Saturday, November 29, 2008

Automotive Bailout?? Yikes.


The following is an article put in the New York Times and written by Mitt Romney. I've been wanting to write a blog about the automotive bailout- but let's hear about it from a Venture Capitalist and non-socialist like Mitt Romney.

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination."

New York Times- November 18th 2008


Thanks Mitt. This is a great article he wrote- he would have been a very economically sound President. He would make a great cabinet member for Obama also. Well, I am going to leave this topic at that. Thanks Mitt for keeping us all Capitalist minded in a Socialist shifting economy.

Friday, November 7, 2008


Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Parable of the Talents




In a recent conversation with a friend- I made a joke about a few of Barack Obama's policies. I said on Facebook: "Under Obama's plan, anyone with more than 249 Facebook friends will have to redistribute the remainder to less popular users." My friend wrote back a comment to me, part of which said, "...You're right, survival of the fittest. Darwin was right. Jesus had some cute ideas and all but that stuff isn't always convenient..." I actually found that comment to be pretty interesting. So I want to make it the topic of my blog. Let's talk about one of Jesus' "cute ideas."

For the sake of a refresher course, let's review it- it is only a few verses:

Matthew 25:
15 And unto one he gave five talents , to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant : thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid , and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given , and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Well, nobody says it better than Jesus- let's be honest. For the sake of current-day application, I will expound. Jesus chose to give each of the three people a certain number of talents. One received ten, another received two and another received only one. Both he that received ten and he that received five returned with double what they had been given, while the one that received one returned with the same only.

I don't look at this talent so as to draw a conclusion about the number of talents that we have each received. We each have been allotted what we need. I will simply say that we are required to return with profit, so to speak. One man hid his talent and did nothing with it- Jesus said, it would have been better off making interest with bankers. When the man with one talent returned having made nothing from his one, he lost that which he had and it was given to the one that had made ten with his ten.

Our lives is all that we really have. We have the ability to do whatever we want to with it. From Hitler to Mother Theresa, we choose who to be. From Warren Buffet to the extremely low income households. There are exceptions- but for the most part, the reason that people struggle in life is because they make poor decisions- and they have their "talent" from them. I am not saying that everyone has equal opportunity at birth- we are all born into different circumstances, but for those who choose to live a life and make decisions that carry the consequences of difficulty, hardship and bondage- then they should live with those negative consequences. When people choose to live a life that brings wealth, freedom and ease- then they should be able to live with those positive consequences.

Positive/Negative Choices------->Positive/Negative Consequences

In this day in age, there are many that suffer needlessly- it is horrific to think of so many of the travesties that have occurred and are occurring in this world and in our nation. My heart and prayers go out to those that suffer by no choice of their own.

Tyranny, oppression, bondage, unnecessary war, genocide and hatred are all examples of needless suffering, there will be a day of reckoning for those who have caused such things. In many cases- these things are needless and hateful, they are Godless and horrifying.

I recognize that there are millions who legitimately suffer. How could we not?

When I consider this country's future plans to redistribute wealth, to socialize medicine and overhauling education- I am greatly concerned for my own future. So, first of all- let me admit, yes- I am self-motivated and self-interested in this topic. But why shouldn't I be? I am 25 years old, and I feel that I have a very bright future in the world of business. I know that I will be a great contributor to stimulate commerce. Also people that currently do and will in the future work beneath me will be able to generate significant income to provide for themselves and their families. If I am a "successful business man" and create jobs and endorse a free exchange of money in my business, then that is good for me, it is good for those that work for me, and it is good for our nation.

Success and money are not finite- it is there for the taking and there to be made. That is a capitalist mentality. People tell me that our President-Elect is not a socialist. Now, that may be- but he certainly has plenty of socialistic policies and plans to implement a more socialistic governmental shift. I don't think that we are going to be Marxist or anything- but I do oppose higher taxation that would redistribute earnings to people who did not make as much.

Michelle Obama said on April 9th, 2008:

"Most Americans don't want much."

"They don't want the whole pie, there are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach."...

"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Barack Obama Said,

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


That is like taking the talents from the man who had ten and made ten more, and then taking his talents and giving it to the man who buried his. I don't know if he meant something different than what it sounds like- but, it is a little hard to misinterpret "spread the wealth around."

Why is it the Government's job to do that? We need to elect officials that incentivize lower income households to generate more income, and raise themselves out of poverty...not continually legitimize mediocrity by supporting people's choice to not make more of themselves and for themselves. The fact is, under a system of wealth redistribution, the Government perpetuates the problem of poverty. People will always view it as acceptable to remain in poverty and to not rise above and elevate themselves when they are be supported by others.

Is health care broken, yes. Is our education system over funded and underachieving, yes. I do not argue that our current systems are not broken...I am simply saying, that by growing the government, we as a people lose control. We need a new solution- I don't believe that further socialization of government is that solution.

We have many social programs that are great and currently work. Roads, Libraries, and so many others. However, there is a line crossed when you completely supports income of another person from what is deemed as discretionary funds of others. Welfare, unemployment and disability are often abused by those who are completely capable to provide for themselves. Reform of these social programs are absolutely required.

So, what can we do right now to start funding the legitimate problems without having to have net higher taxes. (I say net, because there are so many tax programs that are starting and ending that both raise and lower different types of taxes)

End the war in Iraq- 10 Billion Dollars a month
I don't understand why we spend so much money overseas when we have a broken core to our current systems.

Well, this quickly became my longest blog posting. It isn't meant to be anti-Obama, it is really meant to be anti socialism, especially with respect to the redistribution of wealth. People need to be responsible for themselves and those whom they choose to be responsible for. I love this country, I hope to someday love its leader.

I bet that there are many of you who disagree with me in this blog in particular. I welcome your difference in opinion, and I respect it as well. Best wishes. Post comments guys- I want to hear from you.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Guantanamo Detainee Rights?


Recently, the supreme court ruled to allow Al Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay the right to refute their imprisonment in public court. Currently, US officials have the power to imprison non-us citizens due to suspicion of terrorism, or suspected ties to terrorist cells.

The judiciary branch of the government exists to keep the executive and legislative branches in order. It is what makes our constitution so great: checks and balances- that way when the executive branch gets our of order, the other two branches can get them back on track and in line with the constitution.

That being said, let's educate ourselves or at least have a refresher on US law; specifically what is called "habeas corpus." Wikipedia defines it as follows: "Is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action."

This is a right given to US citizens. This right is not given to non-US citizens held in US prisons.

Specifically, Guantanamo prisoners were denied this right. The apparent purpose of this prison is to detain, question and eventually prosecute Al Qaeda and other terrorist organization members in order preserve homeland security. While trying to protect our own nation from terrorism, the end result, is the loss of the very values that are supposedly being defended by the war on terror. This really should be a human right and not a privilege given only to US citizens. It gives far too much power to a country to be able to imprison people based solely on suspicion.

Only a very narrow minded and selfish person would be willing to imprison people who have not been proven guilty in order to protect themselves. That goes against the same principles that we ourselves enjoy. ie- innocent until proven guilty. Guantanamo prisoners were held guilty until proven innocent- many detainees are held for years and are never proven to have any ties to terrorism.

According the US official reports:
  • As of November 17, 2006 there were about 430 detainees in Guantanamo
  • Only 10 or 430 had been charged with any crime
  • 55% of detainees are found to have never committed any hostile acts against the US or its allies.
  • 40% – percent of detainees who have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda
  • 18% – percent of detainees who have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda or Taliban
  • 86% – percent of detainees were not captured on the battlefield, but were captured and bought by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody
President Bush is greatly apposed to the Supreme Court ruling and has publicly rebuked their decision. While speaking on the matter, he appeared to be highly distraught over the matter. Let's be honest here- our government is not perfect, far from it. What gives us the right to remove all rights (through imprisonment) of someone merely based on suspicious activity? There is no limitation on time of imprisonment for detainees not proven innocent. This power is incredibly dangerous and must not be given to any country.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Immigration: Our Future as a Nation

It is so often that issues become so popular among news agencies only to quickly die off. Lately, it has been the Democratic Primary- but before that was a topic that effects millions of Americans: Immigration. Our nation is currently faced with several crises: The housing market, the middle eastern threat, Al-Qaeda and the declining value of the dollar in the global market. The crisis that is rarely viewed as such could potentially become our greatest- and augment the level of seriousness to the others.

Let me first say, that I have first hand seen the poverty that is plaguing Central America- and have heard the stories of countless Mexican, Dominican, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Haitian and every other Central and South American Country's citizens. I have heard the stories of poverty in their native countries and the stories about crossing the US boarders spoke in their own tongue. I empathize with the severe situations that many families and individuals find themselves in. I understand why they seek to enter the United States. Speaking without racism, I continue this post.

Based on 2004 studies 8,200-10,000 illegal immigrants enter our country on the average day. It is projected that by the year 2010, 14% of our nation's population will be illegal immigrants. These are staggering figures! Specifically as the US becomes more of a welfare state. With socialism knocking at our door in the form of Universal Health Care and other social reforms- our country puts its economic infrastructure in the hands of the immigration policy makers and those that enforce those policies.

59% of illegals in this country live at or very near poverty levels. That means that they survive off of either our welfare system, or through necessary crime to survive. Either way, they are not paying taxes that support our growing welfare state, or paying for the increasing need for police as crime rates rise in urban areas, or paying into our current Medicare system. That being said, in the past 5 years 23 California hospitals have been shutdown largely due to the over population of illegals that either cannot or do not pay for the medical care they receive.

For now, things are fine. What will happen to our country as we become more and more socialist when we have more and more non-tax contributing illegal immigrants living in the US. Like I said, I am empathetic to the situations that families find themselves in- but what will happen to our country in 10 years, 15 Years or 25 Years, when we continue down the path we are on? I personally am not a believer in creating the Social Democratic Republic of America- but if our socioeconomic structure can't support itself in 10-20 years because so many of our populous are non-tax paying illegals, then what happens to everyone, including those here illegally? I helps no one. Illegals will eventually bite the hand that feeds them....and bite it off, because they do not support the very system that they rely on.

Our borders must be closed and more regulated, specifically the Arizona border or our economy will inevitably collapse, maybe not today or tomorrow- but someday.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Peace in the Middle East

Dwight D. Eisenhower Video (Introduction to Blog)

We are currently faced with more turmoil in the Middle East than ever before. Why is it that after years of war, occupation and nation building are we seeing more and more unrest in this area of the world? Why has the United States been so hated by countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq?



In the video Eisenhower speaks of the military industrial complex having too much power and what that would potentially look like. He said, "We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications, our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved, so is the very structure of our society."

"In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, weather sought or unsought by the military industrial complex."

"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties and democratic processes."

The fact is, we have let the military industrial complex have too much power. They have brought and kept our nation in war.

Our nation has assumed the responsibility to police the world in the name of national security. This policy is what caused us to invade Iraq. If we are not careful- this policy will cause us to invade Iran. This policy will always initiate nations like Pakistan and Iran to act defensively (which as per our policy we view as offensive measures) by seeking nuclear warfare capabilities. Perpetuating the problem that we are trying to prevent. Basically, what formula we are acting under is this:

prevent and preempt= safety and preservation of our liberty

We do the first part of that formula, but our desired result will never occur by preempting any country to build their own military industrial complex. The actual formula looks like this:

prevent and preempt = instigate and destroy liberty and culture

When did we become the nation that told other nations what they could and could not do? Why is it our job to police the world? Is it any wonder that our nation is among the most hated?

Our nation's policing the world causes the growth of Al Qaeda, again perpetuating the very problem that we are trying to solve. All I am trying to say is that, yes there are incredibly serious problems in the middle east- but our current strategies are only causing our adversaries to grow in numbers and in reason.

No doubt, by continuing on the path that we are currently on, Iran will become an increasingly more threatening nation. I blame a lot of it on us. We need to seek more peaceful resolutions in regulation of Nuclear Weaponry. Each nation should have the right to defend its commodities and its way of life just like we do. I do fear the power we could allow Iran or Korea or any other nation to have. The problem is that it is not our job to allow or not to allow them to do anything.

I end with the almost prophetic words of Dwight D. Eisenhower: "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties and democratic processes."

Purpose of this Blog

My blog will be a conglomeration on many things. I am deeply opinionated- no doubt about that. I have strong political, social and economic views on the world and on the society in which I reside.

I hope to both educate as well as influence those around me in a greater sense. I believe that the direction we are heading as a society and as a country has both its strengths and its limitations.

I hope to give an objective and unbiased view on what is truth.