By Daniel B. Kline
Taking three separate private jets to beg for money from Congress shows an arrogance so stunning that it makes Donald Trump look shy and modest in comparison. The action also proves that the American Automotive "Big Three" could get all the cash they want from the government and still find a way to be bankrupt a few years later.
While gas prices, economic changes and cheap foreign labor did not help the American auto industry, it's clear nothing could help three CEOs so out of touch with the public. These men weren't smart enough to look frugal when asking for a taxpayer bailout, so it's hard to imagine they are the right leaders to save these companies.
In order to spend money well, you must have some basic idea of thriftiness. If you consider switching to a cheaper brand of champagne for your bathtub being fiscally responsible, than you should not be in charge of spending taxpayer dollars.
Of course, management was not alone in ruining what was once our nation's most prosperous, inventive and stable industry. Greedy labor unions, who ignored the lessons of the steel industry, pushed wages and benefits out of whack with the free market making costs significantly higher than those at various foreign competitors.
Still, in an amazingly close race to see who can bankrupt the American auto industry first, management appears to have taken a slight lead over the labor unions. It's hard to predict whose foolish actions and unbridled greed will actually be the final nail in Detroit's coffin, but I'd be pretty confident if I was a coffin salesman.
Detroit has had its share of hard times and has been beaten down more times than the Lions. From the advent of foreign competition to gas prices making all their profitable cars irrelevant and Kid Rock repeatedly reminding people that he comes from there, this city has had more than a few difficulties.
The American auto industry, however, has brought on its own demise. By being incredibly arrogant and ignoring its better-run foreign competition for decades, Ford, GM and Chrysler have become unable to make the changes needed to survive.
These bloated behemoths should have died years ago as their reputation for inferior, inefficient cars sent their customers to Toyota, Honda and others. The American Big Three got a reprieve when the United States driver became enamored with SUVs and pickup trucks -- vehicles they excelled at making.
The success of these products should have allowed Detroit to build up the financial resources needed for the day when the pendulum swung back towards fuel efficiency. Instead, nobody at Ford, GM or Chrysler had the foresight to plan ahead and when Americans want small cars, all the Big Three have to sell are gas-guzzling behemoths.
Of course, Chevrolet and Ford both have small hybrid vehicles planned for release next year, a move akin to the Detroit Tigers announcing they have signed Nolan Ryan for the 2011 season. It's too little too late and not enough to convince anyone that the people running these companies would spend our money wisely.
If we want to bail out the Big Three, then make new management and concessions from labor a condition of any deal. Open all the books and find CEOs who treat the company's money (or in this case the taxpayers') as their own. Only then might it be worth saving the Big Three from themselves.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Fail huge and get a big handout
By Daniel B. Kline
If there's a lesson to be learned from our nation's recent financial policies, it's that if you're going to behave irresponsibly, be extremely irresponsible and the government will help you out. Spend money you don't have on things nobody would possibly need that aren't worth nearly what you pay for them and here comes the money.
This strategy works for businesses as well as individuals. Whether you're a person who took a huge adjustable rate mortgage he could not possibly afford or a company that issued mortgages to people who would be unlikely to pay them back, there's a bailout waiting for you.
Sadly, as responsible people, my wife and I bought a house we can afford and paid for it with a fixed-rate, traditional mortgage. We make the payments on time and could scrape by for a while if one of us lost our job.
Similarly, my business operates within its means and spends based on sales. We forgo lavish junkets and expensive parties, although I occasionally buy pizza for my staff and might splurge on a room at a Sheraton or maybe even a Hyatt when we're at a trade show.
Despite being careful and responsible, I am by no means rich and sacrifices must be made in these fairly frightening economic times. My wife and I will take a few weekend trips this year instead of a costly vacation and my business will put off upgrading our computers. I'll still live mostly as I have previously, but with dark clouds on the horizon, it's best to pack an umbrella.
Because in both of these areas I meet my obligations and only buy things I can actually afford, the government has no interest in helping me out. Had I bought a mansion with an adjustable rate, interest only loan, I would now be getting help to avoid foreclosure.
On the business front the bailouts seem even sillier because they clearly reward those who fail most grandly. Consider the American auto industry with its bloated labor contracts, outdated vehicles and inefficient system and you constantly hear the phrase "too big to fail."
Basically, the auto industry touches so many lives, that even though it should die, we can't let it, because the fallout would be too great. By that logic, I'm announcing my company's plans to open 6,432 new stores next year with hundreds of employees in each location and thousands of vendors counting on our orders.
We won't succeed, but we'll be responsible for so many jobs, that somebody will have to throw a few billion dollars our way to keep us afloat. Bailing out failing companies leads to an endless cycle that promotes waste, gambles and irresponsible behavior. If we bail out overreaching homeowners, financial institutions and the auto industry, why not help people with bad car loans, the newspaper industry and huge restaurant chains?
You simply can't reward failure and the economy does not work if the government stops dying companies from dying. If GM, Ford and Chrysler fell, there would be pain, but there would also be opportunity.
If the big three go bankrupt, then the economy takes a hit as do hundreds of thousands of people. From those ashes, perhaps, would rise American car companies created by entrepreneurs that actually meet the needs of drivers leading to financial success.
Perhaps the death of Ford, Chrysler and GM would result in the 100 mile a gallon sedan or the $5,000, reliable car. Of course, we'll never know because actually allowing those companies to pay for their mistakes has somehow become un-American.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
If there's a lesson to be learned from our nation's recent financial policies, it's that if you're going to behave irresponsibly, be extremely irresponsible and the government will help you out. Spend money you don't have on things nobody would possibly need that aren't worth nearly what you pay for them and here comes the money.
This strategy works for businesses as well as individuals. Whether you're a person who took a huge adjustable rate mortgage he could not possibly afford or a company that issued mortgages to people who would be unlikely to pay them back, there's a bailout waiting for you.
Sadly, as responsible people, my wife and I bought a house we can afford and paid for it with a fixed-rate, traditional mortgage. We make the payments on time and could scrape by for a while if one of us lost our job.
Similarly, my business operates within its means and spends based on sales. We forgo lavish junkets and expensive parties, although I occasionally buy pizza for my staff and might splurge on a room at a Sheraton or maybe even a Hyatt when we're at a trade show.
Despite being careful and responsible, I am by no means rich and sacrifices must be made in these fairly frightening economic times. My wife and I will take a few weekend trips this year instead of a costly vacation and my business will put off upgrading our computers. I'll still live mostly as I have previously, but with dark clouds on the horizon, it's best to pack an umbrella.
Because in both of these areas I meet my obligations and only buy things I can actually afford, the government has no interest in helping me out. Had I bought a mansion with an adjustable rate, interest only loan, I would now be getting help to avoid foreclosure.
On the business front the bailouts seem even sillier because they clearly reward those who fail most grandly. Consider the American auto industry with its bloated labor contracts, outdated vehicles and inefficient system and you constantly hear the phrase "too big to fail."
Basically, the auto industry touches so many lives, that even though it should die, we can't let it, because the fallout would be too great. By that logic, I'm announcing my company's plans to open 6,432 new stores next year with hundreds of employees in each location and thousands of vendors counting on our orders.
We won't succeed, but we'll be responsible for so many jobs, that somebody will have to throw a few billion dollars our way to keep us afloat. Bailing out failing companies leads to an endless cycle that promotes waste, gambles and irresponsible behavior. If we bail out overreaching homeowners, financial institutions and the auto industry, why not help people with bad car loans, the newspaper industry and huge restaurant chains?
You simply can't reward failure and the economy does not work if the government stops dying companies from dying. If GM, Ford and Chrysler fell, there would be pain, but there would also be opportunity.
If the big three go bankrupt, then the economy takes a hit as do hundreds of thousands of people. From those ashes, perhaps, would rise American car companies created by entrepreneurs that actually meet the needs of drivers leading to financial success.
Perhaps the death of Ford, Chrysler and GM would result in the 100 mile a gallon sedan or the $5,000, reliable car. Of course, we'll never know because actually allowing those companies to pay for their mistakes has somehow become un-American.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Some prejudices still have a strong hold on America
By Daniel B. Kline
While I'm no fan of Barack Obama, it's hard to not be proud of the fact that Americans have shed enough of their prejudices to elect a black man president. As a nation we're not that far removed from segregated classrooms, separate drinking fountains and other racist policies, but we have progressed mightily very quickly.
Still, however, just because we have moved forward, does not mean that all the work has been done. Prejudice remains and on election night it struck a most ugly blow. Amidst Obama's barrier breaking victory, gay Americans were delivered yet another setback as Arizona, California and Florida passed amendments to their state constitutions banning gay marriage.
It's certainly difficult to compare types of oppression, but it's hard to argue that denying basic human rights to people because of the gender of their companion counts as pretty horrible oppression. Gay people simply want the legal rights associated with marriage and the right to declare their relationships as valid in the eyes of the state as any other couple's.
Those who oppose gay marriage generally do so on religious grounds, forgetting that religious marriage and civil marriage are entirely different entities. You may find gay marriage distasteful because of your religion, but that does not give you the right to impose those views upon people who feel differently.
If we allow religious views to shape our laws and dictate our prejudices, then we are no better than extreme Muslim nations who make their religious laws the ones that govern their country. My particular religion (of which I'm not practicing) bans combining milk and meat in the same meal, yet I've never seen Joe Lieberman or any other prominent Jewish lawmaker propose a national ban on cheeseburgers.
We make a huge mistake as a country when we attempt to force our personal definition of morality on other people. If your religion considers gay marriage a sin, than you should probably not marry someone from your own gender, but you should not try to force your opinion on anyone else.
Of course, it's the word opinion that becomes a problem when religion gets involved. The religious folks who want to ban gay marriage and dictate other social rules don't consider their ideas opinions, they consider them the word of god. It's generally pretty hard to reason with anyone who considers his side of the argument as being supported by the almighty.
There's a huge difference, however, between believing something is wrong, but recognizing that it's none of your business and trying to make everyone legally have to agree with you. I believe it's wrong to put mayonnaise on a pastrami sandwich, but you don't see me getting my state's constitution changed to impose that view.
Gay marriage should be legal because all people deserve the same rights and the right to choose your own companion seems pretty basic to me. If god has an issue with that, than I imagine a lot of gay couples will have some explaining to do down the line.
I prefer not to believe in a god that would cast aside people based on something as trivial as which gender makes them happy. My god loves all people and judges them based on how they treat their fellow man. As Americans, we've done a lot to make that religious icon happy in these past few weeks, now, we just have to remember not to trade one prejudice for another.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
While I'm no fan of Barack Obama, it's hard to not be proud of the fact that Americans have shed enough of their prejudices to elect a black man president. As a nation we're not that far removed from segregated classrooms, separate drinking fountains and other racist policies, but we have progressed mightily very quickly.
Still, however, just because we have moved forward, does not mean that all the work has been done. Prejudice remains and on election night it struck a most ugly blow. Amidst Obama's barrier breaking victory, gay Americans were delivered yet another setback as Arizona, California and Florida passed amendments to their state constitutions banning gay marriage.
It's certainly difficult to compare types of oppression, but it's hard to argue that denying basic human rights to people because of the gender of their companion counts as pretty horrible oppression. Gay people simply want the legal rights associated with marriage and the right to declare their relationships as valid in the eyes of the state as any other couple's.
Those who oppose gay marriage generally do so on religious grounds, forgetting that religious marriage and civil marriage are entirely different entities. You may find gay marriage distasteful because of your religion, but that does not give you the right to impose those views upon people who feel differently.
If we allow religious views to shape our laws and dictate our prejudices, then we are no better than extreme Muslim nations who make their religious laws the ones that govern their country. My particular religion (of which I'm not practicing) bans combining milk and meat in the same meal, yet I've never seen Joe Lieberman or any other prominent Jewish lawmaker propose a national ban on cheeseburgers.
We make a huge mistake as a country when we attempt to force our personal definition of morality on other people. If your religion considers gay marriage a sin, than you should probably not marry someone from your own gender, but you should not try to force your opinion on anyone else.
Of course, it's the word opinion that becomes a problem when religion gets involved. The religious folks who want to ban gay marriage and dictate other social rules don't consider their ideas opinions, they consider them the word of god. It's generally pretty hard to reason with anyone who considers his side of the argument as being supported by the almighty.
There's a huge difference, however, between believing something is wrong, but recognizing that it's none of your business and trying to make everyone legally have to agree with you. I believe it's wrong to put mayonnaise on a pastrami sandwich, but you don't see me getting my state's constitution changed to impose that view.
Gay marriage should be legal because all people deserve the same rights and the right to choose your own companion seems pretty basic to me. If god has an issue with that, than I imagine a lot of gay couples will have some explaining to do down the line.
I prefer not to believe in a god that would cast aside people based on something as trivial as which gender makes them happy. My god loves all people and judges them based on how they treat their fellow man. As Americans, we've done a lot to make that religious icon happy in these past few weeks, now, we just have to remember not to trade one prejudice for another.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
A system that comes to this must be broken
By Daniel B. Kline
After every election I become more convinced that we should require something beyond basic citizenship before we let people vote for president. Perhaps we could have a current events quiz, a psychological exam or some sort of intelligence test before we allow people to cast a ballot.
We should also consider taking away voting privileges from people who vote based on physical attractiveness, skin color, gender, how often a candidate goes to church and anyone who always makes their pick based on any one issue. This would, of course, disenfranchise the stupid and the uninformed -- the group that generally decides most elections.
Eliminate having to pander to the stupid and the uninformed and we might actually get some competent candidates with new ideas running for office. That would eliminate elections like our recent one which boiled down to a liberal whose message never goes deeper than "change" and a conservative who implies that Democrats want to take god away, allow everyone to marry anything and basically turn the country over to Al Qaeda.
The sheer amount of uninformed people who vote in a presidential election make it impossible for a candidate to run based on ideas or abilities. Instead, anyone who hopes to win the White House must become a populist, playing to the masses and reaching out to the lowest common denominator.
Smart people can vote for a competent leader who disagrees with them on social issues. I might not agree with Rudy Giuliani on a variety of ideas, but the man knows how to run a city and I'd be happy to have him in charge where I live. On the other hand, comedian Bill Maher agrees with me on many things, but I would not want him as mayor.
Consider that in the real world, executive jobs get filled by the people most qualified to run whatever it is that needs running. You can bet that Bob Kraft never asked Bill Belichick for his stance on abortion during his job interview and I'm pretty sure that when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, the board never inquired about how much religious faith he had.
Of course, the President has some power to sway our laws and his feelings on issues like abortion and religion have a place in the campaign, just not the major place they play. We ask our presidential candidates how they fell about gay marriage and whether they wear boxers or briefs, but few of us ask, "can this man manage a giant organization?"
Voting for president should involve more than finding the person who thinks most like you do. I have lots of compassionate leftist friends who I would want by my side during tough times, but would not want making decisions for the country. Similarly, I have some right-leaning friends who are great in a fight, but I would not look to them when I need compassion.
Our responsibility as voters should be to pick someone who can run the country. Since neither candidate in this recently passed election seems obviously qualified to do that, then we have done a bad job.
Realistically, mass voting almost always results in picking mediocre people. Simply look at the majority of the "American Idol" winners and you see a parade of democratically elected mediocrity. Bruce Springsteen or Billy Joel wouldn't have stood a chance on that show any more than a true leader stands to be elected under this system.
While I know of no better alternative, the current election, like many before it, proves that open democracy simply does not work. The people should not make decisions because they always vote selfishly.
Getting elected requires pandering to the masses and while we might be individually smart, group enough people together and we're generally stupid. For the system to work, we'd actually have to look beyond our own self interests when we cast our votes and very few, if any, people can do that.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
After every election I become more convinced that we should require something beyond basic citizenship before we let people vote for president. Perhaps we could have a current events quiz, a psychological exam or some sort of intelligence test before we allow people to cast a ballot.
We should also consider taking away voting privileges from people who vote based on physical attractiveness, skin color, gender, how often a candidate goes to church and anyone who always makes their pick based on any one issue. This would, of course, disenfranchise the stupid and the uninformed -- the group that generally decides most elections.
Eliminate having to pander to the stupid and the uninformed and we might actually get some competent candidates with new ideas running for office. That would eliminate elections like our recent one which boiled down to a liberal whose message never goes deeper than "change" and a conservative who implies that Democrats want to take god away, allow everyone to marry anything and basically turn the country over to Al Qaeda.
The sheer amount of uninformed people who vote in a presidential election make it impossible for a candidate to run based on ideas or abilities. Instead, anyone who hopes to win the White House must become a populist, playing to the masses and reaching out to the lowest common denominator.
Smart people can vote for a competent leader who disagrees with them on social issues. I might not agree with Rudy Giuliani on a variety of ideas, but the man knows how to run a city and I'd be happy to have him in charge where I live. On the other hand, comedian Bill Maher agrees with me on many things, but I would not want him as mayor.
Consider that in the real world, executive jobs get filled by the people most qualified to run whatever it is that needs running. You can bet that Bob Kraft never asked Bill Belichick for his stance on abortion during his job interview and I'm pretty sure that when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, the board never inquired about how much religious faith he had.
Of course, the President has some power to sway our laws and his feelings on issues like abortion and religion have a place in the campaign, just not the major place they play. We ask our presidential candidates how they fell about gay marriage and whether they wear boxers or briefs, but few of us ask, "can this man manage a giant organization?"
Voting for president should involve more than finding the person who thinks most like you do. I have lots of compassionate leftist friends who I would want by my side during tough times, but would not want making decisions for the country. Similarly, I have some right-leaning friends who are great in a fight, but I would not look to them when I need compassion.
Our responsibility as voters should be to pick someone who can run the country. Since neither candidate in this recently passed election seems obviously qualified to do that, then we have done a bad job.
Realistically, mass voting almost always results in picking mediocre people. Simply look at the majority of the "American Idol" winners and you see a parade of democratically elected mediocrity. Bruce Springsteen or Billy Joel wouldn't have stood a chance on that show any more than a true leader stands to be elected under this system.
While I know of no better alternative, the current election, like many before it, proves that open democracy simply does not work. The people should not make decisions because they always vote selfishly.
Getting elected requires pandering to the masses and while we might be individually smart, group enough people together and we're generally stupid. For the system to work, we'd actually have to look beyond our own self interests when we cast our votes and very few, if any, people can do that.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. When he is not writing Kline serves as general manager of Time Machine Hobby New England's largest hobby and toy store, www.timemachinehobby.com. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
