Basic Rules
November 19, 2008
Bailout Follow-Up
Just a quick one today. I ran across this article written by Mitt Romney discussing the auto bailout. He does have a first hand perspective considering his ties to Michigan, and as he talks about in the article, his father's involvement in the automotive industry. I agree with what he says. It would be better to let the Big Three work out their problems without money being thrown at them.
November 18, 2008
Auto Bailout
Our nation is obviously in economic turmoil beyond what many of us are used to seeing. There have been dips and short recessions in the past, but all signs now point to a prolonged recession. I am glad the government is concerned with keeping our economy stable since a deep recession or a depression could take a long time to recover from. I do have a problem with some of the tactics that are being used.
The first major bailout was the rebate checks for us consumers. It seems like it was a good idea, but the timing was a little late since many people were already starting to drown in debt. I won’t complain too much about that. Good idea; late execution perhaps, but it is not always easy to know in advance how to boost the economy.
The second major bailout was aimed at the banks and I’ll tie in AIG here. A significant amount of Americans savings has been at risk from the falling stock market and failing banks. Something had to be done. I won’t argue that issue. What I don’t agree with is the speed with which a “solution” was made in the government. It seemed like between the failed bailout and the approved bailout only two weeks of serious thought by government officials was put into it. Quick execution is important, but…two weeks to pledge $700 Billion in what will likely become tax payer money? And I thought it was rash to buy a used car on the spot. I don’t feel like the members of congress and the House of Representatives really put enough time into figuring out the best way to use the bailout money, nor in how to regulate or oversee its use. The government leaders are already becoming concerned that the money is not being used for the intended purpose. Instead of extending credit to more customers it is feared that banks are using some of the money to hedge for future losses and even pay executive bonuses. I oppose most bailouts anyway because if the banks or companies were being unwise with the funds or business practices before the bailout, why would I believe that they will magically start making wise decisions? It just doesn’t happen. All companies are built knowing there is an element of risk to running a business. If the government is always there to fix the problems caused by mismanagement, there is very little incentive for a company to strive to always use the wisest business practices. Some will argue that it isn’t the banks’ fault because the mortgage crisis caused it. Ummm…who makes the terms of mortgages again? Who is liable to screen candidates and determine credit-worthiness? Oh yeah…the banks. They failed…if so many Americans’ savings weren’t at risk I would say the whole idea of the bank bailout was foolish. As it is, it turns out to be a necessary evil that is probably being abused anyway.
The bailout that really upsets me is the talk that is going on about a U.S. automaker bailout. First I will say that I feel sympathy for the many workers that would be affected by the collapse of the U.S. auto industry. I know it reaches much farther than the big three automakers. There are many companies whose sole business is supplying various components to the big three automakers. My argument is not with them, although…there is a saying about eggs and baskets…
To see two articles discussing this bailout follow these links:
Americans Uneasy over Bailout for Automakers
GOP To Detroit: Drop Dead
My argument starts like this: GM, Ford, and Chrysler have had over 40 years to respond to the presence of Japanese (and other countries’) cars here in the US. I concentrate on Japan because by volume and sales dollars they pose the largest threat to the US automakers. In 40 years all three have failed to update their manufacturing techniques and archaic use of union workers to be able to compete with their Japanese counterparts. It’s ridiculous. Toyota is known as one of the foremost companies in production efficiency and technology. Good for Toyota. What’s ridiculous is that Toyota does not hide its techniques. It’s not a secret. They teach seminars, write books, and allow plant tours, all to let the world see their world class production techniques. In 40 years GM, Ford, and Chrysler couldn’t have made more progress toward super high efficiency production?
That’s not the only weakness of the Big Three. I am admittedly anti-union. I think that in the past unions did a great deal to improve working conditions. Now, however I feel like we have advanced beyond the use of unions. There is enough government regulation of work conditions to protect us as workers. The unions need to fade out and allow the free market to determine wages and benefits. The only people really benefitting from unions now are the union organizers who are pocketing a chunk of the union dues. Without union interference the U.S. automakers would be able to remain competitive with the Japanese automakers at least with the labor costs. Many Japanese cars are made here in the U.S., so it’s not like our country has a disadvantage in manufacturing costs. The Japanese makers specifically build in non-union infested areas. They don’t want to have unions decide how to run their business, yet they still attract enough labor to build their cars. They must be paying fair market wages.
All three American automakers have had significant ups and downs in their financials over the last decade. Some of those correspond to general economic swings. Others are because of poor decisions on the part of the automakers’ management. Each insisted on keeping huge trucks as their primary business while the Japanese automakers continued to improve their small economical cars. They still made trucks and SUVs that consumers want, but with a lot more restraint than their American counterparts.
An argument can also be made that the auto industry is not the only one suffering in this economic downturn. Many industries are hurting. The government can’t give money to every company that is having a hard time. Economic downturns will inevitable weed out week companies. It is unfortunate that this can have such a large affect on many Americans. My opinion is that we need to let some companies be purged before they can be a parasite in the long term. If they can reorganize and come back as a strong competitor, I think it is great. I don’t want the American industry to go away necessarily, but I do want it to be here because it is competitive, not because I donated tax money to them. They talk about the bailout programs being loans, but I believe they will end up being taxpayer debts because bailing out the automakers will be more likely to delay their demise than to effect a meaningful change.
Coming from a younger generation I am increasingly alarmed that the generation before me, those in office particularly, is so eager to throw money at companies who have a track record of poor management. As the federal deficit grows the hope of decreasing taxes in the future becomes much dimmer. I don’t even care if taxes were to remain the same as they are right now, but the government is setting us up to make it a necessity to raise taxes to fund these poorly thought out programs. Please stop! I’ll be writing my representatives to plead with them to vote down an automotive bailout. It’s not helping my economy, it’s setting it up for failure.
The first major bailout was the rebate checks for us consumers. It seems like it was a good idea, but the timing was a little late since many people were already starting to drown in debt. I won’t complain too much about that. Good idea; late execution perhaps, but it is not always easy to know in advance how to boost the economy.
The second major bailout was aimed at the banks and I’ll tie in AIG here. A significant amount of Americans savings has been at risk from the falling stock market and failing banks. Something had to be done. I won’t argue that issue. What I don’t agree with is the speed with which a “solution” was made in the government. It seemed like between the failed bailout and the approved bailout only two weeks of serious thought by government officials was put into it. Quick execution is important, but…two weeks to pledge $700 Billion in what will likely become tax payer money? And I thought it was rash to buy a used car on the spot. I don’t feel like the members of congress and the House of Representatives really put enough time into figuring out the best way to use the bailout money, nor in how to regulate or oversee its use. The government leaders are already becoming concerned that the money is not being used for the intended purpose. Instead of extending credit to more customers it is feared that banks are using some of the money to hedge for future losses and even pay executive bonuses. I oppose most bailouts anyway because if the banks or companies were being unwise with the funds or business practices before the bailout, why would I believe that they will magically start making wise decisions? It just doesn’t happen. All companies are built knowing there is an element of risk to running a business. If the government is always there to fix the problems caused by mismanagement, there is very little incentive for a company to strive to always use the wisest business practices. Some will argue that it isn’t the banks’ fault because the mortgage crisis caused it. Ummm…who makes the terms of mortgages again? Who is liable to screen candidates and determine credit-worthiness? Oh yeah…the banks. They failed…if so many Americans’ savings weren’t at risk I would say the whole idea of the bank bailout was foolish. As it is, it turns out to be a necessary evil that is probably being abused anyway.
The bailout that really upsets me is the talk that is going on about a U.S. automaker bailout. First I will say that I feel sympathy for the many workers that would be affected by the collapse of the U.S. auto industry. I know it reaches much farther than the big three automakers. There are many companies whose sole business is supplying various components to the big three automakers. My argument is not with them, although…there is a saying about eggs and baskets…
To see two articles discussing this bailout follow these links:
Americans Uneasy over Bailout for Automakers
GOP To Detroit: Drop Dead
My argument starts like this: GM, Ford, and Chrysler have had over 40 years to respond to the presence of Japanese (and other countries’) cars here in the US. I concentrate on Japan because by volume and sales dollars they pose the largest threat to the US automakers. In 40 years all three have failed to update their manufacturing techniques and archaic use of union workers to be able to compete with their Japanese counterparts. It’s ridiculous. Toyota is known as one of the foremost companies in production efficiency and technology. Good for Toyota. What’s ridiculous is that Toyota does not hide its techniques. It’s not a secret. They teach seminars, write books, and allow plant tours, all to let the world see their world class production techniques. In 40 years GM, Ford, and Chrysler couldn’t have made more progress toward super high efficiency production?
That’s not the only weakness of the Big Three. I am admittedly anti-union. I think that in the past unions did a great deal to improve working conditions. Now, however I feel like we have advanced beyond the use of unions. There is enough government regulation of work conditions to protect us as workers. The unions need to fade out and allow the free market to determine wages and benefits. The only people really benefitting from unions now are the union organizers who are pocketing a chunk of the union dues. Without union interference the U.S. automakers would be able to remain competitive with the Japanese automakers at least with the labor costs. Many Japanese cars are made here in the U.S., so it’s not like our country has a disadvantage in manufacturing costs. The Japanese makers specifically build in non-union infested areas. They don’t want to have unions decide how to run their business, yet they still attract enough labor to build their cars. They must be paying fair market wages.
All three American automakers have had significant ups and downs in their financials over the last decade. Some of those correspond to general economic swings. Others are because of poor decisions on the part of the automakers’ management. Each insisted on keeping huge trucks as their primary business while the Japanese automakers continued to improve their small economical cars. They still made trucks and SUVs that consumers want, but with a lot more restraint than their American counterparts.
An argument can also be made that the auto industry is not the only one suffering in this economic downturn. Many industries are hurting. The government can’t give money to every company that is having a hard time. Economic downturns will inevitable weed out week companies. It is unfortunate that this can have such a large affect on many Americans. My opinion is that we need to let some companies be purged before they can be a parasite in the long term. If they can reorganize and come back as a strong competitor, I think it is great. I don’t want the American industry to go away necessarily, but I do want it to be here because it is competitive, not because I donated tax money to them. They talk about the bailout programs being loans, but I believe they will end up being taxpayer debts because bailing out the automakers will be more likely to delay their demise than to effect a meaningful change.
Coming from a younger generation I am increasingly alarmed that the generation before me, those in office particularly, is so eager to throw money at companies who have a track record of poor management. As the federal deficit grows the hope of decreasing taxes in the future becomes much dimmer. I don’t even care if taxes were to remain the same as they are right now, but the government is setting us up to make it a necessity to raise taxes to fund these poorly thought out programs. Please stop! I’ll be writing my representatives to plead with them to vote down an automotive bailout. It’s not helping my economy, it’s setting it up for failure.
October 17, 2008
PETA
This week PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has been in several headlines I have either heard or read. Now don’t get me wrong, I think animals should be treated well, but the nature of the headlines really bothers me and I feel like PETA should really evaluate their tactics.
Headline # 1: Got Autism? Recently many parents with autistic children have heard rumors that leaving milk out of their diets may help relieve the autism. From what I can tell this is based mostly on rumors and not actual research. Moreover, no one knows if it is actually helping autism, or simply relieving some of the symptoms (such as constipation and diarrhea). Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great idea to relieve kids of these terribly uncomfortable conditions. My beef (no pun intended) is that PETA is linking milk to causing autism. Maybe that wasn’t their intent, but the ad is pretty blunt. See the following articles to see that:
1. Not enough research has done to make this connection. Diet Study
2.Gluten (which comes from wheat, among other things) is also on the list of nutrients that are suspected to have adverse effects on people with autism. Gluten
If we are going to tell people not to use dairy because of autism shouldn’t we also tell them to avoid gluten based products? Please PETA, don’t ignore the lack of research and use rumors to support your campaign.
Headline #2: Ben & Jerry’s PETA sent a letter requesting that Ben & Jerry’s use human breast milk to make their ice cream. Excuse me? So instead of treating cows poorly, we should treat women like cows? What will we do for the babies who already need breast milk and don’t get it? Not to mention the gross factor. The thought of consuming breast milk…that’s just not on my list of things I’m OK with. PETA: Please continue fighting for humane treatment of cows, but don’t replace that with weird ideas that just don’t make sense. I don’t care if some boutique restaurant in Switzerland thinks it’s a good idea; it’s not.
Headline # 3: Shane Victorino-Phillies Now, first I’ll say I’m not a Phillies fan, and too bad they’re going so far this year, but…C’mon. PETA is upset because Shane Victorino said his favorite dish includes Spam. I don’t like Spam either. I just don’t like how PETA conducts its business. Among the reasons PETA lists for being upset are that the pigs used to make spam are treated poorly. OK, I can see the point. But, Shane Victorino could eat crickets, frogs, and spiders and it doesn’t matter. He is free to eat a food that is common in his native Hawaii. PETA also expressed disappointment because “[PETA] once named Philadelphia's Citizens Bank Ballpark the most vegetarian-friendly in the major leagues.” (see above article) I didn’t know that baseball players chose their teams based on PETA’s rankings of the ballparks. I also didn’t know that baseball players weren’t allowed to have a favorite food that PETA doesn’t approve of. Shane Victorino isn’t a villain (except maybe for helping the Phillies make it to the World Series ;) ).
In summary, PETA: Keep up the hard work trying to convince manufacturers to treat animals humanely. I applaud and respect people who have a deep respect for God’s creatures. I also appreciate that you are standing up for something that is important to you. On the other hand, please consider that you can’t use poor research, human exploitation, or create villains out of normal people to further your cause. Maybe your old tactics of uncovering horrible practices doesn’t have the effect that it used to, and I can understand trying to find creative ways to get the word out, but use some discretion when trying to expand your creativity. Instead of making me sympathetic for your cause I get frustrated by lame ideas that don’t make real sense.
Headline # 1: Got Autism? Recently many parents with autistic children have heard rumors that leaving milk out of their diets may help relieve the autism. From what I can tell this is based mostly on rumors and not actual research. Moreover, no one knows if it is actually helping autism, or simply relieving some of the symptoms (such as constipation and diarrhea). Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great idea to relieve kids of these terribly uncomfortable conditions. My beef (no pun intended) is that PETA is linking milk to causing autism. Maybe that wasn’t their intent, but the ad is pretty blunt. See the following articles to see that:
1. Not enough research has done to make this connection. Diet Study
2.Gluten (which comes from wheat, among other things) is also on the list of nutrients that are suspected to have adverse effects on people with autism. Gluten
If we are going to tell people not to use dairy because of autism shouldn’t we also tell them to avoid gluten based products? Please PETA, don’t ignore the lack of research and use rumors to support your campaign.
Headline #2: Ben & Jerry’s PETA sent a letter requesting that Ben & Jerry’s use human breast milk to make their ice cream. Excuse me? So instead of treating cows poorly, we should treat women like cows? What will we do for the babies who already need breast milk and don’t get it? Not to mention the gross factor. The thought of consuming breast milk…that’s just not on my list of things I’m OK with. PETA: Please continue fighting for humane treatment of cows, but don’t replace that with weird ideas that just don’t make sense. I don’t care if some boutique restaurant in Switzerland thinks it’s a good idea; it’s not.
Headline # 3: Shane Victorino-Phillies Now, first I’ll say I’m not a Phillies fan, and too bad they’re going so far this year, but…C’mon. PETA is upset because Shane Victorino said his favorite dish includes Spam. I don’t like Spam either. I just don’t like how PETA conducts its business. Among the reasons PETA lists for being upset are that the pigs used to make spam are treated poorly. OK, I can see the point. But, Shane Victorino could eat crickets, frogs, and spiders and it doesn’t matter. He is free to eat a food that is common in his native Hawaii. PETA also expressed disappointment because “[PETA] once named Philadelphia's Citizens Bank Ballpark the most vegetarian-friendly in the major leagues.” (see above article) I didn’t know that baseball players chose their teams based on PETA’s rankings of the ballparks. I also didn’t know that baseball players weren’t allowed to have a favorite food that PETA doesn’t approve of. Shane Victorino isn’t a villain (except maybe for helping the Phillies make it to the World Series ;) ).
In summary, PETA: Keep up the hard work trying to convince manufacturers to treat animals humanely. I applaud and respect people who have a deep respect for God’s creatures. I also appreciate that you are standing up for something that is important to you. On the other hand, please consider that you can’t use poor research, human exploitation, or create villains out of normal people to further your cause. Maybe your old tactics of uncovering horrible practices doesn’t have the effect that it used to, and I can understand trying to find creative ways to get the word out, but use some discretion when trying to expand your creativity. Instead of making me sympathetic for your cause I get frustrated by lame ideas that don’t make real sense.
October 14, 2008
California Proposition 8
My first post touches a subject that has been heating up in California for quite some time, but has become even more important since May of this year. The event that caused the escalation was the California Supreme Court's overturning of the citizen's previous vote updating the California constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. While I have no problem with gays receiving many civil rights, such as workplace benefits, I don't agree with recognizing gay unions as being equal to heterosexual marriages.
In the original vote in 2000, 61% of California voters voted to have marriage defined as being between a man and a woman. Prop 8
That link is the California Voter guide for the Proposition 8, the current proposition which would restore the California constitution to the wording that existed before 4 judges outvoted 3 judges to have it changed. The text of the judges' decision can be found here: Ruling
On page 6 of the ruling, the consenting judges say that each person should have the right to share his or her life with the person they choose as "an officially recognized and protected family" with the same rights and privileges as any others. It also states as one right "if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family." My main argument is with this point. At our very core, biologically speaking, a gay couple would be unable to bear children. I know that there are heterosexual couples who cannot have children due to natural factors, but in a gay relationship the "norm" is to not be able to have children naturally. Only because a significant amount of money has been invested into medical technology can gays "conceive." Beyond that, they are left with the option of adopting children, but again that option is only a result of heterosexual couples conceiving and being unwilling or unable to keep the child. At the deepest scientific level gay couples cannot have children of their own. A core purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children. That cannot happen naturally in a gay union.
Another big issue dealing with SSM in California is that the judges had no right to overrule the people's decision as J. Corrigan (one dissenting judge) concluded "If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find it's expression at the ballot box."
That already happened. The majority already spoke, but what has happened since then is atrocious. The minority has gone out of their way to label the majority as bigots and haters of equality. I think the loud minority needs to consider that just because they feel like they can make us all grasp their viewpoint, doesn't make it right. Since when did American Democracy force the majority to accept changes to the longstanding beliefs we still hold?
I know those supporting SSM will argue that gays deserve rights just as minorities do. I think that is where a distinction must be made. I understand that (a very small percentage of) people are born with gay tendencies. I also believe that many people "become" gay because of a variety of factors. In my opinion the largest factor for people changing their sexual orientation is Hollywood. Laugh if you will, but TV has glorified the gay lifestyle and tried so hard to make everyone think that it is "fun and hip" to be gay, that it is starting to have real effects in society. I have a real problem being forced to accept something where the TV studios are trying to push it on us, or use it to increase ratings. Are we going to legalize drugs because a few people use them and MTV videos make it look like awesome people use drugs?
As far as religious implications, for thousands of years our written records have declared that a marriage is between a man and a woman. How can we let the developments of the last few years change thousands of years of strongly held belief? What's next; we decide that the constitution is wrong and Americans can no longer expect protection from search and seizure because the minority who call themselves policemen want it changed? (I have nothing against police; this is just another example of the minority affecting the majority)
Because I am LDS, I will put a little bit of my view about this as it pertains to my religion. Many members of the church are speaking out saying the leaders of the church are wrong on this matter. Or they say the church should butt out. I disagree. The church has always held strong on the matter. We have been taught tolerance (in the true sense of love, not acceptance of what we disagree with) for gays, but never have they said it was ok for gays to be married. It is important for us members to stand up for our beliefs, but those beliefs should align with what our church leaders teach us.
I know I can't cover all points or views on the subject so feel free to add your comments and discuss it. Please be civilized and respectful to others by not bashing.
In the original vote in 2000, 61% of California voters voted to have marriage defined as being between a man and a woman. Prop 8
That link is the California Voter guide for the Proposition 8, the current proposition which would restore the California constitution to the wording that existed before 4 judges outvoted 3 judges to have it changed. The text of the judges' decision can be found here: Ruling
On page 6 of the ruling, the consenting judges say that each person should have the right to share his or her life with the person they choose as "an officially recognized and protected family" with the same rights and privileges as any others. It also states as one right "if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family." My main argument is with this point. At our very core, biologically speaking, a gay couple would be unable to bear children. I know that there are heterosexual couples who cannot have children due to natural factors, but in a gay relationship the "norm" is to not be able to have children naturally. Only because a significant amount of money has been invested into medical technology can gays "conceive." Beyond that, they are left with the option of adopting children, but again that option is only a result of heterosexual couples conceiving and being unwilling or unable to keep the child. At the deepest scientific level gay couples cannot have children of their own. A core purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children. That cannot happen naturally in a gay union.
Another big issue dealing with SSM in California is that the judges had no right to overrule the people's decision as J. Corrigan (one dissenting judge) concluded "If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find it's expression at the ballot box."
That already happened. The majority already spoke, but what has happened since then is atrocious. The minority has gone out of their way to label the majority as bigots and haters of equality. I think the loud minority needs to consider that just because they feel like they can make us all grasp their viewpoint, doesn't make it right. Since when did American Democracy force the majority to accept changes to the longstanding beliefs we still hold?
I know those supporting SSM will argue that gays deserve rights just as minorities do. I think that is where a distinction must be made. I understand that (a very small percentage of) people are born with gay tendencies. I also believe that many people "become" gay because of a variety of factors. In my opinion the largest factor for people changing their sexual orientation is Hollywood. Laugh if you will, but TV has glorified the gay lifestyle and tried so hard to make everyone think that it is "fun and hip" to be gay, that it is starting to have real effects in society. I have a real problem being forced to accept something where the TV studios are trying to push it on us, or use it to increase ratings. Are we going to legalize drugs because a few people use them and MTV videos make it look like awesome people use drugs?
As far as religious implications, for thousands of years our written records have declared that a marriage is between a man and a woman. How can we let the developments of the last few years change thousands of years of strongly held belief? What's next; we decide that the constitution is wrong and Americans can no longer expect protection from search and seizure because the minority who call themselves policemen want it changed? (I have nothing against police; this is just another example of the minority affecting the majority)
Because I am LDS, I will put a little bit of my view about this as it pertains to my religion. Many members of the church are speaking out saying the leaders of the church are wrong on this matter. Or they say the church should butt out. I disagree. The church has always held strong on the matter. We have been taught tolerance (in the true sense of love, not acceptance of what we disagree with) for gays, but never have they said it was ok for gays to be married. It is important for us members to stand up for our beliefs, but those beliefs should align with what our church leaders teach us.
I know I can't cover all points or views on the subject so feel free to add your comments and discuss it. Please be civilized and respectful to others by not bashing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)