In Praise of the Greek Government

I wrote about Greece's economic situation earlier this year. A few points:

1. Greece's government is acting reasonably, logically, sensibly. (See the Greek Finance Minister's latest verbatim statement, for example.) Unfortunately Greece is dealing with European ministers that are not. They're not even acting like good (or even average) bankers would.

2. To reiterate, the European Central Bank could act to destroy what's left of Greece's euro-based banking system or not, but make no mistake that it's the ECB that will be at fault if it does so. Blame where blame is due.

3. To reiterate, if the ECB destroys what's left of the Greek banking system then Greece's new currency (after a bank holiday) will be entirely electronic, primarily based on debit cards and smartphones. Greece will become Europe's first truly cashless society, and (ironically) the euro will become Greece's black market currency (in a hopefully shrinking black market). The Greek government won't even bother to mint new coins and print new bills. The transition will be tumultuous, of course, but after the dust settles it'll work quite well. Tax evasion and undeclared labor will become harder to pull off since all Greek currency transactions will be electronically recorded. The Greek government has some smart people who will make this work.

4. Greece will remain in the Schengen Area and in the European Union unless European governments somehow act in concert (and with unprecedented malice) to expel Greece. Blame where blame is due again. That'd be completely dumb from the point of view of Europe's self interest (and the European public interest), but see #1 above.

Rationalizing U.S. Currency for the 21st Century

U.S. cash currency has a couple problems that should be easy to solve:

1. Inflation has eroded the dollar's value, so the lowest denominations are less useful.

2. There are too many paper notes and not enough coins. Paper notes are more expensive to produce and to maintain, and coins are more useful for vending machines.

3. America's rich diversity is poorly represented.

One online campaign is pushing for Harriet Tubman to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. That'd be a good switch, though I have an even better idea. Here are the changes I'd make simultaneously:

A. Stop producing pennies. That takes Lincoln out of coin circulation, but he's still safe and secure on the $5 bill.

B. Stop producing $1 bills. That takes Washington out of bill circulation, but he's still safe and secure on the quarter.

C. Ramp up production of Kennedy half dollar and Sacajawea dollar coins.

D. Put Harriet Tubman on the $2 bill and ramp up its production. That takes Jefferson out of bill circulation, but he's still safe and secure (for a while) on the nickel.

E. Switch all paper currency to more colorful, Singapore-style polymer-based notes.

It'd be nice to stop producing the nickel, but either the quarter would have to be demoted to 20 cents or it would have to be yanked as well. And these are the coins with Jefferson and Washington. If any old white men belong on U.S. currency then they do. If you really want to pull the nickel then here's one way:

AA. Stop producing pennies, nickels, quarters, $1, and $2 bills.

BB. Introduce a new $2 Jefferson coin in a substantially different form factor.

CC. Ramp up production of the $1 Washington dollar coin, already produced as part of the presidential series, but with Sacajawea on the obverse. (Or put Washington on a new 20 cent coin, but that's a bit confusing.)

DD. Introduce a new $200 Harriet Tubman bill, probably (unfortunately) with a limited but regular production schedule.

Defending Against the Crazy Pilot Scenarios

There's strong evidence that the co-pilot aboard the Germanwings flight that crashed in the French Alps was, in a word, crazy. It appears he locked the post-9/11 reinforced cockpit door while the captain was using the toilet, and he also blocked the door override code as any cockpit occupant is allowed to do. The captain couldn't reenter the cockpit, and the co-pilot intentionally crashed the plane, killing himself and 149 others.

Exactly the same thing happened in 2013 in a murder-suicide crash in Africa that killed 33 people (including the perpetrator). And the same thing may have happened on at least three other occasions in the past several years.

Once is a fluke, but twice is a pattern. As my previous post described, aviation safety experts knew that the FAA's (and other regulators') orders to reinforce cockpit doors would result in more fatalities associated with crazy pilot scenarios. We're now seeing their unheeded warnings become real. And unfortunately copycat incidents are quite possible.

In the immediate aftermath of the Germanwings crash, airlines around the world are requiring that the cockpit always have two occupants, at all times (except when parked at the gate). Typically this would mean that when a pilot wants to step out to use the toilet a flight attendant would take his/her place. What this means in practice is that an 80 kilo crazy pilot now would have to incapacitate a 50 kilo flight attendant in order to commit murder-suicide.

While I appreciate the airlines' prompt change in operating practices, this change in policy will only help a little bit. The last line of defense will be, typically, a 50 kilo flight attendant with no knowledge of the switches and controls in the cockpit and no ability to pilot the airplane. If the crazy pilot wants to incapacitate that flight attendant, he/she will have the advantage of complete surprise. Maybe the airlines think differently, but I don't think this last line of defense is going to be much of a defense. Moreover, that flight attendant now has the opportunity to be the crazy one, and that's another, new risk.

What I think the regulators now need to do is not allow any occupant in the cockpit to disable the override code to open the door. According to press reports, on an Airbus A320 any knowledgeable cockpit occupant -- and the Germanwings co-pilot certainly was -- can block the override code from opening the door. That block lasts either 5 minutes or indefinitely -- press reports vary.

Why? I assume it's because the regulators were afraid that a crazy crewmember would open the door with the override code, storm the cockpit, incapacitate the pilots, and crash the plane. Well, yes, that's a possibility. But obviously there can be one or more crazy people in front of the door, in the cockpit.

There is an effective solution here, even if the regulators don't want to go back to pre-9/11 bashable (eventually) doors: a plane-wide alarm. That is, whenever the door is left open for a certain number of seconds, or whenever anybody uses the override code to open the door, a plane-wide alarm would sound. It could be a coded alarm that only the crew (and particularly knowledgeable passengers) understand, or it could be a general alarm that everybody understands ("Warning: Cockpit Door Open!"). But it would be an alarm that effectively declares, "We have a problem. Everybody work together now to save the plane." There should not be a 5 minute (or indefinite) block on the override code. That block should be about 10 seconds, during which time the door alarm sounds, plane-wide. It should not be possible to disable this particular alarm, though eventually it could stop sounding if the door is closed.

Let's hope the FAA and other regulators act more thoughtfully this time.

Is 9/11 Overreaction Now Killing Airline Passengers?

With the important caveat that press reports are sketchy and could be in error, there are reports that one of the two pilots of the Germanwings flight that crashed in the French Alps, killing 150 people, was locked out of the cockpit and couldn't get back in. If that's what happened, unfortunately this accident (and others like it, in the future) was predicted. Public officials may be learning a hard lesson: their overreaction could be killing (and will surely kill) people.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, public officials ordered the aviation community to improve security, understandably. Airline passengers around the world are now often taking their shoes off, removing laptops from bags, surrendering their large bottles of cologne and tubes of toothpaste that exceed liquid and gel limits, and so forth. Most of these "improvements" are annoying and costly but relatively harmless.

Public officials also ordered aircraft manufacturers and airlines to reinforce cockpit doors and to keep them locked as often as possible. They also ordered airlines to adopt protocols restricting passengers from lingering near the cockpit door and to block access to the door (using a beverage cart, for example) when a pilot needs to open the door, to visit the toilet for example.

All of these cockpit door measures rely on a critical underlying safety assumption that public officials probably did not fully comprehend or consider: both pilots must be infallible. If one pilot decides to strangle the other pilot, for example -- or simply lock the other pilot out of the cockpit while he's visiting the toilet -- then there's literally nothing anybody can do to save the airplane and the people aboard it. It simply doesn't matter if America's finest military pilot is sitting in seat 28C, ready to save the plane. Reinforced cockpit doors are remarkably effective in separating the passenger cabin from the cockpit, by design. However, the doors have no way of adjudicating whether the cabin occupants or the cockpit occupant are/is crazy or medically distressed.

In other words, after many decades working to eliminate single points of failure in aviation, with tremendous safety benefits in saving lives, the post-9/11 introduction of mandatory reinforced cockpit doors introduced a new single point of failure in the aviation safety system. If either pilot wants to commit murder-suicide, or if the one pilot left on duty simply has an incapacitating medical problem while the other pilot is visiting the toilet, the airplane is lost. These safety risks are thoroughly predictable, and many aviation experts predicted them.

What's also frustrating is that anybody logically analyzing 9/11, taking into account human behavior, would realize that that type of attack is extremely unlikely to happen again. The 9/11 attack taught passengers and flight crew that resisting attack, in the air, promptly and with massive force, is the only viable option. In fact, 9/11 taught that lesson so well, so effectively, so quickly that passengers and crew aboard United Airlines Flight 93, having heard the fate of other hijacked airliners that same morning, resolved to resist their hijackers. They did, and they saved probably hundreds of lives on the ground as UA93 crashed in rural Pennsylvania, far away from populated areas. They had a chance to save not only people on the ground but themselves, and they took it. Their sacrifice should have taught public officials that 9/11 simply will not happen again, certainly not that way.

But instead public officials overreacted in at least one area. They overruled many safety experts, and they ordered the installation of impenetrable cockpit doors. And thus they put the lives of all airline passengers and flight crew in the hands of a single point of failure, on every flight.

Fortunately most pilots don't commit murder-suicide, and fortunately most pilots don't have strokes or other incapacitating medical events while the other pilots are using the toilet. But a few will, and the reinforced cockpit door will effectively block the non-crazy and the healthy from preventing crashes and fatalities. That's exactly what might have happened aboard Germanwings 9525 and even possibly Malaysian Airlines 370. But if it didn't happen aboard those flights, it surely will happen at some point in the future.

Greece's Next Steps

The Greek government is running a primary surplus. That is, tax revenues exceed spending. That surplus is currently approaching a whopping 4.5% of Greek GDP.

Consequently the new Greek government could simply slow down or stop paying interest on their public debt. Nothing terribly bad would happen directly. The Greek government would find it even more difficult to borrow, but that's not actually a problem when you're running a budget surplus, and borrowing is already difficult.

So I think it likely that the new Greek government will take this step, preferably with the grudging acceptance of other European governments but without that acceptance if necessary. Grudging acceptance means the new Greek government slows down interest payments (with partial debt write-off), and non-acceptance means the new Greek government blows off much more (or even all of it). But those are the two choices.

With non-acceptance the ball then lands squarely in the European Central Bank's court. Greek banks depend on the ECB as the "lender of last resort," the institution that provides them with liquidity so that they can issue euro cash to nervous depositors steadily pulling their money out. (Note that the new Greek government is implicitly giving depositors space to pull their euro out, with the ECB's help, and that's what I'd be doing.) The ECB would have the technical ability to stop performing this vital role. Would it?

There's some legal question. Another problem is that, even today, a systemic failure among Greek banks probably would cause bank runs elsewhere in Europe. There's a lot of brave talk that the ECB could allow Greek banks to fail, but does anybody remember the same brave talk about allowing Lehman Brothers to fail? How did that work out?

I don't think the ECB will blow up the entire Greek banking sector, even now. If I'm wrong, though, then the Greek government simply declares a nationwide bank holiday much like Cyprus did, possibly nationalizing the banks in the process. When the government allows the banks to reopen there will either be severe withdrawal limits gradually relaxed or new drachma in those accounts, maybe even a new drachma crypto currency but, unlike the dreadful Bitcoin, with a monetarily sound inflation rate. It turns out that, nowadays, you don't actually have to issue paper bills and metal coins when you want to launch a new currency. Greeks have smartphones and EMV ("chip") ATM/debit cards, and that's all they need for their new drachma if it comes to that. A side benefit to making all physical cash transactions in Greece totally illegal is that tax evasion becomes more difficult.

Congratulations in advance to Greece on taking steps to end this austerity madness.

Bad Economics at the BBC

The BBC doesn't seem to understand basic economic theory. That's a shame.

As further evidence I point to this overwrought article penned (electroned?) by Linda Yueh, identified as the BBC's Chief Business Correspondent. She describes Japan's most recent data on aggregate household savings as constituting "another blow" to Prime Minister Abe. Japan's net aggregate household savings turned very slightly negative according to the data.

Ms. Yueh has gotten the story exactly backwards. First it's important to understand that saving is simply deferred consumption. Saving is neither virtuous nor sinful in and of itself. A young adult could easily be quite foolish to try to save instead of borrowing to invest in a university education, for example.

The Japanese Prime Minister's entire economic program is premised on trying to get businesses and consumers to spend more on present consumption. Consequently he'd be rightly pleased that Japanese households have shifted more of their future potential consumption to the present, because that consumption is needed now to pull the Japanese economy out of its doldrums, not 20 years from now. Yueh correctly reports the disappointment in household consumption data (also down), but the shift away from savings is fantastic news, not "another blow."

Moreover, why should old people save so much? That is, Japan has an aging population (as Yueh also points out), and older people really should spend more, now, on themselves, their children and grandchildren, on charities -- anything they like. That's quite reasonable and proper.

There might be some concern that declining net overall household savings could mean a shortage of capital, but that's not at all Japan's problem. Japan has been stuck at the zero lower bound for a couple decades. Investment capital is plentiful and cheap. Yueh's own reporting bears that out since she notes that Japanese corporate balance sheets are strong, i.e. they're sitting on lots of cash.

Anyway, Prime Minister Abe ought to be delighted that Japanese households are finally reducing their hoarding of cash. That particular part of the Japanese economic story is great news. It's too bad the BBC's Chief Business Correspondent didn't grasp that reality.

Boris Johnson: Another Wealthy, Cheap F**k

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, was born in the United States and is thus a U.S. citizen. As with every country on the planet, citizens are subject to the laws of their state of citizenship no matter where they live. For example, it is illegal under U.S. law (the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) for U.S. citizens to commit bribery.

Last month Mayor Johnson announced to the world that he was refusing to obey U.S. tax law, specifically that he was refusing to pay U.S. personal income tax on a portion of the net gains on the sale of his home in London. Reader comments posted to the linked article are brutal, and understandably so. They boil down to this central point: it's outrageous that Boris Johnson thinks he's above the law, that he thinks he can enjoy the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship without also living up to its obligations. And it is outrageous. Johnson has a net worth of approximately $185 million according to press reports. He's one cheap f**k if he's refusing to pay a rather modest capital gains tax. (What is it with rich people nowadays? What, modest taxes and immense wealth that would have made Julius Caesar blush aren't enough?)

Let me explore the basic facts more fully to give readers a fuller idea of just how cheap and outrageous Johnson is.

First of all, Johnson is under no obligation to keep his U.S. citizenship. He could have terminated his U.S. citizenship as early as age 21 (now age 18). When he was 21 years of age it was free of charge to apply for a U.S. Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN). Now it costs as much as $2350, though that's just a bottle of mediocre whiskey to Boris Johnson. It does require two visits to a U.S. consulate or embassy, though conveniently there's one in London, the city where Johnson is mayor. Why two visits? In the first visit the consular officer explains the process and ramifications of terminating one's U.S. citizenship, including the fact it's irrevocable, and assesses whether the applicant is legally competent (not drunk, for example) and renouncing voluntarily. Then the applicant is sent home in order to allow time for careful consideration. In the second visit the consular officer verifies that the applicant won't be stateless after loss of U.S. citizenship, re-verifies competence and the voluntary nature of the act, and then completes the process. Then the deed is done. The U.S. government reported that 2,999 individuals in 2013 completed this very process and terminated their U.S. citizenships.

So why has Boris Johnson kept his U.S. citizenship? He's had about 29 years to terminate it, and it's about the same effort as getting a bunion removed but far less painful. I'll offer some more detailed, informed speculation on this question in a moment. Johnson has claimed it's difficult, but no, it really isn't (as many commenters have correctly pointed out). The bottom line, self-evident answer is this: Johnson maintains his U.S. citizenship because he values the rights and privileges associated with his U.S. citizenship. He just wants to complain about one of its obligations.

Let's take a look at that specific obligation. The United States requires its citizens (and its nationals, and its permanent residents) to pay personal income tax in certain circumstances. Approximately 6% of Americans residing outside the United States owe any U.S. income tax whatsoever. That's roughly 400,000 Americans (out of about 7 million), including (this year) Boris Johnson. Under U.S. tax law the United Kingdom gets paid first. However, the U.K. doesn't tax the gains on primary residences (as defined in the U.K. tax code), even if your primary residence is more lavish than Buckingham Palace. So, Johnson's U.K. tax rate on the sale of his primary residence is zero. Had it been something other than zero, the U.S. tax code would have given him full credit for the foreign tax, dollar for dollar.

But it was zero, so now Johnson is subject to the U.S. income tax on the sale of his home. However, the U.S. exempts the first $250,000 ($500,000 if he files a joint tax return with his spouse) of gains on the sale of his home. And, furthermore, those gains are net of costs. If Johnson spent a small fortune renovating his whiskey cabinet in his home, the cost of that renovation would likely be a cost that could be subtracted from his gains. If all that's not enough, the U.S. will also take into full consideration all his other foreign (presumably mostly U.K.) income taxes paid on all other passive income he received. If the U.K. taxed him above U.S. rates on his gains/dividends/interest from his other investments, the U.S. tax code gives him full credit for that differential. The U.S. tax code even lets him carry forward those excess foreign tax credits up to 10 years in the future (and up to one year in the past), to offset possible future (and past) U.S. income taxes on passive income.

Oh, but wait, there's more! The U.S. tax code also grants him an annual personal exemption, standard deduction, and (if he has dependents), further deductions and credits. If the gains on his home exceeded his limit, and if he couldn't offset them with excess foreign tax credits (even from other tax years), then he can fall back to his annual income exclusions/exemptions/deductions. And, if his spouse isn't a U.S. citizen but owned 50% of the home (as is typical), he has the option to file a separate tax return (without his non-citizen spouse, also typical) and thus only be responsible for 50% of the gains. If his non-citizen children owned shares in the home, that would further dilute his U.S. tax obligations. Indeed, any legitimate ownership interest dilutes his taxable share.

No, wait, there's even more! While he owned the home the U.S. tax code provided a generous mortgage interest deduction. At the very least this deduction most likely helped Johnson accumulate ("bank") foreign tax credits in the U.S., even if (as likely) he didn't owe any U.S. income tax. In other words, the U.S. tax code heavily subsidizes home loans. I don't remember Boris Johnson complaining about that.

For the record, the maximum U.S. capital gains tax rate for 2014 is 23.8%, including the Medicare surtax. Johnson owes something less than this percentage on his net gains. How much less depends on his exact circumstances, but it will be less. Unless he did not pay the tax owed on time, in which case he could owe interest and penalties.

And now we turn to more details on why Johnson maintains his U.S. citizenship: because it's probably a really good financial deal for the most important person in the world, Boris Johnson. In particular, an individual with a net worth of $185 million (or thereabouts) obviously has a lot of financial wealth to manage and to attempt to grow in internationally tax-efficient ways. As a U.S. citizen, Johnson enjoys privileged access to Wall Street and other U.S. financial accounts, some with U.S.-U.K. tax treaty protection. Unlike foreigners, he is not subject to mandatory 30% tax withholding on his U.S. financial accounts, and thus he does not have to (in effect) provide an interest-free loan to the IRS until his exact U.S. tax liability (if any) is determined.

Some commenters have speculated that Johnson would be subject to the U.S. exit tax if he renounces U.S. citizenship. It appears not. Johnson is living in his other country of citizenship, a citizenship he has held from birth, and he has not been a U.S. resident for 10 years or more within the past 15 years, thus (it appears) he would legally qualify for a full exit tax exception. For the record, if it applies the U.S. exit tax simply requires a "settling up" on the date of expatriation: mark-to-market of your worldwide assets, then standard U.S. capital gains tax rates applied to the calculated net gains. (Your cost basis is also reset, and typically you can credit your U.S. exit tax to your foreign tax return.) You must have a net worth of at least $2 million, or have paid about $150,000 or more in U.S. income tax for the past 5 years, in order to be considered for the exit tax. You also get a $680,000 exemption. For example, if your net worth is $3 million but the cost basis on that net worth is $2.5 million, when you renounce U.S. citizenship you won't owe a dime in exit tax because the net gain ($500,000) is less than your exemption ($680,000). All that is moot, though, because Johnson appears to qualify for a full exit tax exception.

As mentioned above, Johnson could terminate his U.S. citizenship for the price of $2350 and two visits to the U.S. embassy in London. His termination would not change anything that happened in the past in terms of his tax obligations, understandably, but if U.S. citizenship were such a terrible burden he has an easy, near-immediate out. The fact he hasn't within the past 29 years speaks volumes. In short, he's a cheap f**k.

What happens if Boris Johnson doesn't pay his U.S. taxes? As basic, routine steps the IRS could place tax leins against any assets he holds in the United States. The IRS could also order financial institutions that do business with him in the United States to begin mandatory tax withholding. Meanwhile, interest and penalties will accumulate. If those steps don't result in Johnson's compliance with his tax obligations then the IRS could escalate, asking the U.S. Department of Justice to issue an arrest warrant for criminal tax evasion. An outstanding arrest warrant would effectively bar Johnson from travel to the United States (including transit) and, no doubt on advice of his attorneys, from travel to any country that could conceivably extradite him to the United States for tax evasion. (That's a shorter list of countries than the number of countries with U.S. extradition treaties, but there is a list.) Johnson's tax compliance problems could also conceivably, negatively affect U.S.-U.K. relations, at least unofficially. The IRS could suddenly become somewhat less responsive in returning HMRC's phone calls regarding particular HMRC international tax fraud investigations, for example. So much of international relations relies on mutual trust and adherence to behavioral norms. Johnson is p*ssing where he shouldn't.

All of these hypothetical compliance escalations are just that, hypothetical. My prediction is that Johnson, if he hasn't already, will quietly pay his U.S. tax bill. I do not predict that he will terminate his U.S. citizenship. He's a cheap f**k, and that's why he won't.

Update: Boris paid his U.S. tax bill.

How to Link LAX to the Metro

Duncan Black succinctly highlights the problems with the Los Angeles MTA's current thinking on how to link LAX (the airport) to the Metro public transit system. He's of course correct: it doesn't make any sense to build two separate train systems, one for LAX and one for the metropolitan region, instead of one, integrated system.

But let's turn to the practicalities of building one, integrated transit system that ties LAX to the Metro. The first problem is that LAX isn't actually one place. As this map of LAX shows, it's at least 9 places: Terminals 1 through 8 plus the Tom Bradley International Terminal. OK, Terminals 5, 6, 7, and 8 are linked, so maybe LAX isn't as many as 9 separate places, but it's much more than one stop.

The second, related problem is that many passengers at LAX don't actually want to leave LAX. They simply want to transfer from one terminal to another, preferably without re-clearing security as they often must today. (Though due to current regulations most passengers arriving in the U.S. on international flights must re-clear security before connecting to another flight, even an international flight.) Terminal-to-terminal transportation is typically the role a local airport shuttle bus or train -- a "monorail," for example -- serves. These connecting passengers require higher frequency service over longer hours than the Metro might want to run over an entire hypothetical line serving LAX.

The third problem is that governments aren't always smart in how they fund public projects. Airport transit tends to get funded from passenger ticket taxes (PFCs for example) and fuel excise taxes (mostly paid by general aviation). The FAA administers those funds. The Metro and other mass transit projects receive their funding through other, separate sources, mostly from another part of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each bucket of money has different rules associated with it.

Now that I've described the three basic problems that confront the MTA, I'll describe the best solution in two simple words: single track. Here's how it would work.

The MTA would extend the Crenshaw Line to LAX in the form of a single Metro track that runs in a loop around LAX. Passenger platforms would be constructed at each stop along that one track: one airside (inside security), one landside. (The Tom Bradley Terminal might not get an airside platform, but see below.) That loop would converge into the standard dual track Metro system at the first traditional Metro stop outside LAX, and there would also be a single track that closes the loop within LAX. Terminals 5 and 6 would probably share one pair of platforms, and Terminals 7 and 8 would probably share another pair. (It may be possible for other terminals to share stations.)

OK, that's the track, and those are the platforms and stations. Now how do the trains run? First of all, all trains are Metro trains. There is no separate LAX-only equipment. With the exception of some extra luggage racks across the entire line, train equipment, power systems, signaling, automation, maintenance -- everything is the same. That saves a lot of money both in initial acquisition and in ongoing operational costs, and it also provides tremendous flexibility in equipment dispatching across the entire system.

Then there are two types of trains: airside and landside. The airside trains operate on the closed LAX loop on that single track. The airside trains are inspected, especially before coming into service on airside runs, to make sure nobody left a gun aboard (for example). When they stop, only the airside doors open, and passengers get on and off. (At the Tom Bradley Terminal only egress would be permitted from the airside trains. So there probably would be separate doors and a separate platform, but it would only serve exiting passengers. No passengers would be permitted to board an airside train from the Tom Bradley Terminal.)

The landside trains would typically operate in conventional Metro fashion, running the full line. At each stop within LAX (on the same track), only the landside doors would open for the landside platforms. Passengers could both enter and exit, including to/from the landside platform at the Tom Bradley Terminal.

The plan so far only leaves one gap: landside Terminal 1 to landside Terminal 8 (or vice versa, depending on whether the trains run clockwise or counterclockwise over the single track). There are a couple ways to close that gap. My favorite solution would be to modify the plan slightly, taking those airside trains and partitioning them. For example, if they are 6 car trains, partition them between car 3 and car 4. Make the first 3 cars landside and the last 5 cars airside. (I'm assuming the heaviest flow between terminals is airside rather than landside in this example, but any partition point is fine.) Doors on the left open airside, and doors on the right open landside (or vice versa, as applicable). Thus the trains that travel over the closed LAX loop serve both airside and landside passengers within LAX, and the "long distance" Metro trains open only their landside doors and only stop at each LAX station in one direction along the loop. Every train uses the same track (except for the track segment that closes the LAX loop), all train equipment is the same (albeit securely partitioned and with luggage racks) -- the whole system is integrated, cohesive, and just plain (or plane) super.

About that funding. Will that be a problem? In a word, no. There's nothing in the FAA's grant rules that forbids this sort of approach. Indeed, the FAA would likely warmly receive this sort of funding application. Airport-related funds can be directed to the whole LAX portion of the project including the single track that closes the loop and including the required number of trains for operating the LAX loop. The MTA then gets their LAX Metro stations and track basically free and only needs to pay for incremental costs, and there won't be many of those. If a hypothetical LAX-only monorail project is cheaper -- probably not -- then the FAA might want to see those numbers and only fund to that level. Maybe the MTA isn't used to working with its funding sources this way -- and with new funding sources like the FAA -- but I don't see any particular impediment. Nothing in the FAA's rules says you can't have the same train equipment and track at your airport as your Metro has. Fortunately also the U.S. Secretary of Transportation can intervene to help the MTA navigate the funding process across DoT agencies.

What about Metro ticketing? No problem. These are Metro stations, remember. You can have any fare system you want. For the airside loop there'd be no fares. For the landside loop everybody could "pay" a fare, but if you remain within the LAX loop the fare might be free or at least trivial. Pick up a recyclable fare card when you enter and drop it off when you exit.

Even more important than the funding advantages -- yes, advantages, including especially for taxpayers -- is the fact that the passenger experience with one, integrated system will be far better than two separate systems. Passengers won't have to cope with moving luggage any more than they have to. Every passenger would benefit.

Duncan Black is absolutely correct. Please, MTA, make it one integrated system: same track, same trains.

Thoughts on Mobile Phone Service in Singapore (Hint: Prepaid)

Singapore's mobile phone service market is fairly competitive and consists of 3 major carriers (Singtel, StarHub, and M1) plus a couple niche carriers such as Grid Communications. Prepaid mobile service is particularly competitive, and that's something to keep in mind if you want to get service here. Unless you're an extremely heavy user, and maybe not even then, postpaid (contract) mobile phone service is unlikely to ever make financial sense.

Among the prepaid services there have been some recent changes: one for the better, and one not. Let's start with the bad news. If you are a light mobile phone user then prepaid service seems to be getting a bit more expensive. That's because the carriers are finding ways to make it slightly harder to keep your balance active for the traditional 180 day maximum. StarHub, for example, appears to have increased the minimum top up amount to S$18 if you want that top up value to be valid for 180 days, and then only if you buy a physical top up card. If you go online to top up your account then you have to pay S$20 (which adds S$23 in value) to extend the validity of your balance another 180 days.

That's the bad news. The good news is that you can pay as little as S$23 for 50 days (or maybe 49 days due to recharge rounding effects) of basic service. That basic service includes free incoming calls and text messages, 120 minutes of outgoing local calls, 500 outgoing local text messages, and S$12 added to your credit balance for that same period to spend on other services (such as international SMSes). And that's exactly what I do. That comes out to about 47 Singaporean cents per day for reasonable mobile phone service. StarHub offers substantially the same deal for S$2 more.

M1 sells SIM cards for S$5 if you shop around. (They also sell them for S$15. For purposes of the 50 day plan, just buy the S$5 card.) Mini- (standard) and Micro-SIM sizes are readily available, though at this writing the Nano-SIM size is hard to find in a prepaid SIM. That's OK, though, because you can find shops that'll cut the SIM down to proper size for you.

Another tip: if you go with StarHub, and especially if you live in Singapore, do not buy the "Tourist Prepaid" SIM card. That card is a decent offer if you're only going to stay in Singapore less than 90 days. However, the problem is that you can never extend the credit balance on that SIM more than 90 days, unlike StarHub's normal prepaid SIM cards which allow 180 day credit balances. Yes, Singapore's mobile carriers are "clever." Too clever.

In my view Singapore's IDA, the regulatory agency that's supposed to keep an eye on the mobile carriers, is much too passive. Carriers need to be much clearer and simpler in their communications with consumers, and they must provide accurate (and easily understandable) disclosures. They're not doing that, and that's causing consumer confusion. IDA ought to do a better job. While they're at it, IDA should insist on number portability across postpaid and prepaid services, in both directions. IDA's job is not to protect carriers. It's to ensure a well functioning mobile service market that serves consumers' best interests. In these two areas, disclosures and number portability, IDA is not fulfilling its responsibilities in my view.

Plan B: The FDA Must Comply

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still dragging its heels and, as I write this, has not complied with a court order to make emergency contraception available without prescription and over-the-counter to anybody who wants it without any obstacles except normal payment.

Please excuse my using strong language, but here's the reality. At any age, women and girls seeking emergency contraception have semen already inside them. They have only 24 hours to take emergency contraception to have the best chance of preventing pregnancy. The idea that anyone should impede access to emergency contraception is utterly repugnant. I don't care what age we're talking about. Unless the woman wants to become pregnant, the only choice with sperm already swimming to find her egg is emergency contraception. Nobody sane would want otherwise for her. In fact, a parent aware of the situation who didn't try to help a young daughter avoid pregnancy should be thrown in jail as an unfit parent.

Yet the FDA is still responding to the insane who think somebody should put an obstacle in front of a woman or girl who needs this miracle medicine called Plan B that prevents unintended pregnancy. Plan B is medically proven safer than aspirin. Hundreds of medications are sold over the counter every day without anybody having to show a passport, driver's license, or birth certificate. (Most teenagers don't have those IDs.) Nobody is going to pay the selling price for Plan B to gulp them like Tic Tacs, and even Tic Tacs are more dangerous to human health.

Study after study demonstrates that Plan B doesn't encourage sexual intercourse. Not that that matters, but it doesn't. What Plan B does do is prevent abortions and unwanted babies.

Of course 13 year old girls should never have semen swimming inside them. Frankly if I had a daughter I would be delighted if she wanted to live in a convent until at least age 28. However, any girl of any age should be able to get Plan B with zero obstacles because semen swimming to find her egg is an emergency that requires no court, no consent, no debate, no bullshit. After that there may also be some idiot/criminal male thrown in prison or a gift box of condoms, but regardless of whether that happens no girl should get pregnant because some other idiot unduly influencing the FDA thinks she should show a passport in a CVS or Walgreens.

I'd go further, in fact. Plan B should be available everywhere. If Chuck E. Cheese's wants to sell Plan B, great, let them. Plan B should be available in restroom vending machines everywhere, too, including in schools. First aid kits should include Plan B as a standard item, and wherever condoms are sold Plan B should be sold as well.