Loan Approved: Next, Spiral Light Candle's New Factory

Spiral Light Candle got very good news this afternoon. A loan we wanted was approved.

That means that we can get new candle manufacturing equipment and supplies: and buy a building to put the stuff in. Just as important, Spiral Light Candle can start hiring folks to operate the equipment and see to it that folks who order candles get what they asked for.

The new Spiral Light Candle factory will be in part of a soon-to-be-refitted potato warehouse in Hillsboro, North Dakota. My son-in-law gave the place a good once-over, and so did I. More importantly, a building inspector went over the property, and told us that:

• It needs some work
  • We knew that
• The older part is a half-century old
  • We knew that, too
• The building is structurally sound
  • That was the really important thing

We've even got rail access: although that's not something Spiral Light Candle will need for another year. At least.

I've done my whooping and hollering about the loan approval, my daughter and son-in-law are treating themselves to a well-deserved night out, and tomorrow it's back to work.

Related posts:

• "Candles: Analysis, News, and Very Odd Questions"
  (December 3, 2011)
• "Candles, a Spreadsheet, and Taking a Break"
  (December 2, 2011)
• "Spiral Light Candle: New Website Coming; New Phones Here"
  (November 28, 2011)
• " Spiral Light Candles in Hillsboro, North Dakota"
  (November 9, 2011)
• "Catholic Marketing Network Trade Show: Second Morning on the Floor"
  (August 4, 2011)

"Gold Rush in the Gulf:" a Guest Post

Get the oil back and boost the economy of affected regions at the same time. Advertise an all hands on deck approach to the American people, enlist their help, and create a "gold rush in the gulf". BP has an opportunity to turn its stocks around, retain customer loyalty, and be a driving force in economic recovery in a time of devastation.

It's my humble understanding that it doesn't take a lot of talent to pick up oil. And there seems to be economical solutions for doing so. The problem with many of the solutions is that it takes an army of people to make a difference. Recruit an army, and pay them commission on each barrel of oil they collect.

With a bounty plan it would inspire entrepreneurs to set up EPA licensed distribution centers for collection materials. Those who want to collect must go through a training process for the specific area they will clean. Hotels would be booked solid, the tourist industry would be temporarily replaced with oil workers, and entire industries would pop up over night, thus restoring the real-estate market to a more manageable level.

No plan is a perfect plan but a plan that empowers people to help and gives them hope creates a win situation for everyone. It might be a sticky situation but let's not make it a hopeless one.

Aaron McWilliams
Executive Producer Oasis Productions

Related post:

• "Gulf Oil Cleanup Idea: A Bounty on Oil"
  (June 12, 2010)

---

More:

• "Oil in the Gulf of Mexico: Posts"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North

Gulf Oil Cleanup Idea: A Bounty on Oil

Here's an idea, for how to clean up that oil slick on the Gulf of Mexico. On British Petroleum's dime.

It's not mine, by the way. The idea, I mean.

Put a Bounty on Collected Oil

A whole lot of people live on and near the Gulf coast. Quite a few of them are looking for a way to make some extra money. BP has money.

Why not let BP pay people for petroleum glop that they've collected on the Gulf, and on the Gulf shores, where the stuff has run aground?

BP gets some of their oil back - plus some sand and seaweed; Locals get bounty money, which they spend - stimulating local economies; and we all get a somewhat-cleaner Gulf of Mexico.

Like I said, the idea's not mine: Thank Aaron McWilliams, the executive producer of Oasis Productions. Who 'just happens' to be my son-in-law.

Transparency, like they say these days.

---

More:

• "Oil in the Gulf of Mexico: Posts"

The New York Times, a Crazy Bonus, and Entrepreneurs

I get calls from time to time, from people at employment agencies. They want to know if I'll be filling any positions.

I'm a writer and artist, writer mostly, and run a sole proprietor business where I'm the CEO, general manager, marketing department clerical staff and maintenance department - and do anything else that needs to get done.

Even so, I'm not paying myself all that much. But it's no use complaining to the boss about it: I've tried.

The Brian H. Gill Company isn't one of the most successful small businesses in America: but I've got something in common with those that are.

I don't waste (too much) money.

I can't.

I think it's partly a matter of scale, partly a different approach to running a business.

Take The New York Times: Please!

Take The New York Times, for example. It's an old-school newspaper; and a dispenser of what it says is "All the News That's Fit to Print". That slogan's been around since 1896, and started out as a marketing campaign to distinguish the NYT from what I suppose we'd call tabloids today. (Britannica)

The New York Times won't, I think, disappear: it's got a role to play as the hometown newspaper for Manhattan's upper crust. But it's got financial issues.

"Times Says It Will Cut 100 Newsroom Jobs"
Richard Pérez-Peña, Media Decoder blog, Media & Advertising, The New York Times (October 19, 2009)

"The New York Times plans to eliminate 100 newsroom jobs - about 8 percent of the total - by year's end, offering buyouts to union and non-union employees, and resorting to layoffs if it cannot get enough people to leave voluntarily, the paper announced on Monday.

"The program mirrors one carried out in the spring of 2008, when the paper erased 100 positions in its newsroom, though other jobs were created, so the net reduction was smaller. That round of cuts included some layoffs of journalists - about 15 to 20, though The Times would not disclose the actual figure - which was the first time in memory that had happened.

"The paper has made much deeper reductions in other, non-newsroom departments, where layoffs have occurred several times. But the advertising drop that has pummeled the industry has forced cuts in the news operation as well. The newsroom already has lowered its budgets for freelancers and trimmed other expenses, and employees took a 5 percent pay cut for most of this year...."

I've got my own ideas about why traditional, old-school, established newspapers and network news departments have facing hard times recently. But that's another topic, for another blog. ("The New York Times, Insularity, and Assumptions," Another War-on-Terror Blog (October 21, 2008))

The bottom line is that The New York Times apparently doesn't have enough cash coming in to pay all of its employees. That sort of thing happens. I was laid off for the last time several years ago, from a job I'd had for two decades, so I've got some idea what the Times staff is going through.

Some of them.

"New York Times CEO was paid $4.9 million in 2009"
Breitbart (March 16, 2010)

"An analysis by The Associated Press shows that New York Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson got roughly $4.9 million in compensation in 2009.

"Robinson's base salary fell 4 percent to $962,500. But she got a bonus of about $2.3 million, four times the size of her 2008 bonus.

"Robinson also received stock options that were worth $1.6 million when they were granted. About $560,000 of that was meant to replace options that had been given in 2008 and were later voided because they exceeded a limit set by company bylaws. ..."

I think that managers and executives earn the big bucks: by riding herd on projects and people; and by making the right decisions. (Lemming Tracks: Jobs, Skills, Status and Stress," Apathetic Lemming of the North (March 13, 2010))

Like I said, I think it's reasonable to pay folks at the top of the pyramid more than those who are responsible solely or primarily for their own work. To a point.

I don't know what folks who aren't CEOs in The New York Times get paid, buy my guess is that the $2,300,000 that Robinson got 2009 might have paid the salary of at least one other employee. I could be wrong, though: $2,300,000 sounds like a lot of money to me, but not everybody's like me.

Good thing, too: But that's yet another topic.

Even if Robinson really is worth that much to The New York Times, I am not at all sure that taking over two million bucks as a bonus - $4,900,000 total - sends the right messages to the rest of the employees.

Being Rich is Okay

I have no problem with other folks having more income than I do. I'm where I am as a result of choices, and on the whole I'm satisfied.

Once I told my boss that the way I saw it, my job was to make him ridiculously wealthy. That may sound like apple-polishing, but it was a simple statement of fact. I wanted the person who signed my paycheck to have plenty of cash - because that's where my pay came from.

Entrepreneurs aren't Better: They've Got to Act Sensibly

The person who runs the paper in the town I live in can't act like the CEO of The New York Times. His paper has a little over a dozen employees. Each of them has a cluster of functions, and as far as I can tell the paper needs each of them. (That's not entirely guesswork - I've talked with the owner/operator and folks working there, and seen what they do.)

I suppose he could, in a few bad years, take a whacking great bonus for himself and fire some of the folks who work for him. It would be stupid, but he could do it.

In the short run, he'd have more money for himself. In the long run, I don't think the paper would survive. Even if the remaining employees didn't cut their losses and find work somewhere else.

Sauk Centre might wind up without a newspaper - or someone else might step in to fill the gap. I know of at least one person who could do it.

So it isn't that entrepreneurs are necessarily smarter and more sensible than high-end corporate CEOs. They've got to act responsibly. When they don't, their enterprise collapses.

Unlike major American automakers: who, when they pilot their companies into the ground, get taxpayer support.

Which I've written about before.

Vaguely-related posts:

• "AIG, Outrage, Corporations, Unions, and Common Sense"
  (March 16, 2009)
• "Lemming Tracks: Jobs, Skills, Status and Stress"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (March 13, 2010)
• "Govenment Bailouts of American Automakers, Financial Firms: Feels Good, But - - - "
  (March 9, 2009)
• "Obama Wants Caps on Fat Cat Payouts"
  (February 4, 2009)
• "Bank Bailouts, Bloated Bonuses, and Common Sense"
  (December 21, 2008)
• "So Big Three Collapse: Is That a Problem?"
  (December 12, 2008)

Jobs, Skills, People and Micromanagement

There's a post in another blog, that's also on-topic for Starting a Small Business Without Losing My Mind. Instead of copying the whole thing, here's a link:

• "Lemming Tracks: Jobs, Skills, Status and Stress"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (March 13, 2010)
  Particularly
  • My Boss Makes More Than I do! It's Unfair!!

A terse summary: People aren't identical, micromanagement is a bad idea unless an employee needs that much structure, managers making more than clerks is okay - to a point.

An Economist Says Saving is a Good Idea - Really!

The first item in Wired magazine's March 23, 2009, Mr. Know-It-All column ("Mr. Know-It-All: Feeding a Bear Market, YouTubing High School Athletes, Laying Dad's Brain to Res") caught my eye this morning. So did the last one, about a fellow whose wife had his head frozen - but that's not quite so relevant to business.

The lead item started with: "I've got a secure job, but this bear market gives me the creeps. Is it my duty to buy a new Jet Ski to help the economy?..."

If you own a store that sells Jet Skis, the advice we're hearing to go out and spend, spend, spend sounds pretty good.

Warning! Middle-Aged Reminiscences Ahead!

I was born in the Truman administration, my parents survived the Great Depression, and learned a few things from the experience. They were far from mattress-stuffers who didn't trust banks, but they had a modified 'if you don't need it, don't buy it' approach that kept me from enjoying all fifties and sixties equivalents of Nintendo and X-Box. They weren't tightwads by any means - but they didn't waste money, food, or water. And their definition of "waste" included "keeping up with the Joneses."

An Economist Says Saving is a Good Idea?!

My notion of what economists are like was formed by reading about Keynesian economics: that famous brainchild of John Maynard Keynes, that Cambridge Math major who studied for a year under a couple of people who presumably knew something about economics.

The bottom line of Keynesian economics seems to be that letting private sector entrepreneurs run around loose was bad. Centralization is good: as long as it involves a government-run central bank and what's euphemistically called 'fiscal policy decisions' by the federal govenment to control business. The idea was that with Big Brother in control, the business cycle would settle into nice, flat line.

Keynesian economics was enormously popular - and the more I learned about it, the lower my estimation of economists sank.

My guess is that Sam Allgood, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, is doomed to live out his career far from the hallowed halls of ivy and hemp in the northeast. His notions about economics make sense.

From Wired:

"...'Saving is essential for economic growth, says Sam Allgood, an economist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 'The money we save and invest is used by businesses to expand, update, or just get started.'..."

Allowing our money to be used by lending institutions to finance business growth? Without an all-wise federal agency to make sure they spend it the right way? That's close to blasphemy!

And, to me, sounds like solid good sense. But then, I'm one of those people who think that a surprising number of people - given an opportunity - will spend their money with a bit of sense.

I'm concerned, though that it's going to take a reality check like the Great Depression to produce a generation of parents who have a vague notion of which end is up. But that's another topic.

AIG, Outrage, Corporations, Unions, and Common Sense

'Outrage over AIG bonuses' is sizzling on the Web this morning, and for good reason. The American government has given somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000,000,000 (USD) to American International Group, AKA AIG, to help that corporation out of the mess its executives and managers made.

It looks like some of the executives got a cut of the take, to the tune of $165,000,000 (USD): much of that going to AIG execs. Not that shabby a reward, for running financial giants into the ground.

As owner and operator of a sole proprietorship in America, I've got roughly the same chance of getting a federal bailout, and pocketing around a penny on the dollar, as I do of surviving, unprotected, for an hour, inside a blast furnace.

I don't mind one bit. If I got 'help' like that, there would be so many strings attached, that I'd look like Pinocchio: pre-fairy.

America: A Nation of Law

An op-ed piece this morning opens with a pair of quotes:

" 'We are a country of law. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts. Every legal step possible to limit those bonuses is being taken by Secretary Geithner and by the Federal Reserve system.'–Lawrence Summers, chief economic advisor[!] to President Barack Obama

" 'Perhaps you [the government] can explain to all of us why a UAW worker earning $29 an hour must give back wages and benefits to keep their company alive, while the architects of the biggest financial disaster in history get to keep their gold plated contracts.'–Peter Morici, economist, University of Maryland" (EMac's Stock Watch)

Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon.com also discusses the AIG bailout, and the auto workers' union. Mostly AIG.

What President Obama's economic adviser said is true: America is a nation of law. I think that's true. It's also true that there's a lot of legal wrangling over exactly what the terms of a contract mean - but that's another issue.

Having laws, and being expected to follow them, is, I think, a good thing. Given the attitude I have toward a massively powerful federal government micro-managing private-sector matters, I don't mind having legal barriers between the feds and corporation execs.

UAW and AIG: Class Struggle Between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie? Reality Check, Please!

What the Maryland professor said got me curious, so I looked up American wages on the BLS website ("Wages by Area and Occupation," Bureau of Labor Statistics). I didn't find an exact match for "AW worker earning $29 an hour" - but I got a few that are close.

Turns out, as of May of 2007, this is what Americans were getting paid, on average, in these occupations:¹

• "Production Occupations" overall
  • $15.05 an hour
  • $31,310 yearly
• "Aircraft Structure, Surfaces, Rigging, and Systems Assemblers"
  • $21.24 an hour
  • $44,180 yearly
• "First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Production and Operating Workers"
  • $24.88 an hour
  • $51,740 a year
• "Numerical Tool and Process Control Programmers"
  • $21.54 an hour
  • $44,800 yearly
• "Tool and Die Makers"
  • $22.36 an hour
  • $46,520 yearly

So, why the tone of righteous indignation I thought I noticed in the Maryland professor's comparison of UAW workers and "the architects of the biggest financial disaster in history"?

AIG executives probably don't, as a rule, have to get by on the $44,800 a year that your average Numerical Tool and Process Control Programmer makes.

Neither do college professors, for that matter. Americans with "Education, Training, and Library Occupations" get an average $22.41 hourly wage. That may help explain why professors, who are to some extent involved in education, are sometimes perceived as relatively poor. Looking a little deeper into the BLS site, I found that college professors don't have "hourly wage" listed. Their employment is seasonal, you see. They use their 'time off' to study, presumably. Besides, their pay isn't calculated that way.

I did a little figuring, from ten post-secondary teaching occupations listed by the BLS. College professors get by on a paltry $75,080 a year, on average.

• Ten listed postsecondary teaching occupations average
  • $75,080 a year
• "Mathematical Science Teachers, Postsecondary"
  • $65,450 a year
• "Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary"
  • $85,260

I'm not complaining about what the professors make: what they do is a specialized job, requires a fair amount of training, and is demanding. If that's the market value for their set of skills, no problem.

I think that what your typical college professor makes may affect his or her perceptions of what a 'typical' or 'reasonable' wage is. It looks like professors make half again as much a year as your run-of-the-mill Numerical Tool and Process Control Programmers. More than that, actually. Or, coming at it the other way, the N.T.P.C. Programmers only make in the neighborhood of 2/3 what a prof does.

No wonder the Maryland professor regards $29 an hour as a comparative pittance.

Having grown up within a block of a college campus, and spending decades in or near America's academia, I've heard quite a bit about the class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. A century and more ago, that was an important aspect of Western civilization's evolution.

But today, the UAW isn't struggling against plutocratic oppressors of the Victorian Age.

This isn't the 19th century anymore.

We're in the 21st century and, if anything, the UAW is now part of the entrenched system that labor unions struggled against.

Big Three Automakers, AIG, Bailouts, and Pavlov

I'm not as hard-hearted and callous as this is going to sound. Letting the Big Three automakers fail might be a good idea. Ibid for AIG and all.

The Humanity! The Humanity!

Yes, I know that if GM, Chrysler, and Ford go the way of Owens Magnetic, quite a lot of UAW workers might be out of a job. But I don't think that Americans will stop driving - and buying - cars.

As I wrote last year, "I have trouble believing, though, that nobody of the several-hundred-million people who live in this country doesn't want to open an automotive design and assembly company, and have the brains and background to do it.

"It's been a long time since a new automotive company has had a chance to get started, with three 800-pound gorillas sitting on the American car market...." (December 12, 2009)

The start-ups might not be able to provide the pay and perks that UAW members have become accustomed to, and they might have to learn new skills. Some people may find it hard to change decades-old habits. But my guess is that union workers can learn.

Besides, the UAW and others in the established order will have to change their ways anyway. The Big Three are in the mess they're in because their leadership hasn't een dealing with reality.

If the existing Big Three change, union workers will have to adjust - along with everyone else. (I'm getting to the twits at the top: be patient.)

If the existing Big Three don't change their ways, and the rest of us keep bankrolling their incompetence, taxes for a steady stream of bailouts will eventually clean out Americans who do know how to be productive. Then, after what's left of the economy can't take the strain of whatever shenanigans the feds pull to prop up the Big Three, GMC, Ford, and Chrysler will collapse.

And union workers will have to adjust. Only by then, the adjustment will be a lot harder. There won't be as many solvent businesses around to hire them: you get the idea.

Pavlov's Incredible Drooling Dog and AIG Executives

You remember Pavlov's experiment, where he learned about classical conditioning.

The parallel between Pavlov's dog and AIG executives isn't exact: the executives walk on two feet, and haven't learned to drool at the sound of a tuning fork. As far as I know.

However, they have been rewarded for behavior that isn't doing AIG any good. And, particularly since Americans are now bankrolling the American International Group debacle, the rest of us aren't exactly benefiting, either.

I have nothing against a company giving bonuses for performance. In fact, that application of behavior modification makes a great deal of sense.

If, I repeat, if bonuses are clearly and unequivocally linked to desirable behavior.

Barney Frank: "Disgusted" by AIG Bonsues

I don't agree with Barney Frank very often, but I'm also "disgusted" by the way AIG seems to be rewarding incompetent executives: with money that came (in very small part) from me.

Today's Boston Globe had a few words on the subject, including: "...Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, suggested that if the federal government, which now owns an 80 percent stake in the company, can't rescind the bonuses, it could force some dismissals.

" 'These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever,' Frank said on NBC's 'Today' show...." (Boston Globe)

There's something to be disturbed about in that Boston Globe piece. My guess is that you caught it, too.

That's right: The federal government now owns 80% of American International Group.

The state owning and controlling major businesses? We've gone through this before. It didn't end well then: I'm hoping we get out of the current mess in better shape than Russia and Germany did. ²

Related posts:

• "Govenment Bailouts of American Automakers, Financial Firms: Feels Good, But - - -"
  (March 9, 2009)
• "Bank Bailout Scandal? Maybe - But Think Before You Decide"
  (December 22, 2008)
• "The Town's Hardware Industry: A Parable"
  (December 22, 2008)
• "Bank Bailouts, Bloated Bonuses, and Common Sense"
  (December 21, 2008)
• "So Big Three Collapse: Is That a Problem?"
  (December 12, 2008)
• "Doctors, Terrorists, and the Proletariat: What's a Person to Think?"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (July 3, 2007)

News and views:

• "Frank disgusted by AIG bonuses"
  The Boston Globe (March 16, 2009)
• "Monday's blue mood: AIG outrage"
  Front Row Washington Reuters Blog (March 16, 2009)
• "Lawmakers Target AIG Over Executive Bonuses"
  FOXNews (March 16, 2009)
• "Bail Out AIG’s Workers, But Not GM’s?"
  EMac's Stock Watch, FOXNews (March 16, 2009)
• "The sanctity of AIG's contracts"
  Glenn Greenwald Salon.com (March 16, 2009)

---

¹ The numbers are BLS mean, or average, hourly wages.

You probably know this already, but:

• Median in this context means "the value below which 50% of the cases fall"
• Mean means "an average of n numbers computed by adding some function of the numbers and dividing by some function of n"
  (Princeton's WordNet)

² I am not responsible for, nor do I necessarily agree with, content at the other end of links. The "Russia" and "Germany" links are to documents which discuss what I think are undesirable aspects of state capitalism in Germany and Russia. I most certainly do not think that regulation is a panacea.

'Nuf said.

Govenment Bailouts of American Automakers, Financial Firms: Feels Good, But - - -

On the economic scale, sole proprietorships like mine are pretty close to being at the opposite end from outfits like AIG and GM. And, I'm okay with that. Not all businesses can be huge, cripplingly inefficient bureaucracies, desperately seeking federal bailouts.

Watching a panel discussion this morning, I heard something that may be a key to understanding what's gone wrong with Wall Street and automobile industry leaders of the 1950s.

One of the panelists expressed concern that, should GM declare bankruptcy and re-organize, it wouldn't be the same company. He apparently believed that GM not being just the same as it was last year, and the year before that, would be a bad thing.

It was all those people who might be out of a job that concerned him, he said.

Compassion is Nice: So is Common Sense

I don't like to think about people losing their jobs, but I don't see too many alternatives. This is an over-simplification, but I think that, given what's happening, GM will:

1. Declare Bankruptcy and reorganize
   • Some people will lose their jobs
2. Receive federal bailouts until increased taxes and cuts in programs we really need end the gravy train
   • A lot of people will lose their jobs
3. Receive an inheritance from a rich uncle in Australia
   • Which will save the day

I don't think we can count on option #3. At all.

Option #2 doesn't look too appealing. By the time the feds finish draining everyone else to keep the likes of GM going, I fear that quite a number of companies that aren't big and important enough to get Washington's attention, but are taxed just the same, will have gone out of business. That'll mean that the out-of-work auto workers will have lots of company: but that'll be small consolation.

Option #1 isn't all that appealing in the short run, but it may be the least-bad alternative.

The sad fact is that the Big Three automakers haven't been doing all that well. Keeping them just the way they are may be the nostalgic thing to do, but I don't think it's good sense.

Related posts:

• "Bank Bailouts, Bloated Bonuses, and Common Sense"
  (December 21, 2008)
• "So Big Three Collapse: Is That a Problem?"
  (December 12, 2008)

Obama Wants Caps on Fat Cat Payouts

What? No golden parachute?

Why be a big executive in a big company, if you can't run the company into the ground, and get a generous bonus for your work?

Billions in Losses, Turning a Corner, and Millions in Stock

Back in 2007, the CEO for one of America's 'Big Three' automakers got, as a bonus, a cool $4,100,000 in stock, plus 3,560,000 stock options (at an excise price of $6.14). The company had lost $2,700,000,000 that year. It's okay, though: the CEO said that his company was turning the corner, and would be profitable. Soon.

The stock market seems to be more tightly connected to the real world than many CEOs are, so that $4 million bonus may not be quite as big as it seems. Not now.

Golden Parachutes, Obscene Bonuses: Not a Small Business Issue?

Bizarre bonuses and gigantic golden parachutes don't seem to have much to do with small business owners. Particularly sole proprietors like me.

Let's say I was talking to myself:

"I lost $2,700,000,000 this year. Not to worry, though: I've turned a corner, and things will get better."

"You mean, I'll make a profit? When?"

"Soon."

"Well done! Here's $4,100,000. Don't spend it all in one place."

If I could lose money in the ten-figures range during one year, and get paid $4 million for it, I could retire after that year. But it's not possible: ethically or practically.

I don't envy the Ford CEO, though. He seems to have gotten his bonus in Ford company stock. I don't know what that's worth, now that the stock market is melting down, but it's probably not what it was in 2007.

Big company shenanigans do affect small business owners. The most obviously-affected businesses are eateries and stores near the factories, and where the workers live. When people get laid off, or fired, they're not likely to spend as much as when they got a paycheck.

It doesn't stop there, of course, business owners buy supplies and (sometimes) hire people. When business falls off, business owners don't buy as many supplies, and may have to drop employees.

That means that the former employees won't be spending as much, and neither will the suppliers.

You get the picture.

So, even if you didn't own Ford stock, what's happening to American automakers will affect you, if you're doing business in this country.

Whatever is a Small Business Owner to Do?

I've done a little poking around, and found soem advice that doesn't sound too crazy. It's pretty obvious, but:

• Keep track of cash flow
  • If more's going out than coming in, that's not good news
• Don't need it? Drop it
  • Luxuries are nice, but don't pay for equipment and services you don't actually need
  • That goes for employees, too: and that's a lot harder
• Cash, good: Credit, bad
  • Loans and credit cards are cool - and expensive
• Pay attention to your customers

You're expecting startling insights and useful details? What am I, a consultant?! I'm a middle-aged writer and artist, trying to make his own business work. When I know what I'm doing, I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, here's a thought: many people are looking for ways to do what they need, or like, to do - for less money than they did a few years ago. If you can help them do that, you've got yourself clients or customers.

In the news:

• "FACTBOX: Details of new U.S. restrictions on CEO pay"
  Reuters (February 4, 2009)
• "Obama to Impose Salary Caps on Bailed Out Fat Cats"
  FOXNews (February 4, 2009)

Bank Bailout Scandal? Maybe - But Think Before You Decide

I found these headlines in a Google 'news' search. They're really op-ed, but that's another matter.

• Bank bailout funds flow into executive compesation
• $1.6 Billion of Bailout Went to Pay Top Execs

(That one headline really did read "Bank bailout funds flow into executive compesation" - maybe the author had good reason for that alternative spelling.)

Bank Bailout Scandal? Maybe, But We Don't Know That Yet

Those headlines make it look like over a billion dollars of American taxpayer money went into the pockets of top bank executives. So do the stories:

• "Bank bailout funds flow into executive compesation"
  BloggingStocks
  (December 22, 2008)
  • "You'll be happy to know that a hefty chunk of the $700 billion bailout designed to help banks in order to stabilize the economy has, at least indirectly, flowed into the coffers of top executives...."
• "$1.6 Billion of Bailout Went to Pay Top Execs"
  Dollars and Sense ("the magazine of economic justice")
  (December 21, 2008)
  • "According to a study by the Associated Press, $1.6 billion of the federal bailout funds went into the pockets of top bank executives. Even institutions that have cut the salaries and bonuses of top corporate officers have awarded massive compensation packages, despite having logged billions of dollars in losses...."

The December 22 piece is honest, or accurate, enough to say that the $1.6 billion dollar figure is from 2007 - and let the reader remember that the bailout was in late 2008. The December 21 op-ed is, simply, wrong.

Review and Reality Check

The "$1.6 Billion" figure is from an Associated Press article, published yesterday: "AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs." What the Associated Press found was that bank executives got $1,600,000,000 in pay and perks: in 2007. That's before the federal bailout.

Lies, Assumptions, and Due Diligence

I have no idea why the authors of those two op-ed pieces were so inaccurate. It's possible that they weren't aware that what they wrote wasn't true.

The Associated Press headline might give an impression that bailout funds were part of those $1.6 billion dollars of compensation. This may help show how easy it is for "$1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs" to become "$1.6 Billion of Bailout Went to Pay Top Execs."

• AP study finds
  $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs
  (Associated Press)
• $1.6 Billion of Bailout Went to Pay Top Execs
  (Dollars and Sense / D&S Blog)

Lies and Assumptions

Sometimes a person might write something that isn't true, but isn't intentionally lying. Assumptions are powerful things: if you 'know' that bank executives are going to steal the bailout money; and you read that they got $1.6 billion dollars; you're likely to assume that the money they got was from the bailout funds.

Someone who made associations like that might not consider the possibility that the billion-plus dollars were spent before the bailout was planned: and not read past the headline.

Due Diligence

The term has a precise, legal, definition: "A measure of prudence, activity or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent person under the particular circumstances" (Mortgages, Ltd., Arizona). I think it can be used to describe the reasonable process of doing a little research before 'buying into' claims or ideas.

A Word of Advice: THINK!

I don't used all caps very often, but this warrants it. If you're running a business, you can't "trust your feelings," even if your name is Luke.

Facts are big, hard, heavy things with sharp edges. If you walk around with your mental eyes closed, you'll get hurt.

What do I Think About the Bank Executives?

It's too early to tell. The massive failure of so many financial institutions clearly indicates that something went wrong. You might call that a 'well, duh!' deduction.

I'm no financial expert, but I see at least two possible causes that make sense.

First, claims that investment banks made too many loans that were too risky could be true.

Second, although it's discussed as a possible outcome of the present crisis, I think that well-intentioned efforts at making it possible for just about everybody to own a house may have been part of the cause of the housing loan problems.

Housing Loans: Realty and Reality, a Personal Look

When I bought the house we live in now, I spent a long time negotiating ways to pay for it. I had worked the numbers, and knew both how much money we had, and how much we could pay over time. I was shown offers that looked very, very tempting - and would have allowed me to keep the house for months, maybe years.

But, each time, when I worked out what would happen as I complied with the proposed agreement, I lost the house.

I finally found an arrangement that allowed me to buy the house, and keep it. But it took time and a lot of thought. Not everyone has the background and willingness to go through that process.

Back to the Bank Executives

Loaning money to people who can't pay it back isn't a good idea: whether you do it of your own will, or are forced to do so by a well-intentioned set of federal regulations. It looks like quite a few major American financial institutions were doing just that.

And, it didn't help that the top executives were getting ridiculously large pieces of the financial pie.

I simply don't know if the debacle is the result of fraud, incompetence, greed, other factors, or some combination. There aren't enough published facts yet: not that I've seen.

Related posts:

• "The Town's Hardware Industry: A Parable"
  (December 22, 2008)
• "Bank Bailouts, Bloated Bonuses, and Common Sense"
  (December 21, 2008)
• "So Big Three Collapse: Is That a Problem?"
  (December 12, 2008)

News and views:

• "AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs"
  Associated Press (December 22, 2008)
• "GM Prepares Ground for Post-Holiday Talks With UAW"
  The Wall Street Journal (December 22, 2008)
• "Bank bailout funds flow into executive compesation"
  BloggingStocks (December 22, 2008)
• "$1.6 Billion of Bailout Went to Pay Top Execs"
  Dollars and Sense / D&S Blog ("the magazine of economic justice") (December 21, 2008)
• "AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs"
  Associated Press (December 21, 2008)

The Town's Hardware Industry: A Parable

On the surface, this is the story of a small town's need for hardware. But, reading between the lines, you may discern a message about a major American industry, presented with the subtlety of a pile driver.

Saving the Town's Hardware Industry

The town had three hardware stores: Bud and Bubba's Hardware and Bait; Central Tool and Hardware; and Abe's Tools. They provided a wide selection of products. You could get an 8-track stereo for your convertible, aluminum siding kits, and all the parts needed to build your own bomb shelter.

People who worked for one of the Big Three hardware stores were the envy of their neighbors. Over the years, they'd negotiated their way into top-rate pay, health coverage, and retirement plans.

Bud, Bubba, Abe, and Waldo, the fellow who ran Central Tool, weren't doing too badly, either.

Now, if you wanted an exhaust fan for your bathroom, you'd be better off talking to Ralph. He had a small stock in his garage, and could have just about anything else shipped in.

You'd call Lacy if you needed an electrostatic filter, and Pat for something like a USB cable.

One day, the Big Three hardware store owners noticed that they were running out of money. And had been for a while. So, they went to city hall and told the town council that they needed money. Lots of it. It wasn't just for them, they explained, it was for the Town Hardware Industry.

Without the Town Hardware Industry, the town's economy would collapse, they said.

The oldest and wisest member of the council, who had seen 8-tracks come and go, told Bud, Bubba, Abe, and Waldo that they shouldn't get one cent of the town's money. And, that the town would be better off getting its hardware from Ralph, Lacy, Pat, and all the other townspeople who had been paying attention.

And so, the town council sent Bud, Bubba, Abe, and Waldo away, empty-handed. The Big Three owners retired to private resorts on the lake country, some of their employees went to work for Ralph, Lacy, or Pat, and some opened their own little hardware stores.

And the Moral of this Story is -

Do I really have to say it?

Related posts:

• "Bank Bailout Scandal? Maybe - But Think Before You Decide"
  (December 22, 2008)
• "Bank Bailouts, Bloated Bonuses, and Common Sense"
  (December 21, 2008)
• "So Big Three Collapse: Is That a Problem?"
  (December 12, 2008)

Bank Bailouts, Bloated Bonuses, and Common Sense

The federal government's earmarked around $700,000,000,000 dollars, given by American citizens, to pull an assortment of financial institutions out of the hole they dug for themselves. The Big Three automakers are getting a wad of cash, too.

Happily, there do seem to be some conditions attached to Uncle Sam's generosity with other people's money. However, I think that America's leaders, in government and business, have missed vital points of economic theory:

• A business is supposed to take in more money than it spends
  • Spending more than you make leads to trouble
  • Wasting money leads to trouble
• Goods and services provided by one business can be provided by another

Enough of Economics 101.

$1,600,000,000 on Executive Perks?!

Never mind Big Three executives flying in individual corporate jets: Executives of banks that are getting bailed out got a tidy little $1,600,000,000 in salaries, bonuses, and other perks in 2007. Okay: salary isn't a "perk," but the numbers are still, well, impressive.

"Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.

"The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines." [emphasis mine] (Associated Press (December 21, 2008))

Feeling Good and Doing Good: Not the Same Thing

Although a tiny fraction of the bank bailout was done with my money, I've never personally made it possible for people to keep their jobs for a little while longer. My guess is that it feels good. And, there's probably a sort of warm glow that comes with 'saving the American automotive industry.'

Nice feelings are fine, but to do any practical good all that giving has to come with changes in the way banks and the Big Three do business. Big changes.

Executive Compensation and Bribery

It's not very often that I agree with Barney Frank: my take on how the world works comes through in blogs like Another War-on-Terror Blog and A Catholic Citizen in America.

This time, though, Mr. Frank made a good point about monumental perks that executives get. He said that the billion-bucks-plus bonuses bribed executives " 'to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.

" 'Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can,' said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. 'We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!' " (Associated Press (December 21, 2008))

I have nothing against managers and higher-ups getting more than someone at the front desk or on the assembly line. But I have trouble believing that the average bank executive was worth $2,600,000 a year. Particularly when the bank was emulating the Titanic.

The Big Three Automakers and The American Automotive Industry: Not the Same Thing

This isn't 1953, when the president of General Motors said that he "thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." Even then, a moderately garbled version of what Charles Wilson said was used as an example of corporate arrogance.

Today, I think it's time to take a look at GMC, Ford, and Chrysler: and the American automobile industry. And remember: the Big Three are three huge, and now desperate, companies. They've dominated the American automobile industry for a very long time. But, in my opinion, they are not the American automobile industry.

The American automobile industry is that part of the American economy which makes, distributes, maintains, and repairs cars.

I've compared the Big Three to three 800-pound gorillas. Right now, they're sitting on the American automobile industry like it was a pile of bananas. Not surprisingly, it's a little hard for smaller companies to compete.

A Detour, About an 'Un-American' Car

The Big Three aren't the only American companies involved in making cars. Nevada's Hybrid Technologies makes a power plant for the MINI-E, an electric car that does 0-60 in six seconds, with a top speed that exceeds the speed limit here in Minnesota.

The MINI-E isn't a purely American car. The running chassis is made in England. But the rest is assembled in Mooresville, North Carolina, and although I haven't confirmed it, my guess is that most of the people who work at that plant live in America, and buy their groceries in Mooresville.

My point is that a company doesn't have to be in the Big Three to make cars.

Time for Real Change

I don't doubt that if the assets of any or all of the Big Three automakers were sold off, there would be some very real stress. As I wrote before, it's not likely that Americans will stop buying cars, or needing to have them maintained.

And people who worked on an automobile assembly line for one company might be work for another company. They might even be able to learn new procedures.

As for the executives who drove the Big Three into the ground, it might be worth the money to pay them off, let them enjoy an ill-deserved retirement, and let entrepreneurs who know how to build and sell cars take over.

Related post:

• "So Big Three Collapse: Is That a Problem?"
  (December 12, 2008)

Background:

• "What's Good for General Motors is Good for the Country"
  Duke Research Advantage (November 17, 2008)

In the news:

• "GM Prepares Ground for Post-Holiday Talks With UAW"
  The Wall Street Journal (December 22, 2008)
• "AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs"
  Associated Press (December 21, 2008)

---

¹ Opinions about the American Congress, from Another War-on-Terror Blog:

• "Pay Raise for Congress: Have They Read the Papers This Year?"
  (December 21, 2008)
• "Wall Street Bailout, Flying Fewmets, and Politics as Comic Relief"
  (September 29, 2008)
• "FISA: Senate Decides Al Qaeda Bigger Threat than FBI"
  (July 9, 2008)
• "Your Tax Dollars at Work: Wine Research and Parisian Fruit Flies"
  (April 2, 2008)
• "March 13, 2008 FISA, the Patriot Act, and the Protect America Act: Who's Protecting Whom from Whom?"
  (March 13, 2008)
• "Odd Allies: Opposition to Waterboarding and Web Censorship"
  (March 9, 2008)
• "Attention Congress: The FBI is Not the Enemy"
  (February 25, 2008)
• "PAA is Poo, and Kaput: Or, Who Should Congress be Protecting Americans From?"
  (February 23, 2008)
• "Mark Deli Siljander: Former Congressman, United Nations Delegate, and Possibly a Shill for Terrorists"
  (January 16, 2008)

Recession's On, Game Sales Up: Let the Bad Times Roll!

There's a lesson to be learned here: "November video game sales near $3 billion" (Associated Press (December 12, 2008)). That's up about 10% from last year at this time.

Not bad for an economy in crisis.

The data comes from a market research outfit called NDP. Someone from the company said that it's

• A broad range of games produced
• Games are relatively cheap stay-at-home entertainment

Industries thriving - or at least staying afloat - in bad times is nothing new. A professor of history recalled that the Great Depression gave some businesses a boost:

"One-third of Americans were below the poverty line, yet some industries actually managed to make a profit at the beginning of the 1930s as the public looked for a way to escape. If Americans couldn't find work, at least they could go for a drive, have a cigarette, or go to a movie. Correspondingly, sales of oil, gas, cigarettes, and movie tickets all went up."
(H102Lecture 18, American History 102: Civil War to the Present (Stanley K. Schultz, Professor of History; William P. Tishler, Producer) (© 1999 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System ))

Escapism: It's Good for Business

I read someplace that movie ticket sales going up during economic bad times wasn't a given any more. I believe it, but that doesn't mean that the Depression Lesson isn't still valid.

Back in the 1930s, nobody had video games. Duke Nukem was decades in the future. Kirby was a brand of vacuum cleaners. If you were going to escape, you'd go for a drive, smoke a cigarette, or go to a movie. Maybe all three.

That was then, this is now.

People have more ways of getting away from real-life stress now: video games; and the medium you're using right now: the Internet. Actually, the thirties saw an equivalent to today's video game micro-boom: Monopoly became paradoxically popular while real-life tycoons were selling apples out of a box. (There seems to be more to the game's history than that. See "Monopoly History.")

But, Escapism Is Bad, Right?

One thing I learned in college, back in the seventies, was that Escapism was bad - unless you were following Timothy Leary's advice to "Turn on, tune in and drop out."

I think a friend of mine, who shared my interest in role-playing games, had a better approach: 'Building castles in the sky is fine: but when you try to collect rent, you've got problems.' The point is, a little 'escapism' is a sort of intellectual and emotional R & R. So, with some reservations, I'd say -

Escapism is Fine: As Long As Someone is Paying You For It

I'm not wasting time, being upset about the global economic crisis and the collapse of the American automotive industry (the Big Three, anyway).

I'm trying to figure out what I can do, to help people relax, escape, or learn, while they're not taking a Caribbean cruise or flying to Aspen. 'Let the bad times roll!'

So the Big Three Collapse: Is That a Problem?

There may be Americans who don't know that the Big Three automakers in this country are ready to fold. But my guess is that they don't watch the news, or get out much.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that, if General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler go bankrupt, unemployed auto workers will be thrown out of their homes, Big Three executives will have to cut back on their trips to Starbucks, and the American economy will collapse.

There's a bit of truth to that.

• America makes more cars than any country
  • Except Japan
• The automobile is an important part of American culture
  • Although not what it was in the fifties
    • Laptops, anyone?
• A whole lot of people are employed by the Big Three
• A whole lot more people's living depends the spending habits of auto industry
  • Line workers
  • Executives
  • Everybody in between

I don't doubt that there would be a lot of trouble and personal hardship, if GMC, Ford, and Chrysler go the way of the Taylor Aerocar; the conservation-minded Enger; the advanced hybrid Owens Magnetic; or the Zimmerman.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Americans will stop buying cars, trucks, and other machines to get them from place to place.

Yes, quite a few will start buying imports. My guess is that they'll buy them from dealerships that are in America - so some of the money will go right back into the local economy.

I have trouble believing, though, that nobody of the several-hundred-million people who live in this country doesn't want to open an automotive design and assembly company, and have the brains and background to do it.

It's been a long time since a new automotive company has had a chance to get started, with three 800-pound gorillas sitting on the American car market.

Time for a Real Change?

I know what it's like to be laid off. It happened to me over two years ago, and that's not the first time I've lost a job. That's not something I'd wish on anyone.

But, maybe it's time for GMC, Ford, and Chrysler executives to get their golden parachutes, consign some of the existing products to automotive museums, and make room for people who have plans that will work in the 21st century.

There's no question that some people who've worked on the same production line for years - or decades - will have a rough time adjusting. On the other hand, entrepreneurs may soon be able to employ a huge number of very trained people with years of experience in automotive assembly - and (I hope) an ability to learn.

The down side is that, right now, it looks like getting financial backing is going to be tricky.

Real Change in America: It's About Time

It's been a century, since America's automotive industry took radical innovation seriously. Most of the early-1900s startups didn't last long. Many, from the ABC to the Zentmobile and the enigmatic Zip, only lasted a few years. But, while they were around, people were paid to make the cars - and some of the new ideas were successful.

American has tried having an automotive industry that's a sort of three-way monopoly. Maybe it's time to try something else.

Marxism: It Looks So Good on Paper

Barack Obama's views have been characterized as Marxist. Just because

• Obama said that it's:
  • Good to "spread the wealth around"
  • A shame that the civil rights movement didn't force "redistributive change" in America
• Karl Marx said:
  • "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

The Obama campaign's blacklisting of a television station that asked Biden to respond to the idea that Barack Obama is a Marxist, but that didn't keep people from wondering.

Obama's response to his "spread the wealth around" and "redistributive change" statements getting discussed is, basically, 'Marxist, Schmarxist: can't we all ignore this?'

Barack Obama a Marxist? Not Exactly

I still won't say that Obama is a Marxist, but he does seem to like the ideas of Karl Marx. And Marxist professors. And Marxian economics.

One of news articles I found about the (redistributive) change candidate's philosophical roots said:

"Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

" 'To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully,' the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, 'Dreams From My Father.' 'The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.' "
(FOXNews (October 28, 2008))

Obama supporters and the Obama campaign have, as far as I've seen, shown the good sense not to say that the quote is a lie. Their line will probably be that it was taken out of context. That's almost true, but not quite.

The young Barack Obama was struggling with what I'll call ethnic identity. Obama explained that he didn't want to ingratiate himself to white people, and did want to identify with blacks.

Snopes.com ("Urban Legends Reference Page") gives quite a bit of information about a claim that an "E-mail lists racist passages taken from Barack Obama's books." Snopes demonstrates that Barack Obama is not, by Snopes' standards, racist.

The extensive passages from "Dreams of My Father" do, however, seem to show that the young Barack Obama was very intent on establishing his own identity: And that doing so involved not ingratiating himself to white people, seeking out Marxist professors, and showing loyalty to the "black masses."

Judging from what Barack Obama said to Joe the Plumber, not much has changed.

But, I won't say that Barack Obama is a Marxist, strictly speaking. He does seem to be a college professor who admires the economic theories of Karl Marx, and thinks that it would be nice if somebody was forced to give money to black people: to make up for what happened in the 18th and 19th centuries.

That makes him an American college professor, but not necessarily a Marxist.

Do We Really Want Redistributive Change?

As I wrote yesterday, Reparations look good, as long as you're on the receiving end. And don't look too closely on what it does to the people who write your paycheck, and those of your neighbor.

Russian leaders, from about 1927 to 1991, made what I think is an earnest effort to apply Marxian principles to the real world. It didn't work out quite as well as some had hoped.

In my opinion, it makes no sense to penalize people for being productive, and reward those who aren't. And, like it or not, people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner have earned the money they acquired: by finding and developing new ways of providing goods and services.

I'll grant that some CEOs and other management types are overpaid: and I find "golden parachutes" disgusting.

Again, I see no sense in rewarding people who are not productive. Particularly if they're the ones who drove a company into the ground.

(Don't) Look For This in the News

I'll be surprised if these little matters will wind up on the front page of The New York Times:

• Obama's preference for Marxist professors
• His opinion that one of "the tragedies" of the civil rights movement was its failure to bring "redistributive change"
• His more recent statement that it's a good idea to "spread the wealth around"
• The Obama campaign's blacklisting of a Florida television station for asking embarrassing questions

But it could happen. Barack Obama's interest in Marxism didn't seem to strike a chord with most news services. But, the Obama campaign's blacklisting of a television station for asking the wrong question might.

In the news:

• "Obama Embrace of Marxism Goes Back to Youth"
  Dakota Voice (October 28, 2008)
  (depends on FOXNews article)
• "Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days"
  FOXNews (October 28, 2008)
• "How is Obama not a Marxist? WFTV=WTF TV"
  Deadline USA Blog / The Guardian (UK) (October 28, 2008)
• "Barbara West's Joe Biden Interview Questions Marxist Undertones of Obama Sound Bites"
  Associated Content (October 28, 2008)
• "WFTV anchor Barbara West stirs frenzy with Joe Biden interview"
  Chicago Tribune (October 28, 2008)
• "Paper: Obama Campaign Payback At TV Station"
  Campaign 08 Horserace blog / CBS News (October 26, 2008)

---

I read, and gave what I believe to be a reasonable paraphrase, of the relevant paragraphs of "Dreams of My Father" quoted on Snopes.com However, don't just take my word for what Obama wrote.

For one thing, I had to leave out many details, and did not attempt to mimic Barack Obama's tone.

There are substantial passages from "Dreams of My Father" at that Snopes page. I suggest searching for the paragraph that starts with the words "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout".

Better yet, buy "Dreams of My Father" online. I'm going to see if my budget will let me.

"Spread the Wealth Around," "Change," "Redistributive Change" What's the Big Deal?

"Joe the Plumber definitely asked the wrong question, when he prompted Barack Obama to say, " 'I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody,' " earlier this month.

Ask the Wrong Question, Get Blacklisted: Biden, Obama, WFTV, and Marxism

That "spread the wealth around" remark got people wondering about exactly what sort of change Barack Obama wanted. It's not such a long walk, between "spread the wealth" and "redistribute wealth." An interviewer gave Senator Joe Biden an opportunity to clarify Obama's position recently: "...How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist, if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Senator Biden called the question "ridiculous," said that the top one percent of earners in America are "good, decent American people" - and delivered a number of the Obama campaign's talking points.

Then the Obama campaign blacklisted WFTV, the television station that did the interview.

I don't blame them one bit. Barack Obama almost certainly wishes that the whole "spread the wealth" thing would just go away. And that won't happen if interviewers keep asking the wrong questions.

"Redistributive Change" for America

Considering what happened to WFTV, I doubt that many news services will care to ask Barack Obama or Joe Biden to clarify Senator Obama's disappointment with the lack of "redistributive change" in the civil rights movement.

Marxist? No: Good for America? Doubtful

I don't think that Either Barack Obama or Joe Biden are Marxists. They certainly don't fit the stereotype: someone running down blood-drenched streets, with gore from dead capitalists on their knives.

Joe Biden described the rich in America as "good, decent American people," and I believe him. And Barack Obama's desire for "redistributive change" quite clearly does not involve violence.

However, Barack Obama did say that he saw "...one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, ... was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change...."¹ [emphasis mine]

No violence there. Just arranging for "redistributive change."

That sounds a lot like reparations.

Reparations: Sounds Good

Reparations looks good, as long as you're on the receiving end. Sometimes it's justifiable.

Sometimes, not so much. The American 'race reparations' that I've read about apparently boil down to forcing people who look a little like 18th and 19th century plantation owners to give money to people who look a little like slaves who worked on the plantations.

Reparations, Common Sense, and Blaming the Scythians

About half my ancestors were in Norway until well after slavery was abolished in America, but it's a fact: I look a little like the plantation owners. I've got the same genetic melanin deficiency.

The other half were Irish, which brings up an intriguing possibility.

I've got no complaints, but my life hasn't been all beer and pretzels. I've lost jobs, had trouble finding jobs, and gotten laid off. Someone must be to blame.

Maybe I should demand reparations from:

• The English
  • There are a number of Irishmen who believe that the English have ground the Irish under the heel of oppression for centuries. And, considering British history since the time of, say Henry VIII, they have a point. (The typical attitude of the English toward the Irish encouraged Jonathan Swift to write "A Modest Proposal.")
  • 'Obviously,' English oppression is responsible for my eclectic employment record. And the English must pay!
  • The problem is, it's quite possible that some of my Irish ancestors were English Catholics who were deported. That would explain all those "Richards" in the family.
• The Vikings
  • The Irish and the English were both mistreated by the Vikings, about a thousand years ago: Lindisfarne, and all that.
  • Which has me paying myself again. I'm half Norwegian.
• The Romans
  • Norway, the part that wasn't under ice, wasn't in the Roman Empire: but part of the British Isles were.
  • I'll demand that the Italians pay me, for what their ancestors did to my ancestors.

It doesn't have to stop there.

• Ancient Rome had trouble with Greece
• Greece had trouble with Persia
• Persia had trouble with Scythia

As if it weren't complicated enough already, some of the Scythians may be my ancestors: Norwegians and Celts came from somewhere, you know.

But That's Different!

I'll probably get comments about how I just don't understand what it's like to be discriminated against. Okay, my experience isn't the same as someone who is black, Chinese, a woman, seven feet tall, or four-foot-eleven. I can't even be sure that quotas and affirmative action helped me learn so many different skills.

The point is that, like it or not, blaming someone else for something that their ancestors didn't do isn't all that productive in the long run. Not all whites have ancestors who wore white linen every day and drank mint juleps on the veranda.

"Redistributive Change?" Been There, Tried That

Redistributive change sounds like a great idea, and has been tried before. On paper, it looks pretty good: as long as you're one of the redistributors, or one of the early recipients.

And, it's been tried. Russia made a good effort at spreading the wealth around, for most of the 20th century. Somehow, it didn't work out quite the way that idealists thought it would.

No: I am not calling Barack Obama a commie.

I think he's a Harvard Law School graduate, with ideas that are fairly common on American campuses, and a very idealistic young man.

I also think that America does not need a president, no matter how charming and eloquent, who believes that the lack of "redistributive change" in the civil rights movement was a tragedy.

Related posts:

• "Am I a Partisan? " (October 27, 2008)
• "Biden Interview about Barack Obama Campaign: ACORN, Redistrubion of Wealth, Marxism, and Other Impertinent Questions "
  (October 26, 2008)
• " 'Democrat and Halloween:' Cartoon With a (very sharp) Point"
  (October 25, 2008)
• "Joe the Plumber Asked the Wrong Question "
  (October 25, 2008)
• "FBI and Republicans in "Unholy Alliance" to Stop ACORN and Obama: Of Course! It all Makes Sense Now "
  (October 17, 2008)
• " 'Joe the Plumber' Wurzelbacher: American Taxpayer, Entrepreneur, and Voice of Reason in 2008 Election "
  (October 16, 2008)

News and views:

• "McCain to Attack Obama for Public Radio Comments from 2001"
  Political Punch / ABC News (October 27, 2008)
• Audio of the WBEZ interview
  WBEZ (Janaury 18, 2001)
  in *.ram format

---

¹ Excerpt from "McCain to Attack Obama for Public Radio Comments from 2001:"

" 'But,' Obama said, 'The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted.'

"Obama said 'one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that.'

"A caller, 'Karen,' asked if it's 'too late for that kind of reparative work economically?' And she asked if that work should be done through the courts or through legislation.

"'Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor,' Obama said. 'I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.' "

"Democrat and Halloween:" Cartoon With a (very sharp) Point

I don't usually do this sort of post on this blog, but "Democrat and Halloween" was too good to pass by. It's a one-panel cartoon.

Three kids in (non-politically correct) Halloween costumes are at the door of a house. The man at the door says: "Look how much candy you have! I'm going to take half and give it to the kids too lazy to go trick or treating for themselves!"

If you're not appalled, disgusted, and offended by that line, you'll probably enjoy what one of the kids is thinking, and the rest of the cartoon.

Joe the Plumber Asked the Wrong Question

I'd been wondering why, after we learned that "Joe the Plumber" wasn't "Joe," and wasn't quite a plumber, news and the blogosphere didn't erupt in a firestorm of outrage.

This bald plumber from Ohio had, after all, tricked Barack Obama into making a clear statement about Obama's economic philosophy.

By posing as himself, Joe the Plumber lured Barack Obama into saying "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," an unscripted statement that was entirely too easy to understand.

Oh, No, Joe! Say It Ain't So!

News leaked out, last week, that "Joe the Plumber" was really Samuel J. Wurzelbacher: and that he wasn't a licensed plumber. Not in Toledo, Ohio, anyway. After the revelation that Barack Obama had been ambushed by a 'right-wing zealot working under an assumed name,' there wasn't anywhere near the amount of fuss I expected. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places.

Someone probably found out that the "J" in Samuel J. Wurzelbacher stands for "Joseph."

The full name of "Joe the Plumber" is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.

So, Joe the Plumber would rather be called Joe than Sam: So what?

Joe the Plumber: Person of Interest

When Joe the Plumber, AKA Joe Wurzelbacher, AKA Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, presented himself as a plumber who wanted to buy the business he'd been working for, Barack Obama explained: " 'I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody,'" and that "Joe" would be okay, personally.

John McCain and his campaign have been claiming that Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. Obama says, 'do not!'

I suppose it's a matter of semantics.

Whether it's "spread the wealth around," or 'redistribute property,' Joe the Plumber got Mr. Obama to state his economic philosophy: simply and directly.

And quite a few Americans are savvy enough to realize that penalizing people for being successful isn't part of the American dream.

That makes Joe the Plumber a person of interest for quite a few people who honestly believe that society would be better if people who make too much had their property confiscated by a wise and benevolent federal bureaucracy.

Joe's Virtual Proctology Exam

Somebody's been feeling around in Joe's records. Data about his driver's license was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles not long after the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama.

Three times.

(Turns out, Joe owns an SUV. You might have known that he'd be one of those people.)

So far, although we don't know exactly who nosed around inside Joe's records, we do know where the digging was done. The data was accessed by accounts assigned to the:

• Office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers
• Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency
• Toledo Police Department

Without, apparently, any official reason.

Professor Rogers holds the Michael E. Moritz Chair in Alternative Dispute Resolution at Ohio State University's Moritz College. She's filling in as Ohio's Attorney General until the November election. She just happens to be a Democrat¹.

The Ohio Attorney General's office is investigating the unauthorized access.

It'll probably take a while. At least one of the leaks was from a "test account" given to the attorney general office's information technology section. That doesn't narrow it down as much as you might think. Apparently, the test accounts are shared with, and used by, other "law enforcement-related agencies," as the Columbus Dispatch put it.

One thing is for sure, officially, at least. Mr. Wurzelbacher's information wasn't accessed from inside the attorney general's office. A spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said so.

Sam Joe Wurzelbacher isn't at all happy about this (officially) unauthorized snooping. " 'It upsets me greatly, to be honest with you,' Wurzelbacher told FOX News' Neil Cavuto on Saturday. 'For a private citizen to ask a question of his elected leaders and then turn around and get a proctology exam, that's just kind of wrong.' " (FOXNews (October 25, 2008))

I think Joe the Plumber has a point.

Joe the Plumber for Congress?

It could be "Joe the Congressman" after 2010. Mr. Wurzelbacher's thinking about running for office. I'd say that the citizens of Ohio could do a lot worse.

Views:

• "Commentary: Liberals let loose on Palin and Joe the Plumber
  CNNPolitics.com (October 23, 2008)
• " 'Joe the Plumber' Wurzelbacher: American Taxpayer, Entrepreneur, and Voice of Reason in 2008 Election"
  (October 16, 2008)
• " 'Joe the Plumber' Isn't Quite a Plumber, and Isn't 'Joe!' "
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (October 16, 2008)
• " 'Joe the Plumber,' Barack Obama, Taxes, Racist Pennsylvanians, and 'Those People' "
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (October 16, 2008)

In the news:

• "Ohio probes 'Joe the Plumber' data search"
  United Press International (October 25, 2008)
• " 'Joe the Plumber' Considers Run for Congress"
  FOXNews (October 25, 2008)
• "Report: Government Computers Used to Get Information on 'Joe the Plumber' "
  FOXNews (October 25, 2008)
• "Government computers used to find information on Joe the Plumber"
  Columbus Dispatch (October 24, 2008)
• "Hacker targets Ohio secretary of state's site"
  Toledo Blade (October 22, 2008)

---

¹ Interim Ohio Attorney General Rogers' political affiliation isn't discussed much. Ohio's Democratic governor, Ted Strickland, said he didn't know that Professor Rogers was a Democrat when he appointed her, so that should settle the matter.

News and views:

• "Strickland taps Ohio State law dean for attorney general"
  PolitickerOH.com (May 29, 2008)
• "Dean of Ohio State law school Nancy Rogers to head Ohio attorney general's office"
  Cleveland.com / NEWS FROM THE PLAIN DEALER (May 29, 2008)
• "Dean of Ohio State law school Nancy Rogers to head Ohio attorney general's office"
  Cleveland.com Openers / The Plain Dealer Politics Blog (May 28, 2008)
  

"Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher: American Taxpayer, Entrepreneur, and Voice of Reason in 2008 Election

Updated October 16, 2008

I didn't think this blog would 'go political.' It's Joe Wurzelbacher's fault, sort of.

He's the plumber who told Barack Obama that he planned to buy the plumbing business where he'd worked for years. Right now, he can afford it.

If Obama gets elected, and follows through on his plan to tax the rich (persons making more than $250,000 USD a year) and give to the poor, Joe Wurselbacher won't be able to buy that plumbing business. As owner of the business, his income will be too high.

What Joe Wurzelbacher Said to Barack Obama

"In that exchange Wurzelbacher asked Obama if he believed in the American Dream. Wurzelbacher said he was about to buy a company that makes more than $250,000 a year and was concerned that Obama would tax him more because of it...."
(CNN)

What Obama Said, to Joe

" 'I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody,' Obama told Wurzelbacher."
(CNN)

What Joe Said, Later

"I've always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them and get them to answer a question... for once instead of tap dancing around it...."
(BBC)

What John McCain Said, Later

" 'Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes,' McCain challenged Obama."
(FOXNews)

Obama's Response, Still Later

'That's not so.' More specifically, ""Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy,' Obama said. 'They produce the most jobs.' "
(FOXNews")

Help Like This We Don't Need

I'm not sure which Obama to believe: the one that wants to "spread the wealth around," or the one who says that his new and improved taxes won't keep Joe from buying the business he's saved for.

I'm a bit uneasy about McCain, too, since he said, "Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees. And I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income."
(FOXNews)

I'm quite sure that I don't want Obama to "spread the wealth around," and not at all comfortable about getting McCain's help, either.

Former President Reagan said it best:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' "
(Quotations Page)


(From CNN, used without permission)
Joe Wurzelbacher: About to be Redistributed Out of the American Dream

---

Am I Biased? You Bet!!

My sympathy is with Mr. Wuzelbacher.

I'm the sole proprietor of the Brian H. Gill company, operating out of the north room of my house. Unlike Mr. Wuzelbacher, I won't be hiring anyone. On the other hand, there's equipment I'd like to buy, and services I'd like to pay for: so the more money I make, the more money goes to companies that do hire people.

As it is, I've got a shot at making a success of publishing "A Small World of Websites." At this point, making $250,000 USD a year is a long way off, at best, but it could happen.

However, if Obama gets his chance to "spread the wealth around," the odds of my success go down. Even if I'm not taxed for contributing to the economy, there's a very good chance that an Obama administration won't stop at higher taxes for 'the rich.'

I recognize that federal agencies have their lucid moments. (Explaining these bucolic references: I grew up near the east end of North Dakota.) Decades ago, OSHA decided that North Dakota farmers didn't have to install a matrix of porta potties, stretching beyond the horizon. And, federal wetland guidelines were re-written so that farmers could use their driveways, even rain puddles didn't dry up right away.

I don't know what crazy regulation would apply to my business. It's got about as low a carbon footprint as someone who exhales carbon dioxide can have, and doesn't deal in toxic chemicals (unless my coffee counts). Maybe the feds would insist that I lose weight. Which isn't a bad idea, in itself: but can you imagine having the Weight Police doing spot checks when they felt like it?

Haven't We Been Through This Before?

I'm not the first one to compare today's exciting economic news to the Great Depression's kickoff, and I won't be the last.

I'll take the rest of this post to give some background on why I'm not terribly excited about Obama's tax-the-employers plan. And, why I'm uneasy about McCain's promise to "help."

The Great Depression and FDR, The Savior of America

The conventional wisdom is still that the wise and beneficent Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved America from the Great Depression by taxing the businesses that could have produced more jobs and hired more people, who would have money to buy more goods, which would make more jobs possible.

It didn't make all that much sense to me, but I'm not an economist.

Turns out, I'm not the only one who thinks FDR's 'tax the employers and give to the government' policy may have been flawed. "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression" (Jim Powell, 2004 ISBN: 0-7615-0165-7) expresses that rather heretical view. And, got a rather scathing review.

The way I see it, the Great Depression would have happened, no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office. Agricultural practices that America has since abandoned, encouraging people to farm marginal land (made sense during WWI, not so much afterward), years of bad weather ('climate change,' we'd say now), buying stocks with money borrowed on the basis of daft assumptions, and other factors pretty much guaranteed that.

But, well-intentioned tinkering with America's economy may have kept the stock market from recovering as fast as it might have. And taking money away from companies, so that they couldn't hire people, was about as daft a way of dealing with unemployment as I've heard of.

It could be argued that FDR's enlightened New Deal policies, and the massive federal bureaucracy that went with it, Saved America. After all, the Great Depression did end. After a decade, more or less, depending on where you were.

Finally.

It took World War II, and the radical shift in national priorities that went with it, but the Great Depression did end.

Two points, and I'm done:

1. The Great Depression wasn't just an American event. People around the world were hurting. I'm concentrating on the American experience here, because I'm discussing the American presidential election.
2. Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has a large and enthusiastic fan base to this day, I'll probably be told to study some history. Which I have, with a degree to prove it. I'm not absolutely convinced that Roosevelt's policy of taxing the employers and giving to the bureaucrats prolonged the Great Depression, but it's an idea that I think deserves serious consideration.

In the news:

• "Profile: Joe Wurzelbacher "
  BBC (October 16, 2008)
  with video (1:55)
• "Joe the Plumber won't say who will get his vote"
  Reuters (October 16, 2008)
• "McCain Gives 'Joe the Plumber' Prominent Billing in Debate"
  FOXNews (October 16, 2008)
• " 'Joe the Plumber' happy to help candidates make point"
  CNN (October 16, 2008)

---

Update October 16, 2008

Turns out, "Joe the Plumber" isn't Joe, and he's not exactly a plumber.

I discussed details in another blog (" 'Joe the Plumber' Isn't Quite a Plumber, and Isn't 'Joe!' " Another War on Terror Blog (October 16, 2008)).

I suspect that, if facts keep getting shaken loose, we'll discover that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher's middle name is Joseph, that most people call him "Joe" instead of "Sam," and that he's one of many Americans who had trouble paying their taxes, and who really hadn't needed a plumber's license.

None of which changes the fact that Barack Obama thought he was speaking to a 'real' plumber when he said that it was good to "spread the wealth around."

And I'm still not at all comfortable with the idea that someone who apparently wants to redistribute property in America may be president next year.