CONVERSION FROM INDEX TO REALITY

Obama’s call for “TRUTH” is a simplified statement that calls into question the manner in which information is collected, the way it is presented and the manner in which it is disseminated to the public. 

Underlying this simple call for integrity is his assessment that information flow is fundamentally flawed and that a much needed correction will result in smarter policies that people will give credence to and lend their active support; and that the self-fulfilling negative prophecy we are all living can be turned into a positive climb in quality of life. If you already believe this and understand it, there is no need for you to read this article. If you think his statement is mere lofty rhetoric, you might want to consider my presentation here. For those who want further information, look for books by Von MIses and Rothbard.

The tools of power are all based in information. If the information seems reliable, then the policies foisted on us seem reasonable and even “right.” The basic tool in use today is the statistical index. There is something about an index that when published gains the credulity of the public and even those who know better. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

American political and economic history can be viewed from many perspectives and themes. One of them is the ebb and flow of our collective perception of people, regarded sometimes as labor, sometimes as capital and sometimes not at all. 

 

The current business, economic and political environment has failed to advance or evolve very much for most of the people of the United States, even though women received the right to vote some 80 years ago, and blacks received the right to vote some 40 years ago. 

 

The tendency of certain people to accumulate great wealth and power in any society of any nature inevitably produces an inequality not only of results, but of opportunity. American voters, deprived of the education and information they need to know to make informed decisions, are easily manipulated into voting against their own interests.  An educated voter is a nightmare to any power broker, economic cartel, or political cartel.

 

When adults cannot find states, cities or even continents on a map displaying all the information with proper labeling, it is not hard to see how such people can be easily deceived. And those with power and wealth are eager to deceive them, gaming the electoral process into a utility to maintain and expand their wealth and their power.

 

The tools of power are all based in information. If the information seems reliable, then the policies foisted on us seem reasonable and even “right.” The basic tool in use today is the statistical index. There is something about an index that when published gains the credulity of the public and even those who know better. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

 

Whether it is Libor, the inter-bank lending rate index, the CPI, which supposedly measures inflation for consumers, or the indexes used to measure market dominance, we have drawn artificial lines in the sand which allow those in power to continue on their merry way while the rest of us wonder what hit us. 

 

  • The reality is that Libor, bond ratings, measurements of consumer prices, measurements of those employed, measurements of those unemployed, measurements of those underemployed, productivity, and unfair trade practices are all at substantial variance with reality. Thus the mortgage meltdown, the recession, and another opening of Walmart that kills thousands of jobs, hundreds of companies, thousands of opportunities for innovation, and diminishes our choices to dangerous or inferior products with virtually no service inside the store and no assurances of fair treatment once a sale has been completed. 
  • Walmart is able to achieve this feat and become one of the largest companies in the world by converting labor back into capital despite the 13th Amendment. As with all companies of great wealth they were able to purchase the rights to make their activities legal. In reality, those of us who live in the world created by this cash carry government policy making, we see that there is complete 100% market dominance by Walmart in each town it hits. 
  • But statisticians for Walmart just like the statisticians for the drug companies, look for a sampling that gives them the arguable position that what we see right in front of us, just isn’t there. We are deceived, or so they say. We are not looking at the “big picture.” True, nor should we look at THEIR big picture if we want OUR lives improved. There should be a healthy competition between accumulation of wealth and quality of life. In truth, we are at the bottom of the barrel on the level of that all-important competitive “index.”
  • By expanding and contracting the area “affected” by a Walmart store one can present a plausible argument that there is no significant effect on competition. We know different but there it is right there in black and white, by the numbers. 
  • By contracting the sampling on a drug study to a specific period of time where nothing adverse happened to patients taking the experimental drug, the drug is pronounced safe and then tens of thousands of people die because it wasn’t safe, as the REST of the data clearly showed. Management of disinformation is the way we are manipulated into voting against ourselves. Political slogans emanate from false statements from apparently reliable sources. And we are all deceived.
  • By hiring all graduates of regulatory agencies when they retire, a retailer or drug or oil company guarantees that the regulators will not look too deeply into the manner in which such an index is presented. Plausible deniability is the name of the game. The result is you and I get screwed. That is the story of antitrust, the FDA, and dozens of other agencies serving the business sector  to the nearly complete exclusion of the safety and welfare of the taxpayers in whose name they operate. It is the equivalent of a hostile takeover of government where the cash and carry system of legislation perpetuates not merely inequality but threats to the safety and welfare of our citizens.

“Inequality” (regardless of how you define the word “equal”) does and will exist in the most despotic regimes following ideology from Marx to Plato’s progeny producing the likes of John Locke and the scholars of the American Revolution. No regime can provide or assure a specific outcome for the life of one or any of its citizens. This article takes no issue with the inevitability of inequality.

 

Yet we have an innate sense of right and wrong even when we do wrong. We know that “all men are created equal” has a meaning even if we can’t all agree precisely what that means. We know that the U.S. Constitution was written to provide a framework for liberty and freedom but not for women, native Americans and slaves. Women and native Americans counted as zero and black slaves pulled slightly ahead of women at 3/5 of a person, as stated in our constitution. 

 

When the American Slaves were freed about 160 years ago it was, in an economic sense, a conversion of capital into labor. 

 

Slaves had been purchased and traded like bales of cotton or rice or tobacco; they were property, they were allowed no education, no free will, and of course no bargaining power. How would anyone go about “educating” a bale of cotton? It makes no sense. While mystics ascribe a soul to everything, whether we think it is alive or not not, most of us are quite tolerant at denying rights to a bale of cotton, even if it is burned, torn apart are thrown under a bus. In a word, if the cotton “feels” anything, we don’t care and it isn’t likely that we will care anytime soon or that we should. Something in most of us “knows” that the cotton is not worthy of our sympathy, nor do we sense any obligation to it.

 

The system made perfect economic sense: the cost of production was reduced to the absolute minimum, repairs of equipment and “other capital” (like slaves) were repaired until they were of no further use at which point they were discarded. And unlike other forms of capital, slaves reproduced, thus continually expanding the potential for production without further capital expenditures. 

 

Society organized around this system in such a way that no actual person worked, without being regarded as disgraced. Plantations were worked by slaves, managed by slaves and the wealth generated went exclusively to the Plantation owner. The threat of removing this system, depriving the owners of their possession of slave capital was a threat to the entire way of life that had evolved over 200 years. 

 

It makes sense only if you look at some data and not look at other information. The slave capital system was missing a key ingredient — a prospering rising middle class. The non-slave states had it and they did far better in the long run than any of the slave states many of which are still, 160 years alter, at the bottom of the barrel economically and in quality of life. Their resistance to allowing education to a significant population of former slaves was the equivalent of shooting themselves in the head.  It was an all or nothing mentality. Either the slaves would provide free production or we won’t help them do anything. 

 

The “information” Southerners were working with was that blacks were less than human. They thus deprived themselves of the single greatest resource they had to compete in a national economy and eventually internationally. Politicians looking for power found it easy pickings to tease voters into anger and resentment about the Civil War, about slavery, and about Jim Crow segregation. The politicians objectives were simple: maintain power. The rest of the people be damned. (which at the risk of political incorrectness, makes the Reverend Wright’s comment plausible, even if ill-constructed. He wasn’t wrong in what he said. Yet he missed an important point: 40-160 years ago he would have been tortured and hung for making a statement that passed only as a news story now).

 

The importing of tens of millions of Mexican laborers who had “illegal” status is an inevitable result of big business’ realization that the lock on the poor white and poor black populations was loosening. The grip of fear of discovery gave the leverage needed to convert these workers from labor to something as close to slave capital as would be tolerated in our society.

 

The mortgaging of America’s future, with all the inevitable taxes that implies, the culture of debt rather than savings, and the withholding and diminishment of education through all walks of life in America is the policy behind the tools of our re-enslavement. The risk now is higher and more widespread than in the 1790’s when women, slaves and native Americans were already discounted capital. Now the government and the business sector have us all targeted as potential “capital” instead of unhappy black men caught like animals and transported like capital with acceptable losses at 1/3 of the cargo. 

 

And the only thing that can stop them is a reversal of the institutionalization of ignorance. We have accepted too long the notion that we don’t know anything but that’s OK nobody else does either. We should all know more than we do, We should all treat life as an opportunity to educate, train and better ourselves. If we do, then everyone wins, including the business sector which needs the rising prosperous middle class to do business, whether it is here or abroad. Why don’t they know that? Because like you, they are just people trying to get the most they can right now. That’s human nature. That is the American way.

 

Treat every index with suspicion. Test all information against your own anecdotal experience. And don’t let anyone tell you they know more about your life than you do.

 

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

 

 

 

April 30, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Dumb as We Wanna Be

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

 

The latest change in Fed policy sounds good. You get that warm fuzzy feeling that credit will loosen up and that things are getting better. But the fact remains, that this is ANOTHER transfer of the power to create money to the PRIVATE sector, it is another green light for PRIVATE TAXATION, and worst of all, it comes at a time when inflation is already running high and threatening to become worse than at any time in recent history.

Flooding the market with more dollars is simple: it reduces the value of those dollars. as the value goes down some businesses will appear to prosper, but when those business owners go to buy something, they will realize they lost profit even though their accountants report they made more. In nutshell, if it costs $25 to buy a loaf of bread or $15 to buy a gallon of gas, the fact that your sales went up won’t do you any good.

Beware the earnings figures from public reporting companies. There is no FASB directive that requires real disclosure of real earnings in constant currency. This will become painfully obvious as the next 12 months unfold.

 

THE FED
Fed expands auction, accepts wider collateral
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The Federal Reserve, along with other central banks, said Friday that it was increasing the funding it is providing to banks and announced that, for the first time, it was willing to accept bonds backed by auto loans and credit cards.
“In view of the persistent liquidity pressures in some term funding markets, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve and the Swiss National Bank are announcing an expansion of their liquidity measures,” the Fed said in a statement.
The Fed took the move in an attempt to flood the market with supply and lower short-term lending rates, such as the London interbank offered rate, or Libor.
The U.S. central bank announced an increase, to $75 billion from $50 billion, in the amounts auctioned to eligible depository institutions under its biweekly Term Auction Facility, beginning with the auction on May 5.
This increase will bring the amounts outstanding under the TAF to $150 billion.
The move to expand the TAF was widely anticipated because of strong demand for loans through the program.See full story.
“The program is now reaching a magnitude where it can play a significant role in plugging the gap between the remaining demand for unsecured term funding in the bank market and the latest decline in supply following the run on Bear Stearns,” wrote Lou Crandall, chief economist for Wrightson ICAP.
The expansion was “probably marginally disappointing because there was a widespread expectation … that the Fed would extend the term of at least some TAF auctions to three months,” wrote Stephen Stanley, chief economist for RBS Greenwich Capital.
The TAF, announced on Dec. 12, was followed in March by the creation of several other Fed lending programs targeted at different sectors of the credit markets.
All told, the Fed has now offered to lend up to $462 billion in cash and Treasurys to the markets, in addition to the nearly unlimited funds available through the discount window and the primary credit dealer facility.
The three-month Libor rate — a benchmark for lending between banks — was 2.78% on Thursday, well above the 2% federal funds rate. Crandall said extra supply from the Fed in the next three weeks should tighten the spread between the Libor and fed funds rates.
Deeper cooperation
The Federal Open Market Committee also has authorized further increases in its existing temporary currency-swap arrangements with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank.
These arrangements will now provide dollars in amounts of up to $50 billion and $12 billion to the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank, respectively, representing increases of $20 billion and $6 billion.
The FOMC also authorized an expansion of the collateral that can be pledged by bond dealers in the Fed’s Schedule 2 Term Securities Lending Facility auctions of Treasurys.
Primary dealers may now pledge AAA/Aaa-rated asset-backed securities, in addition to already eligible residential- and commercial-mortgage-backed securities and agency collateralized mortgage obligations.
Accepting asset-backed paper could help provide money to the student-loan market, Crandall noted. End of Story
Steve Goldstein is MarketWatch’s London bureau chief. Washington Bureau Chief Rex Nutting contributed to this report.

 

While we love our contentious politics and passionately favor our pretty candidates, we lose sight of the fact that there is actually some work to do and that the policies that will get that work done are complex, filled with nuance, trapdoors and obstacles.

Politics is well-suited to sound bites, but governance is far more complex than that. We favor Obama’s candidacy not because he knows everything about energy policy or economics — he doesn’t and neither do any of the other candidates. We favor him because he understands that any policy that is actually effective must engage the voters and decision-makers in the private and public sectors and his approach is more likely to achieve that plan of engagement. He is betting that people will accept some ambiguity and mistakes in the pursuit of good governance.

The business case discussed below must present the voter or decision-maker not only with some proposal that is based upon his direct benefits, but all the indirect benefits he/she will receive, the fact that there will be government incentives, and the fact that his/her competitors are getting the benefit of having already subscribed to the new policy. If the decision-maker is not sold on all these factors, he/she won’t do it. His/her job is on the line. Everyone wants to be a hero but nobody wants to risk cutting their employment throat. 

As the following article points out, the largest problem confronting us in changing the energy paradigm is the bean counter. Return on investment (ROI) is a term that is widely used and presumed to mean something. Unfortunately it  doesn’t mean anything except to the speaker. We all mean different things when we talk about whether a project is “worth” doing. That’s where government comes in as the referee.

Good government policy defines the scope of a project, the benefits and the costs in a way that educates people and has them speaking about it in the same way, using terms that are understood by everyone the same way. It is from the higher government point of view that decision-makers in the private sectors can gain a perceptual advantage as they see their place in their industry and their place in the economy as a whole.

Good government policy provides incentives and reliable information for decision-makers to make good decisions not only indiivudally for their own companies, but collectively so that each industry and each company, along with the economy as a wholoe has an opportunity to achieve a stable growth pattern, secure in the knowledge that we remain ahead of teh curve.

Energy policy is part of the larger government role of national security. We can all agree that we want to pursue policies that will increase the likelihood of peace and prosperity, where tax rates are low, tax revenues are high (because of high growth economic activity and productivity) and reducing entangling alliances and policies that might increase the the prospect of an expensive war or distract us from maintaining the value of our currency, while keeping the pressures of inflation checked.

Thus we all know that good national and state economic policy includes effective administration of an energy policy. However in a democratically driven republic with capitalist economic underpinnings nothing works without “consent of the governed.” Cooperation of voters and private sector decision-makers is not merely helpful, it is required. Consent cannot be effectively coerced without most of the rest of the voters or decision-makers subscribing to the policy (peer pressure and reducing the perception of risk because others are doing it). 

Thus the mission of the next administration will be to communicate effectively with the private sector and with voters to change the paradigm of energy production and consumption.

 

  • For example, plug-in hybrids that will provide a range of perhaps 40-50 miles on battery power alone, requires somewhere to plug them in. 
  • If they are plugged in overnight when usage is lowest, then the utility companies get increased revenues and profits, and government should reward the utility companies with credits for participating in the reduction of the carbon footprint of transportation. 
  • But if the cars are plugged in during peak hours, it could be a financial disaster for the utility companies unless they are able to secure cheap energy to absorb the already overloaded hours.
  • This opens the door for wind turbine and solar capture farms in areas that are presently unused, and which would be environmentally unaffected by installation of renewable energy sources. 
  • It opens the door for entrepreneurs to convert existing hybrids to plug in versions and for car manufacturers to offer new vehicles with the hybrid capability to  run on battery alone, run on gasoline, run on diesel and even to run on alternative bio diesel.
  • It opens the door for entrepreneurs to offer home conversion for solar (PV) electricity for powering up those hybrids, golf carts etc. during PEAK times.
  • This in turn opens the door for companies that deliver products and services to businesses and residences to convert to such vehicles, including government society services like police, fire, public transportation etc.
  • The result if properly administrated and orchestrated, is a direct cost savings to all the participants, direct increase in profit for the private sector, direct decrease in major costs for government services, and indirect benefits that are more important at higher levels of government than a particular locale or even state.
  • ALL of this requires an effective leader who gives voice, vision and direction motivated by a desire to produce a benefit to society (everyone) rather than part of a society with merely leads to abuses that are always traced to schemes that are merely masked agendas for transfer of wealth, accumulation of power and the enslavement of the citizenry. 

 

Thus the business case discussed below must present the decision-maker not only with some proposal that is based upon his direct benefits, but all the indirect benefits he will receive, the fact that there will be government incentives, and the fact that his competitors are getting the benefit of having already subscribed to the new policy. If the decision-maker is not sold on all these factors, he/she won’t do it. His/her job is on the line. Everyone wants to be a hero but nobody wants to risk cutting their employment throat. 

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

Sales & Marketing: Why ROI Calculators are a Formula for Failure

Financial justification tools face three major challenges: Prospects don’t believe their output; facilities managers are not financially trained; and sales reps are not trusted to explain the numbers.

Rebates, ITCs, projected energy costs, NPV… Finance is not a shallow subject, but most people barely get their toes wet before they drown. Just ask three CFOs to explain “return on investment.” You’ll soon be gasping for air, even if you thought you knew what it meant.

When it comes to sustainability, for-profit corporations still do more talking than buying. Without a business case, few projects end up getting past the “nice idea” stage.

This is as true for chiller plant controls as it is for a utility-class wind farm. Capex approvers need convincing that sustainability goes beyond saving polar bears, and isfiscally the right thing to do for their company.

Take energy efficiency as an example, performance contracts aside. Unless a sales rep can get C-level executives to think about energy as a manageable P&L line item, instead of as a fixed expense, the rep will be going out the way they came in — empty-handed. No business case, no deal.

Point of failure

Who prepares the business cases for your proposals? Unless you can find a way to keep your finance department out of doing it, this is a bottleneck in the sales process. Thus the popularity of ROI calculators.

Does your company use an ROI calculator?
Post a comment and share your experience.

Sales reps who open up an ROI calculator are likely to experience a vague sense of dread. The facilities manager doesn’t really understand or believe the result — accounting isn’t their profession, after all — but they provide the numbers and nod politely.An attempt to explain the results is likely to embarrass the sales rep — accounting isn’t their profession, either — but they try. The prospect does more nodding, and grows more skeptical.

So, companies say they have tools to calculate payback, reps say they use them, and prospects say they understand the results. The marketing department, who spent plenty to have the ROI tool developed, hears neutral feedback or nothing at all. They don’t know the tool is ineffective and has fallen into disuse.

Soon, though, the tool is out of date. The state grant expires, the latest energy bill changed the depreciation rules again, or energy costs have outpaced the projections. Even a spreadsheet that is still valid is not trusted beyond a few months after it was created.

What’s the formula?

In companies where I’ve seen ROI tools succeed, there have been common traits. First, these typically are larger companies with multiple products, so they have more than one ROI tool. One or two people with financial backgrounds are assigned to researching, building, and maintaining the tools. They take pride in their product.Second, each tool is designed to allow the prospect and sales rep to produce a believable business case. That means believable for the customer even if it’s not as favorable to the vendor. When it’s readable and believable, it has a chance of showing up in the C-level decision maker’s e-mail. All assumptions and constants are footnoted with credible sources, and none of them are locked. If the prospect wants to reduce the power factor or increase the number of cloudy days, let them. It’s their ROI.

Finally, train sales reps and give them a support line. Try as you may to make the user interface simple, it’s still Excel and it’s still complex. Webinars are effective at teaching sales reps how to use these tools, especially in a third-party sales channel — and the recording of the webinar stays around for reference. Reps then need to know who to call for help whenever they get stumped in front of a prospect.

To close a business-to-business sale, you need to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationship between investing in your product and achieving a business goal. In the C-suite, there’s nothing as powerful as a good ROI tool in the hands of someone who is comfortable using it.

It is startling to see how little anyone knows about the mess we are in. First they don’t understand how bad this is going to get. Second they don’t understand how it happened because they don’t understand the financial system. And third, they have no clue how to prevent this from happening again. They don’t even realize that it has happened before several times right here in this country. 

The Country, the States and even the Counties and cities are more or less organized around the concept of bicameral legislatures, with checks and balances from the executive and judicial branches of government.

In all of those governmental entities there is not one person who has the knowledge or the authority or the accountability for the Mortgage Meltdown. It is impossible to imagine any smart regulation coming out of our current approach, so the inevitable conclusion is that the Mortgage Meltdown, the dot com meltdown, etc., will all happen again. The players will change but the game is the same.

So the first thing is to throw out all the proposals for future regulations or simply accept the fact that they won”t perform the basic purpose of government: to preserve society and protect the citizens from harm. 

Let’s get specific about the mortgage meltdown: it happenned because the private sector was able to create the equivalent of money using investor cash under false pretenses. It also happened because the participants were able to do it without perceiving any risks or negative consequences to themselves.

While you might say that the mortgage meltdown has had plenty of negative consequences to the financail institutions and intermediaries who participated in this fraud, the fact is that very few of the decision-makers have suffered any negative outcome. They walked away with bonuses and golden parachutes. People who worked for them suffered loss of jobs and themselves are in difficult financial straits, but not the real decision-makers (the movers and shakers).

If you want this scenario to stop (yes it is still happening) then three things must be true:

1. Full disclosure to government must be filed with a governmental agency on any program that involves a loan. Visa and MasterCard require every card issuance program to be individually approved. If they understand this simple concept, certainly government can learn something from the private sector. No lender should be able to act as a pure conduit for a loan without losing their status as a financial institution. If that is what they want to do, they are a broker not a lender. Every lender should have risk or they should not get paid a dime and the borrower should be told that the lender has no interest in the loan other than getting the borrower’s signature so that the lender can make a profit. If the fair market value of the house is stated incorrectly then all parties who had knowledge, despite plausible deniability, should be accountable for the difference.

2. The risk of imperfect disclosure and failure to perform in accordance with the fiduciary duties of a lender should be substantial and obvious and should be felt by the decision-makers. The same holds true for the seller of securitized products to investors. The simple test is this: if the borrower or investor knew what the lender or securities seller knew, would they have done the deal? If not, the full loss should fall on the companies and individuals who created these flawed programs.

3. Securitization of loans is not a good thing unless the investor fully understands the security he or she is buying. Allowing plausible deniability through reliance on rating agencies and insurers will always leave the investors holding an empty bag. The sellers, the rating agencies and the insurers should be required to file in the public record everything they know about the security and what they did to assure themselves that the facts were true. Later, if the deal falls apart, investors have defendants who are in clear violation of their duties and government has a clear case for prosecution.

 

I would give credit for the term “moral constipation” but I can’t remember where I heard it. I invite all who read this to give me the creator’s name so I can correct this blog and give him the attribution he deserves. 

It appears that we can all agree on one thing regardless of which candidate, party or ideology we subscribe to — The United States of America is on a path of moral bankruptcy, where ethical concerns and choices between right and wrong have been shoved off the table and instead convenience and self-aggrandizement is accepted by “we the people” with far more tolerance than is acceptable to me.

There is practically nothing so dear to me as my own opinion of my own intelligence. And yet I am dumfounded by the lack of outrage as corporate America and Government join hands in our pockets, in our lives, in our families, and in our minds. Protests erupt about the Olympic flame — but where is the outrage, the “I’m mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore” about the following:

  1. Diesel fuel is $4 per gallon here but across the border in Mexico it is $2. Anyone care?
  2. Real inflation for the Average American is in excess of 15% and climbing. Anyone interested?
  3. Exxon made $11 billion last quarter. The rest of us made less at the end of the month because the money went to Exxon. Is there any connection between that fact and the Presence of an Oil man in the White House/ How about a vice President that headed up the very company that profited the most from the Iraq war? Is this so boring that MSM should be ignoring it just because nobody seems to want to anything about it?
  4. By 2009, 1 person in 10 will be on food stamps in the United States. Shouldn’t that be interesting to both sides of the “Aisle?”
  5. The average person in the United States is in debt on credit cards and other consumer and real estate loans in an amount that they can never repay, whereas no other modern country has that problem. Why?
  6. Interest on debt accounts for more expenditure by government and individuals than anything else in the United States. Trillions of dollars of transfered wealth from those who now can’t eat to those who don’t know what to do with the money. What is being done about interests rates that guarantee non-payment and assure financial enslavement? (By the way medical care is second is now touted to be the “employer of last resort”).
  7. Houses were appraised at $500,000 and within days were revealed to have values of less than 70% of that. People were prompted, tricked and coerced into signing mortgage documents they didn’t understand, in violation of law (not that anyone has been prosecuted), and now the borrowers are blamed for a scheme they still don’t understand. Now millions of American citizens are or will be broke, homeless and jobless. We know who did it and how it happened but MSM doesn’t care about that.
  8. All of MSM (Main Street Media) is now controlled by a handful of people who let us hear only the things they want us to hear and only in the ways they want us to hear it. If you want news, go to the Internet, if you want infotainment watch TV or listen to radio. 
  9. How many flag draped coffins can be hidden from view to keep the Iraq war “sanitary” and keep the public distanced from the gruesome reality of war, death, disfigurement, famine, disease and moral decrepitude? And why is MSM going along with  the ban on pictures of coffins? Isn’t the death of young loved members of families who made the ultimate sacrifice worth reporting?
  10. How many veterans need to be homeless and wandering through the streets with head injuries before we think to ourselves “you know, there is something not quite right about this.”
  11. We have outsourced the most sensitive manufacturing of top secret defense components to China which just happens to be the only real military threat to our national security. And we have financed their military expansion by encouraging their economic growth to the point where they now have a  stranglehold on our country — they own most of our debt, they manufacture most of our goods, they process most of our food, and they are the most prolific source of spying in the United States. Thus whatever they don’t get legally, they get illegally. 
  12. MSM (main Street Media) has virtually eliminated their staff of reporters, because they get everything off the newswires and they make up the rest. Most of the time spent on “news” channels consists of opinions about gossip. Interesting, perhaps, but useless for those of us who would like to evaluate our options on voting on issues and candidates.
  13. It is illegal to counterfeit money unless you are a foreign country (North Korea for example) or you are a Wall Street investment banking firm that creates money supply by calling them “derivatives, collateralized debt obligations” and such. Between North Korea’s supernote and and the $500 trillion (yes with a “T”) in derivatives, credit swaps etc. out there it can be no surprise that no government can control the effects on world monetary supply —- that has been outsourced to the private sector as well. 
  14. MSM (Main Street Media) now presents us with pretty faces, some nice looking legs, a tempting bust line, and a teleprompter written by people who have not researched the validity of the reports in 10 years.
  15. Prescription medications are “so dangerous” that you can’t get them without seeing a doctor, but they are advertised directly to consumers. Is this what we want our children to hear and see? You can get a Bud Lite or a Absolute martini without a doctor’s prescription and drink all you want. It’s only when you kill or main people with your driving or other physical abuse that you are held accountable. 
  16. MSM (Main Stream Media) provides us with pundits and moderators who are undereducated, and inculcated with the sole core value of saying something that will increase the ratings and thus revenues of the media in which their comments appear. 
  17. Prescription medications cost $20 per pill here and as little as $0.50 in other countries easily accessible from the U.S.
  18. The total expenditures for medical care, drugs, products and associated services is around 2-3 times the amount spent by any other country or group of countries. The average U.S. Citizen is in constant danger of dying for lack of medical care because he/she is probably not covered entirely for the medical event, because he/she was never given a preventative regimen that is regularly followed in other countries, or because they are simply barred from access to medical system. 
  19. Despite the amount we spend per person, we get less care, and suffer from shorter longevity, higher infant mortality, shorter height, than at least a dozen other countries and sometimes as high as 40 other countries depending upon which metric you are interested in. To say we lost our “lead” is not the point. 
  20. The average person educated in the U.S. has slipped from 1st in world ranking to around 20th. Does that bother anyone?
  21. Bullying has spread through every school, public and private and is spreading into the marketplace. Hello? Anyone there?
  22. We have lost our way. We worship money in all its forms more than we worship God. Every day we perform acts that involve our worship, use and belief in money. Most of us spend at best one day per week for a couple hours worshipping God.
  23. MSM (Main Street Media) thrives on conflict over minutia (bullets in Bosnia, a flag pin probably made with lead in China, and statements of “associates” that are made into controversial “positions”) rather than actual issues and characteristics about the candidates themselves. We allow this by talking about that the pundits tell us to talk about. And what we talk about causes us to vote against our own interests.  
  24. When we tried importing from China and India the prescription drugs at a fraction of the cost that the drug companies were charging us, the government stepped in and said it was unsafe and  could result in tainted drugs. Now the drug companies have eliminated American jobs and outsourced the manufacture of the drugs to where? — India and China — and we have what — tainted, deadly drugs of dubious value to begin with and with side effects that include anal leakage and death. 
  25. How many times do we need to hear that pharmaceutical companies spend $5,000 on every man or woman doctor in the U.S. to push their stuff before we make THAT an issue?
  26. The war on drugs is making a fortune for people on both sides of the law, including the privatization of prisons and huge profits from private ownership of prisons, 75% of the inmates of which are there because of minor drug charges. There is no war on drug use and there is no war on drug supply. That is why we have drugs in America.
  27. How many times do we need to be disappointed in a politician, whom we knew was taking money from the medical- pharma complex, insurance companies, oil companies and credit card companies? What makes us vote for these people?
  28. Where is MSM “keeping them honest” by reporting discrepancies between promises and action?
  29. How many dogs need to die before we accept that they are the canary in the mine shaft and that the rest of us are just as much at risk because the tainted, poisoned food is all coming from the same place now?

I could go on, but I invite you to add your own comments to the list. And while you are at it, why not answer this question: What specifically are you going to say to your friends and family about these issues and how will you vote?

Capital Gains TAX MYTH

April 20, 2008

Anyone who saw the debate heard the question from Charlie Gibson: If revenue goes up when capital gains taxes are reduced, why would you want to increase it? The answer is that tax revenues don’t go up when the government lowers taxes, as any child with an allowance could tell you. Charlie needs to get his facts straight. Anyone who thinks like that is comparing taxes to a red light sale at K-Mart. Tax revenues don’t go up because taxes are reduced. Tax Revenues go down when tax rates are reduced.

The increase or decrease in taxes is related not to the rate of the tax, but rather the rate of activity that is being taxed. You could lower the capital gains taxes to 1% and there would be zero revenue if the market was down or very few people were trading securities.

And business’ demand for capital from the capital markets does not exist when the economy is in the toilet and there is nothing to produce because there is nobody to buy anything. The cost of capital investment only begins with the purchase; then there is maintenance, insurance, training, increased labor costs all without producing one dime of revenue.

But here is why Charlie thought there was a correlation.

  • Capital gains revenues go up when the market moves higher and volume of transactions goes up. When people sell stock at a profit they make money and that is taxed. When they sell stock and lose money, they get to write that off as a deduction and they pay less tax. The tax rate has NOTHING to do with it. If lots of people sell lots of stock at a profit the revenues from capital gains tax will rise. Just like selling more potatoes AND when you are able to increase your prices.
  • When the stock market is going up, stock prices are going up, so when you sell your position in a stock, you realize a capital gain. That capital gain has been variously taxed at 28%, 20% and 15%.
  • When the tax revenue is up, and more people are trading (in an up market everyone thinks they are a genius) it is easier for government to reduce that tax and look good without feeling any pain because even after the reduction, the revenue is still up. It looks good on paper, but a tax cut even here reduces revenue from what it would have been. 
  • If the market is relatively flat, reducing taxes reduces revenues and increasing taxes increases revenues. 
  • If the market is going down, people tend to trade less, and when  they do they are taking losses which results in a capital loss which reduces tax revenues. 
  • When the market is down, taxes on capital gains goes down. Reducing taxes will reduce tax revenue. Increasing taxes will increase revenue.

The two moderators in Philadelphia directing questions to Obama and Clinton, besides demonstrating an abysmal lack of good sense in the questions they asked, had not done their homework.

Lowering taxes on capital gains does not increase capital spending or tax revenues. Taking away money does not magically produce more money.

Tax credits (which directly take the money you would otherwise be paying Uncle Same and apply it to the purchase of capital equipment) does have some effect. But even that does not have price elasticity if the prospective buyer of capital equipment knows in advance they won’t be putting the equipment to work. 

Business buys capital equipment, and funds it out of their own earnings or savings, borrowing from their bank or going to the capital markets. They do it for one reason ONLY, to wit: because they know that they will be filling orders, increasing revenues and making more profits.

Business does NOT incur the cost of capital equipment or expansion of their labor force because of a reduction in taxes, a tax deduction, or a tax credit, UNLESS the tax consequence makes an otherwise good business decision better and perhaps more timely.