have anything or hope to have anything, you’ll be a Republican in self defense.’ ”

Maybe it is good that this guy died before Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed their latest tax plans!

I found the numbers in the book sobering. If we wear down the infrastructure that we have or if perhaps it is destroyed for some reason, it doesn’t seem as though we could afford to rebuild it.

More: Read The Great Halifax Explosion: A World War I Story of Treachery, Tragedy, and Extraordinary Heroism

Related:

Full post, including comments