Monday, March 23, 2009

Jasmyne Crannick is on the money

In her short essay (really, I guess that it's a post to her blog?) Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game, Jasmyne Crannick has it right: the entire system of government and finance is to blame for the outrageous behavior that is million-dollar bonuses for executives who have raised business incompetence to new historical heights. It's not that the administration nor AIG executives are to blame per se, but the system in which they play that is corrupt.

"Retention" bonuses of $1 million+? Are there that many jobs out there that pay this kind of jack? Would these people, who've proven to be ineffective and, in fact, contributed to the collapse of a corporate giant, immediately turn elsewhere for a million-dollar payday and find it? If so, I went into the wrong line of work! Even if this is real, how can we, the private investor, keep our money out of the hands of financial organizations that claim to "manage" one's money while doling out millions of it to these dorks?

I'm turning to a old favorite.

USAA. I am a USAA member, and I will be using them for the forseeable future for everything financial. Why? Because while everyone else was wringing their hands and asking for government money while allowing te executives to fatten their wallets despite poor performance, USAA distributed 13.5% bonuses to all of their employees regardless of rank, and returned over $500 million in funds to members like me through rebates on insurance policies and dividends on savings plans. Oh, and they are consistently near the top of the customer service ratings list for the Fortune 500. Come to think of it, I think that these two things are related -- they seem to actually value people and customers and follow through with their actions.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

CNN Reports "Bank Presidents Flogged in Washington"

Oh, how I wish this were literally true. Bank presidents. Flogged. I think that you could televise the event and make back a fair amount of the bail out funds in advertising. Wouldn't you want to see John Thain beaten with his $1400 wastebasket?

It simply doesn't stand to reason that:

- Merrill Lynch, a dying bank, entrusted with billions in assets from depositors and due billions in bail-out funds, hands out over $3.6 billion (that's BILLION) in bonuses to their employees, including over $121 million in bonuses for the top four executives alone. Over 700 employees received bonuses of $1 million or more. Is there any believeable scenario that would justify any of these payments? These executives failed in spectacular fashion; why are they so richly rewarded?

- Citigroup, a problem child for the last couple of years at least, was about to take delivery on a $50 million corporate jet just after taking about $45 billion in government bail out cash.

- Morgan Stanley decided to use the $10 billion or so in government aid to gorge itself on aquistitions like the Smith Barney unit of Citigroup rather than use the money as capital for lending and the like.

Meanwhile, their "non-troubled" counterparts in the banking business that didn't need help because they had actually been, well, prudent, in the past are left to plod forward without the benefit of the massive orgy of profit without risk. How is this in any way right? If you were the CEO of FifthThird Bank or Huntingdon Bank, wouldn't you be livid right now? You've worked day and night to compete with these crooks while they played fast and loose with little care about the risk, but you kept things on the straight and narrow to preserve operations for the long term. Now the market hands your rivals their comeuppance and they still have the upper hand due to the government bail out. It isn't fair. It simply isn't.

Shoot, I've worked for companies where even meager bonus plans were suspended because the company made a 5% profit rather than the "planned" 7%. These guys at Merrill Lynch lost more in three months than ConocoPhilips, IBM, HP or General Electric made in one year. That's not some "small difference", it's a staggering, corporation-crushing loss and you are handing out bonuses to the tune of $3.6 billion in government money?

I'm like everyone else on this -- these bankers are scum. Selfish money manipulators, they are no better than Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama is President

And I guess that we now have something to say to Morrissey to convince him that America is just and free.

Other than that, it's been all glittering generalities.

I'm mildly optimistic since he's taken the opportunity to use the "honeymoon" period to break with some of the more parochial liberals on a few minor issues and appointments.

On the other hand, selecting a tax-evader for the Secretary of Treasury isn't exactly a solid pick.

We shall see.

Monday, January 12, 2009

I'll bet that Iran wants the US policy toward them to change

From the Chinese news agency Xinhua, we have this article on Iran's hope for change in US policy towards them.


Of course, since Iran supports terrorism (and out right murder), builds nuclear bombs and seems to thoroughly enjoy extortion and threats against their neighbors, I would expect that they don't want that the United States to continue to oppose those actions.


I think that this picture from this January 6 2009 editorial illustrates pefectly why we should be wary of Iran:






Saturday, January 10, 2009

Pinewood Derby, January 2009 Edition

first pass pinewood derby car 3
first pass pinewood derby car 3,
originally uploaded by eggsngrits.
Once again, it's time for one of those time-honored traditions of Cub Scouting: the Pinewood Derby.

Robert wanted to make a car patterned after one that we saw on the internet that was Sprite-themed. This is what we came up with. We'll see how fast we are on Monday....

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

The woman MSNBC calls "Peggy the Moocher"

This is Obama's counterpunch to "Joe the Plumber" testimony for the McCain campaign.

She thinks that Obama will make her gasoline and mortgage payments go away! Classic. Obama all the way, baby! She's certainly made a choice that makes sense for her. I don't have that kind of "in" with Barrack Hussein Obama. I'm glad that she does.

Another media conspiracy theory

Now that gasoline prices have returned to the $2 range, why isn't the media reporting it? I've seen some isolated stories in various rags, but nothing substantial in the national media.

I'm guessing that our journos do not want to recognize that the current administration fixed it or wasn't at fault in the first place.

Don't rely on the mainstream media for all of your news. They are not balanced. In fact, I don't even think that they pretend to be balanced anymore.

Sunday, November 02, 2008

On the eve of the national election, some thoughts

This is just a rambling monolog on things that I've observed and thought throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.



1. The way that we elect a president in the United States is simply awful. It's a beauty contest and liars poker wrapped into a process that takes much too long. By "beauty contest" I mean that the candidate looks good and sounds good on television in those 30-second sound bites. By "liar's poker" I'm referring to the propensity of the candidate to promise much more than they can deliver. Obama obviously wins the beauty contest portion and has bigger bets in the liars poker portion, so it follows that he will win.


One of the really horrible things about politics is that the candidates do not have to tell the truth about plans and promises made on the campaign trail, especially if those promises are in alignment with viewpoints of the liberal press. Any candidate may say anything about any program under the sun. On the other hand, they don't actually ever have to enact those programs; in fact, in many cases the candidates are actually precluded from enacting certain things that they are promising. A great example? Obama promising that he will get out of Iraq in two years. I don't think it's humanly possible, nor do I think that it is wise. That doesn't stop him from promising it! Likewise, John McCain has promised to enact legislation that re-regulates the banking and finance industry. By law, the banking business is regulated by Congress, not the president. The president may introduce legislation, but he cannot enact it. The point: in both cases the major party candidates have far overstepped their bounds in order to curry favor and votes.

2. I think that the pollsters are in for a rude awakening. 10% margins are the territory of myth in presidential politics. George Herbert Walker Bush's win over Michael Dukakis is the only recent election that had that kind of margin in the end.

John McCain may still win this thing. My thoughts:

- Why is Obama campaigning late in the game in a solidly liberal state like California? I think that it may be because his campaign camp knows that McCain isn't that far behind there, closer than the national pollsters would like to admit.

- Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, always under poll. Gore lead Bush by 4-5% in the polls the day before the election. He lost. John Kerry had a slimmer margin, but he was still leading in the polls the day before, too. I think that McCain isn't as far behind as the polls show.

- The Electoral College is an equalizer. The way that the politics for president work, it doesn't matter if you barely win a state or if you win by huge margins, you still get the same number of electoral votes. I think that the popular votes for Obama are concentrated in a few states and sprinkled in the rest. It will be interesting tosee if that's true.

3. Racism is alive and well in the United States. But I hear you say to yourself, "But the president will be a black man for the first time in history". You are correct -- I think that the majority of Americans (including me) are fine with a black man at the helm. I was absolutely, 100% behind a ground swell to elect General Colin Powell, the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the first black Secretary of State as our first black President. I'd still vote for him today if given the chance. He's much better than either of the candidates that we have to choose from in tomorrow's election. I think that we are definitely over that hump as a nation.

However, I know for a fact that the black voters in this country "feel like they are a part of this process for the first time". That concerns me -- as Americans they couldn't embrace the process due to race? That's exactly what it comes down to -- black Americans were disinterested in white politicians. I have a real problem with that. Whites are lambasted for racial bias, yet blacks may openly flaunt theirs without ramification? It makes me think that black "injustices" are at least partially self-imposed.

4. Democrats and Republicans are exaggerating their differences. The more that I look at both of these organizations, the less I like them both. At the moment, I think that both of them spend so much time blaming the other that they've lost the ability to lead anything more than a parade. People, grasp this concept: more than half of what a president or legislator of either party will act upon is boilerplate. That is, the candidates agree on more than half of the issues and policies. Why aren't we talking about that, too? Instead they want to be different to their own detriment just so that they will get elected. It is assinine that a politician needs to alienate their fellow pols simply to get elected. It does nothing but drive productivity through the floor. It needs to stop.

5. Liberals are equally closed-minded as conservatives. Ever try to reason with a Prius-driving vegan liberal on taxation? You'll see that it's the same as reasoning with a HUMMER-driving cigar-chomping conservative on the same subject: no sale. Neither is willing to listen. They've both got everything figured out and everyone else is wrong in their view. Left-leaners, quit claiming the "high ground" as open-minded people. You aren't any more open than anyone else.

6. Liberals think that taxing the rich and corporations doesn't negatively affect the poor, but it absolutely does. Remember high-school economics and/or civics? When you write out the equation for Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the measure of how much money is in the economy in a given year, the term for all taxes is subtracted from the whole number. That is, any taxation subtracts from the whole economy. Period.

Taxing any segment of society (including corporations) means that those entities cannot spend as much on goods and services in the future. Therefore, the jobs that everyone enjoy, rich or poor, are compromised by lower overall spending. I believe that the "future" portion of this fact is not ever explained -- that taxing someone else sounds good, but ultimately that same tax will be a tax on you in near the future.

This is the most egregious form of lying currently used by the Obama camp. "I'll tax the rich." All that does is create a slanted playing field that gets smaller and smaller until both the rich and the poor are worse off than before. Of course, that's not said.

I could go on for days, but this is what I'm thinking about most in this election.