It's a sad sight to watch the three American car companies all located in Detroit (Ford, GM, Chrysler) in the shape they're in and on the brink of failure.
Even if they were "bailed out" (and we've seen how well that's helped the markets lately, can you tell I'm being sarcastic?) it would only be a short term infusion and they'd probably go right back into the same condition.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler failed for three reasons: (1) Uncompetitive product in the market place until it was too late, (2) Union greed, (3) backwards healthcare benefits to employees.
Uncompetitive Product -- who had the hybrid first? Ford and GM, or Toyota and Honda? Toyota and Honda of course. Which brands are generally considered by most people to be smoother rides, better power, and last longer with fewer problems? Even if it's not true, most people will just generally assume the Japanese brands are better. And Ford and GM and Chrysler didn't do much to fight that or improve from where they were. Combine that with an environment of rising gas prices over the past 6 years and still marketing HUMMERS in spite of that, and it's a recipe for failure.
Union Greed -- I don't have anything against unions, or at least not the concept thereof, but there is a line and a point of going too far. When you've got unions at every plant that just keep demanding more and more when they're already making a very above average wage, of course that's going to hurt the car companies. Japanese companies generally don't have problems with Labor Unions for one reason: They treat their employees well and genuinely listen to them. The Japanese spend 5 times more money and time training new employees than Americans do. American companies don't have as motivated of employees so their workers just mindlessly go to work everyday in routine fashion, demanding more and more hoping to be happy with more wages but they aren't because lack of money is not the source of their dissatisfaction with their jobs.
Healthcare plans -- The average American corporation could stand to learn a thing or two from WHOLE FOODS MARKET. Rather than providing low deductible low co-pay plans to their workers, they provide their employees with high deductible healthplans, COMBINED with matching Health Savings accounts, just like the way many employers match on 401ks. So the employees are free to use their HSA funds whereever they like, like acupuncturists, massage therapists, advanced testing labs, etc. Because these high-deductible plans are inexpensive, the employer doesn't have to worry about dramatic price increases from year to year. They also force the cost of medicine to go down because the employee bears the majority of the cost, they will now go looking for the hospital or doctor who provides the lowest cost of a given procedure.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Michael Medved's loathing....
I was outside in my car listening to Michael Medved, and I heard him discuss last night's election.
He said he was disappointed but not as disappointed as he was and as heartbroken as he was when Bush Sr lost in 1996 thanks to "some idiot from Texas named Ross Perot."
Michael Medved has historically opposed third parties and said America just "needs two healthy parties." Boooo!!!!
Michael Medved, you're a hack for the two-party system in this country, just like everyone else in the mainstream media. You right-wing talk radio people try to pretend that you're some underground resistance force to this "elite/mainstream media," when in fact you're just as much a part of the mainstream elite media. The only difference is you talk right-wing religious/imperialist/zionist propaganda all day long.
He said he was disappointed but not as disappointed as he was and as heartbroken as he was when Bush Sr lost in 1996 thanks to "some idiot from Texas named Ross Perot."
Michael Medved has historically opposed third parties and said America just "needs two healthy parties." Boooo!!!!
Michael Medved, you're a hack for the two-party system in this country, just like everyone else in the mainstream media. You right-wing talk radio people try to pretend that you're some underground resistance force to this "elite/mainstream media," when in fact you're just as much a part of the mainstream elite media. The only difference is you talk right-wing religious/imperialist/zionist propaganda all day long.
Reflections on this past year's election cycle
In the final analysis I am happy that America finally has taken a step in righting past wrongs and elected a black man as president. I am also happy that John McCain graciously, admirably, and honorably stepped down.
Now, I must say some things about both campaigns (and remember, I voted for Bob Barr/Wayne Root):
-- John McCain began as the real John McCain. The John McCain most people have come to know, love, and respect. He was condemning Obama critics whom he felt stepped out of line left and right. He ran a clean campaign. But some time in early August, things changed. Rudy Giuliani was horribly disrespectful at the RNC Convention. Baseless allegations of friendship with William Ayers started flying out from McCain surrogates with no condemnation from McCain. Then the Rashid Khalidi red herring/strawman was put up. Then a 501c3 organization put out an ad yesterday playing clips of Jeremiah Wright sermons. That was all desparation.
-- Right wing talk radio was also disgraceful this entire time. I remember an instance in which on the Mike Gallagher show an African American girl called in and said she supported Barack Obama and then Gallagher shouted her down and said to her that the only reason she's supporting Obama is because he's black and so is she. On the Bill Bennett show, former Senator Rick Santorum said that the only reason Obama's ahead is because he's black. WOW.
And need we remember the footage of people outside of a McCain rally waiting to get in, yelling out derogatory remarks like "Mohammed Obama" and other sorts of bigoted and racist even, remarks. I had never seen such a thing since the last time I watched a KKK documentary.
McCain would have still lost had all this not been the case because of the history-making aura of electing the first black president. But it would not have been the landslide it was. America has not seen an election that distant in terms of the winner and the loser since 1996, and that was only because of Ross Perot taking votes mostly away from Bob Dole.
I know that John McCain will go back to being the old John McCain now that this is over.
Now, I must say some things about both campaigns (and remember, I voted for Bob Barr/Wayne Root):
-- John McCain began as the real John McCain. The John McCain most people have come to know, love, and respect. He was condemning Obama critics whom he felt stepped out of line left and right. He ran a clean campaign. But some time in early August, things changed. Rudy Giuliani was horribly disrespectful at the RNC Convention. Baseless allegations of friendship with William Ayers started flying out from McCain surrogates with no condemnation from McCain. Then the Rashid Khalidi red herring/strawman was put up. Then a 501c3 organization put out an ad yesterday playing clips of Jeremiah Wright sermons. That was all desparation.
-- Right wing talk radio was also disgraceful this entire time. I remember an instance in which on the Mike Gallagher show an African American girl called in and said she supported Barack Obama and then Gallagher shouted her down and said to her that the only reason she's supporting Obama is because he's black and so is she. On the Bill Bennett show, former Senator Rick Santorum said that the only reason Obama's ahead is because he's black. WOW.
And need we remember the footage of people outside of a McCain rally waiting to get in, yelling out derogatory remarks like "Mohammed Obama" and other sorts of bigoted and racist even, remarks. I had never seen such a thing since the last time I watched a KKK documentary.
McCain would have still lost had all this not been the case because of the history-making aura of electing the first black president. But it would not have been the landslide it was. America has not seen an election that distant in terms of the winner and the loser since 1996, and that was only because of Ross Perot taking votes mostly away from Bob Dole.
I know that John McCain will go back to being the old John McCain now that this is over.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Electoral College Part II
So I had an idea in my head that maybe the electoral college isn't quite such a bad thing if changes were made to it.
In its current incarnation, most states electoral colleges go the way of the popular vote of that state. All or nothing. I have heard recently that the way Virginia, I think it is, has an electoral college that goes the way of the national popular vote. Don't know if that's true or not, and if so they must do it at the last minute or just take a sample.
Well, the electoral college could be kept as a viable system IF the colleges changed to where they delegate their votes proportionately. Not all or nothing.
Suppose for example Texans vote 61% for McCain and 37% for Obama, then 61% of the electoral votes for Texas go to McCain, and 37% go to Obama. So if Texas has 28 electoral votes, then McCain gets roughly 17 and Obama gets 11.
That would make people like myself who feel like their vote doesn't matter in a red or blue state no longer feel disenfranchised.
In its current incarnation, most states electoral colleges go the way of the popular vote of that state. All or nothing. I have heard recently that the way Virginia, I think it is, has an electoral college that goes the way of the national popular vote. Don't know if that's true or not, and if so they must do it at the last minute or just take a sample.
Well, the electoral college could be kept as a viable system IF the colleges changed to where they delegate their votes proportionately. Not all or nothing.
Suppose for example Texans vote 61% for McCain and 37% for Obama, then 61% of the electoral votes for Texas go to McCain, and 37% go to Obama. So if Texas has 28 electoral votes, then McCain gets roughly 17 and Obama gets 11.
That would make people like myself who feel like their vote doesn't matter in a red or blue state no longer feel disenfranchised.
Keep a bad system alive on life support or try something else?
I live in Texas. My mother is a teacher. I also sell mutual funds and a lot of my clients are teachers or they work for the school system.
Here in Texas if you're a teacher you aren't part of Social Security. You don't pay taxes into it and you get nothing from it unless you have credits from previous non-school systems employment, like maybe if you worked at a pizza joint while you were in college. You get the idea. Instead, you're part of a retirement system called Texas T.R.S. -- Texas Teachers Retirement Systems.
How are they different? Here's how: Social Security is designed (stupidly) so that people who are currently working pay taxes into social security. Those taxes are given to people who are currently retired. Based on what you pay into the system you get a number of credits that determine how much you'll get when you retire. That worked fine back in 1935 when you people in those days had more children. At that time there were approximately 13 retirees for every worker. Today, there are less than 3.
T.R.S. is completely different -- instead of being set up as a pyramid, retirees pay the same they'd pay into social security into an account that earns them 5% each year. Then at retirement,
they take the number of years you served, multiply that by 2.3%, and then that is the factor for your annual payout.
Teachers have told me that T.R.S. payouts are better than social security and that T.R.S. is not under the same solvency crisis Social Stupidity, errrr, Social Security is under. Even if TRS payouts were actually the same or slightly less, T.R.S. is an inherently superior system. It is not dependent on birthrates.
Here in Texas if you're a teacher you aren't part of Social Security. You don't pay taxes into it and you get nothing from it unless you have credits from previous non-school systems employment, like maybe if you worked at a pizza joint while you were in college. You get the idea. Instead, you're part of a retirement system called Texas T.R.S. -- Texas Teachers Retirement Systems.
How are they different? Here's how: Social Security is designed (stupidly) so that people who are currently working pay taxes into social security. Those taxes are given to people who are currently retired. Based on what you pay into the system you get a number of credits that determine how much you'll get when you retire. That worked fine back in 1935 when you people in those days had more children. At that time there were approximately 13 retirees for every worker. Today, there are less than 3.
T.R.S. is completely different -- instead of being set up as a pyramid, retirees pay the same they'd pay into social security into an account that earns them 5% each year. Then at retirement,
they take the number of years you served, multiply that by 2.3%, and then that is the factor for your annual payout.
Teachers have told me that T.R.S. payouts are better than social security and that T.R.S. is not under the same solvency crisis Social Stupidity, errrr, Social Security is under. Even if TRS payouts were actually the same or slightly less, T.R.S. is an inherently superior system. It is not dependent on birthrates.
Monday, November 3, 2008
My thoughts on Obama
Well it's an hour-and-a-half away from November 4th, and as I sit here I'd like to say something briefly. This will not be one of my longer posts.
I will be happy if Obama wins the presidency for one reason and one reason only: America will finally have an African-American president. And not only that, but also the fact that he will be the second ever non-Protestant President. Maybe 3rd if you're so bold as to include Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist but his parents were Protestants. This is important, as it will help young African American and Hispanic kids in lower income neighborhoods grow up to see a man who's half-Black on TV everyday as president to believe that the only force that can restrain them in terms of achievement is themselves.
Yes, Obama is a member of the Democrat party. Yes, the Democrat party in conjunction with the Republican party run a loose oligarchy that controls American politics and keeps other political parties out. Yes, he believes in "spreading the wealth around." Yes, he's wrong on health care. But I can at least be happy about that one thing.
I will be happy if Obama wins the presidency for one reason and one reason only: America will finally have an African-American president. And not only that, but also the fact that he will be the second ever non-Protestant President. Maybe 3rd if you're so bold as to include Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist but his parents were Protestants. This is important, as it will help young African American and Hispanic kids in lower income neighborhoods grow up to see a man who's half-Black on TV everyday as president to believe that the only force that can restrain them in terms of achievement is themselves.
Yes, Obama is a member of the Democrat party. Yes, the Democrat party in conjunction with the Republican party run a loose oligarchy that controls American politics and keeps other political parties out. Yes, he believes in "spreading the wealth around." Yes, he's wrong on health care. But I can at least be happy about that one thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
