I have this theory of business success and failure based on empirical evidence. It is that many/most of our great companies have achieved success because of leadership of the founder and early owner/manager. When this “titan of the company” passes away, retires, or moves on, this business often begins a downward slide.
This slide is often in slow motion because the company has momentum that carries it for a while; because of market share; because of sheer size; because of wealth; because of adherence to business model set up by the “titan”; and because of the culture he/she created.
There are exceptions to this theory where a family member(s) keeps it growing or a hand picked exceptional manager(s) take control. Occasionally, you even have a great corporation use its strong position to go beyond what was initially envisioned. But, this is rare.
The more typical examples are the ones who disappear or remain as a mere shadow of their former selves. Some examples are steel industry/ Carnegie Steel; office machines and early computers/ IBM; department stores/ Macy’s, Hudson, Marshall Fields; meat packing companies/ Swift, Armour; airlines/ TWA; airplanes/ Lear; cameras/Poloroid; investment companies/ Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers; etc. We have some in transition now and it will be interesting to watch them: auto companies/ Big 3; computers/ Microsoft; retail/ Wal Mart; fast foods/ McDonald’s; airplanes/ Boeing; etc.
Some of the reasons for initial success of these “titans” are:
* They have a vision for the company that goes way beyond most people’s vision and a passion to pursue it.
* They love a challenge, sheer joy and satisfaction of creating something, often out of nothing.
* The interest of the customer is paramount in their scheme whether it be a product or service they are selling.
* When they are at the top of their game they have the ability to change to meet changing markets.
* They have the willingness to rise to meet competitive challenges and will get pretty aggressive about it.
* They have the courage to take calculated risks and be resilient when those around them get “cold feet.”
* They will encourage acceptance of technological change in their product or service and in the operation of their business – they usually want to be first with these things they feel make sense, not just because they are clever.
* They know that failure of many of their decisions is a given, but they cut their losses quickly, take responsibility for them, and move on with the next plan.
*They usually put a premium on training to improve their employee's skills and knowledge. They want their people to have a "leg up" on their competitors in order to provide better quality and service for their customers.
* They create an environment where their employees know they are appreciated and play a key roll in the success of the company. And, they often rely on a few dedicated, smart, key managers and a cadre of involved, loyal employees.
* They are usually tough task masters who will “get their hands dirty,” work hard, and expect others to do likewise.
* Some of these “titans” were scoundrels, but most possessed great integrity and a compelling interest in the well being of mankind, their country, and their local community. In fact, they often use their wealth to support philanthropic endeavors.
What changes when they step away and their companies get in trouble and/or slide away? Too often, managers take over who do not possess many of the traits cited above. They are often “bean counters” who are mainly concerned with the short term bottom line, personal power and prestige, and personal financial wealth. It is interesting that the “titans” had the wealth, power, and prestige not because that was their goal, but more often almost incidentally as a reward for a job well done.
How do we facilitate this transition of leadership so that many of our successful companies remain viable? The problem with many companies is that shareholders and boards of directors who have the ultimate responsibility in choosing new leadership are primarily interested in their dividend check and maintaining a conservative holding pattern so they choose “bean counters.” Instead, they need to select people with some of the character traits mentioned above along with their degrees and pedigrees. In fact, they need to find leaders who are going to take them for a “ride;” where, if necessary, their company will re-invent itself to meet the challenges of the future. Their buying customer will come first and their employees will come second. The end result of this ride will result in shareholders reaping long term benefits from their investment. Maybe if we had leaders like these and/or find leaders like this we wouldn’t be going through this economic melt down.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Income Taxes, Government Spending, and National Debt
Let’s take a quick look at history of the U.S. Government tax and spending policies, since the relationship of one to the other determines our national debt – the less you tax and the more you spend the higher the national debt.
Since the income tax beginnings in 1913, we’ve had a progressive income tax – the more you make the higher the tax rate – based on the idea that those who make more money are better able to pay and are recipients of more government services. Since coming into existence, the rates have been all over the place down through history. It depends on who was in power and what was going on in our history. From 1913 to 1979 the bottom rate average was about 10% on taxable income up to about $4000. Other than the first 2 years, the top rates averaged about 70% with all kinds of variances in taxable income – over $100,000 to over $5,000,000. From 1940 to 1963 the rates were in the 80% to 90% range for taxable income over $400,000. In the war years of 1944 to 1945 the rate was 94% for taxable income over $200,000. From 1964 to 1980, the rate was in the 70% for taxable income over $200,000. Far cry from today! And this was the period where we had great economic growth in the U.S. It must not have deterred many wealthy from forging ahead.
Let’s concentrate on the last 30 years starting with the last two years of the Carter Administration (1979-80): bottom rate was 14% for taxable income up to $2100 and top rate was 70% for taxable income over $210,000. During his term our national debt went down – 0.4%.
We heard a lot about the Reagan years in the last election and one would think they were a shining example of responsible money management. Taxes did go down. In 1981, bottom bracket went to 11% of taxable income up to around $2200. Top bracket went to 50% with taxable income over about $190,000. His last 3 years bottom rate went up to 15% for taxable income up to about $31,000. Top bracket rate went down to 28% for income over about $31,000. Close to a “flat tax”. But spending was out of hand with record deficits resulting in record increases in national debt – 49% increase his first term and 40.2% increase his second term. A long way from responsible money management.
Then we have George H. Bush’s famous campaign promise, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” When it became obvious that deficit spending was getting out of hand he increased taxes: bottom rate of 15% on taxable income up to about $34,000 and top rate of 31% on taxable income over about $84,000. But, our national debt still increased by 32.7%.
We follow this with 8 years under Clinton – a Democrat billed as a tax-and-spend liberal – where we had smaller deficits and our national debt increased only 13% in his first term and in his second term decreased – 0.2%. This was with a bottom rate of 15% on income up to about $40,500 and a top tax rate of 39.6% for taxable income over about $268.000. Clinton showed, for the first time since Democratic Jimmy Carter, that we could live within our means, ending his second administration with a balanced budget and a surplus.
But, along comes George W. Bush and he did the popular thing with his supporters, not a wise thing, and gave the wealthy a tax break: bottom rate of 15% on a rising taxable income and a top rate of 35% for taxable income over about $330,000. He did this even though the economy was “going south” and we were involved in two mismanaged wars. Our national debt went out of sight – from $5,674T to $10,025T. That is a 77% increase over his 8 years and this figure does not include the recent bail-outs which would push the increase to 100% or doubling of our national debt.
All this leads us to some conclusions:
1. As uncomfortable as taxes are to all of us – they do cut into our income – we can’t keep spending money we don’t take in. At some point we are going to have to “bite the bullet” and pay higher taxes. Our other choice is to ignore it and pass it on to our kids and grandkids. What kind of a legacy is that?
2. In times of war we better be raising taxes.
3. Republican Conservatives, whose mantra is “reduce government spending and lower taxes”, have done us a disservice by following only ½ of their advice.
4. The claim that high taxes destroys incentive for business to invest, grow, and increase employment doesn’t hold water. Look back at the top rates for most of our income tax history and explain to me how we grew to the wealthiest most powerful country in the world with these high top rates.
5. Let's question everyone in our society who lump "small businesses" with the wealthy. It does come down to how you define a "small business." But, I can guarantee you that the vast majority of "small businesses" do not fall in the $250,000 + tax rates on net/taxable income.
6. Raising the taxes of the wealthy to 39.6% when Bush’s 2001 reduction to 35% expires soon shouldn’t be a tough decision. Especially if one adds in the growing lack of sympathy for the way some of our largest corporations have conducted themselves with taxpayer’s bail-out money.
7. There are times to deficit spend and grow our national debt. Unfortunately, now is one of those times. We need to get the economy rolling. Hopefully, it will be short term and the bail-outs are structured so that tax payers have a good chance of getting their money back.
8. Tax and spend policies are some of the toughest jobs of administrations and Congress. It can get real complicated. But, we citizens had better get involved in sorting through the rhetoric to get to the truth. These policies undoubtedly impact us more than anything the government does.
Since the income tax beginnings in 1913, we’ve had a progressive income tax – the more you make the higher the tax rate – based on the idea that those who make more money are better able to pay and are recipients of more government services. Since coming into existence, the rates have been all over the place down through history. It depends on who was in power and what was going on in our history. From 1913 to 1979 the bottom rate average was about 10% on taxable income up to about $4000. Other than the first 2 years, the top rates averaged about 70% with all kinds of variances in taxable income – over $100,000 to over $5,000,000. From 1940 to 1963 the rates were in the 80% to 90% range for taxable income over $400,000. In the war years of 1944 to 1945 the rate was 94% for taxable income over $200,000. From 1964 to 1980, the rate was in the 70% for taxable income over $200,000. Far cry from today! And this was the period where we had great economic growth in the U.S. It must not have deterred many wealthy from forging ahead.
Let’s concentrate on the last 30 years starting with the last two years of the Carter Administration (1979-80): bottom rate was 14% for taxable income up to $2100 and top rate was 70% for taxable income over $210,000. During his term our national debt went down – 0.4%.
We heard a lot about the Reagan years in the last election and one would think they were a shining example of responsible money management. Taxes did go down. In 1981, bottom bracket went to 11% of taxable income up to around $2200. Top bracket went to 50% with taxable income over about $190,000. His last 3 years bottom rate went up to 15% for taxable income up to about $31,000. Top bracket rate went down to 28% for income over about $31,000. Close to a “flat tax”. But spending was out of hand with record deficits resulting in record increases in national debt – 49% increase his first term and 40.2% increase his second term. A long way from responsible money management.
Then we have George H. Bush’s famous campaign promise, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” When it became obvious that deficit spending was getting out of hand he increased taxes: bottom rate of 15% on taxable income up to about $34,000 and top rate of 31% on taxable income over about $84,000. But, our national debt still increased by 32.7%.
We follow this with 8 years under Clinton – a Democrat billed as a tax-and-spend liberal – where we had smaller deficits and our national debt increased only 13% in his first term and in his second term decreased – 0.2%. This was with a bottom rate of 15% on income up to about $40,500 and a top tax rate of 39.6% for taxable income over about $268.000. Clinton showed, for the first time since Democratic Jimmy Carter, that we could live within our means, ending his second administration with a balanced budget and a surplus.
But, along comes George W. Bush and he did the popular thing with his supporters, not a wise thing, and gave the wealthy a tax break: bottom rate of 15% on a rising taxable income and a top rate of 35% for taxable income over about $330,000. He did this even though the economy was “going south” and we were involved in two mismanaged wars. Our national debt went out of sight – from $5,674T to $10,025T. That is a 77% increase over his 8 years and this figure does not include the recent bail-outs which would push the increase to 100% or doubling of our national debt.
All this leads us to some conclusions:
1. As uncomfortable as taxes are to all of us – they do cut into our income – we can’t keep spending money we don’t take in. At some point we are going to have to “bite the bullet” and pay higher taxes. Our other choice is to ignore it and pass it on to our kids and grandkids. What kind of a legacy is that?
2. In times of war we better be raising taxes.
3. Republican Conservatives, whose mantra is “reduce government spending and lower taxes”, have done us a disservice by following only ½ of their advice.
4. The claim that high taxes destroys incentive for business to invest, grow, and increase employment doesn’t hold water. Look back at the top rates for most of our income tax history and explain to me how we grew to the wealthiest most powerful country in the world with these high top rates.
5. Let's question everyone in our society who lump "small businesses" with the wealthy. It does come down to how you define a "small business." But, I can guarantee you that the vast majority of "small businesses" do not fall in the $250,000 + tax rates on net/taxable income.
6. Raising the taxes of the wealthy to 39.6% when Bush’s 2001 reduction to 35% expires soon shouldn’t be a tough decision. Especially if one adds in the growing lack of sympathy for the way some of our largest corporations have conducted themselves with taxpayer’s bail-out money.
7. There are times to deficit spend and grow our national debt. Unfortunately, now is one of those times. We need to get the economy rolling. Hopefully, it will be short term and the bail-outs are structured so that tax payers have a good chance of getting their money back.
8. Tax and spend policies are some of the toughest jobs of administrations and Congress. It can get real complicated. But, we citizens had better get involved in sorting through the rhetoric to get to the truth. These policies undoubtedly impact us more than anything the government does.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Likely Consequences of a big "D" Depression
I’ve heard some fiery declarations from people opposing bail-outs of banks, insurance companies, real estate companies and their borrowers, and certainly the auto companies – “Let them fail;” “Let the shake-up come;” and the most interesting, “What this country needs is a good depression to get it straightened out!”
Most of these people have never been through a big “D” Depression. I’m 66 years old and I haven’t. But, I heard about it constantly from my parents and their contemporaries, and I’ve read about it – it wasn’t a pleasant catharsis! It was ugly for the vast majority of people. One needs to be careful what one wishes for!
As bad as the 1930’s Depression was, I think one today could be even worse. Let’s look at some likely consequences internally and externally and then decide whether it’s better to at least attempt to avoid it or to passively let it happen.
Likely internal consequences:
1. Loss of millions of jobs with the resulting difficulties economically, socially, and psychologically. Great Depression of 30's was 25% unemployment and many who remained employed did so with jobs that provided little more than subsistance living.
2. Young families eagerly wanting to get started in life might have limited opportunities in a depression. They may be forced to grab what they can and hold on where they can.
3. We have a growing number of people – the “Baby Boomers” – retiring. They are intending to live on pensions, 401K’s, IRA’s, mutual funds, stocks and bonds, equity from their homes, etc. A depression will deplete these savings significantly and this age group doesn’t have the luxury of waiting out a long term recovery.
4. The sale of bonds is the typical way for the government to borrow money. A depression will probably call for an even larger national debt because the usual way to respond is for the government to “prime the pump” – spend money. Who will buy these bonds and what will the interest rate be? Our debt has doubled over the last 8 years and at some point people will begin to question the “good faith and credit of the U.S.”
5. Another response from the government in desperate times is to print more money. The progression is likely to be deflation as we spiral down; and then, if and when we start the presses printing new money, high inflation will follow and our money will be worth less and less in buying power.
6. Personal consumer debt is already too high. Who will be left holding the bag for credit card debt, mortgages, car loans, furniture, appliances, etc. when this debt goes unpaid?
7. There are likely to be serious cut-backs in some government programs that many people rely on – education, health care, corporate welfare, farm programs, social welfare, research and development, management of parks and public lands, etc.
8. Many state and local governments could go broke because of reduced tax revenues, and default on bonds they have sold. They will certainly cut services.
9. Retail stores, restaurants, car dealerships, service companies, etc. – “all up and down Main Street” will be hurting if not going under.
10. Our construction industry might be hard hit because capital expenditures at the local, state and national level will be backing off. Unless they are government funded, alternative energy projects might not go forward and infrastructure like roads, bridges, electric grid, ports, dams, airports, railroads/mass transit, etc. might be put on hold.
11. We are pretty stable politically, but radical solutions like socialism might gain credibility because of class warfare and loss of faith in capitalistic system.
12. Private philanthropic assistance programs and faith based relief programs are already pushed to the limit and might not be able to respond adequately as they couldn’t during the Great Depression of the 30’s.
Likely external consequences:
1. To cut costs we may be forced to exit the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan before it is wise to do so. The result could be serious instability in the Middle East with other wars, civil unrest, and disruption of flow of oil. Israeli security would be a major concern.
2. Radical Muslims will take credit for our troubles and taunt us with, “I told you so.” It could enhance recruitment of radicals throughout the growing Muslim world.
3. Chance of an attack on the U.S. and our allies from terrorists could increase because less money might be allocated to security efforts.
4. May have to limit and/or go slow on the rebuilding of the military which will put us in a weakened position to defend our interests in the world.
5. Lack of confidence in the U.S. economy could make us even more vulnerable to disastrous economic instability if creditor nations like China (our biggest lender) cash in their U.S. bonds and/or refuse to lend us more money.
6. Free trade could very well be curtailed with other countries putting restrictions or tariffs on our goods being sold there to protect their own industries. Then, we might reciprocate and a vicious cycle will begin.
7. Because of desperate economic situations in countries throughout the world, some countries could very well turn to dictatorial, fascist, or even communist forms of government. We saw this with Russia, Germany, and Italy in the early 20th century.
8. American private enterprise has spent billions of dollars on capital expenditures in some less than stable countries as we outsourced manufacturing. Some of these countries could very well step in and restrict or nationalize (take over) these facilities to enhance their income. Where would we get our manufactured goods?
9. Ecologically sound practices, which have struggled in good times, may be put way down the list of priorities which would compound destruction of the world environment.
10. Many countries will play the blame game pointing to our failures and excesses as the epicenter of world economic instability. Efforts to improve our relationship with the world to create a functioning global economy might be hindered.
It is a sobering list and it is undoubtedly incomplete. Not all of these problems may develop, but conventional wisdom suggests otherwise. If we can develop processes/programs that could avoid it, it would be in our best interest to do so. Economic strength is paramount to our security.
Most of these people have never been through a big “D” Depression. I’m 66 years old and I haven’t. But, I heard about it constantly from my parents and their contemporaries, and I’ve read about it – it wasn’t a pleasant catharsis! It was ugly for the vast majority of people. One needs to be careful what one wishes for!
As bad as the 1930’s Depression was, I think one today could be even worse. Let’s look at some likely consequences internally and externally and then decide whether it’s better to at least attempt to avoid it or to passively let it happen.
Likely internal consequences:
1. Loss of millions of jobs with the resulting difficulties economically, socially, and psychologically. Great Depression of 30's was 25% unemployment and many who remained employed did so with jobs that provided little more than subsistance living.
2. Young families eagerly wanting to get started in life might have limited opportunities in a depression. They may be forced to grab what they can and hold on where they can.
3. We have a growing number of people – the “Baby Boomers” – retiring. They are intending to live on pensions, 401K’s, IRA’s, mutual funds, stocks and bonds, equity from their homes, etc. A depression will deplete these savings significantly and this age group doesn’t have the luxury of waiting out a long term recovery.
4. The sale of bonds is the typical way for the government to borrow money. A depression will probably call for an even larger national debt because the usual way to respond is for the government to “prime the pump” – spend money. Who will buy these bonds and what will the interest rate be? Our debt has doubled over the last 8 years and at some point people will begin to question the “good faith and credit of the U.S.”
5. Another response from the government in desperate times is to print more money. The progression is likely to be deflation as we spiral down; and then, if and when we start the presses printing new money, high inflation will follow and our money will be worth less and less in buying power.
6. Personal consumer debt is already too high. Who will be left holding the bag for credit card debt, mortgages, car loans, furniture, appliances, etc. when this debt goes unpaid?
7. There are likely to be serious cut-backs in some government programs that many people rely on – education, health care, corporate welfare, farm programs, social welfare, research and development, management of parks and public lands, etc.
8. Many state and local governments could go broke because of reduced tax revenues, and default on bonds they have sold. They will certainly cut services.
9. Retail stores, restaurants, car dealerships, service companies, etc. – “all up and down Main Street” will be hurting if not going under.
10. Our construction industry might be hard hit because capital expenditures at the local, state and national level will be backing off. Unless they are government funded, alternative energy projects might not go forward and infrastructure like roads, bridges, electric grid, ports, dams, airports, railroads/mass transit, etc. might be put on hold.
11. We are pretty stable politically, but radical solutions like socialism might gain credibility because of class warfare and loss of faith in capitalistic system.
12. Private philanthropic assistance programs and faith based relief programs are already pushed to the limit and might not be able to respond adequately as they couldn’t during the Great Depression of the 30’s.
Likely external consequences:
1. To cut costs we may be forced to exit the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan before it is wise to do so. The result could be serious instability in the Middle East with other wars, civil unrest, and disruption of flow of oil. Israeli security would be a major concern.
2. Radical Muslims will take credit for our troubles and taunt us with, “I told you so.” It could enhance recruitment of radicals throughout the growing Muslim world.
3. Chance of an attack on the U.S. and our allies from terrorists could increase because less money might be allocated to security efforts.
4. May have to limit and/or go slow on the rebuilding of the military which will put us in a weakened position to defend our interests in the world.
5. Lack of confidence in the U.S. economy could make us even more vulnerable to disastrous economic instability if creditor nations like China (our biggest lender) cash in their U.S. bonds and/or refuse to lend us more money.
6. Free trade could very well be curtailed with other countries putting restrictions or tariffs on our goods being sold there to protect their own industries. Then, we might reciprocate and a vicious cycle will begin.
7. Because of desperate economic situations in countries throughout the world, some countries could very well turn to dictatorial, fascist, or even communist forms of government. We saw this with Russia, Germany, and Italy in the early 20th century.
8. American private enterprise has spent billions of dollars on capital expenditures in some less than stable countries as we outsourced manufacturing. Some of these countries could very well step in and restrict or nationalize (take over) these facilities to enhance their income. Where would we get our manufactured goods?
9. Ecologically sound practices, which have struggled in good times, may be put way down the list of priorities which would compound destruction of the world environment.
10. Many countries will play the blame game pointing to our failures and excesses as the epicenter of world economic instability. Efforts to improve our relationship with the world to create a functioning global economy might be hindered.
It is a sobering list and it is undoubtedly incomplete. Not all of these problems may develop, but conventional wisdom suggests otherwise. If we can develop processes/programs that could avoid it, it would be in our best interest to do so. Economic strength is paramount to our security.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Bail-out Issue
When it comes to bail-outs, I think one standard the public should agree on is that tax money should not be wasted by “giving” money to banks, insurance companies, the auto industry or whoever lines up with their hand out. Management and share holders of these corporations have done little to convince the public of their ability to run these corporations. I think bail-outs should involve loans and/or ownership stakes where the government has input in decision making, even to the point of restructuring. And, to protect the tax payer, the government should have the first right to recover money if these companies go into receivership. There should be binding agreements established prior to money given where incremental goals and time limits are clearly stated. If the bail-outs work, loans will be paid back with interest and/or stock sold on the market place at market price. We do not want these to become long term relationships.
Management and stockholders of these private enterprises have “screwed up”, pure and simple! We should be encouraging and maybe even requiring selective leadership changes with no “golden parachutes” or “bonuses” paid to those ousted. Why should we give billions to management groups and stockholders who have already demonstrated they have been ineffective leaders while skimming millions off the top for personal gain.
The auto industry, made up of the “Big Three,” is the example for this week. They have squandered the favored position they once held on sales of vehicles, they haven’t adjusted to changes in the market place to keep their companies at the leading edge, and in fact, they haven’t even kept up. This slide has been going on for 35+ years. There have been some favorable strides made recently, but I think it is too little and too late. One has to wonder how far along they really are when they are wanting to use bail-out money for capital expenditures like re-tooling for more efficient engines. They should have made those investments when they were flush. I have to believe there are people in this industry who know the business, have vision, and can do better – a serious talent search needs to be conducted with the risk that some wrong choices will be made before success is achieved. How many generals did we go through before we found David Petraeus in the Iraqi War?
Unfortunately, the blame game includes the American public because of our buying habits. There is need for full sized PU’s and vans for work vehicles and always will be. But, we’ve had a hard time weaning ourselves from large, gas guzzling vehicles for general transportation which sends mixed signals to manufacturers.
In addition, part of the problem is the high cost of labor and fringe benefits, including generous pension plans, unions have negotiated over the years in the auto industry. Personally, I hold management, not labor, responsible for this problem. Management and share holders signed these contracts because they were making good money during some of these years and they could pass the costs on to the consumer. The cumulative affect of these contracts adds up and they should have seen that they were not sustainable over the long run. How many employees have you met who think they are “overpaid and under worked?” Unions are always going to seek higher wages, more fringe benefits, and better retirement programs – it’s what they do. Many employees live “pay check to pay check” and, when they see huge profits, unfathomable salaries, and life styles of these “rich” managers and shareholders rubbed in their noses, they are going to want a bigger piece of the pie – their attitude is “Who really builds these cars anyway?”
New contracts will have to be negotiated with labor for lower wages, fringe benefits, and pension programs. Expanded unemployment benefits, retraining programs, and relocation costs should be part of the bail-out program because thousands of skilled employees will probably lose their jobs permanently with the restructuring. Those left working should be paid lower, but “decent wages.” A really tough issue will be pension payments for those already retired. I have confidence that union leadership is pragmatic enough to know that these negotiations are coming. They may talk tough at the outset, but changes are going to have to come if the auto industry is to be revitalized.
Our other choice might be to let this “house of cards” fall around our ears. I’m afraid that might lead to a Deep Depression (big D’s). With resources, skills, potential wealth, can do entrepreneurial spirit, and work ethic we would come out of this eventually. But, I’m concerned that with this approach, the rich, having deep resources, will survive and very likely prosper; the poor will grow immeasurably; and the middle-class might be flat out destroyed. This would make us vulnerable in a multitude of ways internally and externally. I don’t think a truly free-market, democratic society can survive long without a strong middle class made up of small business owners and employees with good paying jobs. A substantial number of these should be in domestic manufacturing.
Therefore, I think the best choice is a carefully crafted bail-out with adequate oversight and a limited time frame. I hope that future generations of business leaders will dedicate themselves to never allowing this onus to fall on them again.
Management and stockholders of these private enterprises have “screwed up”, pure and simple! We should be encouraging and maybe even requiring selective leadership changes with no “golden parachutes” or “bonuses” paid to those ousted. Why should we give billions to management groups and stockholders who have already demonstrated they have been ineffective leaders while skimming millions off the top for personal gain.
The auto industry, made up of the “Big Three,” is the example for this week. They have squandered the favored position they once held on sales of vehicles, they haven’t adjusted to changes in the market place to keep their companies at the leading edge, and in fact, they haven’t even kept up. This slide has been going on for 35+ years. There have been some favorable strides made recently, but I think it is too little and too late. One has to wonder how far along they really are when they are wanting to use bail-out money for capital expenditures like re-tooling for more efficient engines. They should have made those investments when they were flush. I have to believe there are people in this industry who know the business, have vision, and can do better – a serious talent search needs to be conducted with the risk that some wrong choices will be made before success is achieved. How many generals did we go through before we found David Petraeus in the Iraqi War?
Unfortunately, the blame game includes the American public because of our buying habits. There is need for full sized PU’s and vans for work vehicles and always will be. But, we’ve had a hard time weaning ourselves from large, gas guzzling vehicles for general transportation which sends mixed signals to manufacturers.
In addition, part of the problem is the high cost of labor and fringe benefits, including generous pension plans, unions have negotiated over the years in the auto industry. Personally, I hold management, not labor, responsible for this problem. Management and share holders signed these contracts because they were making good money during some of these years and they could pass the costs on to the consumer. The cumulative affect of these contracts adds up and they should have seen that they were not sustainable over the long run. How many employees have you met who think they are “overpaid and under worked?” Unions are always going to seek higher wages, more fringe benefits, and better retirement programs – it’s what they do. Many employees live “pay check to pay check” and, when they see huge profits, unfathomable salaries, and life styles of these “rich” managers and shareholders rubbed in their noses, they are going to want a bigger piece of the pie – their attitude is “Who really builds these cars anyway?”
New contracts will have to be negotiated with labor for lower wages, fringe benefits, and pension programs. Expanded unemployment benefits, retraining programs, and relocation costs should be part of the bail-out program because thousands of skilled employees will probably lose their jobs permanently with the restructuring. Those left working should be paid lower, but “decent wages.” A really tough issue will be pension payments for those already retired. I have confidence that union leadership is pragmatic enough to know that these negotiations are coming. They may talk tough at the outset, but changes are going to have to come if the auto industry is to be revitalized.
Our other choice might be to let this “house of cards” fall around our ears. I’m afraid that might lead to a Deep Depression (big D’s). With resources, skills, potential wealth, can do entrepreneurial spirit, and work ethic we would come out of this eventually. But, I’m concerned that with this approach, the rich, having deep resources, will survive and very likely prosper; the poor will grow immeasurably; and the middle-class might be flat out destroyed. This would make us vulnerable in a multitude of ways internally and externally. I don’t think a truly free-market, democratic society can survive long without a strong middle class made up of small business owners and employees with good paying jobs. A substantial number of these should be in domestic manufacturing.
Therefore, I think the best choice is a carefully crafted bail-out with adequate oversight and a limited time frame. I hope that future generations of business leaders will dedicate themselves to never allowing this onus to fall on them again.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Lower Speed Limits
I recently (11-13-08) read an article in the Wichita Eagle entitled, “Idea to lower speed limits runs out of gas”, by David Klepper.
I was disappointed in the decision and the way the decision was apparently made. The Kansas Energy Council dropped proposed recommendations for lowering speed limits and proposed recommendations to increase speed limit enforcement and raise fines for speeding.
The article indicated that the Council received comments from 138 people and 103 opposed the move. And our local State Senator, Jay Emler, R. Lindsborg, as member of the Council said, “The constituents I’ve talked to are just adamantly opposed.” Whoa here, an important decision affecting the whole State was decided by 103 negative comments and some constituents members talked to – that is a little scary.
Senator Emler is also credited with suggesting that the proposal needed to pass the Legislature, where it likely would have been a nonstarter.
I’d like to know who these 103 powerful people were and who Senator Emler talked to – hopefully it wasn’t just members of trucker lobby?
The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph – each 5 mph over 60 is like adding an extra 30 cents to the cost of every gallon of gas. That is a pretty substantial savings for all of us. And, maybe more importantly, a significant savings on use of fossil fuels which we all should be willing to consider.
“Speed kills” – enough said.
Wear and tear on vehicles and roads was not discussed, but I would guess that along with weight and weather, speed makes a difference.
I think it is interesting to figure the time difference at different speeds. In a 30 mile interstate trip going 60 mph vs. 70 mph, the time difference is about 4 1/4 minutes. With a 60 mile trip the time difference is about 8 1/2 minutes. With a 300 mile trip the difference is about 42 minutes. I don’t consider these differences significant vs.what one gains. I understand that it would be an issue for over the road truckers. But, actually, these time differences probably wouldn’t be as stated above in that it is nearly impossible to average 70 mph on most trips.
Personally, I’d be willing to accept the following, not because I like it, but because it seems to me a pretty painless way for each of us to sacrifice to reduce dependence on foreign oil:
60 mph on interstates – with 10% grace.
55 mph on 2 lane hard surface roads – with 10% grace.
50 mph on gravel roads.
Leaving each town, city, and county to set lower ones in their jurisdiction.
If the State Legislature decides that these reductions don’t make sense and/or the majority of the driving public in Kansas don’t want these reductions that is fine with me. I can keep up with most or choose to do my part in saving money and resources on my own.
However, our form of government is a republic. We elect legislators to go to Topeka and decide the best course for our State – to lead. Sometimes they might have to step up and do what’s best even if it is not popular, especially if it saves lives, money, and resources. But, to hide behind “the old saw”, “the people have spoken,” let it be more than 103 negative comments and the word of a few constituents. If they want to avoid “tough calls” maybe we should use scientific polls or have special elections (we are getting close to being able to doing this quickly and easily with computer age) to make legislative decisions. I hope we never do that, but if electability is the key factor in decision making, maybe we should.
I was disappointed in the decision and the way the decision was apparently made. The Kansas Energy Council dropped proposed recommendations for lowering speed limits and proposed recommendations to increase speed limit enforcement and raise fines for speeding.
The article indicated that the Council received comments from 138 people and 103 opposed the move. And our local State Senator, Jay Emler, R. Lindsborg, as member of the Council said, “The constituents I’ve talked to are just adamantly opposed.” Whoa here, an important decision affecting the whole State was decided by 103 negative comments and some constituents members talked to – that is a little scary.
Senator Emler is also credited with suggesting that the proposal needed to pass the Legislature, where it likely would have been a nonstarter.
I’d like to know who these 103 powerful people were and who Senator Emler talked to – hopefully it wasn’t just members of trucker lobby?
The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph – each 5 mph over 60 is like adding an extra 30 cents to the cost of every gallon of gas. That is a pretty substantial savings for all of us. And, maybe more importantly, a significant savings on use of fossil fuels which we all should be willing to consider.
“Speed kills” – enough said.
Wear and tear on vehicles and roads was not discussed, but I would guess that along with weight and weather, speed makes a difference.
I think it is interesting to figure the time difference at different speeds. In a 30 mile interstate trip going 60 mph vs. 70 mph, the time difference is about 4 1/4 minutes. With a 60 mile trip the time difference is about 8 1/2 minutes. With a 300 mile trip the difference is about 42 minutes. I don’t consider these differences significant vs.what one gains. I understand that it would be an issue for over the road truckers. But, actually, these time differences probably wouldn’t be as stated above in that it is nearly impossible to average 70 mph on most trips.
Personally, I’d be willing to accept the following, not because I like it, but because it seems to me a pretty painless way for each of us to sacrifice to reduce dependence on foreign oil:
60 mph on interstates – with 10% grace.
55 mph on 2 lane hard surface roads – with 10% grace.
50 mph on gravel roads.
Leaving each town, city, and county to set lower ones in their jurisdiction.
If the State Legislature decides that these reductions don’t make sense and/or the majority of the driving public in Kansas don’t want these reductions that is fine with me. I can keep up with most or choose to do my part in saving money and resources on my own.
However, our form of government is a republic. We elect legislators to go to Topeka and decide the best course for our State – to lead. Sometimes they might have to step up and do what’s best even if it is not popular, especially if it saves lives, money, and resources. But, to hide behind “the old saw”, “the people have spoken,” let it be more than 103 negative comments and the word of a few constituents. If they want to avoid “tough calls” maybe we should use scientific polls or have special elections (we are getting close to being able to doing this quickly and easily with computer age) to make legislative decisions. I hope we never do that, but if electability is the key factor in decision making, maybe we should.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Liberals vs. Conservatives
This dichotomy between liberals and conservatives has always been interesting to me. Especially since the designation “liberal” has become in some peoples mind repugnant.
How did that happen when one looks at the history of our country?
Our Founding Fathers, so revered by today’s conservatives, were anything but conservative! They were liberals, who evolved into radicals, and eventually became revolutionaries. The Declaration of Independence is a revolutionary document pure and simple. The conservatives in the late 18th century were Tories, supporters of England, who thought it reckless, foolish, and criminal to advocate breaking away from England. Their philosophy was to maintain the status quo and follow the “law-of-the-land.”
The U.S. Constitution was a liberal and even a radical document. We had a constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which established the original states as the base of power. Our present constitution changed that, giving extraordinary power to the national government at the expense of the states. The battle for ratification of this new constitution was a bitter, hard fought battle with conservatives opposing it. It barely passed.
There was a propensity for our country’s liberal thinking, early leaders to loosely interpret the U.S. Constitution. Establishment of the National Bank and other Hamiltonian actions solidified the financial structure of the new nation. The conservatives eventually won out and the bank was dropped 40 years later, but it had done its job. Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory had no basis in the Constitution and was opposed by conservatives. John Adam’s last minute appointment of liberal thinking Chief Justice John Marshall, resulted in broadened powers of the federal judiciary. Marshall’s court set precedent for the courts to “weigh in” on any case they choose where the interpretation of the constitution is an issue.
We could provide many other examples of our liberal thinking Founding Fathers “bending” the U.S. Constitution to serve the needs of a growing and changing nation. In fact, Thomas Jefferson advocated this need for change when he wrote, “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, not of right.” (He considered 19 yrs. a generation.)
If one moves ahead through the 19th and 20th centuries we have a rather long list of government actions that came about because of liberal thinking including:
*Social Security
*Medicare
*Anti-trust legislation
*Legal recognition of labor unions along with things like 8 hr. working day, safe working conditions, minimum wage, workers compensation, unemployment benefits, etc.
*Environmental protection laws
*Establishment of National Parks, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management, to oversee our public lands.
*Welfare system including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunch, rent subsidies, etc.
*Farm Bills alleged to support the family farm and improve productivity of agriculture including subsidies, crop insurance, price supports, production controls, disaster relief, soil conservation, county extension service, etc.
*Funds with accompanying rules and regulations for building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure.
*Student loans, loan guarantees, and grants for post high school education.
*Peace Corps
*FEMA to provide disaster relief
*Rules and regulations to prevent abuse from financial institutions – not too successful lately because of de-regulation.
This list can go on and on. These liberal programs and laws are not in the U.S. Constitution, do expand the role of the national government, and do cost tax dollars. For the most part, they were strongly opposed by conservatives.
It is unfair to suggest that conservatives are wrong in all cases – they weren’t and aren’t. They need to raise questions; serve as “devils advocates;” suggest changes to existing programs that have merit but are not accomplishing their intended goal; and work to eliminate programs and laws that have proven to be failures. We should not assume that conservatives are only obstructionists in efforts to move the country forward. They have played and need to continue to play an important role in seeking to solve problems, which often means change.
Nor should we assume that all liberals are big spenders, pushing constantly for higher taxes and bigger government – this is just campaign rhetoric. It might be better to characterize liberals as seeking appropriate spending, a “fair” tax structure, and carefully crafted government to protect, enhance, and grow our country – change that works.
Neither we nor the media should get in the habit of maligning, belittling, or diminishing liberals or conservatives. These competing philosophies should constantly be debating the best course for our nation, but in a respectful, constructive, and yes, even courteous manner.
How did that happen when one looks at the history of our country?
Our Founding Fathers, so revered by today’s conservatives, were anything but conservative! They were liberals, who evolved into radicals, and eventually became revolutionaries. The Declaration of Independence is a revolutionary document pure and simple. The conservatives in the late 18th century were Tories, supporters of England, who thought it reckless, foolish, and criminal to advocate breaking away from England. Their philosophy was to maintain the status quo and follow the “law-of-the-land.”
The U.S. Constitution was a liberal and even a radical document. We had a constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which established the original states as the base of power. Our present constitution changed that, giving extraordinary power to the national government at the expense of the states. The battle for ratification of this new constitution was a bitter, hard fought battle with conservatives opposing it. It barely passed.
There was a propensity for our country’s liberal thinking, early leaders to loosely interpret the U.S. Constitution. Establishment of the National Bank and other Hamiltonian actions solidified the financial structure of the new nation. The conservatives eventually won out and the bank was dropped 40 years later, but it had done its job. Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory had no basis in the Constitution and was opposed by conservatives. John Adam’s last minute appointment of liberal thinking Chief Justice John Marshall, resulted in broadened powers of the federal judiciary. Marshall’s court set precedent for the courts to “weigh in” on any case they choose where the interpretation of the constitution is an issue.
We could provide many other examples of our liberal thinking Founding Fathers “bending” the U.S. Constitution to serve the needs of a growing and changing nation. In fact, Thomas Jefferson advocated this need for change when he wrote, “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, not of right.” (He considered 19 yrs. a generation.)
If one moves ahead through the 19th and 20th centuries we have a rather long list of government actions that came about because of liberal thinking including:
*Social Security
*Medicare
*Anti-trust legislation
*Legal recognition of labor unions along with things like 8 hr. working day, safe working conditions, minimum wage, workers compensation, unemployment benefits, etc.
*Environmental protection laws
*Establishment of National Parks, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management, to oversee our public lands.
*Welfare system including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunch, rent subsidies, etc.
*Farm Bills alleged to support the family farm and improve productivity of agriculture including subsidies, crop insurance, price supports, production controls, disaster relief, soil conservation, county extension service, etc.
*Funds with accompanying rules and regulations for building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure.
*Student loans, loan guarantees, and grants for post high school education.
*Peace Corps
*FEMA to provide disaster relief
*Rules and regulations to prevent abuse from financial institutions – not too successful lately because of de-regulation.
This list can go on and on. These liberal programs and laws are not in the U.S. Constitution, do expand the role of the national government, and do cost tax dollars. For the most part, they were strongly opposed by conservatives.
It is unfair to suggest that conservatives are wrong in all cases – they weren’t and aren’t. They need to raise questions; serve as “devils advocates;” suggest changes to existing programs that have merit but are not accomplishing their intended goal; and work to eliminate programs and laws that have proven to be failures. We should not assume that conservatives are only obstructionists in efforts to move the country forward. They have played and need to continue to play an important role in seeking to solve problems, which often means change.
Nor should we assume that all liberals are big spenders, pushing constantly for higher taxes and bigger government – this is just campaign rhetoric. It might be better to characterize liberals as seeking appropriate spending, a “fair” tax structure, and carefully crafted government to protect, enhance, and grow our country – change that works.
Neither we nor the media should get in the habit of maligning, belittling, or diminishing liberals or conservatives. These competing philosophies should constantly be debating the best course for our nation, but in a respectful, constructive, and yes, even courteous manner.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Where we go from here - from to 2008 to 2016!
We will have a Democratic Administration and a Democratic Congress initially during this period. The U.S. electorate has spoken! We all need to bring a positive attitude to the challenge. Change is coming – President elect Obama has promised it. Each of us owes it to ourselves to write out our own laundry list, post it somewhere obvious, and then hold the newly elected officials accountable. I’m taking my list down and having it laminated; and often, over the years, I am going to judge this new Administration and Congress against it. Here is my list:
1. Fix the economy including:
a. Banks functioning again and properly regulated to prevent future
abuses. Infusion of capital to get them going but done in such a way
that tax dollars have the chance to be recovered and/or make a gain.
b. Some intelligent, “tough love” solution to the real estate crisis
where the government doesn’t end up holding the bag. There are
people who will have to “take the hit” for their unethical lending
practices and their undisciplined borrowing practices.
c. Under no circumstances should CEO’s and share holders of the
above failed financial institutions walk away from this mess with
money in their pockets.
d. Encourage the market system to get up and running with a
renewed entrepreneurial spirit heading toward full production
while keeping corporate welfare minimal.
e. Strive for full employment with decent paying jobs which will
result in revitalization of the middle class. Use incentives from the
government to maintain and add to domestic manufacturing jobs.
2. Begin working toward energy independence. If existing energy companies would choose to be part of this transition, it could be a shining example of how a partnership between innovative, entrepreneurial private enterprise and govenment involvement can accomplish security for this country and set an example for the world.
3. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly and ASAP. But, never forget to provide needed assistance to our veterans for the service they have given to our country.
4. Rebuild and reconfigure our military to be leaner, stronger, quicker, and more deadly.
5. Provide for national security domestically and abroad in a sensible fashion – I’m tired of taking my shoes off at the airport. Support our police and enforcement capabilities.
6. Begin rebuilding our transportation infrastructure using mass transportation wherever it makes sense.
7. Revitalize our public school system to bring our students to top rankings in the world.
8. Restore confidence in our nation internationally with a clear policy of where and how we will act and react in the world.
9. Provide health care for all citizens and eligible legal immigrants in this country.
10. Use a scalpel to cut unnecessary government programs and spending. This will be a huge undertaking because bureaucrats are all convinced that their program is essential. It will cause many changes in the look of our government and much “gnashing of teeth.” Included in this is elimination of earmarks. All legislation needs to be introduced by sponsor(s) as separate bills, and votes, “yea and nay,” recorded – no “pork” tag on’s.
11. Restore financial viability of our entitlement programs for at least 20 to 30 years down the road - should be redone by each generation.
12. Constantly rework our social welfare system to make sure that we don’t create a welfare class moving from one generation to another, insist that they work and/or educate themselves out of poverty, and encourage them with hope of a better life for themselves and their children if they will do their fair share. Even then, recognize that there are some in our society who are so handicapped, ill, and incapable of helping themselves that we will need to provide the basic necessities of life. This last issue is a natural fit for faith based assistance.
13. Protect our environment by constantly thinking “green” and acting “green”. Encourage and provide incentives for conservation (like high mileage vehicles and energy efficient construction); wise use of our limited natural resources; plus, protection and careful multi-use of our public lands.
14. Appoint highly qualified moderate judges as openings occur.
15. Adequately fund necessary and common sense regulation, inspection, and oversight agencies including the likes of food inspection, FDA, OSHA, FAA, Environmental Protection, etc., etc.
16. Work towards eliminating illegal immigration.
I want each of these things addressed, some started, and a few accomplished and I will be looking to see that it is done in a fiscally responsible manner. Because we are in a serious financial crisis and involved in two wars we are going to have some short term deficit spending because we need to “prime the pump” of the economy and pay for the wars and rebuilding of a ravaged military. I don’t expect to see a balance budget for up to 8 years and some of these things will only be a work in progress in 8 years. But, I want to see incremental progress and most of these things can be relatively easily measured.
Once things “start rolling” (when that is will be hotly debated), increases in taxes will be required to maintain the momentum. We cannot keep running up debt and who better to begin bringing it down than the generation that created it?
My list might be different from yours and we should and/or Congress and the Administration should discuss it. But, I think most would agree when they look at this list, or one of their own, that the government is the only entity that can do these things. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think an unfettered, unregulated private enterprise system can do this, or that States can do these things. How many crashes and crises do we have to experience before we admit that the government must be involved? Now, what is the extent and nature of that involvement? That is what the public debate should be all about over the next 8 years or more – probably forever. We can never build utopia, only work towards it; need for change is constant, and it is foolish and wasteful for us to pine for days gone by; we just need to get busy and “build a better mouse trap.”
1. Fix the economy including:
a. Banks functioning again and properly regulated to prevent future
abuses. Infusion of capital to get them going but done in such a way
that tax dollars have the chance to be recovered and/or make a gain.
b. Some intelligent, “tough love” solution to the real estate crisis
where the government doesn’t end up holding the bag. There are
people who will have to “take the hit” for their unethical lending
practices and their undisciplined borrowing practices.
c. Under no circumstances should CEO’s and share holders of the
above failed financial institutions walk away from this mess with
money in their pockets.
d. Encourage the market system to get up and running with a
renewed entrepreneurial spirit heading toward full production
while keeping corporate welfare minimal.
e. Strive for full employment with decent paying jobs which will
result in revitalization of the middle class. Use incentives from the
government to maintain and add to domestic manufacturing jobs.
2. Begin working toward energy independence. If existing energy companies would choose to be part of this transition, it could be a shining example of how a partnership between innovative, entrepreneurial private enterprise and govenment involvement can accomplish security for this country and set an example for the world.
3. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly and ASAP. But, never forget to provide needed assistance to our veterans for the service they have given to our country.
4. Rebuild and reconfigure our military to be leaner, stronger, quicker, and more deadly.
5. Provide for national security domestically and abroad in a sensible fashion – I’m tired of taking my shoes off at the airport. Support our police and enforcement capabilities.
6. Begin rebuilding our transportation infrastructure using mass transportation wherever it makes sense.
7. Revitalize our public school system to bring our students to top rankings in the world.
8. Restore confidence in our nation internationally with a clear policy of where and how we will act and react in the world.
9. Provide health care for all citizens and eligible legal immigrants in this country.
10. Use a scalpel to cut unnecessary government programs and spending. This will be a huge undertaking because bureaucrats are all convinced that their program is essential. It will cause many changes in the look of our government and much “gnashing of teeth.” Included in this is elimination of earmarks. All legislation needs to be introduced by sponsor(s) as separate bills, and votes, “yea and nay,” recorded – no “pork” tag on’s.
11. Restore financial viability of our entitlement programs for at least 20 to 30 years down the road - should be redone by each generation.
12. Constantly rework our social welfare system to make sure that we don’t create a welfare class moving from one generation to another, insist that they work and/or educate themselves out of poverty, and encourage them with hope of a better life for themselves and their children if they will do their fair share. Even then, recognize that there are some in our society who are so handicapped, ill, and incapable of helping themselves that we will need to provide the basic necessities of life. This last issue is a natural fit for faith based assistance.
13. Protect our environment by constantly thinking “green” and acting “green”. Encourage and provide incentives for conservation (like high mileage vehicles and energy efficient construction); wise use of our limited natural resources; plus, protection and careful multi-use of our public lands.
14. Appoint highly qualified moderate judges as openings occur.
15. Adequately fund necessary and common sense regulation, inspection, and oversight agencies including the likes of food inspection, FDA, OSHA, FAA, Environmental Protection, etc., etc.
16. Work towards eliminating illegal immigration.
I want each of these things addressed, some started, and a few accomplished and I will be looking to see that it is done in a fiscally responsible manner. Because we are in a serious financial crisis and involved in two wars we are going to have some short term deficit spending because we need to “prime the pump” of the economy and pay for the wars and rebuilding of a ravaged military. I don’t expect to see a balance budget for up to 8 years and some of these things will only be a work in progress in 8 years. But, I want to see incremental progress and most of these things can be relatively easily measured.
Once things “start rolling” (when that is will be hotly debated), increases in taxes will be required to maintain the momentum. We cannot keep running up debt and who better to begin bringing it down than the generation that created it?
My list might be different from yours and we should and/or Congress and the Administration should discuss it. But, I think most would agree when they look at this list, or one of their own, that the government is the only entity that can do these things. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think an unfettered, unregulated private enterprise system can do this, or that States can do these things. How many crashes and crises do we have to experience before we admit that the government must be involved? Now, what is the extent and nature of that involvement? That is what the public debate should be all about over the next 8 years or more – probably forever. We can never build utopia, only work towards it; need for change is constant, and it is foolish and wasteful for us to pine for days gone by; we just need to get busy and “build a better mouse trap.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
