The next "Budget Crisis" won't be negotiable...
The Federal Government could learn from Arizona.
The deal-making-as-usual by the standard issue political class of posturing Republicans and Democrats in Washington DC, that held a "down to the last minute" showdown this past weekend, was a mockery to taxpayers. They tried once again to make fools of us. No one really caved and all that happened was a lot of shifting of money and budget figures.
The new State Legislature of Arizona that started this year after the last General Election inherited a budget fiasco due to the tomfoolery of the last Legislature. This month they created a real actual budget that was signed by the Governor. This budget slashes spending and cuts some agencies and services realistically and without sleight of hand shifting of dollars on paper. It also rejects borrowing and recognizes there is a huge shortfall in revenue that will be carried over to the next session of this Legislative Session (Arizona's legislative sessions are two year terms) next year that will have to be dealt with by more cuts. The reasoning is simple: "We ain't got no real money." State revenues are falling and there is no point in creating a budget that continues to spend money that is not coming in.
The next Federal Government budget, even if Bernanke keeps printing phony money, can no longer be a cat and mouse game replete with high drama, back door dealing and accounting gimmicks. That is because we really don't have the revenue to fund a lot of things that the government spends on and it will be worse by then. If tax revenues aren't high enough and since raising taxes only makes an already overtaxed population (yes, the "rich" also) that much poorer, what is there to budget maneuver? And yes again, there will be hue and cry over welfare programs for the "needy," Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, among other things. Repeat: "We ain't got no real money." Nothing adds up to nothing.
If however, the current political class tries those tricks again, as I suspect they might, we would get the government we deserve for voting the jackasses into office. The next budget is not up for high drama and should not be negotiable. If that is what occurs, we would be far better off voting the members of Congress up for reelection out, voting in inexperienced but pragmatic and realistic representatives that reflect us, the real people of America.
4/12/11
Arizona Landscape
Camelback Corridor at 24th St Biltmore Financial District...
Camelback Mountain in the distance
Camelback Mountain in the distance
4/11/11
Economic, Social and Geopolitical
Are Free Markets possible with Big Business?...
It strikes me that long ago Big Business and Big Government created a peaceful co-existence arrangement along with Big Labor Unions out of mutual co-dependence, that a truly free market doesn't exist or is even possible under today's conditions. Our country is a big country and that in itself seems endemic to the nature of it, since we whitewashed our regional differences with pervasive look-alike fast food joints, big box stores and regional offices that serve only the headquarters in New York or Los Angeles. The completion of wiping out of all but the smallest differences in sections of our country occurred in the last 30 to 40 years. Regional variations were a valuable component of free enterprise, since they spurred innovation to meet common demands, adapting variations in providing products and services to suit local needs.
In a 1959 TV interview with an intellectually inferior Mike Wallace, Ayn Rand points out that the Industrialists of the late 1800s and early 1900s were the original collectivists, since they conspired with elected officials and government to elect laws and regulations in their favor. In doing so they began the distortion of markets, making them no longer actually free markets, instead closed ones. Workers in reaction to industrial labor laws in turn created labor unions to conspire with government to enact laws in their favor against the robber barons. The end result has been over decades markets have been altered to resemble more as agreements among large businesses and labor unions operating as collectives.
Businesses operate in their own self-interest to monopolize markets, fending off competition by securing laws in their favor, contracts that shut out potential competitors and broad copyright and patent laws that allow them to over exert rights over potential business adversaries. This has gone on so long it is now accepted as normal practice in commercial enterprise when it is not. Large corporations are experts at this, swallowing up anyone who has a better idea that doesn't violate contract law or a patent. If the potential competitor does not give in, they are harassed and become mired in expensive marketing wars and litigation. Unions are complicit with this because they are now part of the status quo and it is in their favor.
Established business leaders no longer seek to create products in the spirit of improving our lives and making things better. Their co-conspirators are business schools who churn out MBA graduates with uniform thinking of how a business should function with specific marketing mindsets. The marketing mindsets serves only their employers, to sell consumers goods they may or may not need. The quality, innovation, improvement and relevance of goods is not a consideration, they are concerned only with selling the idea of a product and not the worth and value of them in real life application. They are the enemies of free market capitalism.
In turn, their enemy is any change or disruption in the marketplace that may shift the balance out of their favor. Technological change such as the internet and scientific products, such as new medicine, that can easily be produced is an example of this. It is also the cause of the current shift in the economic, social and political in markets and why existing entities are filing lawsuits and counterclaims on new products. The result is Big Business and corporations are doing everything they can, with their government counterparts, to preserve the structure they have spent over a century developing. Due to the laws and regulations they have conspired to distort the bazaars we refer to as markets, they are sometimes temporarily winning. Apple still produces an idea and product and then tightly controls it, suing everyone in sight who has even a vaguely similar idea or product.
The question then is will the mutual aiding and abetting by current dominating large business entities, that contain tacit agreements among themselves, that keep markets under the control of a handful of large companies continue? Will the pharmaceutical industry, with the innovation of science and industry, be able to maintain control within a small group of mega-corporations that allegedly "compete" with each other with a wink and a nod? In order to avoid pure collectivism as promulgated by progressives and unionists, breaking down the lobbies of any existing industry that works to close markets must occur.
When Corporate Republicans talk about being for "free markets" it is as much a joke on the American people as when Democrats state they are for the "common man." The same is true when AT&T says they welcome competition and Non-Governmental Organizations say "let the best social service agency win" when competing for the same government grant money. Disassembling this legacy will be piece by piece at first and will seem both painstakingly frustrating and impossible in the beginning.
Just as the Civil War was followed by a more disrupting Industrial Revolution, shook up the economy and way of life of America, the current economic disruption caused by technological and scientific innovation has the potential to do the same. Our challenge is to bust down the walls built by entrenched business and government. Chipping away the bricks and mortar will be slow at first. We are in the beginning stages of a second wave of a current downturn, which has every signs of being an economic earthquake of epic proportions that in a day, the business and political walls will tumble down. The weakness will be from systemic structural problems, new disruptive technology and scientific entrepreneurs chipping away, culminating in a long period of regrouping of markets. At that time we need to ensure that markets are decentralized again, similar to the way business was once conducted regionally, but on a new and different scale. Small to medium sized businesses must then learn again to compete on an even surface, not comprised by government intervention, to reinvigorate the core of American ideals.
Ayn Rand "Destroying Capitalism from Within"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-lptr_0Xck&feature=channel_video_title
It strikes me that long ago Big Business and Big Government created a peaceful co-existence arrangement along with Big Labor Unions out of mutual co-dependence, that a truly free market doesn't exist or is even possible under today's conditions. Our country is a big country and that in itself seems endemic to the nature of it, since we whitewashed our regional differences with pervasive look-alike fast food joints, big box stores and regional offices that serve only the headquarters in New York or Los Angeles. The completion of wiping out of all but the smallest differences in sections of our country occurred in the last 30 to 40 years. Regional variations were a valuable component of free enterprise, since they spurred innovation to meet common demands, adapting variations in providing products and services to suit local needs.
In a 1959 TV interview with an intellectually inferior Mike Wallace, Ayn Rand points out that the Industrialists of the late 1800s and early 1900s were the original collectivists, since they conspired with elected officials and government to elect laws and regulations in their favor. In doing so they began the distortion of markets, making them no longer actually free markets, instead closed ones. Workers in reaction to industrial labor laws in turn created labor unions to conspire with government to enact laws in their favor against the robber barons. The end result has been over decades markets have been altered to resemble more as agreements among large businesses and labor unions operating as collectives.
Businesses operate in their own self-interest to monopolize markets, fending off competition by securing laws in their favor, contracts that shut out potential competitors and broad copyright and patent laws that allow them to over exert rights over potential business adversaries. This has gone on so long it is now accepted as normal practice in commercial enterprise when it is not. Large corporations are experts at this, swallowing up anyone who has a better idea that doesn't violate contract law or a patent. If the potential competitor does not give in, they are harassed and become mired in expensive marketing wars and litigation. Unions are complicit with this because they are now part of the status quo and it is in their favor.
Established business leaders no longer seek to create products in the spirit of improving our lives and making things better. Their co-conspirators are business schools who churn out MBA graduates with uniform thinking of how a business should function with specific marketing mindsets. The marketing mindsets serves only their employers, to sell consumers goods they may or may not need. The quality, innovation, improvement and relevance of goods is not a consideration, they are concerned only with selling the idea of a product and not the worth and value of them in real life application. They are the enemies of free market capitalism.
In turn, their enemy is any change or disruption in the marketplace that may shift the balance out of their favor. Technological change such as the internet and scientific products, such as new medicine, that can easily be produced is an example of this. It is also the cause of the current shift in the economic, social and political in markets and why existing entities are filing lawsuits and counterclaims on new products. The result is Big Business and corporations are doing everything they can, with their government counterparts, to preserve the structure they have spent over a century developing. Due to the laws and regulations they have conspired to distort the bazaars we refer to as markets, they are sometimes temporarily winning. Apple still produces an idea and product and then tightly controls it, suing everyone in sight who has even a vaguely similar idea or product.
The question then is will the mutual aiding and abetting by current dominating large business entities, that contain tacit agreements among themselves, that keep markets under the control of a handful of large companies continue? Will the pharmaceutical industry, with the innovation of science and industry, be able to maintain control within a small group of mega-corporations that allegedly "compete" with each other with a wink and a nod? In order to avoid pure collectivism as promulgated by progressives and unionists, breaking down the lobbies of any existing industry that works to close markets must occur.
When Corporate Republicans talk about being for "free markets" it is as much a joke on the American people as when Democrats state they are for the "common man." The same is true when AT&T says they welcome competition and Non-Governmental Organizations say "let the best social service agency win" when competing for the same government grant money. Disassembling this legacy will be piece by piece at first and will seem both painstakingly frustrating and impossible in the beginning.
Just as the Civil War was followed by a more disrupting Industrial Revolution, shook up the economy and way of life of America, the current economic disruption caused by technological and scientific innovation has the potential to do the same. Our challenge is to bust down the walls built by entrenched business and government. Chipping away the bricks and mortar will be slow at first. We are in the beginning stages of a second wave of a current downturn, which has every signs of being an economic earthquake of epic proportions that in a day, the business and political walls will tumble down. The weakness will be from systemic structural problems, new disruptive technology and scientific entrepreneurs chipping away, culminating in a long period of regrouping of markets. At that time we need to ensure that markets are decentralized again, similar to the way business was once conducted regionally, but on a new and different scale. Small to medium sized businesses must then learn again to compete on an even surface, not comprised by government intervention, to reinvigorate the core of American ideals.
Ayn Rand "Destroying Capitalism from Within"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-lptr_0Xck&feature=channel_video_title
4/10/11
4/9/11
4/8/11
Writing: Fact and Fiction
It's only words...
They are powerful in the way they are used though.
It's the assembly of how words are laid out that is important. That is true in writing fiction or nonfiction as well as speaking to groups or in conversation.
As units of language words are strung together to make a whole structure; a sentence then also can become a paragraph and paragraphs become essays, blogs, books and so on. Generally words put together come naturally to me, both in writing and speaking. Very often I don't appreciate that and I should since, in my mind anyway, that is the only real talent and skill I have.
It is because of my ability to use words and compile them together to make thoughts, it is also how I construct my world and gather people around me. Whether I realize it or not, consciously or otherwise. The manner in which I write and speak has the effect of either drawing or repelling people to or away from me. I have learned that the hard way over the years.
This concept is not a revelatory groundbreaking idea. The power of words has long been recognized as having significant impact on the way people react to us, which in turn boomerangs and shapes the way we act. The entire effect also is significant to the way we perceive ourselves and how we believe others perceive us. Anyone skilled in communications, psychology and sociology knows this. Generally I am thoughtful towards others, try to remain positive and make others around me comfortable.
On a personal level it is difficult for me to be conscience of that. Although it is inherent in my nature to write and speak well, I am not mindful of that every time I put fingers to keyboard or open my mouth. It is my best asset but can also be my curse. I was reminded of this recently when I reached the end of my rope with a situation and a person. I have a very long patience but beware when I finally do lose it. That is because I also can have a very bad temper, normally kept in check, but when I do lose my patience it leaps forward and I have yet, even this late in life, learned to hold my tongue. Ninety percent of the time I can, it is the ten percent of the time that destroys good I may have done, the person it is directed at and witnesses. It also hurts me not only for reputation reasons, that can usually be repaired but requires a long amount of time and some people never forget it. The damage it causes me is because I feel terrible afterwards.
The way we use words, in writing or speaking, are powerful when linked together to transform any given moment in time our lives. This is not an original idea. When I do harm using words injudiciously, not only do I recognize the damage I have done, it is a compelling time to reaffirm that words are best used to encourage, influence and motivate others. The good news is that words, when used judiciously, can repair damage done and also inspire yourself and others.
They are powerful in the way they are used though.
It's the assembly of how words are laid out that is important. That is true in writing fiction or nonfiction as well as speaking to groups or in conversation.
As units of language words are strung together to make a whole structure; a sentence then also can become a paragraph and paragraphs become essays, blogs, books and so on. Generally words put together come naturally to me, both in writing and speaking. Very often I don't appreciate that and I should since, in my mind anyway, that is the only real talent and skill I have.
It is because of my ability to use words and compile them together to make thoughts, it is also how I construct my world and gather people around me. Whether I realize it or not, consciously or otherwise. The manner in which I write and speak has the effect of either drawing or repelling people to or away from me. I have learned that the hard way over the years.
This concept is not a revelatory groundbreaking idea. The power of words has long been recognized as having significant impact on the way people react to us, which in turn boomerangs and shapes the way we act. The entire effect also is significant to the way we perceive ourselves and how we believe others perceive us. Anyone skilled in communications, psychology and sociology knows this. Generally I am thoughtful towards others, try to remain positive and make others around me comfortable.
On a personal level it is difficult for me to be conscience of that. Although it is inherent in my nature to write and speak well, I am not mindful of that every time I put fingers to keyboard or open my mouth. It is my best asset but can also be my curse. I was reminded of this recently when I reached the end of my rope with a situation and a person. I have a very long patience but beware when I finally do lose it. That is because I also can have a very bad temper, normally kept in check, but when I do lose my patience it leaps forward and I have yet, even this late in life, learned to hold my tongue. Ninety percent of the time I can, it is the ten percent of the time that destroys good I may have done, the person it is directed at and witnesses. It also hurts me not only for reputation reasons, that can usually be repaired but requires a long amount of time and some people never forget it. The damage it causes me is because I feel terrible afterwards.
The way we use words, in writing or speaking, are powerful when linked together to transform any given moment in time our lives. This is not an original idea. When I do harm using words injudiciously, not only do I recognize the damage I have done, it is a compelling time to reaffirm that words are best used to encourage, influence and motivate others. The good news is that words, when used judiciously, can repair damage done and also inspire yourself and others.
4/7/11
4/6/11
Economic, Social and Geopolitical
Does anyone really believe this stock market?
We've surpassed the economic crisis of the real estate boom and crash, related mortgage mess, debt overhang along with high unemployment and have already moved into deeper global problems than many imagined. Earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, New Zealand, Burma with an even more devastating one in Japan accompanied by a tsunami causing highly radioactive water leaking into the ocean.
There are political disruptions all across the Middle East that are not going to be quelled by European nations, the US and NATO bombing Libya. In fact that's the last thing we should be doing, getting involved in "foreign entanglements." We are on the verge, if not already in, the Third World War.
Al of the above significantly involves the supply chain and management of vital parts and goods we need, not to mention food supply that has had a bad crop year due to weather. The only people reaping profits are Midwestern farmers who are doing well on government crop welfare. What all this adds up to is inflation and more inflation. Bernanke and Geithner wanted inflation to pump up the economy on consumption of consumer goods. The result is already beginning to reflect what many predicted, too much inflation on necessary goods.
We are a nation that consumes goods produced by other countries. We manufacture very little anymore and we have trillions of dollars of deficit now and what do we have to show for it? New clothes? Furniture? Lots of fattening snack foods? The vociferous over-printing of money has largely been spent on payments to the low or non-producing sector of the economy. In other words, largely the public sector or in some form of welfare to subprime consumers or subsidizing financial institutions that services them, creating an illusion of a "slow recovery."
The only thing recovering is the cash reserves of private sector companies that they are hoarding because they don't know what the government is going to do next. Individual savers are losing because their cash is becoming inflated and interest rates are for all practical purposes nil. We're rewarding credit spenders and punishing savers.
It is no wonder Ron Paul and others want the Federal Reserve audited. The Treasury and the Fed have also been subsidizing the stock market by buying and selling shares in wholesale blocks. The movement and trends are easy to spot to anyone with a perceptive eye. Aided for good measure by CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, Barrons and the New York Times, among others. To once again state a repeating refrain, the fundamental underpinnings of the economy are not sound. In particular the Gross National Product and employment alongside the unrealistic price to earnings ratios of companies do not bear out the US Stock Market being as inflated and "bullish" as it is.
When the Federal Reserve starts withdrawing support from the Markets, then what? Careful of the shards of glass falling from high rise buildings on Wall Street.
End of rant...
We've surpassed the economic crisis of the real estate boom and crash, related mortgage mess, debt overhang along with high unemployment and have already moved into deeper global problems than many imagined. Earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, New Zealand, Burma with an even more devastating one in Japan accompanied by a tsunami causing highly radioactive water leaking into the ocean.
There are political disruptions all across the Middle East that are not going to be quelled by European nations, the US and NATO bombing Libya. In fact that's the last thing we should be doing, getting involved in "foreign entanglements." We are on the verge, if not already in, the Third World War.
Al of the above significantly involves the supply chain and management of vital parts and goods we need, not to mention food supply that has had a bad crop year due to weather. The only people reaping profits are Midwestern farmers who are doing well on government crop welfare. What all this adds up to is inflation and more inflation. Bernanke and Geithner wanted inflation to pump up the economy on consumption of consumer goods. The result is already beginning to reflect what many predicted, too much inflation on necessary goods.
We are a nation that consumes goods produced by other countries. We manufacture very little anymore and we have trillions of dollars of deficit now and what do we have to show for it? New clothes? Furniture? Lots of fattening snack foods? The vociferous over-printing of money has largely been spent on payments to the low or non-producing sector of the economy. In other words, largely the public sector or in some form of welfare to subprime consumers or subsidizing financial institutions that services them, creating an illusion of a "slow recovery."
The only thing recovering is the cash reserves of private sector companies that they are hoarding because they don't know what the government is going to do next. Individual savers are losing because their cash is becoming inflated and interest rates are for all practical purposes nil. We're rewarding credit spenders and punishing savers.
It is no wonder Ron Paul and others want the Federal Reserve audited. The Treasury and the Fed have also been subsidizing the stock market by buying and selling shares in wholesale blocks. The movement and trends are easy to spot to anyone with a perceptive eye. Aided for good measure by CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, Barrons and the New York Times, among others. To once again state a repeating refrain, the fundamental underpinnings of the economy are not sound. In particular the Gross National Product and employment alongside the unrealistic price to earnings ratios of companies do not bear out the US Stock Market being as inflated and "bullish" as it is.
When the Federal Reserve starts withdrawing support from the Markets, then what? Careful of the shards of glass falling from high rise buildings on Wall Street.
End of rant...
4/5/11
4/4/11
Thinking Out Loud
Being trendy is uncool...
Cool is not being in vogue and anti-cool.
The last thing anyone would call me is trendy but some do call me "cool." Even my twenty something nephews think I'm cool in whatever the vernacular of their generation is. It is an enigma to me how I obtain that assignation, especially since I write phrases like that...
All I can think is that I am called that by some people because I am, I suppose, a classic kind of guy. That is, in several ways, at least. I tend to stick to things that are timeless and "classic" while still always being open to new things. They often become classic. I adopt things a lot of my boomer generation doesn't, such as I'm pretty decent at computer stuff, smartphones, video editing and creating a website blog content. I suppose classic could also mean I'm pretty old for hip stuff even though I don't listen to Classic Rock. It was good then and occasionally good to hear it again but not all the time especially as a radio format. To me that means being stuck in time and I have never liked that, preferring to develop and grow, moving on down the road to the next stop.
Even still, I don't chase trends, know a lot of new music and follow current TV show and movies. I'm not very wired in that way. Mostly I don't seek it out but I do discover new music (to me), for instance Mumford and Sons or The Avett Brothers, through some happy connection. My basic wardrobe hasn't changed much, just updated to suit the times. Also TV has always bored me, my attention span doesn't care for most popular movies and I don't hang out at popular venues to find out what the latest and greatest stuff is. Neither do most of my friends, they must be uncool too.
My conclusion is that although I know my age, I view it as a marker on how far I've come and grown, it doesn't define what I should and shouldn't do. Trendiness though really is for young people and the pretentious in New York City and Los Angeles that like vaporization. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try new things if it suits you. I am open to always learning and trying new stuff if it's interesting and makes sense to me. Maybe being cool is not following the latest new thing and tossing it aside for the next thing that comes along, but adopting what is new that is classic and worth keeping, building upon it and ignoring the rest. Uncool then becomes pursuing up-to-the-minute latest and greatest rage and cool is really being anti-cool.
Cool is not being in vogue and anti-cool.
The last thing anyone would call me is trendy but some do call me "cool." Even my twenty something nephews think I'm cool in whatever the vernacular of their generation is. It is an enigma to me how I obtain that assignation, especially since I write phrases like that...
All I can think is that I am called that by some people because I am, I suppose, a classic kind of guy. That is, in several ways, at least. I tend to stick to things that are timeless and "classic" while still always being open to new things. They often become classic. I adopt things a lot of my boomer generation doesn't, such as I'm pretty decent at computer stuff, smartphones, video editing and creating a website blog content. I suppose classic could also mean I'm pretty old for hip stuff even though I don't listen to Classic Rock. It was good then and occasionally good to hear it again but not all the time especially as a radio format. To me that means being stuck in time and I have never liked that, preferring to develop and grow, moving on down the road to the next stop.
Even still, I don't chase trends, know a lot of new music and follow current TV show and movies. I'm not very wired in that way. Mostly I don't seek it out but I do discover new music (to me), for instance Mumford and Sons or The Avett Brothers, through some happy connection. My basic wardrobe hasn't changed much, just updated to suit the times. Also TV has always bored me, my attention span doesn't care for most popular movies and I don't hang out at popular venues to find out what the latest and greatest stuff is. Neither do most of my friends, they must be uncool too.
My conclusion is that although I know my age, I view it as a marker on how far I've come and grown, it doesn't define what I should and shouldn't do. Trendiness though really is for young people and the pretentious in New York City and Los Angeles that like vaporization. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try new things if it suits you. I am open to always learning and trying new stuff if it's interesting and makes sense to me. Maybe being cool is not following the latest new thing and tossing it aside for the next thing that comes along, but adopting what is new that is classic and worth keeping, building upon it and ignoring the rest. Uncool then becomes pursuing up-to-the-minute latest and greatest rage and cool is really being anti-cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)