Barry...

Barry,

Sorry for the delayed response. I have been busy lately. I have a sarcastic tone and I don’t think my rebut is going to be welcoming. So before I start to respond, I would like to genuinely commend you on the effort. I received your attempt at my proposal graciously. You were the only person (out of 350+) to actually take the challenge. You were 1 of 10 to respond with a rational argument and 1 of the only 2 of these folks to do so publicly. Kudos.

Unfortunately, your five “changes” do not meet the criteria, but indeed a tremendous effort (explanations as to why will come in rebut). Sorry to disappoint, but the standard I keep is extremely high and frankly your five “changes” are weak and do not qualify. In light of your effort and passion, I will consider the donation to charity.

- jay

The Rebut

"adventurous period of pseudo-rebellion"

Foremost, I am a legit rebel and I would be honored to have a chance to prove it to you. You can come down, up, or over to NC and I’ll spit in your face, push you around, break out your car windows, or whatever you require as verification. Moving on…

All in all, your comments are whinny, pathetic, and clichéd. Like most liberals you fail to make any argument or explanation for your world view: that is, an explanation as to why the rich owe the poor money and why it is the job of a few hundred privileged, elite government bureaucrats to oversee this process. You merely try to imply my argument is flawed because I have wealthy parents. (I respond to this below.)

You make no mention of the feasibility of your view or the lack thereof. Nor do you make acknowledgement of its failure in every country where it has been attempted. More specifically, you make no note or acknowledgement that this has been the goal of the welfare state in the US for 70+ years with no success. You make no note or acknowledgement that this has been the goal of many nations for 70+ years with no success and additionally with brutal results in countries where this idea is taken to the extreme (the USSR, China, and Cuba).

You make no note that the United Kingdom, the USA, Australia, and Japan—i.e., the countries with the least socialism, have the highest standard of living, the fewest “poor”, and experience the most freedom of all countries past and present.

YOU MAKE NO ARGUMENT.

I assume you ignore this to hide your true motivation: that is, you fear the successful in life and you have no shame in exploiting the hapless and downtrodden as an excuse for you to punish the successful.

Also, if rich people did actually “loathe” poor people, poor people wouldn’t have a shot in life. The rich would sweep them away. As an example, why would the rich offer the poor so much charity? The US gives billions of dollars a year in charity. If they hated poor people, why wouldn’t they just gather them in a prison camp and keep them there to waste away? This is what liberals do. They manipulate the poor in a quest for power. In order to get a wider voting class, liberals promise poor people the riches of other men. In reality, they string the poor along with inefficient government programs—forcing them into a life of squalor and filth in government sponsored projects and ghettos.

As for my background…

I’m from a small, middle class beach town in southeast NC. My parents, like all parents, supported me as much as they could. There were many parents who could not have given nearly as much as my parents did to me; and there were many parents that could give a lot more.

The most support my parents gave me was the lesson that I would one day have to pay my own way…that it was my responsibility, not that of Barack Obama and whinny liberals like you to take it from someone richer than me to allow me a life of, by your own words, “shrunken responsibility”. They taught me to be confident, to think for myself, and not to follow the crowd. They taught me to be a good person and to care about other people…to fight for their freedom. They extended this to all people, not just poor ones.

In simple terms, you overestimated your assumption. Had your estimation been accurate though, it would not have proven any point. You still would have not argued against my point, which is this: it is possible to live happily on a small income if one finds joy in their hobbies (running, surfing, playing music) and joy in time with friends and family. I added that with creativity you can even decorate your house and find a stylish wardrobe. With strong character virtues, you can attract a desirable mate.

A better way to state your argument would have been “having access to wealth eases the burden of having a small income”. A point with which I sort of agree, but this is merely an ancillary point—not one to found an entire political system.

Judging my actual situation I think your argument is definitely wrong. In my case, I had access to some wealth in my teenage and college years. However I had no guarantee of wealth in the future. If you live for 4 – 6 years on $15,000, this is still all you have. Just because you were rich before and could be rich after doesn’t change the fact that you are living without many material products and that you must find a way to enjoy life without modern material comforts. If someone bent your finger back until it snapped, it would hurt. The fact that it did not hurt before and would one day heel and not hurt again would not change the feeling of your finger cracking. Human psychology is a present-tense consciousness. To be happy, one must typically find joy in the moment.

To a few of your specific points…

Now, I don’t know you, but based on your piece that has a considerable resemblance to a GOP talking points memo, I’d guess you’re voting for that ‘other’ one.

Yes, I did. But not because McCain doesn’t suck. He just doesn’t suck as bad as Obama.

“rather they be CEOs making $10 million that democrats hate”Sarcasm or not, could you come up with a more cliché generalization?

No. This is a great generalization.

I don’t want even get started down this rabbit trail but have you even heard of Warren Buffett?

I have and what does he have to do with anything? And why don’t you want to even get started? And why is the trail rabbit? Like most liberals, you make no argument and think that emotionally charged words and a little name dropping will suffice for an actual argument. Warren Buffet is the ultimate socialist businessman. He was the son of an already wealthy Ivy League graduate. He made his money investing in mostly government regulated industries (insurance, textiles, etc). It’s obvious that he wants to keep a government reign on the economy…he is afraid to compete in an open market.

Just a guess, but you sound like one of the over-privileged types who chose that previous lifestyle, shirking responsibility for a period of time simply because you COULD.

You disparage your own argument by admitting that the lifestyle of one making 15-20K is one of “shrunken responsibility” and that one would openly “chose” to live like this. If the responsibilities are light, this is all the money one deserves to make.

You probably had an above-average education that you knew you could rely on at a point in the future when you decided to grow up.

Not above-average at all. I think I had a mere average education--I went to a small public school in a small town and a second tier state college. But according to your argument, “Our education system is pitiful compared to other developed countries.” So...I guess I only had a pitiful education to rely on.

You probably didn’t have any sick/disabled family members to care for. You probably didn’t have any debt or creditors to worry about because of previously mentioned assumed parental units.

I am, indeed, debt free. However, about four years ago I owed about $30K total. I paid it off myself…that is myself with the assistance of capitalism.

FIY, no one forces you into debt. People get themselves in debt by wanting more than they can afford. I have no sympathy for these people. And of the people I know in debt, they don’t want my sympathy and would find it condescending if I offered it.

...while staying one foot ahead of bankruptcy and facing rising costs on virtually EVERYTHING.

It is our mixed economy that causes the rising costs. That is, it is the system for which you argue that is the blame. Capitalism keeps prices low. This is a widely accepted benefit of capitalism (even among socialists).

Your apparent condescension to those that lack your good fortune reminds me of the comedy of Stephen Colbert who said on one occasion (paraphrased) “All America needs is more bootstrap-salesmen.” I would guess you don’t know too many poor people, because the few that I know don’t happily choose to be poor.

I know several poor people. How many poor people do you know?

“Well I want to know what he will change because I think America is great as it is.”Really? Have you spent ANY time abroad?

Yes I have. A lot actually. The foreigners I know seem to like me very much. Then again, the ones I know are mostly female and I have quite a mojo so it might not be fair to compare my personal experiences.

As for foreigners in general. Most of them are grossly under educated about American life and their attitude is shaped not by first-hand accounts, but by the American media and celebrities who teach these people to hate the US. That is, these foreigners are actually obsessed with American culture and are desperately trying to fit in and this is the manner in which they have learned how from our own magazine culture; our own celebrity culture. Barry, this is probably the first time you’ve gotten to be a role model. Congratulations!! They are actually trying to copy you!!

I have verified this (not the part about you) many times in many places. Further, millions of foreigners pour into our country to live and to vacation every WEEK. We have the highest % of travelers from abroad and the highest % of immigrants. Just because you have the support of the newspaper on this one, doesn’t mean you have the support of the facts and numbers. As a special caveat, did you know that most Europeans supported the war in Iraq until the American and British media came out against it?

My anticipated changes, in order of likelihood that I assigned:

1. Raise the national fuel mpg standard. I am not aware of what it is currently; I believe it’s in the low 20’s. I expect an Obama administration will raise it by approximately 5mpg. The potential positive results should be obvious enough: reduced oil consumption and reduced carbon emissions.

This is weak, but I’ll count this. You should know, though, if this were to happen, it would hurt poor people the most. Increasing mph output is expensive for automakers and these costs would show up in car prices. Rich people would be able to afford the transition—poor people would not. Also, a forced mph hike would most likely increase fuel emissions and increase consumption. Why? Because this would essentially make traveling by car cheaper (because a tank of guess would get you farther) and people would drive more.

2. In connection with No. 1, but I believe a change worthy to list separately I expect an Obama administration to provide subsidies/other financial incentives to motor companies that require research/new equipment for the manufacture of more efficient vehicles and alternate energy vehicles. The positive results that this change could bring include job creation, or at the very least a decline/hault to the layoffs currently taking place in the industry.

No. This doesn’t count at all and I’m almost laughing out loud this is so ridiculous. You think that the government providing R & D funds to automakers is a change? Wake up. The auto industry is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the country and has been under every administration (for many types of projects: fuel efficiency, road safety, labor regulation, many more). This is well documented and I recommend picking up any book on the industry or even any basic economics text to see this is not a change. This is business as usual. However, under the recommendation of Derrick, I suggest reading “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell.

3. Raise taxes on upper class –There is a tandem proposed tax-break for middle class citizens that is often mentioned as well, but I’ll focus on the tax increase since that’s all the Republicans want to talk about. A positive effect would include a move towards balancing the budget, or at least reducing the deficit, thereby reducing the amount of money we’re borrowing from countries like China – not exactly our closest buddies.

This is ridiculous. I actually am laughing out loud at this one. Raising taxes on the rich is not a change and it’s not positive. You honestly think raising taxes on the upper class is change? Read a little history bro. A change backwards doesn’t count as a change.

Further, even if it were a “new” change, it’s not positive. Did you know that when tax rates are high on the rich the government actually brings in less tax revenue? The goal of raising taxes on the rich is so that the government can lower taxes on the poor. However it brings in a net decrease to the budget. This is a widely excepted view. And fyi, we don’t borrow much money at all from China (or any countries like them). Of our entire outstanding debt, less than 25% is owed to foreign countries—of which China is a subsequent fraction (but it is the second highest foreign country). Check out the Treasury Bulletin (http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html).

4. Reduce size of Gitmo – I expect an Obama administration to bring to trial and release at least a handful of those incarcerated. I additionally expect an independent investigation of alleged torture practices combined with a released statement/conference where the administration forcefully condemns torture. The direct effects from such actions will be difficult/impossible to measure, especially in the short-run, but I would expect a softening of international resentment towards us. It would – and should be – the first of many steps towards reconciliation with the international community.

Well I think it is time, not Obama that would do this. Meaning, this is the obvious future of Gitmo. A McCain administration would have done the same. I really don’t see how this is “change” outside of being the standard “what to do next”. BUT, I’ll give it to you.

5. Increased funding of faith-based initiatives – If there’s one thing that’s been apparent from Obama’s words and actions, it is his commitment to his faith and the role that should play in helping the community. I don’t think I can get specific on this one, and I don’t think I should have to. The GOP attempted to present a false argument that Obama would reduce funding to faith-based initiatives in hopes of rallying their religious “right” base (an oxymoron if there ever was one). I argue that he will increase them. Specifics shouldn’t be necessary if the previous argument was the opposite. I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about said initiatives, but I would assume that potential positive effects include: more homeless people fed and more after-school programs for troubled kids. If you want that quantified better, find someone with a crystal ball. I’ll accept any improvement and will continue to demand more if feasible.

What?

This is so weird and non-specific that I don’t know how to respond. I’ll give it to you though.

In Sum

You’re 3 out of 5 (with 1 being weak and 4 and 5 being really weak) and that’s not going to cut it.

Also…
To your question “You just pass on what you hear and read in magazines and the television.”So, if I’m to read the implicit allegation here that printed and broadcast mediums are relatively worthless, how are we to obtain knowledge? Osmosis? Superior genetics?

No. You left out an option: You’re supposed to think for yourself…and decide for yourself. Once you hear it broadcasted or read, it’s your responsibility to reflect on it--not just drink the cool-aid.

I doubt few people making time to read your rant (such as yourself?) are experts on any of those topics, but sadly, it doesn’t take much knowledge of those subjects to claim a higher competency than the current president (or the Republican vying to succeed him).

Blah, blah, blah. Oh it’s the president’s fault for everything. And fyi, I made this “rant” and emailed a link to about 30 people and over 400 have read it. So… someone, including you, is taking the time.

Sarah vs. the Senators

Experience

What date did Barack Obama become a senator? Don’t look it up. If you don’t know, just guess. Okay, I’ll tell you: January 4, 2005.

January 4, 2005. Whoa. That really doesn’t seem all that long ago…In fact, I think I can actually remember what I was going that day. It was a Wednesday and I was in route home from a wild New Year’s Eve trip to South Florida. Shocking right? Our crew spent most of the weekend on South Beach, but went to Key West for the actual 12/31 party. It was a great trip. And though the trip had many highpoints, Shane took the gold in every category. Among others, he took the high medal for: Most chilled-out dude en la playa. Best night out. Best encounter with a muy buena senorita from Kendall-. Funniest story. Best rendition of a late night encounter. And, most importantly, best awarded namesake: “Shane’s Hole”.

That’s 3 years, 9 months, and 17 days. Not a lot of time as a senator. A lot of times it takes 5 or more years of restaurant experience to be a restaurant manager. So, if someone started waiting tables on the same day that Obama took office, they still would be too inexperienced to run their restaurant on the Inauguration Day of 2009.

Combine the fact that he has been campaigning for over a year of that and he has less than 2 years experience as a senator.

Do I think that this makes Obama too “inexperienced” to be President? No, not at all.

Time in public service is an irrelevant factor in developing one’s ability to be President. You either have the skills and ability to lead or not.

The same applies to Sarah Palin.

What factors do matter?

Not time, but job duties. Governors make executive decisions. Senators do not.

Few senators are elected president—and only 2 have ever gone straight from Senator to President. Why? Because the public prefers an executive. Senators are not executives. They bounce the ball around in committees and make decisions by politicking the consensus. They are not leaders. They have no direct experience being “the boss”. They can easily hide behind their committee or vote. This isn’t an insult to the position, just a fact of the matter.

Governors, on the other hand, are in the position of a leader and perform fully exposed. They are held responsible as the formal decision maker with no committee or other body to defer accountability. As defined in the Constitution, a State is a sovereign entity in matters not specifically assigned to the federal government. As such, states have their own laws and codes, collect their own taxes, and control their own budget. The governor, in-turn, is the head-of-state for a “mini-nation”.

Further, the governor heads the executive branch of the state and plays a primary role in state legislation and all governmental affairs.

This experience is like being president on a small scale.

Of the four candidates, Sarah Palin is the only one with such experience and achieved it in a deliberate, sequential fashion. She was on the city council, then mayor, then governor. Meaning she earned a bit of executive power, then earned a little more, then more…and so on. You can’t ignore the relevance of such a voter-condoned and stimulated increase of authority.

The Path to Governor

For this section, you’re really going to have to reflect on the social circumstances of your own experiences.

Think about what it would require to become governor in your state. If you wanted to run for governor in the next election, where would you begin?

Speaking for North Carolina, you would have to win over a lot of difficult, influential, “well-connected” people to get elected. How would you meet and impress the “fat-cats” and community leaders from all of the different communities? Raleigh, Wilmington, Greensboro, Wilson/Rocky Mount, New Bern, Charlotte, Asheville, Durham, Winston-Salem. It seems like a difficult crowd.

And then the different groups of people around the state…the middle class, the blue-bloods, the nouveau riche, the ECU fans, Raleigh bankers, professors at UNC and Duke, soldiers in Fayetteville, Jacksonville, Havelock, and Goldsboro, …it’s a long list of people with opposing views, opposing needs and expectations.

I assume this is similar in most states. I’m not going to write a lot about this. It’s your responsibility to reflect on what difficulties it would take to become merely the Mayor of your town, then extrapolate that to the difficulty of becoming governor.

Oh, just one other reflection to add…

Becoming a female governor of Alaska doesn’t seem like an easy feet. My guess is there are a lot of tough men that aren’t extremely liberated and open to women leaders. To beat other candidates for the job, Palin, at least, must be assertive, aggressive, confident, and not easily pushed around…if so stronger candidates would have easily beaten her to the governor’s mansion.

Foreign Policy

This is a really strange issue. I’ve seen the most radical statements against Sarah Palin in regards to US foreign policy. I would like to respond to this, but the claims against Palin are so non-specific (and exaggerated) that there isn’t really anything to which to respond. I just see claims saying she is: awful, terrible, ridiculous, an embarrassment, etc. Sadly people, these words are not arguments. If someone makes a specific claim or criticism as to what it is Sarah Palin will damage specifically, please let me know and I will respond to this.

A question I’d like to have answered: What does it mean to have a successful foreign policy? Does it mean that the US has successfully appeased the other nations of the world? That we can give into our friends? That we know how to conform to the popular view?

OR does it mean that we can stand on our own in spite of unpopular opinion? That we can influence nations to “see it our way”?

A successful negotiator is not one that changes his mind to the other side…that gives into the opponent, but is one that gets the other side to change their mind.

If you work in sales, you’ll understand that giving away your product is not a sign of success and if you merely drop your price to make your customers happy, you are a failure. To the contrary, one that can sale the value of their product at a premium is the success.

Finally, I’d like to see someone build an actual “dangerous” scenario that would occur if Sarah Palin became president. For example, is it that you think because she most likely doesn’t know the capital of Nepal that the Nepalese are going to invade the US? Do you think that the Iranians are waiting to settle a personal vendetta against her for not wearing those funny masks force their women to wear?

This is all ridiculous. In reality, the world would be encouraged and their leaders impressed that the US finally had a female head-of-state. They would welcome her with open arms.

Proximity of Alaska to Russia

Many people tease Governor Palin for commenting on having foreign experience based on the proximity of Alaska to Russia. Had you ever lived in a border state or town, you would know this is a serious claim. For those laughing at her affirmations, I assure you, the joke is on you.

Examples include Texas/Mexico, Florida/Cuba, Florida/Haiti, Florida/Puerto Rico, California/Mexico. El Paso/Juarez City. San Diego/Tijuana AND Alaska/Russia, Alaska/Canada

Had you ever lived in one of these towns, you would know there are quite a few issues that arise between the border state and the other country: Immigration issues, illegal workers, border disputes, etc. A person in Miami is much more exposed and adept to Cuban life (their culture, their politics, their food) than a person in Kansas. Similarly, a person in San Diego or Los Angles is much more affected by the proximity of California to Mexico than someone in Salt Lake City.

For Alaska specifically…Palin borders Canada and Russia. This gives her both friendly and semi-hostile experience. Does this mean that Palin and Putin are on daily conference calls? Definitely not, but she most likely has dealt with many Russian governors/officials as well as Canadian officials. True, I don’t think this is the same level of communication expected from a US president. However, I think this is better exposure than many governors who became successful presidents had when they were governors. It’s surely enough not to make her “scary” as her critics imply.

To all supporters of Obama: My $1,000 proposition

In the past several months, Obama has run a campaign centered around hope and change. Laughably, when discussing the upcoming election, many people even cite this as their primary reason for voting for him, but then cannot explain specifically what he will change. Occasionally, someone will give me the pleasure of an argument and say a few things that are bad about McCain and how “dangerous” he will be if president…yet no argument for Obama.

Well I want to know what he will change because I think America is great as it is.

For those of you that know me, you know the things I love the most…Eastern North Carolina, my parents house, frequent road trips through the coastal south east, spending my summer at Atlantic Beach, and—last but not least—Miami, Florida. Then there are the superficial, expensive tastes…theory sweaters, trovata shirts, men’s jewelry, John Varvatos shoes, designer jeans (and not the ones everyone’s starting wear, i mean the real stuff). I also really like going to the movies, eating outdoors, grilling out, and ice cream with candy.

Honestly, I don’t want any of that stuff to change. And I’m sure you’ll say that it won’t, but the question remains: what will?

Though I don’t make a million dollars in salary (yet), I really, really like my job and I’m not at all envious of people that do make this much…or more—rather they be CEOs making $10 million that democrats hate or celebrities making $150 million that democrats worship.

Just as I don’t resent these people, I don’t pity those making $15,000 – 20,000. It wasn’t long ago that I made about half that much. I slept on a single mattress (on the floor) and shared a bedroom with two other people. We decorated the walls with posters made from copy-machine-enlarged cd covers, photos of live bands, quotes from The Fountainhead, and a map of Epoct Center. I wore the same jeans and tshirts just about everyday. I had a pair of Converse All-Stars, flip-flops, and running shoes. We surfed and played music daily. We stayed up most of the night. We road tripped up and down the coast and partied in all the hipster bars—from the LES to the Design District. My girlfriend was sappy sweet, smart, sophisticated, absolutely beautiful, rich, and could have dated someone cuter with much more money than me. But she didn’t. She was stoked on me, my mattress, the helios choir, and the fact that I loved the beach, the summer, and punk rock music. We were all STOKED.

Further, I also don’t pity those that live on government welfare in the ghetto. These folks are well taken care of. Every time I’m in the grocery store behind one of the 26.4 million people paying with food stamps, I notice that they have a functioning pair of legs and arms as well as functioning hands, feet, and eyes. They can work enough technology to use their EBT card; and they are savvy enough to try to cut in front of me in line. They are also usually talking on a cell phone…or have one close in hand. I could cite hundreds of such anecdotal tales. When I lived in Coconut Grove, I used to argue with this one panhandler that I wasn’t going to give him any money because he had a bike and I didn’t.

America is running just fine. A society of 300 million people will always have many problems—the three or four that are in vogue around election season don’t contradict the fact that America is the best country in the world and an awesome place to live. You know you think this and love it.

Then there is the economy. A lot of people have been talking about the economy...The economy will go up and down. After all, we live in a socialized, mixed economy and a volatile business cycle is the consequence of living without lassiez-faire capitalism. When I ride down the road, there are still thousands of cars and it’s still hard to find parking spots close to the door when I go to the grocery store or the mall. So…people are doing business and spending money. (I say that with utmost humility for the people that are feeling the brunt of the bad economy and feel fortunate to have what I have. I’m just trying to put the good in perspective here.)

My proposition:

If someone writes to me with 5 import matters Obama will change starting in 10 months (more than enough time for “radical” range) and said proposals actually come to fruition, I will give you one thousand of my dollars. If they don’t change, you do NOT have to give me $1,000. I’m that confident in my position. That is, confident enough to offer a full-risk-to-me, no-risk-to-you bet.

Here are the conditions:

1. The changes you propose must be improvements—anyone can bring about negative changes.
2. You must state specifics—that is, what will change specifically and how it will change from Obama’s policy.
• Example 1: You cannot merely declare “The economy will get better.” This will happen regardless of who is President because of the business cycle. You must say which of Obama’s policies will accelerate the cycle.


• Example 2: You cannot merely claim, “The troops will come home from Iraq sooner”. Chances are they will be coming home regardless. You must say when (approximate) and which of Obama’s policies say that specifically.
3. We jointly decide what will be considered as proof.
4. I have final say-so over whether your claims are specific enough to qualify.

Here are the rules:

1. You cannot search the Internet or conspire with a friend to complete this exercise. Of course, I will not know you have done this. However you will have only cheated yourself, because you’ll then know you have been supporting a person, without exactly knowing why, who will assume one of the most powerful positions on Earth.
2. Responses must be in your own words.

A Bonus:
As a bonus, if you actually have the confidence in your position to return the bet and offer me $1,000 of your cash for failed predictions, I’ll vote for Obama too.

I am serious about this and will make the bet for the first 2 people that respond adequately. I will put the money in a T. Rowe Price sponsored mutual fund on Election Day and will sign a legal contract that the money will be yours contingent on achievement of proposed changes in 10 months of Obama’s presidency and the requisite persistence of the changes for the duration of his presidency.

There are however, two potential “catches”:

1. I will post the changes you naively believe will happen on my blog and will frequently post caustically sarcastic comments about how these changes are not happening and how adolescent and silly you were to believe them.
2. Your earnings will be “taxed” on whatever the current aggregate is of federal income tax, state income tax, and all payroll taxes at the time of payout for MY tax bracket (currently, you would get about $580 of the $1,000). Regardless it’s still free money.

My prediction is that no one will accept this bet. Why? BecauseI think everyone's wild, impassioned support of Obama is skin deep and self-serving. You know in your own mind that you really don’t know that much about politics, economics, or national defense. You just pass on what you hear and read in magazines and the television.

My hidden goal here is an excercise in self-reflection. That is, I hope people will recognize their lack of specific knowledge about important issues and decide they really don’t know enough to vote. If you cannot articulate only 5 (out of the thousands of issues surrounding our nation’s political platform) ONLY 5 specific points that Obama will change, should you be voting him when his primary platform is change?

You know you’re not that confident in Obama. You know you don’t believe your Obama rhetoric. If you don’t take my bet, I’ll know you don’t either.

Of course, I could be wrong. This is your opportunity to stick it to me. Let’s make some bets!

Wall Street Greed

“It’s not the greed of Wall Street, but irresponsibility of
American home owners that created the financial crisis”

Everyone is blaming someone else

I’ve heard the term “greed” and the phrase “Wall Street greed” many times in the past few weeks. I hear all types of people using it. The media uses it, all four presidential candidates use it, local politicians use it, I hear people at the coffee shop using it, my friends use it, the list could go on… Among these people are both Democrats and Republicans—many with differing political ideals. However there is one thing they have in common: when they speak critically of greed, they are always criticizing the greed of someone else. Funny right?

So I am curious: To these people, what is the difference between being “greedy” and legitimately making/wanting money? Do you think all desires for money are greedy? As you drive to work in the morning are you being greedy? If you accept a pay raise at your job are you being greedy?

Greed is the desire to want more than what is deserved. No matter how much money someone has or makes, they are not greedy if they earn it.

On Wall Street

The purpose of this post is to analyze the accuracy of the phrase “Wall Street Greed” and to examine whether or not this greed is to blame for the ailing US economy.

Before going further, terms must be defined. When people say Wall St greed, to whom or what are they actually referring? Although there are several businesses on the actual Wall St in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan (including a coffee shop or two, a gym, a church, etc), I don’t think people are talking about these businesses. More likely, they are talking about the 3,200 corporations that are traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

Of these thousands of business, most of them do not operate in NY. They operate throughout the US. Some of them are in small towns; some of them in big cities. Inside of these operations are thousands of people that show up to work everyday and work hard to earn a living (you probably know a few people that work of one). Are these people greedy?

My guess is that you’ll say that these people aren’t greedy, but the leaders are...the CEOs. Did you know that most corporate CEO’s make less than doctors, architects, or even pharmaceutical sales reps? The news media would have you believe that because a few hundred (or less) CEOs make an enormous amount of money, that all CEOs do. This is not the case. Many more actors, athletes, and other bogus celebrities make this much money more so than CEOs.

Having said that, there are probably many greedy CEOs. Probably many of them have done shady or dishonest things on their way to the top. But this is a separate and irrelevant issue. It has nothing to do with the state of our economy. The 2 or 3 billion of their aggregate pay is an immaterial fraction of money lost in the current economy.

Another guess I have is that you (along with those making accusations) can’t even name 10% of the business traded on the NYSE—let alone be able to comment knowledgably about their operations or greed.

For example…Of the 3,200 companies listed, a few include:

Schawk Inc (SGK)
The A.O. Smith Corporation (AOS)
The Clorox Company (CLX)
Sauer-Danfoss Inc (SHS)

Besides The Clorox Company (which I added only to make the list readable), you haven’t heard of the other companies. Be honest with yourself, you haven’t a clue as to what they do or that they even existed. If you know so little, how can you take such an arrogant position as to accuse that Wall Street is greedy? If you don’t even know what the companies listed on the Stock Exchange are, how can you comment on their operations…their revenue…their greed?

The banking crisis – the real issue

So if these aren’t the businesses under the umbrella of the “Wall St Greed” accusation, which businesses are? Banks. Big Banks. In the past few weeks, the greed label has mostly been associated with the nation’s largest banks. This is an irresponsible label. Irresponsible because it is precarious to accuse the only people that keep the economy going as being the problem.

The most obvious evidence of the banks not being greedy—which is so simple it’s complex—is the fact that the banks do not have any money. The banks are broke. If they had been greedy, they would—by definition the word greed—have stockpiles of money.

To the contrary, it’s the greediness of all the people that took out loans they could not repay that caused the banks to fail…their personal greed of being living beyond their means.

I’ll elaborate…

As I said in the beginning, it’s not greedy to want more money. This is ambition. This is the spirit that drives you to work everyday…the spirit that runs the motor of the world.

Greed, on the other hand, is the desire of the unearned…the undeserved…the desire to live beyond one’s means.

The reality of the situation is that the economy is ailing because businesses (and consumers) cannot get enough credit to perform their normal operations. Businesses cannot get credit because banks have no money to loan. Banks have no money because they loaned it to customers who didn’t return the money.

The type of loan people aren’t repaying is the mortgage loan. Mortgage loans are loan agreements people enter to purchase a house. Banks do not force people into making these loans; people do this voluntarily.

They enter these long-term, costly loans because the desire to own a house is strong. The desire to own a nicer house is stronger. Caught in this desire to own the “nicer house”, thousands of people entered into loan agreements they could not pay for…thousands of people were living well beyond their means. This has been compounding for 10 or 12 years.

This is the lone source for the bank crisis. For such a complicated result, the cause is actually simple: tt was the greed of the American public taking out loans they couldn’t afford that drove the economy into a recession (not the president, not the democrats, not the republicans). Essentially these people “stole” credit from the banks and then couldn’t pay it back.

The consequences on the rest of the economy.

As the banks loaned the money millions aren’t paying back, the banks ran out of money. Accordingly, they eventually also ran out of money to make new loans, which sends ripples though the entire economy. Once banks have no money to lend, credit gets tight, and the economy slows down.

As the economy slows down, more businesses start to fail because they can’t get credit. Companies on Wall St and Main St alike weaken because they can’t get the assets they need to make money. This is what the “bailout” bill was aiming to fix. It was aiming to put money back into the credit markets so that businesses could start to function again.

In summary

In summary, Wall St has nothing to do with the current economic down turn. The media blames Wall St and the general public joins in the chorus only because Wall St is an easy target. Meaning, the inner workings of Wall Street and the stock market are far away from people’s daily lives. These people take the easy route and blame the unseen (i.e. the stock market). Why blame the cute, new shoe shop or deli on Main Street when the media has made it so simple to blame big business? Politicians reinforce this because they want people to hate business and live off the government. The bigger the government, the more the politicians have to govern, thus giving them more power and influence.

Just like it’s not greedy for you to make money doing whatever it is you do at your job, it’s not greedy for people working in banks or on Wall Street to make money doing their job…even if their pay is higher than yours. I happen to know people that work in banking and some people that work in landscaping. Both put the same amount of time and effort each week into their jobs…none of them do I find “greedy”.

::: helios :::

First Post

welcome. blog will start 3/1/2008. check back soon!