Below are the 6 most recent journal entries recorded in pathways2past's LiveJournal:

Monday, March 9th, 2009
6:51 am	Toxic Usury Toxic usury   The more we learn about the big banks, the more I see the wisdom inherent in past rules and regulations which America, sadly, seems to have abandoned.   There used to be laws prohibiting usury; now we can't even get the topic talked about. Usury? What's that?   It's hard to draw the line between reasonable finance charges and usury, but there are certain numbers that scream "USURY" in my mind. Eighteen percent interest; how can anybody sustain payments on a loan at 18%? You can't. All you can hope is that somehow you get a chunk of cash that enables you to pay the whole thing off at once, because the interest alone will eat you alive. And somehow it's become okay for banks to charge around THIRTY percent interest. Unbelievable. The banking system has allowed us to run up huge credit card bills, enticing us deeper and deeper into debt with attractively low interest rates, but if you're late with two payments in a row, all of a sudden not only do you have to pay a huge late fee, but your interest rate goes up as high as 30%. At that point, what choice does any kind of ordinary person have but to declare bankruptcy?   As it sounds as if some of the biggest banks--the ones that have been considered "too big to be allowed to fail"--are finally going to be allowed to fail, we're finally getting a painfully close view of the old Wall Street proverb which points out that "Bulls make money, and Bears make money, and Pigs get slaughtered."   I had always thought that usury laws were meant to protect the borrowers; now I'm seeing that these type of laws are meant to protect everyone involved, the lenders as well as the borrowers, and society in general. What good results from keeping people in thrall to their moneylenders? Current Mood: sad (Comment on this)
Thursday, February 12th, 2009
7:14 am	My mind is boggled by all the rhetoric coming from the left, the right, and the way-out there.   The Republicans are now saying that the current stimulus package is only going to create work, not jobs. Well, I gues you could phrase it that way! Most jobs, be they factory or boardroom are on a contract-to-contract basis...you may know for sure that you're going to be employed until this particular piece of work is delivered, after that, you have to hope that another contract will follow thereafter. Sometimes the important thing is surviving until that next contract comes in!   What really bothers me is all the advice out there on how to get "stuff" at rock-bottom prices. If the stores aren't making enough money to both pay their help and order replacement stuff from the factories, everyone's going to be suffering...even the people who got such great "deals!" That's why I've always found the idea of paying such slave wages to third-world countries to be so abhorrent; if you're just paying rock-bottom, survival wages, not only are you saying that the worker is not worthy of their hire, but you're not allowing them enough discretionary money to be able to invest in both frills and their future. No money to put away for a "rainy day," and no money to enable a more prosperous "now." People who can just barely keep a roof over their head and food in their mouth can't make any kind of long-term plans. They can't conceptualize taking out loans to buy other goods, and they wouldn't be a good credit risk, anyway.   Absorbing all the conflicting information, I can acknowledge that good chunks of FDR's program didn't balance things out in the short-term, since we didn't really pull out of the Great Depression until WWII. Probably rather than employing adults at kid's wages, and having them use hand tools on projects so that more people could be hired, it may have been more effective to hire as few adults as possible at reasonably adult-type wages, to work in the most efficient and effective ways possible, on the best equipment available. "Make-work" is not always the best work, and probably didn't do a whole lot to get the country out of the Depression. But, when you look at some of the specific works projects, like the Blue Ridge Parkway, you can't say that the work wasn't good and useful. It certainly continues to add to the prosperity level of many communities, all these decades later.   What really got us out of the depressive cycle we were in was the GI Bill which gave returning soldiers something to do besides just return home to the family farm. It gave them incentive and hope for a more prosperous future after the war and enabled a slower re-entry of manpower back into the workforce. I also get really annoyed with the Libertarians and other conservatives who don't like the Social Security taxes...those checks have literally been the only constant in a widely fluctuating market. Even with all the home foreclosures we've had, we haven't seen the creation of cardboard "Hoovervilles," which is pretty amazing. Social Security was never intended as a total retirement plan, but it's definitely been a societal stabilizer, keeping the economic cycles from plunging quite as deeply as they did in previous times. There's a reason we haven't had a true depression since the Thirties, and it's called Social Security. Sure, it's annoying to have to pay this insurance, particularly if, like us, you're self-employed and have to pay the whole amount, but it's the best way of shoring up the country's society history's ever seen. Charge me more when I'm making more; that's when I can afford it! Don't put a cap on how much you're going to take out...when I'm making a large amount is when I want as much shoveled in as possible! Illegal immigrants causing a problem? Legalize them being here, give them an SS# and make sure they're contributing to the system! Even if they're not citizens, there's no reason why anyone who's working on American soil shouldn't be paying for this insurance coverage. (I'm not even going to go into all the costs associated with trying to "defend our borders" against all the people trying to get here any which way they can....)   In the meantime, what about our healthcare? We already have the most inefficient medical system possible...Medicaid, Medicare, the VA; why have different programs all aimed at sifting out people who don't qualify for their particular services? Insanity. Hire people from Blue Cross/Blue Shield who know what any given area is likely to need in health services, and figure out how to give at least minimum services across the board. Regular checkups and preventative care is MUCH cheaper in the long run than our current system of using our emergency rooms as primary care. The amount we're already paying for really crummy care could and should be much better organized. If some of the more common care items are covered (pre-natal care and the cost of giving birth, for instance), then the "extra" services which people may choose to have covered by private insurance will be much more affordable. Having a government-covered health care program would enable ALL of our businesses to compete world-wide on a level playing field. Current Mood: cranky (Comment on this)
Sunday, July 6th, 2008
10:30 am	Economics of Biblical Proportions...  I was listening to NPR yesterday (July 5, 2008) when they had a segment on the current trend for people to purchase more gas-efficient cars. They visited a car lot and were surprised to find that there were people who were not only looking to buy, but to outright sell their gas-guzzlers. My poor little mind was blown when I heard the price someone paid a year ago on an Escapade. I can't imagine spending seventy thousand dollars on a car. I can't imagine spending seventy thousand dollars that I didn't have up front on a new car that as soon as I drove it off the lot would immediately be worth a lot less. But then, I can't imagine having the kind of income that would enable me to think I could afford to make car payments on a seventy thousand dollar car. People used to buy entire NICE houses for seventy thousand dollars, and had to spread the payments out over 30 years! Never underestimate the ability of people to tank themselves. Did this guy NEED a seventy thousand dollar car? I doubt it. Just because he qualified for the loan, didn't make this the smart purchase he probably thought it was a year ago. Makes me wonder; has he ever read the Old Testament? The economic times we're going through reminds me of the story of Joseph interpreting the pharaoh's dream of seven fat cows being consumed by seven starving cows, and seven fat ears of corn being consumed by seven scrawny ears. Within one year, this guy's big honkin' "fat" car has "eaten" about forty thousand dollar's worth of his net worth. Oh well, he'll survive. His credit history may be bruised for a while, but he'll probably drift back to "normal" after a while. He might even learn the difference between an investment which will grow in value, and an expense which reduces your overall net worth. Maybe. He might even learn that if you've got the cash to buy a car outright, that you can get a pretty nice car that you'll be proud to drive for a fraction of what he agreed to pay the bank for his ridiculously huge car. He's actually pretty lucky. He gets to analyze his income, decide whether to sell the car, surrender it to the bank, or just keep struggling along with his car payments until it's paid off.  Either way, he's probably not going to lose the roof over his head. He may want to kick himself, but he'll be able to carry on with his life. Maybe this experience will teach him something and he'll grow as a human being. Or not. The universe WILL keep repeatings its lessons until they are mastered, and then you'll progress to the next set of lessons. That's just the way it is. Current Mood: contemplative (Comment on this)
Sunday, October 21st, 2007
9:25 pm	Six Sigma     I get philosophical at tax time, thinking about government waste and other annoyances. One tax time I wrote about Six Sigma, and how these principles could make a radically positive impact on our government.... Six Sigma, for those of you who aren't aware of this concept, is the ultimate business goal; a process whereby every product delivered to the market is perfectly formed and works right the first time. Although this may sound too idyllic, too pie-in-the-sky, too radically right in nature, the positive impact on the bottom line when these principles are applied can't be ignored.   The cost to industry when "good enough" is the acceptable standard is huge. Defective products or services not only waste resources, but those which reach the buying public damage a company's image in ways that end up damaging the bottom line, and as every business executive knows, the bottom line can always be improved.   Throughout the years, manufacturing companies have employed all kinds of strategies to catch defects before they go out the door, but ultimately the best and cheapest way to "catch" the defective merchandise is to back up and redesign the process that created the defect in the first place, starting with those areas which will immediately improve the bottom line.   A good government agency to use as an example would be your local water department. The ultimate goal for a water agency is to create such a perfect delivery method that every drop of water that flows into the system ends up with a consumer who is billed for it. This perfect system would allow the agency to charge the minimum amount for the product, yet cover all  operating expenses and allow for a reasonable profit.   Damaged water lines and leaky systems force the operating company to have to charge enough to cover the cost of the wasted product, plus the labor costs incurred when crews have to be suddenly dispatched to repair a broken line. Emergency repairs are always more expensive and often miss or leave behind more problems which will have to be addressed in the future.   The best way for a water department to bring itself up to Six Sigma standards would be to start at the distribution point and measure the amount of water going out into the system. These figures should then be compared with the amount of water reaching consumers who are being billed for their usage. If there's no discrepancy, cool; there are no leaks in the system. If less water is reaching the billing meters, then it's time to figure out just where the worst leaks are occurring.   At every junction point in the system, there should be a meter installed so that the figures from the output versus the billable usage can be compared. Then it's simply a case of following the money trail. Which direction leaks more, the northbound or southbound pipe? Follow the leakiest pipe and make sure it's sound until it reaches its next junction where another meter is installed to determine which is the leakiest pipe and the process is repeated all the way out to the end of the system. As the repair/pipe replacement team finishes each section, the improved revenue will immediately help pay for repairing the next leakiest section. As the older, leaky pipes are replaced, the number of emergency service calls will also be reduced, allowing the replacement work to proceed even more rapidly until the entire system is metered, measured and found to be up to Six Sigma standards.   Yes, it is possible to make both the customers and the accountants happy. Minimum waste with maximum service; a concept so revolutionary, so left-brained that it reaches around and hugs the right side of the brain, too.   So, how to apply Six Sigma concepts to the problem of illegal immigrants....   The problem is not that the illegal immigrants are here. We need them here to fill the void in the marketplace for low-cost, willing workers. The problem is not that they're not paying taxes, because they're paying sales taxes every time they buy something and they're paying their share of property taxes every time they make a rent payment to their landlord who is then able to pay his property taxes.   The problem is that because they're undocumented, unmetered, unmeasured, the local governments can't figure them into the equation. Because they're undocumented within the Social Security system, they are neither contributing to the system nor building up credits within the system, cheating both themselves and the system. Because they are undocumented they have to worry about hiding, about finding employment, about coping with a "foreign" language and surviving on what little money they can earn. They simply don't have the same rights that any American citizen takes for granted, including the right to plan for their future.   Different politicians have suggested all kinds of patches to the immigration system, including the wildly unrealistic "round 'em all up and bus 'em home" concept. Sure. We're going to do a dragnet through this country that's so thorough that we catch every single illegal person, get them out of here and we'll never have to worry about them getting back here.   If we couldn't keep them out the first time, how are we supposed to seal up the borders so tightly that they can't get back in? With them being undocumented, how are we supposed to know when we've gotten the last one, anyway?    By applying Six Sigma to the problem, we see that we need to go back to the roots of the design, to figure out the original flaws in the original immigration laws that have led to such a widely dysfunctional system.   Maybe the original flaw was even trying to regulate immigration at all. Maybe the simplest, cheapest and most productive on the bottom line of government finance idea is to repeal all limits on immigration, allowing anyone who reaches the U.S. borders to apply for a Social Security card and request provisionary citizenship status. Allowing people the right to be here as long as they obey the laws that regulate our society and are self-supporting would immediately eliminate an astounding amount of government waste. Money that isn't spent by law enforcement on otherwise law-abiding people would be money in the bank for communities all over America. More productive citizens would be paying money into the Social Security system, raising the ratio of workers-to-retirees to a more realistic and reasonable level.   Whether a worker is here temporarily or permanently, there's no reason for them not to have a Social Security number and be paying into the system. Whether they go or stay is not the issue; working within our borders without building up credit, without having a legal way to obtain a driver's license, open up a bank account, and become fully contributing members of our society is the problem. Illegal workers are people and deserve to be recognized as such by their employers and the government of the land on which they work.   This is not amnesty, nor another government-designed program, it's a simple acknowledgement that people have the right to choose their citizenship. If they choose to leave the country of their birth, come here and do all the right things that we expect from our citizens, then they deserve the opportunity to prove their worth. We're quite capable of expelling those who fail to measure up to our standards, but first we have to find and measure them.   Ultimately, Six Sigma is a way of measuring the results. Applying Six Sigma to the Internal Revenue Service would be a pretty complex job, simply because the tax code is so amazingly complex and convoluted. It's built up over the years to where the people who originally wrote the first tax bill wouldn't recognize it. It's gone from a fairly simple concept to some type of social welfare program with good intentions and confusing results. Maybe it's time to go back to the original reasons for creating the I.R.S. in the first place and see if those reasons are still valid. Is the cash flow in worth the cost of maintaining the system? Is there some other method of creating cash flow which isn't as burdensome?   Yes, I get philosophical at tax time. If everyone would act more businesslike, and do those things which attract people to a business and make that business prosper, the world would be a much better place and would have an ever-improving bottom line.   (Comment on this)
Monday, July 4th, 2005
7:56 am	Slavery, the South and China I've been living in Asheville, North Carolina since late 1979, but I'm still a Northerner by birth and breeding. I sound "Yankee" to "true" Southerners, and my thoughts patterns are definitely Yankee all the way. I was visiting the Carson House in Marion, NC, recently (Saturday, June 25, 2005) and I finally was able to find the right words to talk with a nice Southern lady about the Civil War--and actually managed to find the right words to change her mind about the slavery issue and the War for States Rights as too many Americans prefer to think about it. The lady was defending the slave use of the original Carson family as being perfectly legal at the time. Of course it was legal at the time, but was still very short-sighted for the long run. Slavery *was* the reason the South lost the war. The lady, one Ann Swann by name, started to argue with me, and I had to ask her to let me finish my point. I'm a storyteller, a little slow talking and can't always get the whole story out in twenty-five words or less. She was polite enough to hear me out and I continued. The problem with slavery is that it's very deceptive. If you're the one benefiting from slave labor, you think you're getting something for free, something that's making *you* rich, but in the long run, you're just cheating yourself. The way businesses get started is someone has some ambition, they find a place to start their business where they have an energy source to run their business, say beside a stream or river (like the one beside the Carson House) where you can build a mill to utilize that energy. Then they start making their product in a small way, expecting to sell their product to their immediate neighbors and--hopefully--the business grows and expands to be able to sell their product in a wider market. Certainly that's the way businesses grew in the North. But in the South, people would come and start their businesses, but their neighbors were either dirt farmers--who had no cash money--or slaves--who had no money--or plantation owners who had no interest in promoting local businesses. They would take their crops to Europe for sale and would spend most of their money in Europe before coming back home. So the fledgling business owners would end up becoming dirt farmers just to survive. So much for their skills, ambitions, and creativity. What a waste. When it came time for the war, the Northern mills had no problem switching over to war production, but the South simply didn't have same kind of industries, and so they lost the war. The irony, of course, is that if it hadn't been for the slave issue, the war never would have happened anyway. What a waste. I see the same thing happening in China. The goods they sell here in the U.S. are so low-priced that you know they're not paying anything beyond a purely survival rate--just enough to keep them alive and producing. We call that slavery, here in the U.S., and I call it a waste of human potential. Someone who doesn't benefit from the fruits of their labor isn't going to put any more effort into that labor than absolutely necessary. But give someone the hope that their hard work will be rewarded in a meaningful way, and boy, just stand back and watch 'em move! The people who think that copyright laws are meaningless and can be ignored are also just cheating themselves and their country. Yes, you might make a quick buck by stealing someone's intellectual property, but once that idea is old news, what are you going to use to sell next? People generally write books, screenplays, music, etc., in the hope of having a more prosperous life if their work should earn money for them. In the meantime, while waiting for riches to be showered on them from their creative work, they keep working at their ordinary "day" job. If their intellectual property is stolen from them, along with the hope of a more prosperous life, well, why should they keep churning out ideas for someone else? Once China and other Third World countries learn this, we should start seeing an amazing flood of creativity, but until then, things will keep going on the way they're going on. I was reminded recently that there are reasons why you don't undercut other people's prices. First, there may be some reason why they charge so much; something that isn't immediately evident. Second, you're sending all kinds of messages by undercutting someone's price. You're saying that your work is not worth as much as your competitors', and even that your work is cut-rate because of some unknown factor. Your customer may get the impression that the reason you're charging so little is because you're cutting corners or otherwise not providing the quality of work as your competitors. Most of us--as consumers--have learned the hard way that the "cheapest" is not always the most cost-effective. We've learned that it's really quicker and cheaper in the long run to hire professionals to do the job right the first time than to think we can do it ourselves and then have to call in the professionals to fix what we--or our "bargain" contractors--have screwed up. Worst of all, by locking ourselves into a minimum income, we manage to use all our creative energy just to keep ourselves afloat in poverty. Perceive yourself as worth more money and price your work accordingly. You may not win every bid, but at least you'll be available to do the work that will pay better or will have the time to think of better ways to earn your living. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, June 21st, 2005
12:34 pm	The Economics of the Arts Every so often I get into a socio-political state of mind and really want to discuss the current political scene in historic terms. So, this is my own private column for discussing whatever is making me craziest in the "modern" world. If you like what I'm saying, feel free to add some comments. If you don't like my views, please limit the negativity to a short sentence indicating disagreement, and then direct readers to your own site where they can view your full and unbridled opinions. Actually, that's good policy toward all comments...if you have a whole lot to say, make your own Live Journal entry and give us a link. I'm very against censorship, but I'm not going to put up with a lot of negativity on *my* site, either. So here's my first column, which I'm entitling: THE ECONOMICS OF THE ARTS When the economy takes a downturn, it's the arts that seem to suffer the most. But, there's nothing like supporting the arts to give local economies a much needed boost. A good way that people have supported the arts--and their local economy--in the historical past is to give a party. Something special; something that requires people to spruce themselves up and show their best face to the world. A big party by the local gentry makes them hire locals to come in and give the old castle a good and thorough cleaning. They'll need to purchase more food than what they normally use to feed all the guests, they'll need to add on extra servers, they'll need to hire musicians or a traveling troupe of players to entertain their guests, they'll need to hire the local dance master to come in and teach the latest steps to their children so they won't be disgraced. They'll need to have the local seamstresses working overtime on their party garb. And so will their guests. In the privacy of their own homes, they'll be hiring musicians to play for small "impromptu" parties made up of their children and their friends' children so that they can learn the latest steps, compare notes on what's the latest fashion craze, and generally feel part of the privileged crowd when they get to the big party. In the same way that a big party or festival stimulates economic growth, so all the satellite parties do the same, so that the performers and seamstresses end up being able to support themselves comfortably by their art and feed their families with goods purchased from local farmers who are thus able to pay their rents to their landlords who are--surprise, surprise!--the people hosting the parties. The gentry, of course, have their own agenda when throwing a party. It's at their parties that they meet potential business associates, introduce their children to potential business associates, with an eye for future profit and influence, which--of course--keeps the money flowing all the way around. The truly rich don't have to hire special entertainers: they already have them on staff. (1 Comment |Comment on this)