20090223
20090213
Senator vs Secretary
Several prominent politicians have given up their Senator status in exchange for positions as Secretary in Obama's Cabinet. I do not understand this as I view it a step down. As a Senator, you are serving the people of your state directly. As a Cabinet Secretary, you are serving the President of the US. Firstly, since I assume most politicians are ego driven, I would have thought being a Senator a more independent and prestigious position. Secondly being in public service I would have thought serving the people directly would be better than serving an individual, even the PotUS. Finally, as a political career move, what have past Secretaries risen to become?
20090209
Reject the Stimulus Package as is
Having listened to Obama on TV encouraging support for the Stimulus package, I have to come out fully against it. He is clearly fear mongering of economic collapse, and thus some action is better than inaction. He never fully explain why the stimulus would create jobs rather than works.
And he is clearly the opposite of W. He speaks a lot but doesn't really say much. No efficiency of words.
Update: sign the petition at NoStimulus
And he is clearly the opposite of W. He speaks a lot but doesn't really say much. No efficiency of words.
Update: sign the petition at NoStimulus
Economic Stimulus: Work vs. Job
This exchange between Steele & Stephanopoulos highlights something that has been adequately addressed by the media's discussion regarding Obama-Democrat's "stimulus/pork package."
When the government spends money on short term projects, such as construction, work is created but not jobs. A job is something is stead work, something you can go to the bank with and use to get credit for a house or a car. A work is a temporary arrangement where you get paid for a limited duration, whether it be picking crops in the field or building a bridge. Any stimulus spending should keep this difference in mind.
The more I think about it, the less it make sense for the Government to spend money as a stimulus. Firstly, it takes money from taxes to spend, and in the process serves as the middle men. Be certain that the money it collects and the money doled out is not one for one. Secondly, the Government consistently acts in the short term, without sufficient thought to long term consequences. The government emphasis on works rather than jobs is a clear example of this. Thirdly, the taxpayer is in a much better position through his or her interaction with out capitalistic economy to direct spending dollars to what he, she, and the community needs as a whole. Fourthly, the increased in government spending for any stimulus package will only drive the deficit up, further limiting the availability of credits to the economy while increasing foreign ownership of our economy.
As such, the government stimulus should primarily be in the form of tax cuts. This will also have the added benefit of forcing the government to trim its budget. The primary spending of the government should be directed toward national defense.
The only stimulus spending at this point that makes sense to me are grants for research (both scientific, industrial and economic) that will lay the foundation for further discoveries.
HT: Right Wing Sparkle
When the government spends money on short term projects, such as construction, work is created but not jobs. A job is something is stead work, something you can go to the bank with and use to get credit for a house or a car. A work is a temporary arrangement where you get paid for a limited duration, whether it be picking crops in the field or building a bridge. Any stimulus spending should keep this difference in mind.
The more I think about it, the less it make sense for the Government to spend money as a stimulus. Firstly, it takes money from taxes to spend, and in the process serves as the middle men. Be certain that the money it collects and the money doled out is not one for one. Secondly, the Government consistently acts in the short term, without sufficient thought to long term consequences. The government emphasis on works rather than jobs is a clear example of this. Thirdly, the taxpayer is in a much better position through his or her interaction with out capitalistic economy to direct spending dollars to what he, she, and the community needs as a whole. Fourthly, the increased in government spending for any stimulus package will only drive the deficit up, further limiting the availability of credits to the economy while increasing foreign ownership of our economy.
As such, the government stimulus should primarily be in the form of tax cuts. This will also have the added benefit of forcing the government to trim its budget. The primary spending of the government should be directed toward national defense.
The only stimulus spending at this point that makes sense to me are grants for research (both scientific, industrial and economic) that will lay the foundation for further discoveries.
HT: Right Wing Sparkle
20090208
Government Bailout & Executive Pay Cap
I am all for the government imposing a cap on executive compensations with regard to salary, bonuses, and buy-outs. Firstly, it only applies to companies accepting government buy-outs and thus the government has a responsibility to see to it that the money is well spent and not wasted. This occurs in most other circumstances of government financial supports whether it be NIH research grants or federal moneys to states. Federal money should always come with restrictions. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, I hope this executive compensation restriction is such that the vast majority of large companies, those that are "too big to fail" would think twice about asking for federal hand-outs. I rather them take a chance on failure. I think this would be better for the companies, the economy, and the tax payers. Now small companies might be tempted to take government money but since our economy is built on the back of small and medium companies, I am fine with this.
20090126
Government & the Economy
I recognize that in difficult economic times, the public expect the government to act. And it would be appropriate for the government to act but clearly not all actions are beneficial.
Firstly, bailing out any commercial entities because they are "too big to fail" is just ridiculous. Spending money, even tax payer money, should be seen as an economic investment for success. Investing money in failing companies is just absurd. I understand the reason is to minimize job lost but in this is a horrible way to achieve this. When you give money to large companies, the company executives are more likely to see the money than the average worker. The government would be better off increasing the money available to unemployment than to give it to failing companies. In addition, by bailing out failing companies, their legacy actions for continued failure delay their necessary demise so that other, smaller companies with better vision and ability can rise. If anything, it should be the ascendant companies that receive federal funds (in terms of tax breaks rather than hand-outs) rather than the descendant companies.
Secondly, the best way to stimulate the economy is to get more money into the economy for circulation. I believe that this is best achieved by giving more money to the tax payers hand. This can be done as either a tax rebate or as unemployment benefits. The individuals are the one best position to decide how to spend money, not the government, and especially not failing companies that are too big to fail.
Thirdly, if the government feels that it is necessary to direct some of the spending themselves, the money would be best spent toward projects that is not likely to cause dependency. Infrastructure projects, while they may be both necessary and desirable, will require long term commitment for upkeep and maintenance. I suggest a combination of small business grants in new scientific or technology fields, as well as education grants as scholarships for students and research grants.
Firstly, bailing out any commercial entities because they are "too big to fail" is just ridiculous. Spending money, even tax payer money, should be seen as an economic investment for success. Investing money in failing companies is just absurd. I understand the reason is to minimize job lost but in this is a horrible way to achieve this. When you give money to large companies, the company executives are more likely to see the money than the average worker. The government would be better off increasing the money available to unemployment than to give it to failing companies. In addition, by bailing out failing companies, their legacy actions for continued failure delay their necessary demise so that other, smaller companies with better vision and ability can rise. If anything, it should be the ascendant companies that receive federal funds (in terms of tax breaks rather than hand-outs) rather than the descendant companies.
Secondly, the best way to stimulate the economy is to get more money into the economy for circulation. I believe that this is best achieved by giving more money to the tax payers hand. This can be done as either a tax rebate or as unemployment benefits. The individuals are the one best position to decide how to spend money, not the government, and especially not failing companies that are too big to fail.
Thirdly, if the government feels that it is necessary to direct some of the spending themselves, the money would be best spent toward projects that is not likely to cause dependency. Infrastructure projects, while they may be both necessary and desirable, will require long term commitment for upkeep and maintenance. I suggest a combination of small business grants in new scientific or technology fields, as well as education grants as scholarships for students and research grants.
20090121
20090120
Thank You President George W. Bush
I believe History will treat you much kinder than your contemporaries have.
Best wishes for your future.
Update: Others are doing it as well here:
20090114
Gaza: Israel vs Hamas
Israel must not relent from elimnating Hamas from Gaza. Victory is militarily possible because Gaza can be blockaded, isolated and surrounded. To allow Hamas to survive will only strengthen it in the long run. Whether Israel can and will do so remains to be seen. Powerline has addition thoughts.
Once Hamas is destroyed Israel must remain and occupy Gaza (as the US did with Iraq). Israel must help the surviving Palestinians rebuild its governmental and social infrastructure. Since The Palestinians have suffered from the inept management under Hamas, there is a sliver of a chance once Hamas is gone, and with Israeli help, Gaza can be rebuilt as a future politically and economically viable Palestinian state. Israel must not give Gaza to Fatah. Fatah is thoroughly corrupt and corruption is the death of any political society. Fortunately there aren't much Fatah left in Gaza thanks to Hamas.
The best chance for a viable Palestinian state is the eradication of Hamas from Gaza.
Once Hamas is destroyed Israel must remain and occupy Gaza (as the US did with Iraq). Israel must help the surviving Palestinians rebuild its governmental and social infrastructure. Since The Palestinians have suffered from the inept management under Hamas, there is a sliver of a chance once Hamas is gone, and with Israeli help, Gaza can be rebuilt as a future politically and economically viable Palestinian state. Israel must not give Gaza to Fatah. Fatah is thoroughly corrupt and corruption is the death of any political society. Fortunately there aren't much Fatah left in Gaza thanks to Hamas.
The best chance for a viable Palestinian state is the eradication of Hamas from Gaza.
20090112
Surviving Horror
This is not meant as a serious post but it does not mean the contents are without application to real life. . In my household we have been on a horror movie bent of late. The perpetrators have been monsters and humans, supernatural and too natural. I have thus decided (like the book on preparing for the Zombie apocalypse) have decided to generate a survival directive for surviving horror (movies).
1. Do not deviate from the original travel plan. This is typically how you are placed within a horror situation to begin with. As a corollary to this directive is that you must travel well armed. No, bullets may not slow spirits, but there are plenty of flesh causing horrors out there that will indeed bleed.
2. Once in horror situations, be prepared to use deadly force. I am not advocating first strike/pre-emption. But if you find the body (or blood stained suggestions of one) of a travel buddy, then all restraint against the use of deadly force should be suspended immediately. Naturally, if you are armed and are at risk of becoming the first victim of the group, by all means pre-empt.
3. Stick together. United you stand, divided you will die. Stragglers will be picked off. Do not investigate anything or anywhere on your own. Do not even go to the bathroom on your own. I recommend a minimum of 3 persons per activity. Say you are going to the bathroom. One person does the business, one keep an eye out in the room, one in the doorway (leave it open) and keep an eye out in the hall/outside. You should also keep 3 for each watch sleep. Teamwork is essential for survival. This would suggest that the size of your over all team should be six, grouped into threes.
4. Believe your friends. When your friend reports seeing something too crazy to be true, take it on face value as being true. No potential threat should be dismissed, every potential intel should be considered. Your enemy cannot be underestimated. Never assume your enemy follows the same code of behaviour as you do, adhere to the same moral code as most might. A corollary of this is that if you yourself saw something too crazy to believe you must tell others of it without fear of dismissal or ridicule. Distrust breaks down the team effectiveness and cohesiveness.
5. Have a plan for actions. Do not wait to be victims. Your plan of actions should be firstly security and ensure survival of the team. Your plan of actions should be secondly about escaping from the current horror situation. This has to be the order rather than the reverse. You will die without the team, there can be no escape alone. Note that all good plans require knowing what the sequence of actions will be (stepwise progression works best) as well as alternative options. No plans, regardless of how good, will be effective without buy-ins from the team. And the combination of action plans + team require defined role for each team members.
6. Have faith. Believing in a higher power/purpose may not save you from a lunatic, but it may against un-natural forces. Even against the mundane, having faith that you will survive provides a positive goal to enact and accomplish your plan of actions. Faith cannot be under-estimated. If you don't already believe, consider starting to believe (there are no atheist in foxholes). A corollary to this is that if you do not already believe, while others do, do not dismiss their faith, instead trust them, trust their faith (see #4 above).
7. Do not believe there is a traitor among you. Doing so will tear the team apart and doom you. If there is a traitor among you then you are doomed already, but no point speeding things up by breaking up your most important resource, your fellow team members. If the evidence become incontroversial that a person is a traitor, and some team members have already died from betrayal, eliminate the traitor. Use deadly force if necessary. Under no circumstances should you continue travel with the traitor as a captive. He/she will certainly seek to escape bondage while with you and cause harm to your team. While not the best of options, leaving the traitor behind bound and silenced may be an alternative. Know though that if found by your enemy, the traitor will certainly act against you. Why is having a traitor means you are likely doomed? Because the team has already been weakened and fractured by the traitor as well as the process of rooting out the traitor. However, you can at least take solace in the fact that nobody likes a traitor, and that in all likelihood the enemy will eliminate the traitor themselves once his/her usefulness has expired.
1. Do not deviate from the original travel plan. This is typically how you are placed within a horror situation to begin with. As a corollary to this directive is that you must travel well armed. No, bullets may not slow spirits, but there are plenty of flesh causing horrors out there that will indeed bleed.
2. Once in horror situations, be prepared to use deadly force. I am not advocating first strike/pre-emption. But if you find the body (or blood stained suggestions of one) of a travel buddy, then all restraint against the use of deadly force should be suspended immediately. Naturally, if you are armed and are at risk of becoming the first victim of the group, by all means pre-empt.
3. Stick together. United you stand, divided you will die. Stragglers will be picked off. Do not investigate anything or anywhere on your own. Do not even go to the bathroom on your own. I recommend a minimum of 3 persons per activity. Say you are going to the bathroom. One person does the business, one keep an eye out in the room, one in the doorway (leave it open) and keep an eye out in the hall/outside. You should also keep 3 for each watch sleep. Teamwork is essential for survival. This would suggest that the size of your over all team should be six, grouped into threes.
4. Believe your friends. When your friend reports seeing something too crazy to be true, take it on face value as being true. No potential threat should be dismissed, every potential intel should be considered. Your enemy cannot be underestimated. Never assume your enemy follows the same code of behaviour as you do, adhere to the same moral code as most might. A corollary of this is that if you yourself saw something too crazy to believe you must tell others of it without fear of dismissal or ridicule. Distrust breaks down the team effectiveness and cohesiveness.
5. Have a plan for actions. Do not wait to be victims. Your plan of actions should be firstly security and ensure survival of the team. Your plan of actions should be secondly about escaping from the current horror situation. This has to be the order rather than the reverse. You will die without the team, there can be no escape alone. Note that all good plans require knowing what the sequence of actions will be (stepwise progression works best) as well as alternative options. No plans, regardless of how good, will be effective without buy-ins from the team. And the combination of action plans + team require defined role for each team members.
6. Have faith. Believing in a higher power/purpose may not save you from a lunatic, but it may against un-natural forces. Even against the mundane, having faith that you will survive provides a positive goal to enact and accomplish your plan of actions. Faith cannot be under-estimated. If you don't already believe, consider starting to believe (there are no atheist in foxholes). A corollary to this is that if you do not already believe, while others do, do not dismiss their faith, instead trust them, trust their faith (see #4 above).
7. Do not believe there is a traitor among you. Doing so will tear the team apart and doom you. If there is a traitor among you then you are doomed already, but no point speeding things up by breaking up your most important resource, your fellow team members. If the evidence become incontroversial that a person is a traitor, and some team members have already died from betrayal, eliminate the traitor. Use deadly force if necessary. Under no circumstances should you continue travel with the traitor as a captive. He/she will certainly seek to escape bondage while with you and cause harm to your team. While not the best of options, leaving the traitor behind bound and silenced may be an alternative. Know though that if found by your enemy, the traitor will certainly act against you. Why is having a traitor means you are likely doomed? Because the team has already been weakened and fractured by the traitor as well as the process of rooting out the traitor. However, you can at least take solace in the fact that nobody likes a traitor, and that in all likelihood the enemy will eliminate the traitor themselves once his/her usefulness has expired.
20081229
Gaza: Israel vs. Hamas & Iran
I am not sure what Israel hope to accomplish against Hamas in Gaza with the current conflict. Israel surely do not want a repeat of the last Lebannon war. Then, it might have tactically weakened Hezbolla but the resultant military stalemate became a political loss of Israel. I am not just sure that Israel can take out Hamas even if Israel take over Gaza. Certainly this does not mean it is worth the effort to inflict massive damage on Hamas.
What is more potentially interesting is that Israel may be, through the attack against Hamas, may actually provoking Iran, Hamas' major backer, into some sort of response. A military response by Iran would certainly justify an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear program.
All this is happening just before Bush leave office (a more supportive PotUS for Israel) and potentially laying the ground works for an Obama administration support.
What is more potentially interesting is that Israel may be, through the attack against Hamas, may actually provoking Iran, Hamas' major backer, into some sort of response. A military response by Iran would certainly justify an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear program.
All this is happening just before Bush leave office (a more supportive PotUS for Israel) and potentially laying the ground works for an Obama administration support.
20081225
20081222
Newscaster
I wonder what it would be like if our newscasters delivered the news like the sportcasters (say from ESPN Sportcenter). The sportcasters are able to be critical of mistakes (as they and newscasters should be) and yet remain cheerful when the right things are done (as they should be but newscasters are not). I understands that world events, economic reports, and crime news are significantly more serious than a sport contest. Yet the dour harping of negatives by newscaster need to be balanced by positive reports.
To some extent, some bloggers ("blogcasters?") already do this. Bill Roggio and his crew certainly have done this very well. Too bad we don't get more of this from the MSM when it comes to news. We only get if from the MSM when it comes to sport news.
To some extent, some bloggers ("blogcasters?") already do this. Bill Roggio and his crew certainly have done this very well. Too bad we don't get more of this from the MSM when it comes to news. We only get if from the MSM when it comes to sport news.
Automaker Bailout
W is using the TARP moneys to bailout the auto industry. It would have been best if no bailout occurs at all. Second best would have been restructuring ala bankruptcy as a precondition for a bailout. But using the TARP at least means no additional new money is being spent by the feds during the whole economic crisis.
20081218
Speed Kills?
Interesting info regarding driving speed and auto accident fatality from Autoblog
The NHTSA undertook a two-and-a-half year study that examined 5,471 injury accidents nationwide in order to figure out how accidents were being caused. Government researchers conducted their own evidence gathering at crash sites in order to establish a first-hand account of causation. What did they find? Among other things, that more drivers crashed as a result of crossing the center line (11%) than as a result of speeding (5%). Speeding, in this case, defined by "too fast for conditions," not necessarily above the posted limit.
In accidents where driver error was the cause, speeding also came in last as a causative: the 8% who drove too fast were tied with the 8% who fell asleep or had heart attacks while driving. What's more, the NHTSA's causation percentages are strikingly similar to the percentages found in an independent study conducted by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. In its study of crashes in 2007, the VDoT found that 2.9% were due to speeding -- dead last -- while 3.8%t were due to drivers falling asleep or falling ill at the tiller.
20081215
Can Google be trusted? No
Google cranks up the Consensus Engine
I know that its signifies. This means that the results of searches will be biased rather than objective. For the users, some searches, likely political or controversial topics, will be less reliable. For the searched, they too will be affected and it will only be a matter of time when this will be influence by money to google.
While not what one would typically think of as a media company, Googles delivery of information to users for both news and entertainment does qualify it as a media company of sort. It has thus acquired the same status as most other Mainstream Media outlets, that of bias driven policies.
What we all need and search for is objective truth. Once that was thought to be probable with google searches. Now that is no longer the case. The solution for now is to go beyond the first 2-3 pages of google search results.
HT: Public Secrets
Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results. It's a historic statement - and nobody has yet grasped its significance.
Not so very long ago, Google disclaimed responsibility for its search results by explaining that these were chosen by a computer algorithm. The disclaimer lives on at Google News, where we are assured that:The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.
I know that its signifies. This means that the results of searches will be biased rather than objective. For the users, some searches, likely political or controversial topics, will be less reliable. For the searched, they too will be affected and it will only be a matter of time when this will be influence by money to google.
While not what one would typically think of as a media company, Googles delivery of information to users for both news and entertainment does qualify it as a media company of sort. It has thus acquired the same status as most other Mainstream Media outlets, that of bias driven policies.
What we all need and search for is objective truth. Once that was thought to be probable with google searches. Now that is no longer the case. The solution for now is to go beyond the first 2-3 pages of google search results.
HT: Public Secrets
20081212
Job Economics
Two interesting reads today regarding jobs and economics. Firstly, a review from the MIT Press on a book entitled "Minimum Wages" by David Neumark and William L. Wascher.
Now complement the above with the following article by C Edmund Wright at American Thinker
Those in government, especially the recently elected administration, just do not seem to understand how economic work. While the government intention may be good, their results is far short of good.
In this book, David Neumark and William Wascher offer a comprehensive overview of the evidence on the economic effects of minimum wages. Synthesizing nearly two decades of their own research and reviewing other research that touches on the same questions, Neumark and Wascher discuss the effects of minimum wages on employment and hours, the acquisition of skills, the wage and income distributions, longer-term labor market outcomes, prices, and the aggregate economy. Arguing that the usual focus on employment effects is too limiting, they present a broader, empirically based inquiry that will better inform policymakers about the costs and benefits of the minimum wage.
Based on their comprehensive reading of the evidence, Neumark and Wascher argue that minimum wages do not achieve the main goals set forth by their supporters. They reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers and tend to reduce their earnings; they are not an effective means of reducing poverty; and they appear to have adverse longer-term effects on wages and earnings, in part by reducing the acquisition of human capital. The authors argue that policymakers should instead look for other tools to raise the wages of low-skill workers and to provide poor families with an acceptable standard of living.
Now complement the above with the following article by C Edmund Wright at American Thinker
When the jobs report for November came out last week, many so-called "experts" were shocked at the massive loss of an estimated 533 thousand jobs. Even a Time /CNN organization called "The Curious Capitalists" were at a loss to explain it.
Let me attempt to help out these "curious capitalists" (though I am still skeptical that anyone working for CNN or Time is either curious or a capitalist). I caused part of this job loss and I know precisely why; the election. The results portend big trouble for small business.
The job destruction process has started. We are about 20% of the way through our ramp down process and on schedule to complete the shut down by spring 2009. Watch the financial news and you will see continued job cuts each month. We are not alone in our strategy. Far from it. Atlas has shrugged all over the country.
Like many business owners, we are no longer willing to take all of the financial and legal risks and put up with all of the aggravation of owning and running a business. Not with the prospects of even higher taxes, more regulation, more litigation and more emboldened bureaucrats on the horizon. Like others we know, we are getting out while the getting is, well, tolerable. Many who aren't getting out are scaling back.
Those in government, especially the recently elected administration, just do not seem to understand how economic work. While the government intention may be good, their results is far short of good.
20081209
Illinois/Chicago Politics
When I was writing my previous post on Anh Cao's election over a corrupt African-American Democrat in a district designed for African-American Democrats, I was heartened that voters were able to reject race-party affiliation to vote out corruption. I wondered whether there might be a culture shift away from the corrupt Bayou politics as usual since hurricane Katrina. I also wondered what could change the corruption of Chicago politics short of a natural disaster that might cause harm to the good folks of Chicago. Well since Chicago is known as the Windy city not from the cold winds from Lake Superior but from the hot air of Chicago politics, today Chicago suffered a wind storm with the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. His attempt to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder is astounding in its outright bald face plain and simple corruption! I hope voters there will take a good look at what they have and vote against corruption. If guilty, it is exceedingly unlikely that Blagojevich only became so corrupt once he became governor, instead with near certainty he enter the office with a flawed and corrupt character, the same character that allowed him to rise in political circles to become governor.
And as Obama really is a product of this same system, it really causes me to wonder what is the link between Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Now more than ever I have questions about Obama's character and his ability to judge character of others he associated with.
BTW, I know the capital of Illinois is not Chicago but Springfield but it really is all about Chicago politics even if it plays in Springfield.
And as Obama really is a product of this same system, it really causes me to wonder what is the link between Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Now more than ever I have questions about Obama's character and his ability to judge character of others he associated with.
BTW, I know the capital of Illinois is not Chicago but Springfield but it really is all about Chicago politics even if it plays in Springfield.
20081208
Automakers Bail-out
The big three US are looking to the US government for cheap loans to continue business as is. This would be a mistake for the automakers, the US government, and ultimately the US taxpayers. The first question to be asked in all this is why are the US automakers having a problem being competitive. In manufacturing there are three factors to being successful: cost efficiency of production, quality of product, and appeal of product. Currently the cost efficiency of production for the US automakers is prohibitive. While it cost the foreign automakers about the same to manufacture automobiles in the US, the big three automakers are burdened by legacy payments to retired United Auto Workers union members. This substantially increased the cost of operation for the big three. While it is not necessarily wrong to guarantee retired workers a pension, it was a poor decision to use operational budget for this rather than set up a separate fund/portfolio to do so. Considering that the quality of US autos have improved significantly in the past decade, as well as the appeal of SUVs and pickup trucks remain high for US automakers (their major products rather than passenger cars) I believe this aspect of cost inefficiency to be the primary factor for the big three financial woes at this point. For the US government to bail out the US automakers as is would only perpetuate a broken system and reset the date of failure. (Didn't we bail out Chrysler in the 80s?)
I see two potential solutions.
Firstly, let the automaker fail. The benefit would be that in the restructuring and reconstruction of the automaker, a better and more efficient company would arise that would then be competitive. This is the most free capitalist approach to the problem and sets the best precedence for other large companies facing similar problems. We cannot be bailing large inept companies out over and over again. There can be no true success without a chance of failure. I believe this to be the superior, though harder, solution. Harder to do as well as harder to suffer through. I am skeptical this option will be chosen.
Secondly, the federal government could assume the retirement cost and thus remove the financial burden from the big three automakers, thus allowing them a chance of being cost efficient again. Naturally this sets a poor precedence for future bailouts. However, this allows a political solution for politicians wanting to, or expected to, do something to help. And this option would certainly be more palatable than a hand out to the big three, whether they take on new management of not.
I see two potential solutions.
Firstly, let the automaker fail. The benefit would be that in the restructuring and reconstruction of the automaker, a better and more efficient company would arise that would then be competitive. This is the most free capitalist approach to the problem and sets the best precedence for other large companies facing similar problems. We cannot be bailing large inept companies out over and over again. There can be no true success without a chance of failure. I believe this to be the superior, though harder, solution. Harder to do as well as harder to suffer through. I am skeptical this option will be chosen.
Secondly, the federal government could assume the retirement cost and thus remove the financial burden from the big three automakers, thus allowing them a chance of being cost efficient again. Naturally this sets a poor precedence for future bailouts. However, this allows a political solution for politicians wanting to, or expected to, do something to help. And this option would certainly be more palatable than a hand out to the big three, whether they take on new management of not.
20081207
Anh "Joseph" Cao for Congress: Louisianna's 2nd
Congress's first Vietnamese-American Anh Cao defeated 9 term incumbent William J Jefferson (Louisiana's first black Congressman since the end of Reconstruction). From Wikipedia
Despite this, Jefferson was re-elected. This might have been due to the fact that the district "was specifically drawn to give African-Americans an electoral advantage and one in which two of every three voters are registered Democrats." This naturally make Congressman Cao's victory all the more interesting.
I also not the current happenings in Louisiana's election since Katrina. Perhaps the inept response to Katrina by the established political class of Louisiana, long known for its corrupt ways, was the final straw. Since then, Bobby Jindal has been elected as America's first Indian-American governor. Cao's election appears to represent a similar dissatisfaction with corrupt politics as usual in the Bayou.
HT: Powerline
On 30 July 2005, Jefferson was videotaped by the FBI receiving $100,000 worth of $100 bills in a leather briefcase at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington, Virginia.[9] Jefferson told an investor, Lori Mody, who was wearing a wire, that he would need to give Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar $500,000 "as a motivating factor" to make sure they obtained contracts for iGate and Mody's company in Nigeria.[10]
New Orleans Mardi Gras float satirizing "Dollar" Bill Jefferson
A few days later, on 3 August 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and, as noted in an 83-page affidavit filed to support a subsequent raid on his Congressional office, "found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers." Serial numbers found on the currency in the freezer matched serial numbers of funds given by the FBI to their informant.
Late on the night of 20 May 2006, FBI agents executed a search warrant[11] at Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building. This is "believed to be the first-ever FBI raid on a Congressional office,"[12] raising concerns that it could "set a dangerous precedent that could be used by future administrations to intimidate or harass a supposedly coequal branch of the government."[13]
Despite this, Jefferson was re-elected. This might have been due to the fact that the district "was specifically drawn to give African-Americans an electoral advantage and one in which two of every three voters are registered Democrats." This naturally make Congressman Cao's victory all the more interesting.
I also not the current happenings in Louisiana's election since Katrina. Perhaps the inept response to Katrina by the established political class of Louisiana, long known for its corrupt ways, was the final straw. Since then, Bobby Jindal has been elected as America's first Indian-American governor. Cao's election appears to represent a similar dissatisfaction with corrupt politics as usual in the Bayou.
HT: Powerline
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)