I stumbled upon this interview of Chris Anderson of Wired talking about the economics of Free – which is the title of his book – and I thought: I think I’ll pay attention.

We’re all actors in one way or another in the free market. Mainstream journalists, in recent years, have been grappling with the idea of free in the context of money in a full-on way - since, well, economists talk about covering costs and earning profits for business survival.

As we know, low advertising dollars have created a churn in which thousands of people have left the industry. Mind you, this is in the context of people growing more and more used to – and in some way, expecting – free online content.

So, how do you pull in enough money to avoid a free market failure in the context of an increasingly online world when people know they have an option to not hand over greenbacks?

Well, the legendary Anderson offers up some ideas in this interview from Geek Entertainment TV (which has a video about the Pez Museum). By the way, since I posted the interview and, um, didn’t pay anything for it, I’d like to say thank you very much for posting this at YouTube and for letting others embed it.

Anderson, who helped propel the idea of The Long Tail into the online consciousness, talks about giving some of your product for free and asking people to pay money for other portions of what you’ve created or have.

That makes sense, though in this interview with WNYC, he discusses how some talented bloggers are not paid but have their work posted on commercial outlets. The benefit for them, he says and as I understood it, is that others will recognize their work.

The only catch that I see is that if you’re a doctor and run a great blog on a commercial site, then you have one economic sector (medicine) subsidizing another (online news, information and content).

I came across the interview you see above after I glanced at an interview with Apple co-founder Steve Jobs on The Wrap and realized that its founder, Sharon Waxman, had talked with Anderson. That led to the YouTube page which had other Anderson interviews, including the one with Geek Entertainment TV.

The idea of something for free has long been fascinating, I think, for all of us.

Free ice cream cone? Free car wash? Free cup of coffee?

We’re there, we’re there, we’re there.

Free round-trip airplane ticket to Paris?

Our response: How many can we get?

I’d like to bring my brother-in-law’s parents and their brothers and sisters. 

Months ago, I talked about how the idea of free would work very well – and across the board – in an autonomous commune. In fact, one study revealed that billions of people want free online content.

But in a free market in which there are financial costs, well, that might have some obstacles.

You could keep your costs low. But that would mean trimming much, including what you own and labor and expertise that you might have as an employer.

I noted the idea of lower costs when I talked about a new “American price” – meaning anything considerably lower than what you’re used to paying.

Disruptors to traditional media have a point that prices might be too high for items in the free market. But dropping that price to zero will only work if grocery stores, gas stations, hospitals, car dealers and banks also embrace giving what they have away for free, too.

So, for traditional media, the idea of the paywall has been bouncing around for months.

The New York Observor recently quoted David Remnick of The New Yorker as backing a pay model to cover the journalism and writing that the magazine publishes in print and online.

Here are two quotes from the Observor article.

First:

I was going to be damned if I was going to train 18-year-olds, 20-year-olds, 25-year-olds, that this is like water that comes out of the sink.

Second:

Remember the days of information wants to be free? …So therefore the only thing that anyone with any brains could do with a magazine like The New Yorker is to put the whole thing online and give it away. Give it away! And if you were against that in some way or you said, ‘Wait a minute,’ you were–wait for it–clueless….I opted for clueless.

The other issue is that the model of free online content might actually drive more people to search out words, music, audio interviews and videos that have no cost.

That was one premise put forward by author Bill Wasik in an interview with comedian Mo Rocca on CBS News.

Yes, as you’ve seen, I’ve run this blog at no financial cost to visitors since last year.

So, how can I talk about the importance of covering costs while I’m giving information and analysis away for free?

Well, I also pursue freelance writing. This is one way that I’m letting people know of that service.

It is similar to Anderson’s strategy of giving some of your product or services away at no cost and charging for a more specialized, custom-oriented project.

This blog enables me to stay connected with current events, interesting topics, history and the beauty of experimentation.

I mean, you have seen my stop-motion clips, haven’t you?

And staying connected with the world also lets me post a video clip about an author and editor talk about this whole idea of a free ride.

In December, I wrote about Edith Macefield, the late Seattle resident, and her refusal to take $1 million from a developer for her house. That prompted crews to build around that structure.

Her actions later sparked online chatter in China – about a homeowner in Seattle who said no to developers – because a Chengdu area woman ended her life when she was forced to move so developers could begin work.

As you can see in the video and story from The New York Times, the issue remains hot, especially among ordinary people who are being pushed from their homes.

In China, a “nail house” is one in which the owner refuses to leave and make way for development. Fair compensation for the property is often a sticking point.

Certainly, I appreciate The New York Times for covering this issue, especially since its journalists were detained, and for letting people embed the video on websites.

UPDATE: The Times was letting people embed this video after I first saw it. But the company has since removed the code from its website. I should add that my site is free of advertisements.

MORE: One working theory – which sounds very plausible – about why some Chinese government leaders are putting so much pressure on homeowners to leave so that skyscrapers and modern structures can be built is because the more modernization an area or city has, the more likely officials will receive a promotion.

My wife spotted a Chinese online article that talked about this. We’re trying to track that down to provide a link.

But one saying appearing in some online articles refers to having some change in one year but having a larger amount of change in three years. Meaning: There is a goal, of sorts, to raise skyscrapers within three years.

If that goal is met, then, Chinese officials can present that fact, as well as point to shiny, soaring buildings, to senior leaders in hopes of receiving a better job at a higher government level.

All of this is just another example of the rapid, eye-catching change in China.

That one man in The New York Times video talked about how the masses are feeling the pinch of these evictions and new construction.

One interesting note is that Chinese leader Mao Zedong often used the phrase, “Serve the People.” In fact, that phrase is on a wall at Zhongnanhai, the headquarters for the senior Chinese leadership.

And in the video, that large Chinese character on those brick walls and painted in red is “chai.” Its meaning: Demolish.

Also: Sad news regarding a factory in China where iPhones are made.

On Monday, Hummer ended producing the boxy all-wheel drive vehicles. Photo source: super-cars-wallpaper.blogspot.com

The fascinating arc of the Hummer – the big, boxy all-wheel drive vehicles that came to symbolize the strength of the United States – ended Monday when the last model was driven from the assembly line.

NBC News reported the end of the production line for Hummer.

An offer from a Chinese company in Sichuan province to buy the brand and continue selling Hummers never cleared approval from Chinese regulators.

Given China’s mountainous terrain and truly rugged areas – remember, people refer to many of its Western provinces as the mountaintop of the world – I was certain there were the elite in that country who would want to drive one and roll over the rocks beneath them.

That country’s new elite - whether they’re in business or government - really are participating in a new awakening. Years ago, I spotted people, presumably the more privileged, driving Toyota Land Cruisers in China’s mountainous regions to get around. 

With Chinese regulators nixing the purchase, General Motors stopped production.

The popular H2 model began showing up in the U.S. market in 2002.

In 2002 and 2003, I worked as a journalist across the street from a Hummer dealer. I saw them sitting in a row, waiting for customers to drop by and snatch them up.

I visited and chatted with a Hummer representative about H2 sales. His answer: Good.

He showed me a national wire story about the federal government offering tax deductions, at the time, to independent businesspeople who owned cars, vans or trucks over a certain gross vehicle weight.

I poked around and interviewed a Seattle-area accountant. His calculation: An independent businessperson could write off nearly $38,000 from the purchase of a H2, which could cost $50,000 to $60,000.

Of course, the national uproar was brewing because Detroit-based automotive writers had produced articles pointing out this loophole.

I did what any regional newspaper reporter would do – I localized the story.

What I found out was that the gross vehicle weight deduction, essentially, for just a very heavy vehicle, was intended for small businesses, such as a painting or construction company.

Those employees lug thousands of pounds of equipment and supplies from location to location as part of their legitimate business duties.

But the loophole, which was allowed at the time, enabled real estate agents or doctors who ran their own business to buy the bulky, all-wheel drive Hummers and take the deduction.

The loophole has since been closed.

Yes, even in 2002, there was tension and criticism given that heavier vehicles, which by definition, typically have lower fuel mileage than a lighter sedan.

Even earlier this year, the Hummer came under some legitimate and sharp comments from Vanity Fair blogger Christopher Bateman.

Read his blog entry, but here’s one of his takes:

It was a slow, unwieldy behemoth, and it was not particularly attractive aesthetically. It was all but intended to intimidate other drivers, to exercise a kind of military hegemony on the road. It practically goes without saying that it was the ultimate fuck-you to the environment, something that seemed to delight many of its owners, some of whom plastered theirs with bumper stickers celebrating war and global warming. And it was a terrible long-term business investment by GM. With the death of the Hummer, America has a chance to forever bury the perverse cultural forces that gave birth to it and made it popular.

As Chinese companies look to acquire others, I was a bit surprised that regulators in that country blocked the sale.

Bateman raises legitimate questions about the vehicle. But many Chinese companies these days are in hot pursuit of luxury.

Perhaps, and this is speculation, regulators looked at the economics of the vehicles and also knew that there is concern that the Chinese economy might overheat, especially as people borrow from banks to finance multiple real estate purchases.

While China’s real estate market is soaring and people really are participating in the free market, there are concerns of a bubble.

On Hummer’s official website, models can still be purchased.

In summer school years ago, I enrolled in an economics class. The instructor enjoyed talking about the big SUVs that people bought.

His analysis was that gas really wasn’t that expensive at that time because people still flocked to dealerships and bought big SUVs.

He would only be convinced, he said, of high gas prices once the popularity of SUVs dropped in the United States.

Years later, Hummer, in many ways, fits that description.

I guess the other question is: Do we need all-terrain vehicles that are as big as Hummers?

Or is this the result of a product not faring so well in the free market?

Yes, I have written about the end of things – paper airplane tickets and toilets in Seattle. I am very aware of how the free market and technologies in it have transformed the journalism world.

I suppose the answer to the Hummer question depends on where you live, what your needs are and how much you want to spend on gas.

But given the Great Recession, the worst in about 70 years, it is easy to see why the trend for more fuel-efficient vehicles is growing.

Add to that the growing awareness of the environment and what humans have done to it.

When I’ve traveled in China’s outback – its rugged mountains – I often rode in rickety-old buses. People next to me smoked cigarettes. The buses might have been so old that they used leaded fuel.

Yes, I know China these days is pushing for more greener fuel technologies.

But at the time, in the mid-1990s, I hopped on board the buses that were available. I’m glad they took me to my next destination.

The areas that I had the opportunity to visit were remote and truly opened my eyes to how others live. These areas are probably more traveled these days.

But I thought: If this bus breaks down and I’m stranded – even far from a village or township – how would I get back to places with lots of people and food?

While my hiking boots were in good shape, I only carried so much water and food in my backpack.

A friend traveled in the mountains of Sichuan once and the weather was so cold that yaks were dying in large numbers and the restaurants where she stayed in the mountains were open but had no food.

She finally made it out to Xining, a city in Qinghai province, by hitching a frigid ride in a 1950s or 1960s era truck.

Given that context, yes, I would take a ride in a Hummer or Land Cruiser or even on a bicycle if I became stranded in a remote part of the world.

In the movie, Kekexili, a member of an anti-poaching unit that patrols the Qinghai-Tibet region caught a man who trafficked in indigenous animals whose numbers were dwindling.

The movie is based on a true story. In it, the poacher who was caught later walked from the mountains and back to civilization.

Fortunately, all the buses I rode on in China made it to their destinations.

Our bellies were full. We had perspired the requisite amount given the amount of chili and Sichuan peppercorns that hit our taste buds Saturday at Old Sichuan in Kent, Wash.

What could be better to cap off a small but early Mother’s Day celebratory lunch?

Why, a stop at IKEA, of course!

The great weather (meaning sunny) that started a few days ago in the Seattle area continued through Saturday.

It sent us to the big-box retail store in search of an inflatable or plastic swimming pool for children.

But there was one lesson from last year that I overlooked until we arrived: They don’t carry them – at least from what I could tell.

But IKEA had a wide assortment of what looked like sturdy umbrellas to shield the sun and its rays during the coming sunny (we hope) months in the Seattle area.

I thought it might be time to look for some giant sun protection.

The only catch (besides staying within a budget): Picking what you need can be confusing.

Here are some of the images that we saw – all the umbrellas are functional but making a final choice can produce a swirling headache.

A few, such as the large white one photographed above, are so large that when you stand under it, you feel like you’ve shrunk. Yes, there’s good shade potential.

Others, such as that small black umbrellas pictured above, offer protection for one person but might not be suitable for groups of people.

This large white umbrella offered plenty of shade and a stylish side-arm design – mirroring some of the modern lamps that IKEA sells. I stood and looked at this one for a few minutes because of the design.

IKEA even offers a nice grid complete with large bullets and the names of each umbrella and base.

The only catch with that the chart: Five of these umbrellas share the same two names, forcing the shopper (or at least me) to study the actual sizes and features.

All of this unintended umbrella gazing reminded me of the time, years ago, that I had to buy a new pillow – talk about confusing.

Years ago, I interviewed two owners about their coffeehouse in Seattle. The owners had to move to make way for a mixed-use development of retail and loft housing.

Their customers chatted with me about how the place served as the neighborhood’s living room. One woman even showed me her ceramic mug that she brings in to fill up on a regular basis.

She held that mug with pride. She beamed as she talked about the place and its coffee.

One owner, though, uttered a great sentence: “Coffee is coffee.”

That meant that they kept the coffee and prices they charged as basic as possible – a few dollars for good old-fashioned brew.

In this context, I wish that a pillow was a pillow.

As a kid, I probably never realized that there were probably various styles of pillows on the market.

But I thought they a person would just go to the store, buy a pillow, go home and use it to rest.

Years ago, after I moved to Seattle, I realized I needed new ones.

I went to IKEA and other retail stores in search of softness on which to lay my head.

My quick lesson: Too many choices (at least for me).

Here are some pillow signs and images that I saw over the weekend. They give you a sense of how buying a pillow perplexed me for a bit when I bought new ones years ago.

You get the idea. I did buy some pillows – I forgot exactly which type – after I moved to Seattle.

They work. So, I’m happy.

So, you get the idea when I spotted all these great sun umbrellas at IKEA.

Keep in mind, too, that we actually stopped at IKEA to look for a plastic or inflatable swimming pool.

My only thought is that if Objectified, a documentary about humans and design, is correct – that people put thought behind the products we see in stores and use in daily life – then why was I so overwhelmed by the range of umbrellas for sale at IKEA and how they were displayed?

Shouldn’t they have been arranged by how much coverage you need?

Or by how many people might use the umbrella?

Before we left, I spotted a $149 poster of a rope bridge – an image taken somewhere in the world.

I stopped, as did others, and I thought: Wow. If you’ve never had the chance to go traveling in other countries, you can buy this poster, hang it in your house and just pretend that you’re on some type of excellent adventure.

This world map was below it. The message was clear: The implied context is that you’re a world globe trotter, a person who treks to places that are hard to reach.

Really, you’re at IKEA – but that’s OK, you know. I’ve shopped at the store before and walked out with items I didn’t expect to purchase.

I also spotted some discounted items that had dropped to a jaw-dropping 25 cents.

And I thought: Wow (again). These items were probably made in large amounts (economy of scale of sorts) and possibly overseas. They were then likely loaded on cargo ships and transported by truck to this IKEA.

They didn’t sell at their original price. So, they are now sitting here for a fraction of the original amount.

U.S. News is correct: Irrational consumers are needed. Frugality, well, is another topic.

At that point, I realized that my family and I had to leave.

We needed fresh air. It was sunny outside. We had finished a delicious Mother’s Day lunch.

And one of the best things from Saturday (besides celebrating)?

We have leftover mapo tofu and other mouth-watering Sichuan-style food.

That includes this jelly-like dish with a spicy sauce.

Yum.

Learning new theories, of course, would help. But I’d like to ask the professor a question or two about the state of the U.S. economy.

As in: If saving money is a rational move for people, especially given the Great Recession, how does that square with the need for a healthy amount of spending from consumers to circulate money, support jobs and stimulate demand?

What types of economies offer people the opportunity to have a healthy savings rate AND contribute to robust consumer spending? What is considered to be the right mix?

The Associated Press moved a story talking about the topic of not spending as much money and reported that two-thirds of the surveyed economists said that a new frugality has emerged.

From the news agency’s story:

Their behavior suggests that the Great Recession may have bred a new frugality that will endure well into the recovery. And because consumers fuel about 70 percent of the economy, their tightfisted habits means the rebound could stay unusually sluggish.

The savings rate for people in the United States now hovers around 3 percent, down from a high of 6.4 percent last year and up from less than 1 percent before the Great Recession, the AP reported.

It was even lower than that in 2005. The news agency reported that at one point that year, the savings rate for people in the United States was negative 0.5 percent.

Again, from the AP:

The last negative rates occurred in 1932, a drop of 0.9 percent, and a record 1.5 percent decline in 1933. In those years Americans exhausted their savings to try to meet expenses in the wake of the worst economic crisis in U.S. history.

And in a nod to wording I spotted years ago in a Spy magazine article about comparing the 1980s conflict in Grenada and the Vietnam War: We were all a lot younger in 2005. 

In the past, I have talked about the Great Recession creating a new American Price – meaning anything significantly lower than before – and questioned why U.S. News argued for irrational behavior from consumers.

In a way, I understand the idea in that U.S. News article. But while irrational spending can help stimulate demand and keep products moving from factory to showroom floor, it also could – conceivably – lead to a double-dip recession.

See the 2005 example of the negative savings rate above.

Also: Billions of people want their online content to be free - an idea I support in many ways but there is an argument about paying the people who create narratives, images and videos.

By the way, if you are in the market for goods at competitive prices and you come across a store that offers a price matching policy, I would question it.

Logically, it does not make sense because both goods at two different sellers are still the same price.

If price is not an issue, by all means, please enjoy your financial freedom.

In a big-picture sense, the huge financial bailout of Greece probably isn’t inspiring too much global confidence.

But that might be seen as a distant issue by some people in the United States.

On the consumer home front, there was this good news, at least from supply and demand: Wired is reporting that Apple has sold one million iPads since the device went on the market.

I’ve already seen two people using them.

Here are some other questions I have about savings rates, the Great Recession and better economic data:

If savings rates from banks are one way to attract capital, which is later loaned to other investors at higher interest rates, why are they so low these days?

I have a basic understanding of how interest rates can change and the role of the Federal Reserve in the process.

But if circulating money is one goal these days, shouldn’t savings rates be higher?

I understand that savings rates offer a high level of stability – and the tradeoff is a lower rate of return, than say the stock market or venture capital.

But shouldn’t there be an incentive for banks to pull more of it in, given that people in the United States are watching their dollars in new ways?

The savings rate doesn’t have to be incredibly high, which sometimes happens when there is a concern of overheating and inflation (I think I’m describing this correctly), but it would be a welcome sign if it was higher.

And speaking of spending, did you see that Warren Buffett actually considered buying the Philadelphia Inquirer? It’s going through some rocky times.

The Wall Street Journal included that tidbit in one of its blogs. As I recall, he has wanted to stay away from investing new money in the newspaper industry in recent years.

On a side note, I dig the simplicity of his company’s Website – given his influence in the world.

Anyway, these days, I guess I don’t even have to be in an actual classroom with an economist to find answers to my questions.

I can just search the blogosphere.

So, I’m back posting regular blog entries. I’ll try and get caught up in the coming days.

I recently met my friend and former colleague, John Iwasaki, for a tasty Chinese lunch.

And what came in the fortune cookie?

A message that’s a keeper.

The type might be small in the photograph above but the fortune reads: “You will be rewarded for your creativity.”

Without creativity, this economy and many parts of the country would come to a halt – we would be the boring society, just prone to nod and homogenize.

It’s no wonder many of us – myself included – like adventures.

They help us learn. They help us see new things.

Go when you can. There will be no regrets.

If creativity can help the country improve and nudge us to think in new ways, I think the art project that my son and his preschool classmates completed this week also should be duly noted.

That’s right: Life can get confusing when fuzzy grass looks like hair.

So: Pay attention.

Speaking of paying attention, make sure to catch Terry Tazioli’s Author’s Hour chat on May 2 with author and journalist Terry McDermott.

McDermott is the author of “101 Theory Drive: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for Memory.”

If you live in Washington state, the show is on Sundays on TVW. You also can watch chats online at TVW.org.

I attended the taping of the show.

I didn’t know what to expect.

What fascinated me is how McDermott’s quest for the crux of the story and his chronicling of Gary Lynch, a neuroscientist at the University of California at Irvine, illuminated a topic that many might overlook.

From what I can tell, McDermott indeed chronicled the life of a laboratory – what with the brilliance, humor, asides, quirks, characters and quest to reach a scientific and medical breakthrough.

Those experiments, it should be noted, can take years.

And get this: Lynch is known – among many things as McDermott reminds people - for driving a blue Corvette, eating food from a vending machine and studying his own brain after there was a scan of it.

In his talk with Tazioli, McDermott remembered that humor can open doors to serious topics - and he used it to let viewers know that brilliance has levity as well as serious moments. 

It’s worth the time to think about neurology. Yes, it’s the stuff that some of us would geek out on.

But the human brain has about 100 billion neurons.

In his talk for Author’s Hour, McDermott asked a fascinating question, which I’m sure brain researchers around the world have thought of at one point: Whether it’s possible for the human brain to think faster and larger, more complex thoughts.

I have interviewed Leroy Hood, a visionary researcher, who wants to help humans live longer.

So, in the context of captivating science, Lynch’s story – as told by McDermott – fascinates.

Journalists in Seattle might want to watch the interview with Tazioli because McDermott mentioned the owners of The Seattle Times, where he once worked.

If you can’t wait for Tazioli’s show, you can read McDermott’s series on memory and Lynch, which was published in the Los Angeles Times.

He also was interviewed on Weekday on Seattle-based KUOW.

You do have to admire McDermott, who most recently was a journalist at the Los Angeles Times, for saying what he thinks.

A few years ago, he left the company because of job cuts, Mediabistro reported.

McDermott was quoted by Mediabistro as saying this:

I’m afraid the folks running things at The Times wouldn’t know a horse to ride it they got run over by it. I’m not sure anyone else knows much more. I’m not a fan of the local LAT management, but the real problem is in Chicago.

McDermott also wrote “Perfect Soldiers,” about the 9/11 hijackers.

It also took McDermott about four years to write “101 Theory Drive.”

I recognize that blogs and tweets these days are excellent platforms to express ideas and convey information.

But there is something to be said – and valued – about long-form journalism.

I should add that Tazioli hired me for an internship at The Seattle Times in 2001.

What caught my attention on this Thursday was Floyd Norris’ column in The New York Times. The company gave it prime online real estate, at least when I saw it.

His thesis, which has caveats, revolves around more hiring, better consumer spending and the fact that the recession is, most likely, over in the country.

As he wrote:

Why is good news being received with such doubt? Why is ‘new normal’ the currently popular economic phrase, signifying that growth will be subpar for an extended period, and that the old normal is no longer something to be expected? It is possible, of course, that I am wrong and the prevalent pessimism is correct.

Or as he described it on his blog:

My Friday column, arguing that the economy is doing much better than most of the commentators say it is, was posted this afternoon, and has generated more e-mail than I am used to getting.

I’ve covered meetings with economists and understand the trends they follow.

What I think Norris overlooks, though, is the huge gap between the economic data statisticians use to gauge financial well being and the view from the streets, whether that perspective is urban, suburban or rural.

As in: Many people, I would argue, judge the economy on how they’re doing financially and the experiences of their neighbors, relatives, friends and people they meet.

So, when Norris talks about the recession – in pure technical terms – as being over, does he realize that many people in the country cringe because adequate hiring to bring the unemployed back into the working ranks often lags behind?

As in: Optimism is good and always needed. But optimism with blinders can shield you from reality.

One interesting note: A copy editor – or someone – has changed the online headline.

The original, which still can be seen on the top of your browser: “Why So Glum? History Points to a Strong Recovery.”

The revised headline in the story: “Why So Glum? History Points to a Recovery.”

Actually, by definition, recoveries always take place after recessions. If they don’t, then what you have is pure failure. 

So, this edit on the headline doesn’t make sense because pointing to history really has nothing to do with an economic recovery. History, though, can point to a strong recovery.

It looks like the revised headline is now: “Why So Glum? Numbers Point To a Recovery.”

Norris’ also misses the fact that Washington state economists pointed out late last year during their annual meeting – that all recessions are unique.

I have seen more job listings in recent months. Of course, that is a good thing.

But when I talk with people about how their jobs are going – or their job searches – I hear news that is less than enthusiastic.

Certainly, there are some employees in the country who have not been touched by the recession in a dramatic way. I’m happy for them.

But the story is different for millions of unemployed or underemployed.

Banks are under pressure from federal regulators not to loan dollars out as they once did during the go-go halcyon days of a few years ago.

You know, when irrational exuberance existed and many people thought that real estate values always increased (or seemed to do so) at high percentages.

A review of news articles also shows that, well, things continue to be tough.

Commercial buildings remain empty, including downtown Seattle’s Columbia Tower whose owners have missed a mortgage payment, The Seattle Times reported.

In the Seattle area, there’s the possibility of a strike by garbage drivers – and as KOMO/4 reported, about 1,600 people applied online to replace those drivers should they leave their jobs.

Norris asks why the White House has not yet taken on a more rosy view of the economic numbers.

While he took into account some partisan differences in his piece, he failed to hit the big target coming up: The mid-term elections.

If the White House plays up the economic data saying that the recession has officially ended, but average people are still struggling with mortgages, health bills or getting loans, what do you think is going to be the political narrative in the weeks before November?

These days, people are waiting to see what the next week or month brings.

In Norris’ blog, he writes about how he’s been receiving more email about this topic than he usually does. It’s easy to see why.

The view from the streets (the ordinary ones, of course) is important to keep in mind.

Uncertainty remains for many people. Many of us remember the words of U.S. officials – whose words sounded nice at the time but ring hollow now.

Norris used the example of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke hailing the subprime mortgage crisis as “contained.”

I think many people remember when the idea that the economy’s fundamentals are “strong” prompted sharp questions.

Here’s another example: After I left my previous job in March 2009, I attended a nonprofit housing seminar on how to avoid foreclosure.

It’s safe to say that I was not in that situation. But I wanted to know the various possibilities of what might surface in the months after someone leaves a full-time job.

A very-knowledgeable woman, who once worked at an East Coast bank, ran the seminar. She gave helpful tips, prodded us to think and offered helpful tips.

One interesting note: Had I actually been a working journalist at that time, I would have been barred from attending the meeting.

She asked whether people were behind in their mortgages. Hands went up.

Some people who attended once worked for the banking and financial industry.

Another thing that surprised me: One guy, who raised his hand when asked whether he was behind on his mortgage, fell asleep during the presentation.

The teacher, who used humor to convey ideas, spotted him and said something to the extent of: “I told you guys not to sleep in my class!”

By the way: Falling behind on your mortgage and going to sleep in a seminar on how to avoid foreclosure ought to be avoided, if possible.

The meeting also was helpful because trying to get clarity, at that time, from banks and the federal government on mortgage modification options was elusive.

I sincerely hope the people from that meeting are doing well these days.

My point in all of this: The view from the ground can be vastly different than the data – which is often weeks or months old – that some economists or statisticians rely on for a big-picture analytical fly-over.

Those conclusions can get picked up by national journalists, who write or talk about them but soon encounter sharp questions from ordinary people.

Norris also neglects to take into account – at least in a significant way – that hiring lags behind the end of a recession.

In other words, people are glum because adequate hiring at good wages has not arrived. That is how many people view economic health.

I understand the metrics used in determining economic health or gross domestic product, including goods and services produced during a certain period.

But for many people, it’s the view and fact as to whether their neighbors or friends are being hired and whether there’s enough work when they are employed.

The flow of capital in a responsible way is another indicator that ordinary people use.

Norris might have been on better footing, journalistically at least, had he waited a few months after a more confident view from the ground had floated up to the data counters.

Mainstream journalists once overlooked the power of new technologies and how they would transform the information industry and open doors for more people to enter the content pool.

In a similar way, Norris’ piece shows that a gap in understanding the glum factor with the U.S. economy exists.

Years ago, a friend and I were traveling through China and stopped in Xining in the highlands of Qinghai province.

My friend had just taken a long, bumpy ride in a vintage-era Jiefang truck from the mountainous areas of neighboring Sichuan province. It was a brutally-cold winter.

The driver had loaded the truck’s open cargo area with dead yaks – their skins were headed to market. I never asked whether this was permissible. The goal, especially for my friend, was to stay warm.

And, as my friend recalled, a ride in a vehicle out of the mountains was so coveted that people sat on top of the dead yaks for a ride to Xining. 

After we met up, my friend and I went to a market when a Tibetan trader looked at my REI Novara waterproof jacket – it was the type that bicyclists wore, red and similar to this one - felt the material and realized its strength.

Through a translator, he asked whether I wanted to swap – my waterproof REI jacket for his long, fur-lined coat.

I respectfully declined. As I recall, his jacket had yak blood on it – and I probably didn’t want to tackle that at that moment. But at least, he suggested a trade of one jacket for another.

That wasn’t really the case when I received an email on Tuesday from a U.S.-based food supply company to write a blog post about its Web site and its section devoted to supplies for an Asian restaurant.

The request came from a blogger who writes for the company. The writer seemed to be well meaning. I don’t think it’s necessary to name the company or the writer.

The writer sent me an office address and telephone number. I looked at the company’s Web site and it looks like a legitimate business. It even has its own blog section.

If I wrote such a post about the company’s Asian food supply area on its Web site and sent the URL address, the blogger said I would be entered into a drawing to possibly win a cookware set worth about $1,295.

The person also asked for my feedback on the Web site.

I raise these examples for a basic reason – which I’ve written about before, in the form of The New World of the Free (as in the online world).

On that chilly day in Qinghai, that Tibetan trader offered me the jacket off his back for the one I was wearing.

In the new online world of the 21st century, a blogger whom I never talked with in person asked me to spend my time and skills to review the company’s Web site and its Asian food supply section for – get ready for some capital letters – the CHANCE to win cookware.

I certainly like the new in whatever form it might take. Its potential as a shaper of politics, economics, commerce, culture, art and just basic communication is powerful and attractive.

But I’m kind of an old school person in another sense: I’m willing to operate in a market economy.

I never had a role in the discussion as to whether the United States would be a free market capitalist society. But it is.

I see much strength in this model and am aware of the pitfalls. One of the strengths is that people ought to be paid – by that, I mean with money – for the goods and services they provide to other people.

It’s not really a complicated idea, though there is much history behind it.

Yes, bartering takes place in free markets. People can volunteer their services or donate goods. Or they agree to be rewarded in non-monetary ways.

But most of the time, money changes hands in market economies.

In other words, “chance” does not play a role that money or goods will change hands. There is a contractual obligation that money will circulate in the transaction. This leads to a greater certainty that market economies will continue in the future.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I strongly support donating goods and volunteering services – especially to organizations committed to serving the public good and helping the overall well being of a community improve.

But it’s hard to agree to an unsolicited pitch from a food supply company – which is charging money to people who want to open restaurants – to write about it for no guarantee of fair compensation.

By the way, did you know that those rolling carts used in Chinese dim sum restaurants can sell for over $1,000 for a basic model and over $3,200 for types with ranges on them?

Think about it this way: My thought about this request would be much different if a larger portion of the free market worked in a way in which other people or companies gave away their services and goods for no cost.

Say, if I could walk into a big-box retail store and hypothetically say: “I’d like to use your goods, at my house for an indefinite period of time, in exchange for the CHANCE of me writing about your company on my blog.”

Or, if I could go to the airport and approach a ticket counter for a flight from Seattle to Paris (or Beijing, Hong Kong or Honolulu) and say: “I’d like something that your company values – a flight on one of your airplanes – for free and I might pay you in the form of a blog post, should I decide to write about the experience, aircraft and customer service.”

I’d be shown the door – quite fast.

I don’t have anything against this food supply company or blogger, who was trying to drum up attention.

I’m sure there are some bloggers in the market place who would think that the offer is suitable and accept the request terms. In this case, supply (labor) and demand (the request) would meet at a given point.

In the past, when I was a journalist, I often received unsolicited emails and phone calls from public relations agencies to cover events or products for certain clients. I understand that.

But also, in the old days and even to an extent these days, the sure-fire way to get your message across (in a free market) would be to purchase an advertisement in the good, old mainstream media. Or even in the New Media.

Or, these days, you can even go around the mainstream media and head to Craig’s List or just go viral with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. By the way, this food supply company is using Facebook and Twitter to spread the word.

Now, if the United States was founded on the economic idea that autonomous collectives were sustainable and ideal for communities throughout the country, I’d probably have a different response to this email query.

The exchange of money for goods or services would not be such a high priority under this model. Rather, the well-being of the overall community would have higher value.

But this economic model has been tried in other countries before. The results, well, have been mixed and never really found firm roots in the United States.

At least, what the blogger sent me wasn’t spam.

Oh, and by the way, if you’re a blogger and write about this food supply company (because you’ve read this blog post), send me your URL link and I’ll forward it to the business.

And if you win that cookware worth about $1,295, I’ll have to request a commission of 50 percent.

Why? As a referral commission.

That’s only fair. Right?

Using your half, you can post an eBay note to sell your portion of the cookware.

If you sell your portion for about $650 cash, that’s actually pretty solid compensation for writing about a food supply company and its Web site.

Speaking of cooking supplies, I thought I’d post some photos of what we have.

My brother-in-law is such a considerate guy that he sent my family this black wok (pictured above and below) from China years ago to make sure that we have something reliable to cook with in the United States.

And my aunt gave us these beautiful bowls, complete with images of a Chinese dragon and phoenix on them.

We appreciate the thoughtfulness and kindness of our relatives.

Oh, yes. Since I’m talking about interesting things in life these days, I leave you with this famous clip from Seinfeld – the one in which George sports a wig.

Yes, I understand the issue of using information for free very well.

The best I can say in this case: My site remains free of advertisements and I post my thoughts to continue my creativity and writing, photography and video skills.

And circular thinking, really, is good.

The idea of receiving something for free has been around for centuries. Certainly, I like the idea – and I’m not just talking about the free hug movement.

I mean: Who doesn’t like receiving something – say a new car or clothing - for free?

But the notion seems more fitting for an autonomous collective (especially one depicted by the British comedy group, Monty Python), where a group of people has agreed to provide labor and services for everyone’s well being with the exchange of money lower on the priority list.

You know, that whole theory versus reality continuum.

But the idea of giving away a good or service can baffle in a free market because there are costs to be covered, people to be paid, money that needs to be circulated.

I’m sure there are days when many of us wish our banks would just tell us: We’d like to give you your mortgage for no cost because, well, homes want to be free (and so do homeowners). 

And, as mainstream journalists and others have witnessed in recent years, the notion of free has boomed in stature, at least in the news, entertainment, sporting and information arenas – thanks to low market barriers to creating online content and the explosion of popular social networking sites.

Nearly anyone with Internet access can enter the online world – which is a boon for free expression, art and creativity.

But a Nielsen study recently reported that 85 percent of people surveyed around the world believe that online content should remain free.

The study’s results of giving away content at no direct charge to the end user underscores the rallying cry and reality of many hackers and others seeking online work for no or low cost: That “information wants to be free.”

As John Tierney wrote in The New York Times last month, that idea is being questioned by some who once backed it.

In numeric terms, and extrapolating a figure based on this Nielsen study, how many people around the globe support free online content?

Try about 5.8 billion people, based on an estimate of the world’s population and the 27,000 people surveyed in 52 countries.

One question that needs to be asked is: How can content producers provide online information for no charge at all?

How can they cover their expenses, even their most basic ones? By other means, such as adding Google advertising code to their sites? Or selling actual merchandise or books?

I don’t know if there’s enough advertising to go around to support all those who need support for their online efforts.

I suppose if people who provide online content for free received their university educations, housing and food at no cost, it would be fair for them, with no wage or salary involved, to produce words, video, photos and sound for Internet users.

If we examine history, we see that some organized societies are able to provide relatively free information – but they do not endorse the free market as the United States does.

Try state-run governments – ones that endorse socialism – as ones that can provide information to its people. I remember learning that subscriptions to the Chinese state-run newspaper, the People’s Daily, once were required for offices and factories in the world’s most populous country.

That still may be the case.

Granted, not everyone read that paper and might have opted for articles in other publications that were livelier. But information was being provided for free – thanks to financial support of the Chinese government.

The French news agency, AFP, has received government money from the French government.

I know the idea of news agencies that receive government money is controversial in the United States, given the birth of the republic and the Constitutional underpinnings that the founding fathers wanted.

Then again, I’ve heard of reports noting that around 40,000 journalists have lost jobs in the United States in recent years, including this dispatch from UNITY.

Now, you might be asking one simple question: How can I – the operator of TofuWatch.com - give information and photographs away for free on a commercial-free blog?

Great question!

Well, writing on a regular basis about topics that interest me keeps me engaged and connected to the outside world. It pushes me to think anew, observe and question - or at least try to do so.

I’m willing to make this tradeoff.

Certainly, covering my costs remains important. But the work done on a commercial-free blog is different than the work that would be done at a full-time job.

If not, what would be the difference between a salaried-job and one providing free labor?

Not much, really.

And what I do for this blog is much different than what I did as a traditional journalist.

Also, as the Nielsen study revealed, people showed a low willingness to pay for blogs.

Instead, they were more inclined to pay for theatrical movies, music and games. Perhaps, I should shift my online skills to these areas.

My sense, though, is that specialized blogs, such as TechFlash and TechCrunch, which deal with market intelligence and analysis – which can be “actionable” as federal officials like saying – can fetch money in the free market.

Bloomberg, the news service, realizes that traders and analysts are willing to pay for the financial and economic content that its army of journalists produces daily.

Now, is this idea of free online information sustainable?

In the short term, the online information pool is large enough – given that people are willing to type up their thoughts (say about tofu) for no charge to either participate in free expression or the promotion of an idea, product or company.

From a consumer’s perspective, I have thought about the idea of a new “American price” – meaning anything lower than before – that might emerge as the country leaves The Great Recession.

And the idea of free – as noted in The New Yorker last year – is a hot topic.

Let’s consider it this way: What other goods and services can be lumped into the “free” category?

Should we start having citizen-chefs begin making delicious food at home, then show up at restaurants and give the edibles away for no cost but with business cards?

I’ve noticed that many people are passionate about public education to the point where they believe they have the best ideas for teachers and principals to follow in classrooms.

Should we have citizen-teachers or citizen-principals – instead of the professionals – offer their services for weeks at a time to help children learn?

Citizen-pilots certainly could keep some airline flight costs down but insurance might increase.

I realize that some in the computer, technology and online worlds have embraced open code and sharing in a manner that is remarkable and reminiscent of information sharing in academia.

I like this idea but these people likely have other ways to support this free sharing of research and knowledge.

But the long term sustainability of giving online content away for free becomes much more problematic.

That also depends on what you want: There will be enough people with Internet access to produce content to post and for it to be consumed.

But the production of quality words, images, art and graphics requires skills, time and expertise – all of which need ample amounts of money to support people and technology.

In other words, the demand for free content will remain high.

But the supply of quality information – if that’s what you seek – will evaporate.

And there is an old adage to keep in mind: You get what you pay for.

There is the thought, though, that if some type of payment is required to access online work, online users will just jump to a site that requires no money but has similar or identical information.

We’ve seen how pay walls have fared in the past. Yes, large, mainstream media companies again are considering the pay model.

That model, though, puts greater pressure on those producing the free content – and when you’re doing it for no cost, there is no long-term incentive to do so on a regular basis for decades.

The tricky thing about this Nielsen survey with the 85 percent number is that it could be argued as a purely democratic response from an adequate sample of the world’s population.

If that’s the case – and countries, such as the United States, believe that democratic results should govern direction – then, people essentially are supporting something roiling and restructuring the mainstream news industry.

In other words, if people around the world are voting with their online clicks for free information and opinion, is fact-driven reportage becoming economically irrelevant and unsupportable, though the news can often be helpful?

Or does the public, in general, already hold the view that mainstream journalists – and I once was one of them – bend facts, chase the sensational and misinterpret that they’re only a washing machine that is permanently stuck on spin cycle?

I have heard people describe journalists in this manner. 

Or it is possible that online content creators take other jobs – similar to actors – to cover expenses but, in their free time, create stunning words, reportage and images for Internet consumers.

I don’t know where the idea of free will head in the coming years.

The tradeoff could be this: People want free content but the market for reported pieces by professionals shrinks. People either accept this market change and rely on fewer traditional news outlets.

The pool of free online information might be large because so many people are producing content.

But the pool of fact-driven, first-hand observed information by a group of professionals who can bring a sense of history about a place to online news becomes smaller.

And if people really never were regular consumers of traditional news – say, they were just enamored with opinion on cable stations or busy with daily life - then, they probably never realize what they’re missing and therefore have no need for mainstream journalism.

Or the pendulum could swing back.

After an absence of news and information outlets that try to honestly help a community improve through regular reportage and investigations of public life, people might be willing to open their wallets in a big way.

On this issue, I’m still waiting to see what unfolds.

On a positive note, I’m happy that my former colleagues at InvestigateWest, an independent journalism group, recently received a grant of $100,000 to support their work.

UPDATE: The Online Journalism Review has this piece about the pros and cons of citizen journalists – or citizen communicators, as some are calling them – and their involvement with mainstream news organizations.

But consider these two examples and one column, as published in The New York Times.

I highlight passages here for one simple reason: I think they’re worth keeping in mind – at least for the future.

As we know, the consequences of not keeping lessons in mind can be devastating, as we’ve seen in the nation’s recent housing crisis which triggered other problems and rippled far and wide.

1. THE BORROWING PRACTICES OF GREECE

Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke testified on Capitol Hill Thursday, saying Goldman Sachs was under investigation for its involvement in helping the government of Greece borrow money, the Times reported.

Greece’s financial picture is so tenuous, the Times noted, that government officials must raise $34 billion in the coming months and its economic stability could cause weaker European nations to collapse.

This financial issue just didn’t pop up last year. It apparently stretches back to around 2000.

From the Times:

Greece has suffered from large deficits for years, and until now it seemed as if big banks would always be there to bail it out. As far back as 2000 and 2001, Goldman helped Athens quietly borrow billions to mask its poor finances by creating derivatives that essentially transformed loans into currency trades that Greece did not have to disclose under European rules.

As I understand this paragraph, this move produced weakness in Greece.

And those words are back (and thanks to the Times for these definitions): Derivatives and credit-default swaps.

Bernanke, as quoted by the Times, told federal lawmakers:

Obviously, using these instruments in a way that intentionally destabilizes a company or a country is counterproductive.

And the Securities and Exchange Commission is assisting federal and government officials in the Greece case by looking at, again according to the Times article:

potential abuses and destabilizing effects related to the use of credit-default swaps and other opaque financial products and practices.

OK. Well, we’re playing some ball, here.

I should note that Goldman Sachs declined to comment to the Times but the article talked about a Feb. 21 presentation in which Goldman Sachs reported:

The Greek government has stated (and we agree) that these transactions were consistent with the Eurostat principles governing their use and application at the time.

I’ve always been fascinated when any organization, company or person uses the words “at the time” – or something similar to that phrase.

I’m not an expert on Eurostat, which is Europe’s statistics body, and its rules at that time. But this is certainly fascinating – and a bit unnerving – to watch.

Then again, we’ve seen the ups and downs of the economy on a rollercoaster in recent years.

2. ONE IDEA CONSIDERED TO SAVE HUMMER

What caught my attention in the failed Hummer deal was one idea to make the plan work.

Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Corp., a Chinese company in Sichuan province, with the help of a Hong Kong investor would take the company known for its boxy, military-style sport utility vehicles off the hands of General Motors.

Again, The New York Times noted that there were reports of questions from Chinese regulators but also that financing – Chinese banks are trying to slow down an overheated lending market – was problematic.

The solution?

Go offshore.

Reported the Times:

(Chinese) regulators have informally agreed not to object if Tengzhong makes the purchase through an offshore subsidiary, said another person knowledgeable about the transaction. But if an offshore subsidiary is used, Hummer would not qualify as a Chinese company after the deal and would not be able to open a low-cost assembly plant in China any time soon to supplement production in the United States. China only allows foreign automakers to set up 50-50 joint ventures with Chinese car companies, and each of these deals also requires individual approval from regulators. While Tengzhong has the cash to pay for the Hummer brand, it needs bank financing to operate the division, redesign vehicles and set up new production facilities in China.

Here’s another noteworthy part that reveals sort of the head-scratching nature of this deal. Keep in mind that Chinese banks weren’t entirely supportive of financing this deal.

So, Tengzhong – according to a Times article a few days ago - decided to approach Western banks for loans to support Hummer:

Tengzhong has been desperately trying to persuade Western banks in the last few days to lend it the money to operate Hummer while keeping it outside China, but has found little enthusiasm so far, this person added.

Um, there’s good reason for that.

First, Hummers are pricey – some models sell for over $60,000. Second, well, gas is expensive these days. Hummers are not known for efficient gas mileage. That adds up – in theory – to low sales.

In December 2009, Hummer only sold 325 vehicles, The Associated Press reported. The high in sales occurred in 2006 when about 71,500 Hummers rolled off the lots and into people’s driveways.

By the way, I wrote about a now-closed Hummer tax break that once gave certain people the chance to write off about $38,000. I also posted a blog entry about Hummer when this deal was first announced.

But back to the topic.

First, it’s amazing – but not completely surprising, I suppose – how there was talk to make the deal work by moving Hummer’s ownership headquarters to a third country but still have it backed by Chinese owners who have cash and loans to operate Hummer in China and worldwide.

But then, the potential new Chinese owners – and a businessperson from Hong Kong – would have to go through all of the Chinese regulatory hoops to formally enter the Chinese market to sell the vehicles to the country’s elite or government officials who want a huge sport utility vehicle similar to what U.S. soldiers drive.

Quite possibly, technology transfer could have occurred. It would not surprise me if Chinese officials were interested in seeing what made the civilian Hummer tick.

The other fascinating part of this story is that the Chinese company, Tengzhong, approached Western banks about getting loans to continue Hummer operations.

This is despite the fact that Western banks have undergone implosions of historic proportions – at least in the United States – and are more risk averse these days in order to make sure that their loans are repaid.

General Motors also was selling the Hummer unit largely because of poor sales. Gas remains expensive these days.

I like circular logic.

But this failed deal has the markings of one neighbor agreeing to buy a nearby house in a depressed market for a rock-bottom price but then deciding to go to that owner’s bank to ask for a loan to buy it – and expecting for the loan request to be approved.

Of course, it would have been different had Chinese banks assumed the risk of the Hummer purchase.

In October, when I first wrote about this deal, I said that this marks a shift in how a fast-growing country with capital – in this case, China – can move up the ladder in the global economy.

I still think that in the case of China – but just in other areas. I didn’t realize this back story had developed until it became public.

It also shows that even with impressive gross domestic product growth in China – at least on paper or in graphs – obstacles can still surface in blocking the completion of a business transaction.

3. U.S. HEALTH CARE FROM A JOURNALIST’S VIEW

Like others in the United States, I appreciate having health care insurance. But the litany of rules and decisions can baffle.

That’s why I appreciate Times columnist Nicholas Kristof’s take on the subject. Funny.

Oh, yes.

Since I raised it in the headline, James Bond often asked for Vodka martinis that were shaken not stirred.