By all accounts, China has been doing very well economically over the past 10 years. Did you ever wonder how they did it and if they had some kind of sophisticated plan? I was a little bored today and made a short list of items that any person with an ounce of brains could just as easily come up with. China has a plan and it is a simple plan. Here goes.
(1) Make things cheaper than the USA
Sounds simple. If you add up the pieces, labor, material, energy and capital you find that they can easily beat us with just labor alone. Obama is making our energy more expensive while it is getting cheaper in China. There is "no" market for our coal here in the USA, so that lowers the price that China has to pay. See where this is going?
(2) Technology
In the past, we have been able to counter act the increases in labor cost here in the USA with new technology, but not any more. The China plan is to "steal" technology and thus get it for free. They have also stacked the deck in our universities with Chinese technical graduate students who we train and then they go back to China with our investment. Nice! Further, China graduates 10 times as many engineers as we do. What do you think the impact of that will be? We peaked in terms of American engineering graduates back in 1986. Surprised?
(3) Work harder and longer
We have done just the opposite. No young American really wants to work. You can't even get a kid to mow your lawn anymore. You have to go out and hire an illegal to do the job. If the Chinese are working harder and longer, what do you think the end results is going to be?
(4) Live cheap
The Chinese might spend a larger % of their income on food, but the number is still a lot lower than here in the USA. In terms of housing, we have gone over the cliff. 90% of Americans are over housed. We squandered much of our national wealth and the future credit of our children on big homes that will cost tons in the future to heat and maintain. Take air conditioning alone for example, we spend more on just this one item than China does on their total housing bill. How do you think we are doing? Not too good.
(5) Minimize health care cost
China has a totally different tradition from the West when it come to health care. They put their money into herbal medicine that has a much lower cost and is just as affective as our million dollar system. Note that they have about the same life expectancy as we do and spend so much less. You need to ask, what are we getting for all the money we are spending? You will not like the answer.
(6) Make trouble for USA internationally
China knows that we spend at least 5 million dollars to kill a single enemy so all they have to do is to drum up trouble some place to get us to go in and squander billions militarily. The interesting thing is that it works. They have us shooting at decoys while they buy our bonds to finance our military. How is that?
(7) Buy or tie up raw materials around the world
We need many of the same raw materials as China does and they know it. With the profits that they have made selling us every thing under the Sun, they go out with "cash" and buy up raw materials. In the case of oil from Canada, Obama killed the pipe line so it made an opening for China. Even if China had to pay more for the oil, the loss of the oil for USA would still be worth it to them. No need to shoot bullets at the USA, when they can just reduce our oil supply. That is how it works. Simple as I told you.
(8) Loan money to the USA so that we can buy their products
If this was not true, I know that you would not believe it. China loans us money so that we can buy our shoes cheaper from them while our friend down the street who makes shoes is out of a job. Now that is what I can a "win-win". China kills a job here with our own money. If they did not loan us the money, we would have to go without or work harder and we would not want to do that.
(9) Move USA companies to China
Here again, if this were not true you would never believe that something like this could happen. GE who is on Obama's Job Council is just one of the companies who is moving jobs from here over too China. These are not low tech jobs either. It is like the saying, "we will buy the rope (on credit) for the Chinese to hang us."
(10) Don't worry about carbon or global warming
While we are running around like chicken little, the Chinese are buying our coal and burning it in their power plants to make "cheap" electricity. While we think we are saving the planet, the Chinese are taking over the planet. Did you ever consider "who" we are saving this planet for? It will not be for our children.
That's 10. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Now go back thru my 10 and see what we are doing to counteract the actions of China. What you will find is that we are actually helping them. If you think that this next election is not important, you need to re-read my list of 10 items.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Do It Yourselfers
I have been watching the world go by for a very long time and have noticed some very significant changes and not all good. This time it is about Do It Yourselfers. Hey, this is significant. Here goes.
Look at the USA as a time continuum starting in 1608 when my first relatives came here from Europe. Those first pioneers were true Do It Youselfers. They had no Home Depot or the Internet. They had to do every thing themselves. The only ones who made it were those who were very good at doing it themselves. This is how we started out and these are the people who built this place. Now I think you can see that "we" have changed and I mean "we". We are very different from those who built this place. We may think we are do it yourselfers, but we are really amatures.
Now how have we changed? After the real pioneers settled the country, there was shift to mostly "rural". These were people who lived on small farms and very small towns. Only a hundread or so years ago, most of lived on farms or in very small towns, but that has changed too. Small farms gave way to large farms where the crops were grown for "money", not to feed their own farm family. It went even farther and farms started to specialize in one or only a few types of crops. At one time, California was the largest wheat producer, but not any more. Specialization. They were also at one time the largest producer of potatoes and cotton, but not any more. See how things have changed. At one time we needed a lot of workers to pick cotton and potatoes, but not any more. These workers did not need much skill since the work was simple and non-technical, but not now. Rural people are still the best do it yourselfers, but still not in the same class with those original pioneers.
Now most people live in very large cities or in suburbs around those big cities. Very few live on farms of any type and you know what has been happening to all those small towns. Many that once had a railroad running thru them don't even have the railroad any more. It will not be long before they do not have a full time post office. Because some one in a big city paints their own bath room, does that mean they are do it yourselfers? Can they have a welder or a tractor with a bucket? When was the last time they drilled a hole in a piece of metal and then ran a tap thru it? Never. They will tell you that they, "do not need to know all that stuff", but what do they put in the place of all that do it yourself knowledge? That is the problem. It has been a one way street. The fact is we are dumber now than those people who built this place. Some say that they went to college and became a specialist in something. That might work for a while, but what happens when things change and the lights go out? Most will remain in the dark. I blogged on this one before, but how many could go out in the back yard and start a fire without any matches? Pioneers could do it and they had to be able to do it to survive, but not now. Our kids play games to pass the time. Parents go along with this thinking that it is better to play some game rather than get into worse trouble. If the choice is between "less worse" how far have we come?
I spent some time in both Australia and New Zealand. Base on my travels, I would rate those two countries at the top when it comes to do it yourselfers. They are also some of the nicest most responsible hard working people on Earth. Which came first, "the chicken or the egg?" Because they are do it yourselfers, is that the reason that socially and economically those two countries are doing so much better than us on almost any measure? I think they are related. Russians and Cubans have a reputation for being do it yourselfers too. When you are well educated and dirt poor, it seems that one of the characteristics that appears is do it yourselfers. Given the above, I don't think there is much hope for us. We will get poor, that is for sure, but there is little chance of getting better educated.
Look around at people you know who are do it yourselfers and see if you don't agree.
Look at the USA as a time continuum starting in 1608 when my first relatives came here from Europe. Those first pioneers were true Do It Youselfers. They had no Home Depot or the Internet. They had to do every thing themselves. The only ones who made it were those who were very good at doing it themselves. This is how we started out and these are the people who built this place. Now I think you can see that "we" have changed and I mean "we". We are very different from those who built this place. We may think we are do it yourselfers, but we are really amatures.
Now how have we changed? After the real pioneers settled the country, there was shift to mostly "rural". These were people who lived on small farms and very small towns. Only a hundread or so years ago, most of lived on farms or in very small towns, but that has changed too. Small farms gave way to large farms where the crops were grown for "money", not to feed their own farm family. It went even farther and farms started to specialize in one or only a few types of crops. At one time, California was the largest wheat producer, but not any more. Specialization. They were also at one time the largest producer of potatoes and cotton, but not any more. See how things have changed. At one time we needed a lot of workers to pick cotton and potatoes, but not any more. These workers did not need much skill since the work was simple and non-technical, but not now. Rural people are still the best do it yourselfers, but still not in the same class with those original pioneers.
Now most people live in very large cities or in suburbs around those big cities. Very few live on farms of any type and you know what has been happening to all those small towns. Many that once had a railroad running thru them don't even have the railroad any more. It will not be long before they do not have a full time post office. Because some one in a big city paints their own bath room, does that mean they are do it yourselfers? Can they have a welder or a tractor with a bucket? When was the last time they drilled a hole in a piece of metal and then ran a tap thru it? Never. They will tell you that they, "do not need to know all that stuff", but what do they put in the place of all that do it yourself knowledge? That is the problem. It has been a one way street. The fact is we are dumber now than those people who built this place. Some say that they went to college and became a specialist in something. That might work for a while, but what happens when things change and the lights go out? Most will remain in the dark. I blogged on this one before, but how many could go out in the back yard and start a fire without any matches? Pioneers could do it and they had to be able to do it to survive, but not now. Our kids play games to pass the time. Parents go along with this thinking that it is better to play some game rather than get into worse trouble. If the choice is between "less worse" how far have we come?
I spent some time in both Australia and New Zealand. Base on my travels, I would rate those two countries at the top when it comes to do it yourselfers. They are also some of the nicest most responsible hard working people on Earth. Which came first, "the chicken or the egg?" Because they are do it yourselfers, is that the reason that socially and economically those two countries are doing so much better than us on almost any measure? I think they are related. Russians and Cubans have a reputation for being do it yourselfers too. When you are well educated and dirt poor, it seems that one of the characteristics that appears is do it yourselfers. Given the above, I don't think there is much hope for us. We will get poor, that is for sure, but there is little chance of getting better educated.
Look around at people you know who are do it yourselfers and see if you don't agree.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Teaching And Questions
Here is a new slant on teaching. Have you ever been around a small kid about 4 years old? Notice how they are always saying, "Why?". This is the way most kids learned over the past hundred thousand years. Darwin created this model and it has seemed have worked very well. Now enter organized schools where the teacher sits up front and passes out "answers" to questions that have not been asked. How well has it worked? How about getting back to basics where the kids ask the questions and the teacher gives them the answers. That is the way parents did it for all those years, so why change?
Think of it this way. Inside the kid's mind is his own computer and file system. Like most of us, he can't think of more than one thing at single instant. When he is thinking about that "one" thing, he is at the address of that file location and if he can get the answer at that point, he will file it away in his own special place. Try this. He sees a new girl walking across the play ground and at that point he wonders what her name is and where she is from. There is an empty space in this file location. He asks the question, "What is her name and where is she from"? You give him the answer and he files it in just the right spot in his personal file. If you had told him the same info without the person seeing the girl or asking the question, there is no telling where or if the info will be filed away. If it is not filed in the right place, it will be very difficult for the person to call up the information when needed in the future. Starting to see how this works.
It can be taken one step farther and rather than answering the question, you tell the person how they can find out the information by them selves. This draws on the person's own unique file system and then having to do a little work to get the answer. Notice how something that you have to work or pay for has more significance. Is it starting to make sense how just having a teacher sit up front passing out facts does not get the job done.
Darwin used this principle to help us find food. When we were hungry and we looked for food, we did not forget where we found that food so that in the future when we were hungry we could search in similar places. It would be the same when you were cold or in pain.
I propose that a teacher give an assignment to the kids to come back with questions that they do "not" know the answers too. The teacher would then either give the kids the answers or direct them to where and how they could find the answer. Does this sound radical? Well, we all know that what we are doing is not working. People do not randomly search the Internet. They normally start with a question and then try to find the answer. We need to figure out how to do more of this type of thing.
Think of it this way. Inside the kid's mind is his own computer and file system. Like most of us, he can't think of more than one thing at single instant. When he is thinking about that "one" thing, he is at the address of that file location and if he can get the answer at that point, he will file it away in his own special place. Try this. He sees a new girl walking across the play ground and at that point he wonders what her name is and where she is from. There is an empty space in this file location. He asks the question, "What is her name and where is she from"? You give him the answer and he files it in just the right spot in his personal file. If you had told him the same info without the person seeing the girl or asking the question, there is no telling where or if the info will be filed away. If it is not filed in the right place, it will be very difficult for the person to call up the information when needed in the future. Starting to see how this works.
It can be taken one step farther and rather than answering the question, you tell the person how they can find out the information by them selves. This draws on the person's own unique file system and then having to do a little work to get the answer. Notice how something that you have to work or pay for has more significance. Is it starting to make sense how just having a teacher sit up front passing out facts does not get the job done.
Darwin used this principle to help us find food. When we were hungry and we looked for food, we did not forget where we found that food so that in the future when we were hungry we could search in similar places. It would be the same when you were cold or in pain.
I propose that a teacher give an assignment to the kids to come back with questions that they do "not" know the answers too. The teacher would then either give the kids the answers or direct them to where and how they could find the answer. Does this sound radical? Well, we all know that what we are doing is not working. People do not randomly search the Internet. They normally start with a question and then try to find the answer. We need to figure out how to do more of this type of thing.
SAT Scores For School Teachers
This is a short blog. Did you know that kids going into teaching have the lowest SAT scores of any college group? Did you know that kids going into teaching and wanting to be coaches have even lower SAT scores? The school teaching graduates who go onto graduate school get the second lowest GRE (graduate records exam) scores. Only Sociology majors get lower scores.
The bottom line is that our teachers are among the dumbest in the world. The only reason that they are paid as much as they are is due to union extortion. If school teachers are so smart, why don't they go out and get non-union jobs and make a lot more money? Easy answer. Notice how our teachers tell us that they could teach better if they were paid more. How high can you jump? If I paid you a thousand dollars, could you jump a lot higher? N0!
First of all IQ is passed out in the crib, not in college. Most poor countries have just as high of a percentage of their population with IQ's of 125 as we do, but often they don't have any job prospects except for school teaching. That is why their teacher's IQ's average well over 100 and ours are below 100. Our average school teacher has a lower IQ than the average of the class that they are teaching. Even in the poorest countries of the world, the teachers have a higher IQ's than the students they are teaching. Not in the USA.
Hey, I am just a blogger. Do your own research and see what you find. You may not like the facts.
PS-------------If you check the SAT scores for math and science for our public school teachers, you will not be able to find a group of any kind who is lower. How is that when technology is the name of the game?
The bottom line is that our teachers are among the dumbest in the world. The only reason that they are paid as much as they are is due to union extortion. If school teachers are so smart, why don't they go out and get non-union jobs and make a lot more money? Easy answer. Notice how our teachers tell us that they could teach better if they were paid more. How high can you jump? If I paid you a thousand dollars, could you jump a lot higher? N0!
First of all IQ is passed out in the crib, not in college. Most poor countries have just as high of a percentage of their population with IQ's of 125 as we do, but often they don't have any job prospects except for school teaching. That is why their teacher's IQ's average well over 100 and ours are below 100. Our average school teacher has a lower IQ than the average of the class that they are teaching. Even in the poorest countries of the world, the teachers have a higher IQ's than the students they are teaching. Not in the USA.
Hey, I am just a blogger. Do your own research and see what you find. You may not like the facts.
PS-------------If you check the SAT scores for math and science for our public school teachers, you will not be able to find a group of any kind who is lower. How is that when technology is the name of the game?
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Challenge Education
Strange sounding title and I think I used something like it before. It is not a misspelling. I did not mean "challenging education". I mean it in a way that we can do some major cost cutting and improve our economic efficiency. Medical is about the worst area regarding cost. If the cost of medical care continues to increase at this rate, the end is clear. We are going to be bankrupt. Before I get going, I would like to point out a few statistics. We rank #33 in life expectancy and yet we spend the most on health care. We rank #24 in education and we spend the most on education. Are you starting to get the message? Rather than just complaining, I like to get at the root of the problem and see if I can figure out a way that we can correct the problem. Now, I am just going to take on the two areas of Medical cost and Education cost. Ready?
This may be a slight repeat, but bear with me. There are just four main drivers of medical cost. There are a few more, but there are only four big ones and that is where we should put our efforts. Do you know what they are? Here is my list.
(1) Cost of producing a doctor.
(2) The years that it takes to produce a doctor and the years that they work to pay the cost back
(3) The cost of excess testing and the cost of treatments
(4) Poor health practices of Americans
If you don't agree with my list, give me your's.
First, the cost to produce a doctor. Figure that a doctor goes to school from age 5 to about 35 to become a doctor. With a little 4th grade math, we find that adds up to 30 years. I think that I did this in a prior blog, but what do you think the total cost of that education is if the same money were put in the bank at 3% or 4% interest until the person was 35 years old? I know that you could do the math if you really wanted to, but it is in the millions. Hey, that is what a doctor costs us and I mean us because much of the cost was paid by you the tax payer. If you were to go one step farther and adjust for the alternative that the person could have gone to work earning some money at age 18 to age 35, you would see that the "delta" cost is much higher. Starting to get the point. Before I propose my solution, I want to go thru the other drivers.
Second point is this business of taking so many years of a person's life to train them to become doctors. This time is not for free. There is the cost per each year, plus the compounding of that cost until the time when it can start to be paid back. I pointed out above how this impacts the cost to become a doctor and the higher rate that a doctor has to charge to "get back" the cost of their education. If tax payers paid all the cost, it would not make any difference. Rather than pay the high hourly rate for the doctor, you would be paying the same amount in higher taxes. Again, there is no
free lunch. Most doctors who I know are not planning on working to age 65. They have worked much harder than most of us since age 5 and now want to have a little fun. Wouldn't you? If they work to age 60, that means that they have to earn enough in just 25 years to pay off the cost that they incurred in 30 years, Starting to see the problem.
Third we have the high cost of tests. I related the story about a bladder infection where the medicine only had a cost of $14.00 and the doctor visit and testing had a cost of over $250.00. My bill was a total of $254.00 plus the loss of my time. I could have just as easily gone to my local pharmacy and bought the medicine for $14.00. I had the same condition before and knew exactly what I had. I could have gone on the Internet and figured out what I had for free. I had a similar case where I was bitten by a tick and had they symptoms of Lyme's disease. Again, the medicine only had a cost of $14.00, but the doctors wanted to see me twice, once to take blood and again to prescribe the medicine. It would have cost me at least $500.00 if I had played by the rules, but I was wise enough to ask my doctor when I had the bladder infection to allow me to "refill" the prescription. That one step saved me $500.00. This might be a fine point, but even if the government program paid the $500.00, in the end it would have still cost me the same $500.00. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch!!!
Finally, how people take care of their own health. There is not dought that we are the fattest people in the world and thus have more health problems related to being over weight than any other country and we are getting fatter. Look at young kids between ages 5 and 18. You have to look hard to find one that looks healthy. Can you just imagine the number of ankles and knees that will be replaced in the future? How about AIDS or drugs? We buy more than any other country in the world. How about glue sniffing? It is a lot worse now with kids getting into even more dangerous things. Getting shot at some movie is not what we have to be worried about, it is the poor health practices of our population.
Well, that's it. I did not even get to education so it looks like I am going to have to break this blog up into section. In my next blog, I will show you how we can change this and it has nothing to do with who is president or if we have Obama care or not. Don't think so? Well, tune in and find out.
PS-------------
The fact that most people think they are paying their medical bills with someone elses money doesn't help. Even 8 year olds know the difference between spending birthday money and money that they have earned. More money chasing limited supply of services will make the price of anything go up and medical is no different. I could work on these points, but I have chosen to work on the "root" items.
This may be a slight repeat, but bear with me. There are just four main drivers of medical cost. There are a few more, but there are only four big ones and that is where we should put our efforts. Do you know what they are? Here is my list.
(1) Cost of producing a doctor.
(2) The years that it takes to produce a doctor and the years that they work to pay the cost back
(3) The cost of excess testing and the cost of treatments
(4) Poor health practices of Americans
If you don't agree with my list, give me your's.
First, the cost to produce a doctor. Figure that a doctor goes to school from age 5 to about 35 to become a doctor. With a little 4th grade math, we find that adds up to 30 years. I think that I did this in a prior blog, but what do you think the total cost of that education is if the same money were put in the bank at 3% or 4% interest until the person was 35 years old? I know that you could do the math if you really wanted to, but it is in the millions. Hey, that is what a doctor costs us and I mean us because much of the cost was paid by you the tax payer. If you were to go one step farther and adjust for the alternative that the person could have gone to work earning some money at age 18 to age 35, you would see that the "delta" cost is much higher. Starting to get the point. Before I propose my solution, I want to go thru the other drivers.
Second point is this business of taking so many years of a person's life to train them to become doctors. This time is not for free. There is the cost per each year, plus the compounding of that cost until the time when it can start to be paid back. I pointed out above how this impacts the cost to become a doctor and the higher rate that a doctor has to charge to "get back" the cost of their education. If tax payers paid all the cost, it would not make any difference. Rather than pay the high hourly rate for the doctor, you would be paying the same amount in higher taxes. Again, there is no
free lunch. Most doctors who I know are not planning on working to age 65. They have worked much harder than most of us since age 5 and now want to have a little fun. Wouldn't you? If they work to age 60, that means that they have to earn enough in just 25 years to pay off the cost that they incurred in 30 years, Starting to see the problem.
Third we have the high cost of tests. I related the story about a bladder infection where the medicine only had a cost of $14.00 and the doctor visit and testing had a cost of over $250.00. My bill was a total of $254.00 plus the loss of my time. I could have just as easily gone to my local pharmacy and bought the medicine for $14.00. I had the same condition before and knew exactly what I had. I could have gone on the Internet and figured out what I had for free. I had a similar case where I was bitten by a tick and had they symptoms of Lyme's disease. Again, the medicine only had a cost of $14.00, but the doctors wanted to see me twice, once to take blood and again to prescribe the medicine. It would have cost me at least $500.00 if I had played by the rules, but I was wise enough to ask my doctor when I had the bladder infection to allow me to "refill" the prescription. That one step saved me $500.00. This might be a fine point, but even if the government program paid the $500.00, in the end it would have still cost me the same $500.00. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch!!!
Finally, how people take care of their own health. There is not dought that we are the fattest people in the world and thus have more health problems related to being over weight than any other country and we are getting fatter. Look at young kids between ages 5 and 18. You have to look hard to find one that looks healthy. Can you just imagine the number of ankles and knees that will be replaced in the future? How about AIDS or drugs? We buy more than any other country in the world. How about glue sniffing? It is a lot worse now with kids getting into even more dangerous things. Getting shot at some movie is not what we have to be worried about, it is the poor health practices of our population.
Well, that's it. I did not even get to education so it looks like I am going to have to break this blog up into section. In my next blog, I will show you how we can change this and it has nothing to do with who is president or if we have Obama care or not. Don't think so? Well, tune in and find out.
PS-------------
The fact that most people think they are paying their medical bills with someone elses money doesn't help. Even 8 year olds know the difference between spending birthday money and money that they have earned. More money chasing limited supply of services will make the price of anything go up and medical is no different. I could work on these points, but I have chosen to work on the "root" items.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Different Slant On Romney
Well, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, but that is not the end of the story. How about a different slant on the pick? You will not hear this one on the TV news.
Here is what the choice says. It reveals who the person Mitt Romney is. I am interested in what a smart guy like Mitt Romney thinks about us voters out here. What does Mitt Romney think about you and me? I would like to know that and I think that you would too. I already know what Obama thinks of us voters whether or not we voted for him or not. Obama thinks that most Americans are stupid and easily manipulated and that is exactly how he treats all of us. He is smarter than us and can manipulate us to do anything he wants and that include committing economic suicide, That was in another blog where I connected the dots the only way that 100% of the dots could be connected.
What about Mitt Romney? Here is the basic point. If Mitt Romney holds the voters in high regard, he would pick Paul Ryan. If he held us in low regard as Obama does, he would have picked Condalisa Rice. This does not in anyway demean either of these two people. They are just different people coming from different directions. I think that it is clear that more competent voters know that Obama is driving this country over a cliff economically and Paul Ryan is the only person, out in public view, pointing this out. Ryan does not have the strongest appeal to Blacks and union people, but Ryan is on the right track. Rice may appeal to Blacks and women voters and help on the international scale, but she has no public view of the real problems facing this country. Ryan does.
In an Obama choice, he would be less concerned about selecting the person that the country needs vs the selection that would appeal to the least competent voter. To the degree that Obama or Romney feel the voters are incompetent, the more they would select a good looking smooth talker. We don't need a good looking smooth talker in the White House. We need someone with the character and guts to explain to us voters that we are going off a cliff and the courage to do the "right" thing. We do not need more stimulus (aspirin). This is not a time for an aspirin and call me in the morning. The Obama policies combined with those policies in health and housing are killing us and that is what needs to be changed. Stupidity like real estate "flipping" and runaway health cost are going to bankrupt us if somethings is not done and it will mean "pain" and I mean real "pain'. Better to take the medicine now while there is still a chance of living thru this.
Here is what the choice says. It reveals who the person Mitt Romney is. I am interested in what a smart guy like Mitt Romney thinks about us voters out here. What does Mitt Romney think about you and me? I would like to know that and I think that you would too. I already know what Obama thinks of us voters whether or not we voted for him or not. Obama thinks that most Americans are stupid and easily manipulated and that is exactly how he treats all of us. He is smarter than us and can manipulate us to do anything he wants and that include committing economic suicide, That was in another blog where I connected the dots the only way that 100% of the dots could be connected.
What about Mitt Romney? Here is the basic point. If Mitt Romney holds the voters in high regard, he would pick Paul Ryan. If he held us in low regard as Obama does, he would have picked Condalisa Rice. This does not in anyway demean either of these two people. They are just different people coming from different directions. I think that it is clear that more competent voters know that Obama is driving this country over a cliff economically and Paul Ryan is the only person, out in public view, pointing this out. Ryan does not have the strongest appeal to Blacks and union people, but Ryan is on the right track. Rice may appeal to Blacks and women voters and help on the international scale, but she has no public view of the real problems facing this country. Ryan does.
In an Obama choice, he would be less concerned about selecting the person that the country needs vs the selection that would appeal to the least competent voter. To the degree that Obama or Romney feel the voters are incompetent, the more they would select a good looking smooth talker. We don't need a good looking smooth talker in the White House. We need someone with the character and guts to explain to us voters that we are going off a cliff and the courage to do the "right" thing. We do not need more stimulus (aspirin). This is not a time for an aspirin and call me in the morning. The Obama policies combined with those policies in health and housing are killing us and that is what needs to be changed. Stupidity like real estate "flipping" and runaway health cost are going to bankrupt us if somethings is not done and it will mean "pain" and I mean real "pain'. Better to take the medicine now while there is still a chance of living thru this.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Unions And Bankruptsy
Can't anyone connect the dots? Watch the news on any channel and the news is the same. All these cities that are having to go bankrupt have exactly the same problem. You don't know what that problem is? Unions. Unions are just like the mafia figures that you watch in the movies only they are real and are extorting your tax money rather than the lunch money from small businesses. What unions have found is that their members have no soul and no love for this country. They only look at their personal appitite. The unions play into this mind set and extort money from weak kneed polititians. It is not their money so why should they care. In a business, it is the owner's money and they work to protect it. That is not the case in the public sector. Once a union gets so strong that they can put their elected official across the table from them, the party is over. The gate to the tax payer's money is "open". That is what this is all about. We have become so personally selfish that we have become stooges for the union organizers. We have become simple prostitutes with a very low price.
Watch the news and see what is happening in community after community. It is the teachers, the policemen, the firemen. For some reason these people who were once sitting next to you in grade school have become monsters and are killing this country with their greed. Business men are not killing us, it is the unions and the union mentality that is killing us. My problem is that I do not see any way to turn it around. Even at the depths of the great depression, unions grew. I do not understand my fellow man. In the union greed, they are killing the goose that layed the golden eggs. It is that simple.
I am a systems man and know that some times a system has to hit bottom before it can be restarted back on the right track. The problem is that once a system hits bottom, there is no garrantee that it will restart on the right track and that is my concern. The problem that I have is that many of the people who I thought I knew hold these same strange notions that union members hold. It maybe that we have all become, in our minds, victims. I used to think that only Blacks saw them selves as victims, but now it seem anyone who does not have every thing they want is some how a victim. I have blogged on this before. To be a victim, some one or some system has to be making you a victim, but who is that? We seem to be going down a rat hole. It is clear that we, as a country and as individuals, have spent more than we have earned for the past 25 years. When we look at the national debit, it is not the government that has the problem, it is us who have the problem. We consumed more than we produced. We are the ones who ate the steak and have not paid for it. We are the problem. Our greed and our desire for a free lunch are the problem and until we admit to that, there will be not fix. Again, it is that simple.
Watch the news and see what is happening in community after community. It is the teachers, the policemen, the firemen. For some reason these people who were once sitting next to you in grade school have become monsters and are killing this country with their greed. Business men are not killing us, it is the unions and the union mentality that is killing us. My problem is that I do not see any way to turn it around. Even at the depths of the great depression, unions grew. I do not understand my fellow man. In the union greed, they are killing the goose that layed the golden eggs. It is that simple.
I am a systems man and know that some times a system has to hit bottom before it can be restarted back on the right track. The problem is that once a system hits bottom, there is no garrantee that it will restart on the right track and that is my concern. The problem that I have is that many of the people who I thought I knew hold these same strange notions that union members hold. It maybe that we have all become, in our minds, victims. I used to think that only Blacks saw them selves as victims, but now it seem anyone who does not have every thing they want is some how a victim. I have blogged on this before. To be a victim, some one or some system has to be making you a victim, but who is that? We seem to be going down a rat hole. It is clear that we, as a country and as individuals, have spent more than we have earned for the past 25 years. When we look at the national debit, it is not the government that has the problem, it is us who have the problem. We consumed more than we produced. We are the ones who ate the steak and have not paid for it. We are the problem. Our greed and our desire for a free lunch are the problem and until we admit to that, there will be not fix. Again, it is that simple.
Friday, August 10, 2012
How Are You Going To Vote?
I have been talking to a lot of people about how they are going to vote. Notice that I said "how", not who. We seem focused on "who" when we should be taking a look at "how". If you can first understand "how" they are going to vote, it will lead you to "who". Here is what I have been finding.
Most people tell me that they are going to vote for what is in their best interests. That sounds good on the surface. Isn't that the purpose of a democracy? Get everyone to vote on the basis of what is in their personal interest. We could debate whether some people are even smart enough to vote for what is in their personal best interest, but that is not the purpose of this blog. I am talking about normal people who honestly feel that the responsible thing to do is to vote for what is in their best interest. You might ask, how could there be a problem with that? Well, there are a lot of problems with it.
Here is a simple example that you must have heard before. Would you, as a married person, go to bed with a good looking person of the opposite sex if you were paid a million dollars? If you were to say "yes" to that, then you are admitting that you are a prostitute. The next step is to establish your price. This is the kind of thing that we are talking about. I think that a person needs to look at themselves as a person who is standing in a long line. Behind you in that line are all the parents and grandparents who came before you and ahead of you are your children and grandchildren not yet born. You got to where you are now with the responsibility to vote what is in all their interests, not just your current, "give it to me now" definition. Why do you think all those who came before you were working so hard to clear land and fight our wars? They did not do that for you to now, only consider your immediate thirst or hunger. How about the thick steak that you are eating today that your grandchildren will have to work and go without to pay for in the future? Your parents gave you a country with little debit and now you see no problem passing the country onto your children with drowning debit. Is this starting to make some sense? Are you a prostitute?
Now back to "how" you are going to vote. The President works for us, not the other way around. He has no money to give to you. We are the ones with the money that we earned. If he takes money from me and gives it to you, are you then going to vote for him because it was in your best interests? See how this all works? Any President who can and does take money from me and gives it to you can tomorrow take money from you and give it to someone else. Now, where is your best interests? As for myself, those are not the risks that I want to take for myself, my country or you.
How am I going to vote? I am going to vote for what is in the best interests of "all" those people standing in that line with me. I am not a prostitute.
Most people tell me that they are going to vote for what is in their best interests. That sounds good on the surface. Isn't that the purpose of a democracy? Get everyone to vote on the basis of what is in their personal interest. We could debate whether some people are even smart enough to vote for what is in their personal best interest, but that is not the purpose of this blog. I am talking about normal people who honestly feel that the responsible thing to do is to vote for what is in their best interest. You might ask, how could there be a problem with that? Well, there are a lot of problems with it.
Here is a simple example that you must have heard before. Would you, as a married person, go to bed with a good looking person of the opposite sex if you were paid a million dollars? If you were to say "yes" to that, then you are admitting that you are a prostitute. The next step is to establish your price. This is the kind of thing that we are talking about. I think that a person needs to look at themselves as a person who is standing in a long line. Behind you in that line are all the parents and grandparents who came before you and ahead of you are your children and grandchildren not yet born. You got to where you are now with the responsibility to vote what is in all their interests, not just your current, "give it to me now" definition. Why do you think all those who came before you were working so hard to clear land and fight our wars? They did not do that for you to now, only consider your immediate thirst or hunger. How about the thick steak that you are eating today that your grandchildren will have to work and go without to pay for in the future? Your parents gave you a country with little debit and now you see no problem passing the country onto your children with drowning debit. Is this starting to make some sense? Are you a prostitute?
Now back to "how" you are going to vote. The President works for us, not the other way around. He has no money to give to you. We are the ones with the money that we earned. If he takes money from me and gives it to you, are you then going to vote for him because it was in your best interests? See how this all works? Any President who can and does take money from me and gives it to you can tomorrow take money from you and give it to someone else. Now, where is your best interests? As for myself, those are not the risks that I want to take for myself, my country or you.
How am I going to vote? I am going to vote for what is in the best interests of "all" those people standing in that line with me. I am not a prostitute.
Kiss Off The Real Estate Market
I don't know why people keep talking about "when" the real estate market is going to get back to "normal". It has not been "normal" since 1945 and the end of WWII, so get use to it. What drove the real estate market after 1945? Answer that and then look at what has changed since and you will see that the real estate market will not be getting back to "normal", it will be getting back to the "real" normal.
Now let's look at the facts. What drove the real estate market after 1945 was the fact that a lot of hard working people were having a lot of kids. Remember the baby boom? These people needed homes and bigger homes than the ones they had in the past. Further, people were moving from rural areas to urban areas. This alone could have caused the real estate boom all by its self. Drive around rural USA and you will see all kinds of abandoned homes. This was a one shot deal that can never happen again.
Now back to the boomers. These were hard working responsible people who were having all those babies. Now who is having the babies? You know. Most are to the very poorest, people who will never be able to buy an expensive home. We have more people in public housing than any time in our history. What did the boomers do? They moved to the suburbs where they had better schools and safer neighbor hoods. To keep the criminals from following them to the safe suburbs, they bought larger expensive homes. This was sponsored by government policy. It made for a real estate boom, but at what cost? People who are having kids today can not afford the expensive homes that those after 1945 could. Isn't that clear? The people who were having kids after 1945 were hungry for education and worked hard. That is not the case today. Look around. 40% of our kids don't graduate high school, while the rest of the world acts like we did after 1945, hungry for education and technology. Ever hear of the "internet".
There will always be some people at the top who can afford larger more expensive homes, but here we are talking about the average person. Besides government policy that encouraged spending more of our wealth on homes, many people thought that a big expensive home was the definition of a better quality of life. Now we do not have the "national wealth" to squander on big expensive homes. Looking backwards, it seemed logical. People did not move around much and had extended families all in one place, but not now. I don't think we will ever see a time when we spend so large of a percentage of our smaller wealth on homes. The standard of living in the USA is going down as is the quality of life. That can only mean one thing and that is that growth in the real estate market as we have seen in the past is over so "Kiss Off The Real Estate Market". The future will be a "new" "normal".
Now let's look at the facts. What drove the real estate market after 1945 was the fact that a lot of hard working people were having a lot of kids. Remember the baby boom? These people needed homes and bigger homes than the ones they had in the past. Further, people were moving from rural areas to urban areas. This alone could have caused the real estate boom all by its self. Drive around rural USA and you will see all kinds of abandoned homes. This was a one shot deal that can never happen again.
Now back to the boomers. These were hard working responsible people who were having all those babies. Now who is having the babies? You know. Most are to the very poorest, people who will never be able to buy an expensive home. We have more people in public housing than any time in our history. What did the boomers do? They moved to the suburbs where they had better schools and safer neighbor hoods. To keep the criminals from following them to the safe suburbs, they bought larger expensive homes. This was sponsored by government policy. It made for a real estate boom, but at what cost? People who are having kids today can not afford the expensive homes that those after 1945 could. Isn't that clear? The people who were having kids after 1945 were hungry for education and worked hard. That is not the case today. Look around. 40% of our kids don't graduate high school, while the rest of the world acts like we did after 1945, hungry for education and technology. Ever hear of the "internet".
There will always be some people at the top who can afford larger more expensive homes, but here we are talking about the average person. Besides government policy that encouraged spending more of our wealth on homes, many people thought that a big expensive home was the definition of a better quality of life. Now we do not have the "national wealth" to squander on big expensive homes. Looking backwards, it seemed logical. People did not move around much and had extended families all in one place, but not now. I don't think we will ever see a time when we spend so large of a percentage of our smaller wealth on homes. The standard of living in the USA is going down as is the quality of life. That can only mean one thing and that is that growth in the real estate market as we have seen in the past is over so "Kiss Off The Real Estate Market". The future will be a "new" "normal".
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Hope And Change Revisited
Rather than look at the results of the Obama "Hope And Change", I want to go back to its origin. As I have gotten older, I have gained a greater appreciation of the past and the actions and decisions of those who came before us. Try this one. "Better the devil that you know than the one that you don't know". Or this one, "Out of the frying pan into the fire". Or, how about this one, "Be careful what you wish for". Here is another one, "Spare the rod and spoil the child". I have more, "Don't fix something that is not broke". Now why do I bring these up and what do they have to do with "Hope And Change"? That is the point of this blog.
I used to teach decision theory and you will see how a simple concepts applies to "Hope And Change". If there is a system or culture that has worked just fine over a period of hundreds of years with few changes, it tells you that it is "mature" and has incorporated the "best" ideas over a long period of time. Time is critical here, because we don't know if a new idea is "good" unless it is tested by real life over time. All those adages above are the result of being tested over a long period of time and proven to be "true" or "correct" or "better". Now, let's move on.
You must know that many ideas that sound "good" have been proven worthless when double blind tested. This is part of what I am talking about. When a new idea is presented to change a system, the criteria for making the decision to accept the new idea is a function of how well the system currently works. Further, it is also a function of how long and under what conditions that system has been tested. The longer the period that the system has worked, the more confidence that one has that the system is "good" and thus before you make a change to a "good" system you need to be "very" sure that the change is good and that there is a very small chance that the change will be "bad'.
Now the punch line. If a system as described above is "good", the criteria for making changes must pass a very high test. If, on the other hand, the system has not been working very well, a lower level of proof or confidence to make the change would be justified. I blogged in the past about our kids being "Spocked". Remember Spock's book that proposed making a major change in how we raise our kids? Spock had "zero" experience in raising kids and many people took Spock's advise. Now look at the results. Given that we had hundreds of years raising kids and doing a good job of it, would you think that parents would require solid proof that Spock's ideas were better than all the experience that came before? They did not? Parents were taken in by the smooth talking Spock. If they had a minimum understanding of decision theory, they would not have fallen for Spock's bull shit.
Now, how about Obama's "Hope And Change"? It is clear that for the past 250 years, we have had the "best" system in the world. Now, why did so many of us vote for Obama's "Hope And Change" that was never defined, much less tested and proven? That is the mystery. If I have been critical of the intelligence of my fellow Americans who voted for Obama and his "Hope And Change", it has been based on these facts. Obama is a smooth talker like the Jew, Spock. Spock took you in and so has Obama. You need to look in the mirror and spit in the face of the person that you see.
I could use more examples, but they would show the same thing.
I used to teach decision theory and you will see how a simple concepts applies to "Hope And Change". If there is a system or culture that has worked just fine over a period of hundreds of years with few changes, it tells you that it is "mature" and has incorporated the "best" ideas over a long period of time. Time is critical here, because we don't know if a new idea is "good" unless it is tested by real life over time. All those adages above are the result of being tested over a long period of time and proven to be "true" or "correct" or "better". Now, let's move on.
You must know that many ideas that sound "good" have been proven worthless when double blind tested. This is part of what I am talking about. When a new idea is presented to change a system, the criteria for making the decision to accept the new idea is a function of how well the system currently works. Further, it is also a function of how long and under what conditions that system has been tested. The longer the period that the system has worked, the more confidence that one has that the system is "good" and thus before you make a change to a "good" system you need to be "very" sure that the change is good and that there is a very small chance that the change will be "bad'.
Now the punch line. If a system as described above is "good", the criteria for making changes must pass a very high test. If, on the other hand, the system has not been working very well, a lower level of proof or confidence to make the change would be justified. I blogged in the past about our kids being "Spocked". Remember Spock's book that proposed making a major change in how we raise our kids? Spock had "zero" experience in raising kids and many people took Spock's advise. Now look at the results. Given that we had hundreds of years raising kids and doing a good job of it, would you think that parents would require solid proof that Spock's ideas were better than all the experience that came before? They did not? Parents were taken in by the smooth talking Spock. If they had a minimum understanding of decision theory, they would not have fallen for Spock's bull shit.
Now, how about Obama's "Hope And Change"? It is clear that for the past 250 years, we have had the "best" system in the world. Now, why did so many of us vote for Obama's "Hope And Change" that was never defined, much less tested and proven? That is the mystery. If I have been critical of the intelligence of my fellow Americans who voted for Obama and his "Hope And Change", it has been based on these facts. Obama is a smooth talker like the Jew, Spock. Spock took you in and so has Obama. You need to look in the mirror and spit in the face of the person that you see.
I could use more examples, but they would show the same thing.
Monday, August 6, 2012
The Wrong Solution
During the past 30 to 40 years, we have used the "Wrong Solution". During that time we have squandered much of our national wealth and damaged our economic future. You must by now be asking exactly what am I talking about? It is this real estate and housing thing that we are now up to our necks in. Real estate and housing prices are the biggest mess facing the USA and is also the major cause of the bad economic situation that we now find ourselves in. I have danced around the problem, but never really got down to the "root" cause. As you know, no problem can be solved until you know the true cause and correct the cause. Well, I finally found the real cause of the realest fiasco and here it is. We used the "Wrong Solution".
First, a little history. When I was a kids there seemed to be a lot of neighbor hoods with inexpensive homes. In those days, good neighbor hoods were not defined by expensive homes. It was the people who lived in those homes that determined the quality of the neighbor hood and the quality of their schools. In the past, I blamed the government and its policies for the real estate problem and that was true, but why did the government have those policies in the first place? Now I feel that I have found the main reason for those policies.
You ask yourself these questions and see if you don't come to the same conclusion. What were the main factors that caused you to move from where you were and buy a new home? In most cases, you wanted to be in a "good" neighbor hood or in a "good" school district. In the past we had "good" neighbor hoods with small inexpensive homes and "good" schools, but not now. Why was that? People who could not afford to buy a home lived in rentals or very very cheap homes. After WWII many of these people were able to move "up" to better homes. People who were on drugs or had too many kids out of wed lock could not afford to move "up" and buy homes. Look at areas around large public housing projects and tell me what the quality of their schools looks like? A normal person would want to move and live as far as possible away form a public housing project. Wouldn't you? To be fair, we by our government policies made it possible for many of the people in public housing to move into homes of their own. The affect was to blight every community that they moved into. You know this and so do I. So, what was the "Solution"? You know the "Solution", "The Wrong Solution".
What we did was to buy bigger homes at higher and higher prices to get into "good" neighbor hoods until we are now in the mess that we are. To make the situation even worse, we found that we could make a profit by "flipping" our home after a few years and buying an even larger home. What we have now is a bunch of older parents whose kids are now gone living in homes that are far too expensive and too expensive to maintain. We did get "Good" schools and a "Good" neighbor hoods, but at what a cost. What we did was to solve our problem with school quality and safe neighbor hoods with "The Wrong Solution".
I hear on the news everyday about when the real estate market or home prices will "come back". It would be a big mistake for home prices to come back. It was "The Wrong Solution" in the first place and to return to it would even more wrong.
PS------
Remember the book "Greening Of America"? If you did not read the book, you just wasted your time reading this blog. In that book, they predicted that with the coming change in technology that many Americans would be left behind without jobs. The book did not see any choice but for the worker class to feed the nonworker class. They went so far as to predict "gated" communities all over the place so that the worker class could protect themselves from the nonworker class. Had we gone more for the gated communities, we could have spent less of our wealth on expensive homes and thus prevented our current economic situation. They predicted that private security companies would have a booming business to protect us. They did not predict that the nonworker class would use their right to vote to clean out the pockets of the worker class, leaving them with their expensive homes and mortgage payments. Bottom line, gated communities and more private security would have been cheaper. We took "The Wrong Solution".
First, a little history. When I was a kids there seemed to be a lot of neighbor hoods with inexpensive homes. In those days, good neighbor hoods were not defined by expensive homes. It was the people who lived in those homes that determined the quality of the neighbor hood and the quality of their schools. In the past, I blamed the government and its policies for the real estate problem and that was true, but why did the government have those policies in the first place? Now I feel that I have found the main reason for those policies.
You ask yourself these questions and see if you don't come to the same conclusion. What were the main factors that caused you to move from where you were and buy a new home? In most cases, you wanted to be in a "good" neighbor hood or in a "good" school district. In the past we had "good" neighbor hoods with small inexpensive homes and "good" schools, but not now. Why was that? People who could not afford to buy a home lived in rentals or very very cheap homes. After WWII many of these people were able to move "up" to better homes. People who were on drugs or had too many kids out of wed lock could not afford to move "up" and buy homes. Look at areas around large public housing projects and tell me what the quality of their schools looks like? A normal person would want to move and live as far as possible away form a public housing project. Wouldn't you? To be fair, we by our government policies made it possible for many of the people in public housing to move into homes of their own. The affect was to blight every community that they moved into. You know this and so do I. So, what was the "Solution"? You know the "Solution", "The Wrong Solution".
What we did was to buy bigger homes at higher and higher prices to get into "good" neighbor hoods until we are now in the mess that we are. To make the situation even worse, we found that we could make a profit by "flipping" our home after a few years and buying an even larger home. What we have now is a bunch of older parents whose kids are now gone living in homes that are far too expensive and too expensive to maintain. We did get "Good" schools and a "Good" neighbor hoods, but at what a cost. What we did was to solve our problem with school quality and safe neighbor hoods with "The Wrong Solution".
I hear on the news everyday about when the real estate market or home prices will "come back". It would be a big mistake for home prices to come back. It was "The Wrong Solution" in the first place and to return to it would even more wrong.
PS------
Remember the book "Greening Of America"? If you did not read the book, you just wasted your time reading this blog. In that book, they predicted that with the coming change in technology that many Americans would be left behind without jobs. The book did not see any choice but for the worker class to feed the nonworker class. They went so far as to predict "gated" communities all over the place so that the worker class could protect themselves from the nonworker class. Had we gone more for the gated communities, we could have spent less of our wealth on expensive homes and thus prevented our current economic situation. They predicted that private security companies would have a booming business to protect us. They did not predict that the nonworker class would use their right to vote to clean out the pockets of the worker class, leaving them with their expensive homes and mortgage payments. Bottom line, gated communities and more private security would have been cheaper. We took "The Wrong Solution".
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Economic Motivation
This is a short blog about "motivation". Years ago, I presented a paper at a national convention about motivation. The basic point of my paper was that motivation and demotivation are not just different adjustments of the same dial. Factors that motivate are different from those that demotivate. To make this whole thing more complex, all people do not respond the same way. If this is the case, what chance do you really think that some simple minded "economic stimulus" is going to set things right? If you buy that, you need a brain transplant.
It has been clear and well accepted that the things that motivate are very different from the things that demotivate. That means if you stop doing the things that demotivate, it does not mean that people will be motivated. Early on, I found that there were only a few groups of people who I could work with. The people who I hired were people who were self motivated to be the best that they could be. These are people who want self actualization. These people seek challenge and if you provide it to them, they move up in the food chain. There is another group who seek comfort and security. I have been in business for over 50 years and I still don't know how to motivate these types of people. They are the ones who gravitate to labor union where they do not have to think and who vote Democrat and think of themselves as "middle class". I am getting a little off target.
The point is that the factors that motivate people are not the same things that demotivate them. If you raise interest rates, we all know that it can kill an economy, but lowering interest rates does not alone cause growth in the economy. It is like a rope. You can pull with a rope, but you can not "push" with a rope. It is that simple. As good managers, we work to avoid doing things that demotivate our workers, but do very different things to motivate them. It is a two sided affair. On the one hand we have to make sure we do not demotivate anyone while at the same time do different things to motivate them. This is the main problem with the Obama government. It is easy for them to kill economic motivation, but very difficult for them to stimulate economic growth. Government can kill economic growth in a second, but it takes years to stimulate growth. Knowing this, it is critical that the government avoid killing growth since if they error on the wrong side, it can take years to gain back what they have lost.
Try this simple example. I like simple. If someone who you have done business with lied to you or cheated you, that would only take a second, but to get your trust back could take years or never. See how simple this whole concept is? Our problem is that the damage that Obama has done in just a few months will take years to correct. It was the same in Chile. After Allende shot himself, it took at least 10 years to clean up the mess that he had created in just a short time in office. It will be the same with Obama. Even when he is gone and even if we had the very best candidate in that office, it will take years to clean up the mess.
I was going to blog about how we motivate the people who now do not pay any tax, but vote for Obama. If you have read any of my old blogs, you know that the only way is for them to experience "pain". All this business with the stimulation packages is to prevent pain, so they are going in the wrong direction. We need pain like the "Great Depression" for 50% of our population to wake up. Pain, that is what we need and the sooner the better.
PS----
I was looking in my sock drawer and noticed that none of my socks had holes in them. Why is that? As a kid, all my socks had holes in them and I used a glass egg and needle and thread to darn them. I could do that again. We need that same kind of pain to fix what is wrong with the country.
It has been clear and well accepted that the things that motivate are very different from the things that demotivate. That means if you stop doing the things that demotivate, it does not mean that people will be motivated. Early on, I found that there were only a few groups of people who I could work with. The people who I hired were people who were self motivated to be the best that they could be. These are people who want self actualization. These people seek challenge and if you provide it to them, they move up in the food chain. There is another group who seek comfort and security. I have been in business for over 50 years and I still don't know how to motivate these types of people. They are the ones who gravitate to labor union where they do not have to think and who vote Democrat and think of themselves as "middle class". I am getting a little off target.
The point is that the factors that motivate people are not the same things that demotivate them. If you raise interest rates, we all know that it can kill an economy, but lowering interest rates does not alone cause growth in the economy. It is like a rope. You can pull with a rope, but you can not "push" with a rope. It is that simple. As good managers, we work to avoid doing things that demotivate our workers, but do very different things to motivate them. It is a two sided affair. On the one hand we have to make sure we do not demotivate anyone while at the same time do different things to motivate them. This is the main problem with the Obama government. It is easy for them to kill economic motivation, but very difficult for them to stimulate economic growth. Government can kill economic growth in a second, but it takes years to stimulate growth. Knowing this, it is critical that the government avoid killing growth since if they error on the wrong side, it can take years to gain back what they have lost.
Try this simple example. I like simple. If someone who you have done business with lied to you or cheated you, that would only take a second, but to get your trust back could take years or never. See how simple this whole concept is? Our problem is that the damage that Obama has done in just a few months will take years to correct. It was the same in Chile. After Allende shot himself, it took at least 10 years to clean up the mess that he had created in just a short time in office. It will be the same with Obama. Even when he is gone and even if we had the very best candidate in that office, it will take years to clean up the mess.
I was going to blog about how we motivate the people who now do not pay any tax, but vote for Obama. If you have read any of my old blogs, you know that the only way is for them to experience "pain". All this business with the stimulation packages is to prevent pain, so they are going in the wrong direction. We need pain like the "Great Depression" for 50% of our population to wake up. Pain, that is what we need and the sooner the better.
PS----
I was looking in my sock drawer and noticed that none of my socks had holes in them. Why is that? As a kid, all my socks had holes in them and I used a glass egg and needle and thread to darn them. I could do that again. We need that same kind of pain to fix what is wrong with the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)