Category Archives: Economics

The Scorpion and the Frog

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.  The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.  Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

Continue reading

Real Life Story

I’m the first second to admit, my wife is the first, that I haven’t actually RUN anything either.  I don’t own my own business, I don’t have P&L responsibility in my current job.  And while I can interview and choose who I hire, the decision TO actually hire ain’t mine.

Continue reading

Real World Classroom

Leftists, all ya’ll…come over here.  We have, in real time and in a real country, a case where a leader is trying to implement Socialism on his country.  It started out all right.  The people were very happy to hear that they would all get to go to the circus and have ice cream before bed.  Longer summer vacations and shorter schools years too.  The people were happy, the boss was givin’ away the joint and all the while  claiming the “rich” would just pay for it.  Balance it out, after all.  It’s only fair ya know.

Not really working out for him now.  But then again, he is inefficient and needs to bribe h is friends:

The state oil company, PDVSA, produced 3.2 million barrels per day in 1998, the year before Mr Chavez won the presidency. After a decade of rising corruption and inefficiency, daily output has now fallen to 2.4 million barrels, according to OPEC figures. About half of this oil is now delivered at a discount to Mr Chavez’s friends around Latin America. The 18 nations in his “Petrocaribe” club, founded in 2005, pay Venezuela only 30 per cent of the market price within 90 days, with rest in instalments spread over 25 years.

Not only has the company failed to keep up with technology and INCREASE its production, he has reduced it.  And on top of that, he is robbing his country of the money that he COULD be making by asinine payment terms.  But hey, the people are happy with this Socialism, right?

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans opposed to President Hugo Chavez took to the streets Saturday, blaming him for rolling blackouts, water rationing, widespread crime and other problems they say are making daily life increasingly difficult.

Ooops.  Not so much.

Viva la Venezuela.

Why Massachusetts Voted Against Health Care

I tuned into a number of Liberal outlets last night and this morning.  Of course, the subject of the conversation is the victory in Massachusetts.  Now, this is politics, so to listen to them spin this is expected, they HAVE to do that.  Literally, it’s their job.  And in this, the Republicans would be spinning in the same way had Brown lost.

But, what I heard the most last night and so far this morning is that the reason Massachusetts voted against this National Health Care is that they already have their own.  And because they already have their own, why would they wanna pony up, tax themselves to provide a plan they already have?  So, according to the Left, this isn’t a referendum on Health Care, it’s a case of not wanting to pay for something they already have.

This tactic is clever.  It allows the Left to sidestep the referendum AND claim that Massachusetts really REALLY likes government provided health insurance.

I think the Left is wrong.

I think Massachusetts voted against Health care because they don’t like their version of it.

Massachusetts’ health law has had a smaller impact on insurance coverage levels and a much higher cost than supporters claim. Gains in coverage have been overstated by nearly 50 percent, while costs have been understated by at least one-third, and likely more. The law has done little to improve overall self-reported health, though it does
appear to have crowded out private health insurance and made Massachusetts a less attractive place to relocate, particularly for young people.

People view taxes as damage and route around it.

Beer and Taxes

I can’t believe that I haven’t posted on this before.  Even my dad, a die hard Democrat had to tip his hat to this logic:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

We're Gonna Run Out of Pollution!!

One of the biggest reasons that the Left feels we must get away from petroleum is that we have surpassed peak oil; we’re running out and we are in danger.  Couple things wrong with this:

  1. There is no alternative use for oil.  If we don’t burn it, what is it good for?
  2. We are no where NEAR peak oil.

When a thing becomes scarce, the price of that thing rises.  It has to.  And it can.  Fact is, oil isn’t scarce.  It’s plentiful and it’s competing for our purchase of it.

Consider this article:

Not many people think of the Netherlands as oil country, but a billion-barrel field lies under a nine-mile strip of grazing land along the Dutch-German border.  When oil prices cratered in the 1990s, Royal Dutch Shell shut the Schoonebeek field down.

Now higher prices and technological advances are spurring a new joint venture of Shell, Exxon, and the Dutch government to pump Schoonebeek’s reserves once more.

There is a bunch of oil that we know about in places that is just too hard to get at.  However, when the price of oil rises to the point that the cost of obtaining it can be offset by the price of selling it, we get more oil.  Further, technology is advancing as well:

New wells drilled horizontally are coming in contact with more of the oil. Steam injected into the rock loosens up its molasses-like crude so it can be brought to the surface more easily.

So, how much oil are we looking at?

Many analysts and industry executives have little doubt that there’s plenty of oil in the ground. “Only about 32% of the oil [in reserves] is produced,” says Val Brock, Shell’s head of business development for enhanced oil recovery. Shell estimates 300 billion barrels and maybe more might be squeezed out of existing fields, much of it once thought beyond retrieval. Peter Jackson, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates’ London-based senior director for oil industry activity, has reviewed data from the world’s biggest fields. His conclusion: 60% of their reserves remain available.

To translate into everyday terms:  That’s a lot.

A Tale of Two Cities

The Union would have you believe that they have a product you wanna buy:

DETROIT – General Motors Co. should be “solidly profitable” when demand for new cars and trucks rebounds to normal levels…

“Anything remotely resembling normal industry demand, we should be solidly profitable.”

Except, just down the road, Ford is kickin’ ass and takin’ names.

My favorite insight:

…chairman and interim CEO Ed Whitacre Jr., who said GM could be profitable this year although it would depend on economic factors.

Right.  So, put that statement into a pot, bring to a boil and simmer for 20 minutes.  Ya know what ya get?

“We could be profitable if we are able to spend less money than we make.”  Not one thing that they control will result in either spending or making.  We’ll see if they make money.

A Lesson in the Tender Mercies Of Organized Labor

November results for car makers:

Ford’s U.S. sales surge 33% in December

GM handed in a 6.1% sales decline

Chrysler…reported a 4% dip

Toyota Motor Corp. said its U.S. sales increased 32.3%

Gawd, it is SO nice to be right.

Government Regulation at Work

As the Obama administration becomes more and more involved in the day-to-day business of more and more businesses, you have to wonder what his real goal is?  If it is to drive the best and brightest from the industry in question, well, then this should be seen as a sign of success:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A top executive at American International Group Inc has resigned because of pay curbs imposed by the Obama Administration’s pay czar, the insurer said on Wednesday.

Anastasia Kelly, AIG’s vice chairman for legal, human resources, corporate affairs and corporate communications, resigned effective December 30 for “good reason” and is eligible for severance pay under the terms of the company’s executive severance plan, the insurer said.

Kelly stands to be paid about $2.8 million in severance, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Kelly’s resignation comes after Kenneth Feinberg, who is charged with monitoring pay levels at companies that received taxpayer funds, imposed pay caps for AIG’s top executives.

Earlier this month, Feinberg set the compensation structures for the 26th through 100th highest-paid employees at four firms, including AIG, limiting most cash salaries to $500,000.

And she’s not the only one.  Apparently there are other top execs ready to walk:

She was among five executives reported by The Wall Street Journal to have notified the insurer that they were prepared to resign and collect severance benefits if their pay was cut sharply by Feinberg. Chief Executive Robert Benmosche separately also had considered quitting because of the pay constraints, the Journal has reported.

And the impact to the bank:

Cornelius Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University, said no AIG employee was irreplaceable.

“We have been duped into thinking that these AIG employees have some kind of secret code that no other employee could discover if they were hired to replace them and therefore they are able to basically hold the company ransom,” Hurley said.

Imagine if the government bailed out the Minnesota Vikings.  And then, in order to make them competitive, demanded that the team could only pay their QB $500,000.  Brett Favre walks.  The Vikes finish 3-13.  As it stands today, they are the number 2 seed and a decent bet at playing in their 5th Super Bowl.

Hope for Change.

The Power of the Free Market

Creative Destruction

The new reigning champion?  The cell phone.

The devices left in its wake:

  1. Digital assistant
  2. Telephone
  3. Digital camera
  4. iPod
  5. Watch
  6. Alarm clock
  7. Radio
  8. Radar detector
  9. GPS device
  10. Video game
  11. Answering machine
  12. Computer

These are just a few.  Many many more are being “destroyed” everyday.

The impact?

Investors should heed the mobile phone’s Schumpeterian powers. When the century began, bankers ‘beamed’ each other information via the now-quaint infrared technology of the Palm Pilot, whose maker boasted a $92 billion market value. Palm shifted into mobile phones but lost 97 percent of its value along the way. This should provide a cautionary tale to other industries standing in the cell phone’s path.

But is this a good thing?  With all of these “industries” going the way of the dinosaur, aren’t we all worse off?

There will certainly be winners from the cell phone’s creative destructive properties. New companies will spring up to innovate. Each wave of technological innovation creates more market cap than the one it replaces, Morgan Stanley notes.

Indeed.  Rage on.