The choices on the radio tend to be pretty lousy on the weekend. Some of the CNBC investigative stuff can be good from time to time, assuming that they stick with the financial world and stay out of the political arena. Today brought a few decent shows to which I listened as I drove across I-44. The one that sounded most promising, however, turned out to be the worst. There was some sort of town hall event involving a few industry leaders, the head of the United Steelworkers, and the labor chick from the Obama administration. That sort of collection of viewpoints usually produces some worthwhile discussion. I didn't do a whole lot in college other than drink beer and write (brilliant, of course) papers, but I always made it a point to drop in on whatever roundtable discussions the schools were sponsoring. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. Today - huge disappointment.
I guess I should have expected as much, given that the premise of the discussion was something along the lines of 'how to bring manufacturing back to America.' When you start from the incorrect premise, it's tough to get anything more than the standard talking points. In related news, the show consisted of nothing more than people reciting the standard talking points.
One valid point was made during the whole thing and it was quickly dismissed. John Engler, the former governor of Michigan and current president of the National Association of Manufacturers, was responding to a question about reduced manufacturing output in the country. He noted that manufacturing exports are larger now than they ever have been. The objective should be to modernize at home, in order to maintain the jobs that we still have, and to make smart investments that allow us to capture more overseas markets. You know the knee-jerk reaction from the union guy, right? Manufacturing is a smaller share of GDP than it used to be. Well no shit, Sherlock. As our manufacturing economy has grown slowly, other sectors of the economy have grown more quickly. So the manufacturing share of the GDP goes down, even as the sector grows in real terms. This isn't exactly rocket surgery. It's just common sense. Then the guy went off on some stump speech about making sure that manufacturing keeps up with the rest of the economy.
Here's the reason that the discussion proved disappointing to me. It centered around the notion of going back to how things used to be. That's all well and good when you're trying to rally voters in a union election or a political campaign, but it makes no sense in real life. The vast majority of the things that you build when establishing an economy have already been built in America. We could tear down all of our buildings and roads and start over again, I suppose. This would ramp up our manufacturing activity quite a bit. It also would be colossally stupid. I don't think any of us will be lining up to set our clothes on fire in order to help the textile industry, will we? Not unless there's a 'cash for corduroys' program in the works to make someone else pay the bill. (We sure do love it when we think someone else is paying the bill.) There's no reason to expect that manufacturing will ever approach 20% of GDP again. That's in the past. As long as people continue to whine about trade agreements and pursue false objectives, they'll never focus on logical steps for the future.
There wasn't a single mention of the fact that our natural resources (the only thing on earth that can actually "create" wealth) are under-utilized, forcing us to transfer vast amounts of money out of our economy every year instead of bringing money in. There was only one mention of the fact that we're not allowed to build nuclear plants (which require massive amounts of steel and union workers, while providing cheap energy to the masses). There was no mention of the fact that the Chi-coms are cutting deals with developing countries all over the globe while we hamstring ourselves with our tax laws and environmental laws. We need to be focused on adding enough markets every year to offset the inevitable productivity gains that will be made in our factories. Otherwise you might as well get used to double digit unemployment in perpetuity.
Oh well, I'm getting way out in the weeds at this point. There's not a good selection on the radio on the weekend. That's all I'm trying to say.
I cruised through Oklahoma and half of Missouri before ducking off at the truck stop in St. Robert for the night. This leaves less than 600 miles to cover between now and Monday evening, so we're right on track for a couple more easy days on the road. My pay week wraps up with 2,557 miles plus the holiday pay for the 1st. Steady as she goes.
For whom should I root in the Alamo Bowl? Neither Michigan State nor Texas Tech amount to anything in my little world. Guess we'll go with the Sparties. Since their coach had the cojones to suspend a bunch of players for being moronic thugs, it would be kinda cool if he could win his bowl game. Plus the whole Mike Leach thing was just stupid. Screw Texas Tech. Yeah, see how easy that was? I just turned myself into a Michigan State fan for the night.
Do you mean the under utilization of our natural resources like...solar or wind or biodiesel. Or perhaps electromagnetics,or hydrogen....Or do you just mean blow the tops off all the mountains so we can get at the coal without the proper development of scrubber technology....Your call....
ReplyDeleteWell, in point of fact it's not my call, but I mean all of the above. You are aware, of course, that the three forms that you mention cost more at the producer level than we currently pay at the retail level for oil, nuclear, and coal. How do you get from here to there? Tell all of those displaced manufacturing workers to suck it up and wait a few decades? Tell struggling American families that they're just going to have to pay more for everything while the economy stagnates and learn to live with it? I sure didn't hear any of that from any of the participants in the discussion, if that's what they were thinking. I would have found a frank discussion to be rather refreshing, as I already mentioned.
ReplyDeleteWe can certainly keep subsidizing unprofitable enterprises to feel better about ourselves, at least until the debt bubble bursts. A quick review of internal Chinese lending through 2009 might cause one to wonder just how long this ride can last though. Quite a gamble and the stakes are awfully high.
Or we can take the handcuffs off while we keep working on modernizing, then export our technology once we've made it economically viable. Or we can watch Asia pass us by while we keep holding global conferences and wringing our hands. Your call.
American families are being displaced because of the Skull and Crossbones mentality that is being allowed to proliferate at the top. When a publically traded company looses 80% of it's share value, lays off thousands of workers and the CEO still takes a multi-million dollar bonus, well that is a business mentality that needs to be snuffed out....We talk about socialism, communism, well the above scenario, in my mind, falls somewhere between the two. While I think that a certain sized Corporation is good for American business these supersized corps have become the bain of our society. They are able to control our overall economic viability. We need a better balance to our business...small...medium and large.
ReplyDeleteThere is one example that always bothers me about our business-politico practices. That was the anti-trust suit brought against microsoft by our government....not so much the suit itself because I think by the letter of the law microsoft was probably in violation of antitrust laws. The problem I have is why arent antitrust suits being brought against the oil company(singular) of this country. In early economic and business law classes we were taught about Standard oil it's formation and disbandment......Hmmmm...Disbandment???OK
You could take every dollar paid to every CEO in history and you wouldn't put a dent in the cumulative wealth that has been lost over the last two years in America. Manufacturing jobs have been displaced due to productivity outpacing revenue and also, in large part, that dreaded outsourcing that I'm sure warms your heart. The melodramatic stuff ('blow the tops off all the mountains', 'needs to be snuffed out', etc.) makes it a little confusing sometimes, but I'm pretty sure your point wasn't that CEO's should fire more workers, was it? After all, that is often what keeps their companies from losing value. Since the standard rallying cry is that executives shouldn't get bonuses when the company loses value, well, you know...
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting juxtaposition to see this good old populist mentality set against the backdrop of what almost could be described as a fascist approach to governing.
Unless I'm mistaken, you thought that TARP was a necessary step (bailing out the big guys while the little guys got snowed under.)
I'm not sure if I recall your position on the Detroit bailout, but I'll guess that you saw it similarly to TARP (gotta protect those jobs and such). Whom did that one help? Giant companies and (even more so) giant labor unions, of course. No love for the little car dealerships who were summarily forced out of business by the government, was there?
The stimulus plan doled out funds mainly to state governments, but the companies that did benefit were the large and well-connected ones, not the Mom and Pop soda fountain down the street. $8 a week for you, me, and your local auto mechanic. A few billion dollars for General Electric (parent company of NBC and MSNBC). That seems pretty legit.
Who will be the biggest beneficiary of cap and trade legislation? Multinational conglomerates, of course, once they've forced the little guys to close down and sell their credits instead of struggling to make a profit. General Electric would be at the head of the table, but that's probably a coincidence.
And the current ObamaCare bill? Who wins there? As nearly as I can tell, the insurance companies are getting a bunch of extra customers since we'll all be forced to buy insurance. And they'll be compelled by the government to screw us on our premiums since the feds will bar them from properly rating the elderly or the previously ill. So they win. And does it help Bob's Pizza shop on the corner when we force him to bring his benefit costs in line with those of a large corporation? I think you can tell how I think that one will turn out.
FDA rules affecting small farmers and large corporate farms the same. Who wins there?
The sunset of the estate tax repeal after 2010, forcing many heirs to sell the family business in order to meet tax obligations. Whom does that help?
I could go on all day here. In what will be no surprise to you, I'll conclude by saying that the feds should stay the hell out of my life and let me live it the way I choose. If you, me, and Bobby McGee get together and decide not to buy gas from Exxon, then good for us. If not, then good for Exxon. There are no phony holding companies that exist to allow Exxon and Valero to fix the price of oil, so the Standard Oil analogy doesn't pass muster. Oil is traded on the world market. Once we break up their business though, we'll have to work on the loss of those billions of dollars in tax revenue and those billions of dollars that they spend developing your preferred "green" fuel sources. I'm sure we'll get the local Chamber of Commerce to come up with something.
What message do we send to Americans and the world when we allow the blatant manipulation of Corporate finances for the ENORMOUS financial gain of just the select few at the top..Even when the corporation is showing a loss..They aren't earning these bonuses for their superior business intellect and practices...They are earning these bonuses from the manipulation of financial statements....To be silly for a moment I will quote a line from the movie Pirates of the Caribbean.." Take what you can, give nothing back" That sure seems to be the American corporate mantra...One last thought...Socialist and Communist countries have a wealthy class of people, it's just that there is a wide financial seperation between the classes...Starting to sound like America to me...Read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. America is traveling fast down that time line.......
ReplyDeleteYou can make fun of the "Blow the tops of the mountains" line if you want to, but that is not an over exageration, that is precisely the new mining technique that is being used. Or haven't you heard...
I'm a halvsy when it comes to political loyalty. Half Democrat and half Republican. Some good some bad on both sides. The bailout money was a tough call. Truthfully I'm still not sure how I feel about that. I may very well be wrong but I think that the government was scared shitless and wasen't sure how to handle these unprecedented economic times..No real model in place to compare too..America is showing signs of recovery. Good Manufacturing report in today...Unfortunatly I think that the strength of our corporations may very well be the controlling factor for American economics..So if the bailout ultimatly helps in that regard..well....Warren Buffet seems to have liked the bailout and while he is not the be all end all he sure knows more about the situation than most off us........Healthcare??? Well I won't go there...Something HAS to be done...Is whats going on now the right path???/Who knows...Once again I don't think anyone knows..The Republican idea of an HSA was a slap in the face to all working class Americans...100$ a month in a health savings account??? After 5 years if you dont get sick leaves you 6000$..That and an appendix operation still lands you in the bankrupcy court...
ReplyDeleteI don't give a damn what the wealthiest Americans or anyone else earns. That's some kind of emotional issue for some people, but it has little or no impact on the nation's economy. Scandals obviously cost shareholders money, which is why it's illegal to manipulate financial records. So if a CEO needs to go to jail, send him to jail. I don't give a shit. I don't know those people. That's a regulatory issue and not an economic one. If every CEO earned a dollar a year, we still would be right where we are.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely disagree with the notion that the American working class is becoming so poor and dejected. That's certainly the rhetoric that gets people talking, but the reality is quite a bit different. In the "good old days," families raised four or five kids in a two or three bedroom house. Some families owned their homes but most of us from immigrant (aka 'not well established') families were renters for life. The husband, wife, and children shared one car. There were three channels on television. Airline travel was an expensive luxury, so most family vacations consisted of going to the nearest lake and staying in a cabin for a few days. Most workers spent their entire lives toiling in order to retire for ten or fifteen years before they assumed room temperature. Cancer was an automatic death sentence. Vast swaths of rural America had no access to electricity or running water. College education wasn't for most working class kids.
I'm not wealthy and I'm not poor, but I spent most of my childhood closer to the poor end of the scale. My rather simple life (as a working stiff) in 2010 is a vast improvement over past eras in this country.
The hangup for people is that someone else will always benefit more. The dirty little secret, though it's clearly no secret to you, is that this is the case under every system on the planet. Again I say - I don't give a rat's ass. I really can't figure out where people think that their own lives would be better if only some Harvard douchebag made less money. There's simply no truth to it. The best that I hope for is a system that provides for the most freedom across the board. Others who want a "share" of some imaginary public wealth will certainly see things differently.
No, I'm not up to speed on current mining techniques. You won't be surprised to hear that I really don't care. I have yet to see any mountains exploding as I drive by, so I can only assume that they're mining in areas where nothing else is going on. People are working and machines are moving and so forth. Fine with me.
I have no use for any bailout. A big part of the unethical nature of the corporate world that you hate so much is the fact that nobody is forced to face the consequences of bad choices. Political hacks, risky bankers, risky borrowers, speculative investors, failed CEO's, and corrupt union leaders were all in on the game. Screw 'em. Let 'em fail. We would have a lot fewer bubbles if this were how we did things. Instead we reward failure and criticize success. I know why, in theory, the government felt like it had to act. You see what happens though. One big clusterfuck of payoffs and sweetheart deals, with no major increase in lending to the public (ostensibly the whole point of the thing). Instead the banks are lending back to the government who bailed them out, since the government can't stop spending.
ReplyDeleteI'm a nothing when it comes to loyalty - zero on either side. I'd vote for that Jefferson guy if he hadn't been dead for a couple of centuries. If the Democrats actually wanted to implement their 'friend of the working man' mantra, but do it within constitutional limits, I could handle that. But that's not what they want. They want power over me. Recent fights make it obvious that the Republicans want the same. Their stated objectives are a little closer to my views but, in practice, they're the same bunch of Ivy League morons. I must admit that I do have a crush on Mrs. Palin though.
Given the handful of times that you've lectured me about health care, with the implication that I'm uninformed on the topic, your characterization of the HSA option is a disappointment. Is that really your understanding or are you intentionally distorting it? HSA's are used to fund the deductible of a catastrophic plan, not an appendix operation. Small expenses are paid in cash and the individual is insured against larger expenses. Most catastrophic plans that I used to sell would also cover around $200 worth of checkups and stuff like that within a given year, with no deductible. Those plans cost a fraction of what we pay now for our standard 80/20 nonsense and, in the event of a major issue, they cover a lot more (as in 100%). So, if we take my current $30 weekly premium, there's $120 a month. I have no idea what Con-way pays on my behalf (the biggest part of the problem) but let's rely on those wacky right-wingers at USA Today. So another $400 a month. Now we're over $500 a month in the plan with no added expense to my employer or myself. If my high-deductible plan costs $75 a month (a rather high estimate for my age), then I've got $445 left. {That's around $19,000 since I started here, without interest, for those of you keeping score at home.} As the account balance grows, the deductible can grow and the premium can drop. People actually move to a position of financial strength as time goes on instead of what we have now, where we pay endlessly into a pool used by others and either stay healthy (so all of our money is wasted) or get sick (and take back some of what we've paid). What a perverse choice.
We've rehashed this one plenty of times and it's a boring subject to me, to be honest. Obviously there's a whole lot involved in terms of using market forces to keep costs down. I'm not going to belabor the point again, but the idea that someone is saying that you should get by with $100 a month for medical care is 100% false.
Quite frankly, you fans of a socialized system should be more pissed about ObamaCare than conservatives are. It's one giant corporate payoff with no clear benefit. They just get to call it "Health Care Reform." My hunch is that the thing will get torpedoed once the states realize the Medicaid screwjob, but we'll see.
So... what do you think about Bruce Allen hiring Shanahan this week? Not a bad deal if they can pull it off, eh?
Funny..I'm one of five. My brothers and I shared a bedroom and sometimes a bed growing up. We went to the lake for vacation..We watched a 3 channel TV that you had to get up and change the channel on.. Sunday nights we watched Walt Disney in black and white until the first color episode came on.On Sunday morning I watched the Ara Parsigian show and a recap of the fighting irish, in black and white.My dad had a good job that he worked for 36 years. We could always tell when finances were tight because the powdered milk got brought out. Yuk...As I look back it was mostly all good...I drive a truck and enjoy watching the country roll by.. Life is best when kept simple...It's all good.......Make healthcare affordable and I'm a happy camper. Even if Castro himself is the one to do it....
ReplyDeleteI like both the Allan and the suposed Shanahan hiring. Shanahan is better than Chucky, although you have to admire Chuckies passion..The real problem is the owner, it's all well and good to say you have an owner that really, really wants to win but can he hire football guys and then let them do their jobs..We will see..I'm a die hard fan regardless so jumping off Kornheisers bandwagon has never been a choice....Fortunatly I'm old enough to have a clear memory of Riggo, the REAL hogs, JG1 and SJ9. Hail to the Redskins.....
ReplyDeleteI admit,,,what Obama is doing with healthcare is scary and you could very well be right in your opinion of the outcome. Personally I thought they lost the ball when the public option was disallowed..Not that I thought this option was so great, but because we have to have something to force the Insurance Co.'s to compete..
ReplyDeleteI was hoping for Gruden at Notre Dame, but I'd be pretty happy with Shanahan in D.C. I couldn't believe Denver ran him out of town the way they did. I guess we all wear out our welcome sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteI'm still skeptical though, given the way the whole Schottenheimer thing played out. Snyder just can't seem to help himself. He's like Jerry Jones without the football background. I think I'll go ahead and be optimistic in hopes that Cerrato's departure signals a change in direction.
Your right about Snyder, but I'm going to say that the termination of Cerrato signaled a true new beginning in which Snyder is more hands off...He just hired two very strong football personalities in Shanahan and Allan...Should be interesting if nothing else... I'm with you at being an optimist..What the heck we can't go much lower......
ReplyDeleteNotre Dame is no good! Or so I hear! Other than that? I don't blame rich people for the fact that I am poor!
ReplyDeleteWell, I blame the schools with good coaches for my Irish failing to win a championship in twenty years. I'm a football collectivist, or something.
ReplyDelete