The Biggest Ponzi Scheme in the World

From this title you're probably assuming the recently discovered Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. However, that's not the case. Since family is visiting there really is only one topic of conversation in my house to bring about holiday cheer: Politics. So, as much as I desire a reprieve from all things political until Obama's inaugaration, I find myself lured into the political realm. I still enjoy reading about business happenings as well, so this is how my thought process evolved last night.

Me, "Wow, what a scam Madoff pulled. How did people not notice? Sure, he was one consistently deemed one of the top Wall Street investors, but someone (*cough* SEC *cough*) must have noticed something."

Me, "It's craziness I tell you, craziness... which is why I will always tightly manage any portfolio I have regardless of size."

Family, "So, government... blah blah blah... Obama is savior... blah blah blah... Palin is the biggest idiot every nominated/no she's not... blah blah blah... what do you think about the Caroline Kennedy pursuit of the New York Senate seat?... blah blah blah...there's on way civilized people will let stupid people starve to death... But there's no way Social Security is going to be fixed with this economic debacle..."

Husband, "You know that social security 'investments' only average a return rate of about 1-2%... whereas even the most conservative funds in the market over time average..."

Me, "Well, of course we can't manage our own social security money, that's not the point... Wait a minute - "

*Lightbulb flash*

"Social security is the biggest Ponzi scheme EVER!!!"

*Shake my head until I'm dizzy*

Husband, "You're right!"

Me, "Good grief... I'm just like those last investors... paying in to support those ahead of me only for the fund to go bust when it's my turn... thanks American government 'safety net'!"

"Does that mean I get to sue the government when there are no social security funds left and I reach retirement?"

If only...

The perks of being a member of Generation Y.

*Update* I realized after re-reading this post that it might look as if I don't actually understand fully what a Ponzi scheme is (as I related it to Social Security.) Therefore, I would like to clarify by saying that many working Americans view Social Security to be an investment of sorts for their future... you contribute now to support the generations above you, but believe likewise that the next generation will support you. Some people also don't understand that their Social Security contributions are not in fact put into an investment fund where a certain portion is set aside specifically for them. This is where the problem lies for the Gen Yers and maybe even some Gen Xers... we're paying in thousands of dollars over our lifetime and will most likely get nothing in return. At least with other taxes you can argue that we benefit from the public works, institutions of law and justice, etc. Not so much with Social Security. And it's mandotory... Your choice as a taxpayer: Ponzi Scheme where you're the loser or a hefty fine and potentially jail time. Even Madoff points out that people sought him out to manage their investments and he's looking to be one of the biggest crooks of our time.

All this to say, we need to reform Social Security [immediately] and unfortunately that's less likely to happen than the complete revitalization of Detroit in the first quarter of 2009.

Microsoft Word Irritants of the Day

I must admit that I have spent and probably continue to spend far too much time typing away in Word. In college, I didn't value papers on page length or word count alone. No, typing time was far too important to be ignored... and for different reasons depending on the situation.

Some examples:

"What, you wrote a 20 page paper in 12.2 hours? Including research and citations? No way!"

Conversely, "I spent 2 solid weeks of 4 hours a day working on this paper and received the same grade as 12.2 hour person over there. Life is so unfair."

Or, better yet, "I spent 8 hours just typing quotes to use in my paper... how about you? What, only two hours. No way are you going to make a good grade with that kind of laziness. Actually, who cares about grades... you will never be as pretentious as me so just shut up and go home."

I no longer have to worry about lengthy term papers that no one will ever care about thank God, but I write constantly. In ways, more than I did in college and my writing is now used to help companies make money. Not a bad gig. However, since my relationship with Word has continued into the professional realm, I have noticed some things that irritate me beyond belief.

For example, I was looking up synonyms for the word "estimate" the other day. What did the Word thesaurus spit out at me? Guesstimate. That's right, the word used exclusively by 3rd grade teachers and cheesy high school counselors. Maybe the occasional adult leadership conference speaker. Needless to say, I just stuck with estimate since my other options included "ballpark guess, good guess, close guest or estimate..." You get the idea.

Maybe I shouldn't have been so lazy that I needed to use a thesaurus that day, so I moved on from my guesstimate irritation.

Today, I was typing an email and was having a hard time thinking of a closing sentence. I decided to type "The End." Obviously, this was not a permanent fixture to the email, but it was mildly entertaining to me in the moment. Until Word yelled at me with its squiggly little green lines telling me that it was an improper sentence fragment. I understand that components of a proper sentence, believe me. However, I was pretty sure the last time I checked that "The End" is a completely appropriate use of grammar. Maybe not under the laws of formal English language, but certainly if "guesstimate" is included in the thesaurus then "The End" should be considered grammatically correct.

Maybe I'll write Bill Gates a letter of grievance while I'm into all my holiday complaining...

Holiday Rant

(I'm in a ranting kind of mood... and feel like airing my holiday season grievances. Unfortunately, the best forum at the moment is here. Oh well... better to blog than to throw a frozen turkey across the room, right?)

Here they are in nice list form:

1. Shopping... especially in malls or discount places like Wal-Mart. I mean, a person was actually trampled trying to get into Wal-Mart on Black Friday. No thanks. I'll employ the internet and pre-Thanksgiving shopping hours as much as possible to minimize the chance of death/injury by stampede or shopping cart.

2. Bad food. I'm not talking about "bad-for-you food" like cookies, candy, and other tasty Christmas cuisine with way too much fat and sugar. I'm talking about bad food - food that is not well-prepared, is made with poor ingredients, or is leftover from Thanksgiving and served after being frozen for a month. Yuck. Even more than Thanksgiving, I feel like Christmas dinner should be a special meal that took many heart-felt hours to prepare. If a host is unwilling to put forth this effort, or allow others to do it in their stead, then go to a Chinese Restaurant (I can never in good conscience recommend Denny's and Chinese restaurants are typically open on Christmas day.) Better yet, order dinner from the Honey-Baked Ham store... or even Boston Market. If you don't care, be honest and embrace it. Don't make your family members suffer.

3. Drivers. In a way, I mean traffic, but would like to assign the horrendous traffic blame to the responsible parties - drivers who are in a rush to get to the mall, grocery store, work, present wrapping kiosk, Grandma's house, pictures with Santa, whatever. I know everyone is in a rush which causes courtesy to go out the window. However, it shouldn't. That isn't in the spirit of the holidays. And it's dangerous to you and your kin.

4. Making assumptions about other people's schedules. Generally, assume that people are busy. This isn't a bad thing, but don't get upset if someone can't re-arrange their schedule to go to a party or family gathering. Try to be understanding and see if you can maybe get together after the holidays when things calm down a bit.

5. Inappropriately addressed Christmas cards. This is more personal than general, but certainly irks me. I decided to keep my maiden name when I got married - not because I don't love my husband or don't plan to stay married for the rest of my life. I kept my last name because I really love it and it means a lot to me, so I did not feel like I could just get rid of it to take on a name with no significance to me personally. This is not that uncommon these days. Back to the point, some people don't know that I didn't change my name. That's fine, I don't mind having things addressed to "Mrs. ******" when they genuinely don't know any better. However, I do not go by Mrs. Afterall, I am only 25 and am my own person, not simply the "other half" of my husband and certainly not his property. One day if I have children, I will go by Mrs. Not until then. So, why is this a problem with Christmas cards? Because certain people insist on addressing me as Mrs. And not just "Mrs. *****," but actually as "Mrs. [My husband's first and last name.]" ARGH!!!!!!!! This is not 1956. I am an ardent feminist. Certainly family members know this and choose to ignore it which is more maddening than I can even begin to express.

6. Family drama. I could write a lengthy book about this. But, really people... spending time with your loved-ones is one of the fundamental precepts of the Christmas celebration. Don't use the holidays as an excuse to advance a family feud. Or to make a family member feel guilty for not seeing you more often. Or to cause a new rift because aunt so-and-so's ugly Christmas sweater offends you. If you have a problem with someone, by all means have a Festivus party the week before Christmas to air all your grievances and MOVE ON. Or, if you don't feel like having it out with the family that annoys you so, be considerate enough to keep it to yourself and not make passive-aggressive stabs at others because it makes all parties present either angry or at the least incredibly uncomfortable.

Alright, there's my rant. I'm doing my very best to make this Christmas an enjoyable one. If it's not, at least I can honestly say that I tried my best.

The [American] Car Czar

I can't even make this stuff up... the auto industry bailout will be overseen by a... no joke... "car czar." The said czar will decide who gets loans and can force the companies to file for bankruptcy (Is there even a question?) if they don't make enough progress.

So, basically the tax payers are going to pay a few billion more dollars, institute a new bureaucracy, and eventually have the auto industry file for bankruptcy anyway... potentially only a month after Obama's inauguration and the new Congressional term.

Thanks Congress, as always, for your wisdom and guidance.

Etiquette and Common Sense

I absolutely love etiquette - complete with all the seemingly ridiculous rules and observances. When Judith Martin, AKA Miss Manners, received the National Humanities Medal in 2005 I was ecstatic. (It helped that my internship for that summer was directly involved in the process of choosing the medal recipients... not that I had anything to do with the actual choice, but I got to see the process unfold first-hand which made it all the more interesting.) I was glad that the President of the United States wanted to recognize the role that etiquette has... or at least should have... in society.

The rules of etiquette are designed to help foster appropriate societal relationships between people who otherwise come from disparate locations, backgrounds (including gender, culture, religion), and professions. And, while etiquette is often viewed to be only used by "upper classes" to further sequester themselves from the masses (or old stodgy people), there is no reason for that to be the case. Rules of etiquette, if espoused and followed properly, create a wonderful environment for people to converse, conduct business, and attend social or professional functions. Why? Because those rules tell you how to behave. It's shocking how many people just do not understand basic social graces. I'm not saying I'm anywhere near perfect in this area because I certainly make blunders on a regular basis, but there remain many rules of etiquette that are simply common sense. Most modern rules of etiquette (including those for the internet, email, and social media) follow this model.

For example, saying thank you, avoiding contentious political discussions in environments not intended to be combative or argumentative, giving your seat to an elderly person on mass transit, not chewing with your mouth open, or restraining your loud or misbehaving child in public. These examples may not tell you how to properly set a table for a formal dinner, address a wedding invitation, or what is an appropriate season to wear a particular color, but when performed they clearly provide a sense of respect and dignity to both issuers and the recipients.

This a topic upon which many volumes are written. Emily Post's writings are wonderful and span all ages and sub-categories of etiquette (I include not just the original writings, but anything that is affiliated with her.) I am seriously considering gifting her (or her affiliates') books for future baby shower or wedding gifts. (Not to everyone... I know plenty of people that have wonderful registries because they followed both registry etiquette guides and made prudent decisions regarding their needs and wants. Props to them!) However, lately I have noticed a terrible trend in both baby and wedding registries: Registering for personal items. How personal you might ask? About as personal as one can get... nursing pads, toilet bowl brushes (not the decorative cans one might place one in, but the actual brushes themselves), medications... I could make some lewd comments, but will refrain.

Why does this bother me so much that I've decided to write a blog entry about it?

Because it exemplifies how far removed so many people are from appropriate behavior. Granted, weddings/commitment ceremonies, births, house warming parties, and birthdays are all personal events. They are in fact some of the few occasions when it is warranted to actually be selfish. However, that selfishness should never spill over to a gift registry itself. A rule of thumb: If you would be embarrassed to open the gift in front of all your family and friends (or maybe more importantly if they would be embarrassed to watch you open in), then DO NOT REGISTER FOR IT. And, if those personal items are what you truly need the most, then discretely request gift cards to a store that carries them. No one will know what you spend that gift card on, and even if you don't get enough gift cards and cash to cover the difference, then bring back a more superfluous item. You can't tell me that your baby needs the frilly little $30-$50 dress that will only be ruined within the hour of dressing her. Or that all will be lost if you don't have 3 chips and dip trays for all the parties you plan to host but will never get around to anyway in the first 6 months you're married because you're too busy learning how to live with someone else and get your life organized.

Personally, I struggle with Thank You notes probably the most out of any common etiquette item. It's not that I'm not thankful... very much the opposite. It's that I feel like thank you notes are often shallow and disconnected from the true feelings of gratitude I have despite my best efforts to communicate them. I am incredibly thankful for the One Year Rule (stating that you have 1 year following a major event to write the thank you notes.) That time frame still makes me nervous, but I'm glad I'm not yet black-listed because I have not sent out all my June wedding thank you notes yet (although I remain determined to have them done by December 31.)

And, while I understand that most people are not going to devote their coveted personal time writing to Miss Manners or reading Emily Post, there are certain general etiquette rules to live by. They typically revolve around being courteous and respectful (of people, situations, and objects.) This can be easier said than done, which is why patience is always a virtue and why good intentions do still matter although certainly don't ever eclipse actual words or actions. Yet, if seriously entertained will make life more pleasant and will show people that you do truly care about them and their lives (even if mistakes do still occur.)

So, even if common sense and its accompanying etiquette no longer rules the day, it should in many circumstances. And please don't ask me (or anyone else for that matter) to buy your personal products for you... unless you want an etiquette guide instead.

Long Time, No Post

First, I must chastise myself for not posting sooner. I try to post fairly regularly because I don't necessarily see the point of blogging if it only occurs once a month. Yet, there has not seemed to be anything worth commenting on compared to real life events (and by real life, I mean things that actually affect me or the people I love. Not that other things aren't "real," but they don't matter as much to me. Adam Smith explains this reaction well in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. ) And, those real life events are too tragic and deserve too much respect to flippantly write about here.

So, I'll post some random thoughts to get the writing juices flowing again.

1. The Mumbai terrorist attack. How awful. I had vaguely heard about it over Thanksgiving, but didn't actually read a newspaper until today. Reading about it just made me sick. There are enough ills in the world without attacking innocent people. Also, people somehow blaming this - in any way - on America is utterly preposterous. Maybe it will incite the Indian government to implement some much needed reforms... or to gain some more legitimacy in governing period.

2. The holiday of Thanksgiving. I understand why Thanksgiving can be a person's favorite holiday; however, I've always struggled with it. First, growing up we only celebrated it when my birthday fell on Thanksgiving day (this happened twice I think.) The reason being that people were "deer hunting" which obviously took precedence to family time and giving thanks. Also, while I am deeply thankful for many things in my life, I have hard time recognizing the good without first examining the bad. Unfortunately, this year happened to have much loss in it - much of which was unexpected. So, while I jubilantly try to celebrate other holidays, Thanksgiving is always tough especially in a year that was eclipsed by many sorrows.

3. Road rage. My husband and I had to carpool to work today. As a result, he experienced first-hand my morning ranting (in all its pre-coffee, Atlanta stop-and-go traffic glory.) His comment was that they could create a TV show solely based off of my comments during the morning commute because I am essentially a younger, female version of Lewis Black. This morning was entitled "I'm Cancelling Christmas." Why? Because I saw the maintenance workers in front of the Governor's mansion hanging garlands and wreaths while disdainfully muttering that I'm not celebrating Christmas this year and continued to mutter how stupid they were for hanging the wreaths. If you know me at all, this is an utterly preposterous statement since Christmas is my favorite time of year and I try to extend it fully from the end of October to MLK or Valentine's Day. It fully illustrates my morning moods though. Maybe I'll start a segment of weekly statements issued by me in traffic. Let's just say it would not be G-rated.

So, if there are any readers out there, I apologize for failing to post for so long and for the poor quality of this entry. Hopefully it will get the gears working again though and I'll be back to my normal cynical, dry-humored self this week.

Did I mention that my Christmas tree is a black (and silver) theme... I guess my personality creeps through in even the most festive occasions lest anyone worry too much.

Speaking of Stupid Things... 21st Century Pirates

There are Somali pirates currently holding millions of dollars... or rather, hundreds of millions of dollars... in cargo ships at the moment. They are demanding $10 million in ransom. And there remains little the international community can do. If they accede to the ransom, that sets the precedent for doing so with others (or the same ones) in the future. If nothing is done, then the pirates keep the loot (including $100 million worth of Saudi oil) and are free to continue their piracy without much fear of retribution.

This is a bad situation. However, it's being further hindered by International Human Rights Law. This article lays it out better than I will... but basically protecting against piracy in the last century has severely dwindled (especially in the last 10 years) because trying pirates at NATO supported military tribunals infringes upon the pirates' rights. This is why International Human Rights Law is completely idiotic. I'm all about universal human rights, but they should not prevent criminals from being tried - either abroad or on U.S. soil. When international "laws" that are so ambiguous and willy-nillily enforced that there can hardly be called a precedent fail to allow the capture and prosecution of pirates, terrorists, etc. then the spirit of the law fails. Absolutely. This is not reasonable and it detracts from the original purpose of the "laws" themselves which further fosters an environment in which these criminals can freely operate.

A Confession

I hate the movie Citizen Kane. Yes, that Citizen Kane. The one that is typically placed number one on the top 100 lists of movies of all time... or at the very least in the top 10. I figure that I do enough political, societal, and economic ranting and decided to expand my horizons. To those who know me best, there is no surprise when a rant begins about anything that might be conceived as stupid. Stupid books. Stupid restaurants. Stupid people (of course.) Stupid behaviors (of people, businesses, government, animals, etc.) Stupid customs (see, I also don't discriminate based on religious, cultural, or geospatial influences either.) Stupid research. Stupid philosophies. Stupid and inappropriate commercials about medical or personal hygiene products. Stupid uses of resources. You get the idea.

So, why Citizen Kane?

I first watched this film only a few months ago after hearing about it for years. No one could ever describe to me what was so wonderful about it, but I figured it must be good. After all, people for years have heralded it as the greatest film ever made, so, really how could it be bad? And, it's not like I don't appreciate a classic film every now and again. I'm by no means a classic movie aficionado, but I certainly enjoy most standards. I also love Woody Allen films (which aren't classic, but are certainly artistic and provocative in many cases.) Among our collection of over 250 movies, I don't own a Woody Allen film. Probably because I would never turn it off and proceed to become a pompous, head-up-my-ass, miscreant. The same goes for any book by Walker Percy. The intellectual fervor they cultivate is great in the moment, but I believe should only be taken in small doses to prevent oneself from taking on the persona of Socrates in The Clouds.

I was hoping that Citizen Kane would have this same effect... or at least have a good, character-driven plot that wonderfully cultivated intrigue in the resolution of the story. Maybe I would have been less disappointed if I had studied Hearst more beforehand, or read the synopsis online. However, despite being somewhat interested in who Rosebud was, I hated the film. It was coarse and left a bitter taste in my mouth. I can stand watching films that don't end happily, but still were a work of art or probed an important question. After all, there is not comedy without its tragic counterpart. But this was just ugly and below depressing. In ways, it showed the ugliest parts of human nature, society, business, journalism, family relations, and government. Maybe that was its brilliance. Yet, it also showed none of the redeeming qualities. In the end, you were sickened by Kane, and would have felt bad for him never returning to his family and experiencing more good memories of which Rosebud was emblematic, except he had become so despicable it just made his life all the more worthless. With all he had "achieved" in his life including his [unfinished] home and its museum of beautiful possessions, all he ever cared about was his rosebud sled that he hasn't used since he was a boy. Many people experience tragedy and separation from loved ones or their home environments, yet still can love and value their lives. Not Kane.

Maybe I just hated it because Kane's character is an affront to every value I hold dear - in life and art - or maybe because if this film is what critics and the masses have deemed to be the "best" of all time then human nature is more ugly that I care to believe. And, while there certainly are people like Kane in the world, I'd like to think their numbers are few and should not be celebrated.

This does not mean that I think art in any form should be censored or that Orson Welles should not have made Citizen Kane. And, while I still would not personally like the film, I would hesitate to disparage it so greatly if it was not consistently deemed the best.

So, film critics and movie aficionados out there, why am I wrong? What am I missing about this supposedly great film? It could be that the topic was so harsh that I missed something vital, so I would love to learn why my opinion differs so vastly from the masses.

What A Rant

I've been working up a rant (big surprise) about the election, American political thought (among the masses, not academics. There's an alarming gap between the two on both sides of the spectrum and they deserve different treatments), and what the hell happened to the conservatives in America? I happen to have a slightly different definition of conservatism than many who call themselves conservatives, but the discussion of that definition is for another day... or at least its own post.

However, my fellow contributor came across P.J. O'Rourke's rant that is featured in The Weekly Standard. After reading this rant, I feel speechless because I honestly am not sure if I'm capable of writing anything that is as angry and dripping with sarcasm as this article. For the most part, I think he's accurate, even if crude. I'm sure over the next 4 years that my frustration will rise to a point that many political/societal rants will be expressed in this blog, yet for this moment O'Rourke's is enough for me. And, I'm sure countless more people listen to him than will even listen to me, so I'll save it for now.

Part of the political idealism I continue to suppress in myself daily rises when I strategize on how to help reform the American political make-up that surely will occur in the coming decade. Then, reality strikes, and I remember that this is no superficial problem. If people's fundamental views of what government is, what its reasonable abilities are, and what they can reasonably expect to receive from a proper constitutional government do not change, then there is no point. And, frankly, I'm much more willing to spend my time improving my career and socking away money so that if the worst case scenario is ushered in with the help of the Dems in 2009, at least I won't have to worry about where my rent is coming from.

I just wish that they [our illustrious government representatives] didn't have so much power at their disposal to enact policies to promote "change." Maybe at the end of the day this is why I am a conservative - I certainly want a kind of change that is positive. For example, I would be incredibly happy if the Dow ceases fluctuating as much in a day as in the past is has in a year. I like change that is stabilizing. But, I don't want it to come from government initiatives that are likely to do more harm than good because the Dems have just been handed their Thanksgiving feast 3 weeks early. Cornucopias never run out, right? This abundance of power may not run out for at least 4 years either, but who knows what will lie in its wake. And, as much as I want to be optimistic, it's hard when I know that these representatives may genuinely care about "fixing America's problems," but do not fundamentally understand the role of American constitutional government or a free market economy. Or, even better, if they do understand them, they reject them. And, that is a philosophical view I will not ever accept.

If I'm ambitious enough, I will post a series of entries on FDR and his policies including the New Deal. These will illustrate my disdain for the impending political actions being discussed by the transition team, including executive orders being ushered out on Obama's inauguration day, and the historical basis that shapes my views. It may not be riveting stuff, but has profoundly affected my views and think it might do the same for others especially in light of the current economic and political shifts that have occurred in America this year.

There Has to Be a Better Way

This weekend provided a milestone for me: purchasing my first brand new car. It's a 2009 Honda Fit Sport (in silver and without the navigation system.) The Honda website for the Fit is great... you can check it out here.

I love this car. It has everything I need (and almost everything I want) in a vehicle: good torque, fast brakes, comfortable interior, sharp exterior, an iPod/MP3 player hookup in the dashboard compartment, awesome seat configurations so that you can fit almost anything under 8 ft. long and 4 ft. high in the car while still being a sub-compact size, and it meets the ultra-low emissions standards (even hybrids are only marginally more emissions efficient than this vehicle.) It also gets 33 mpg (highway) with an automatic transmission which I view to be essential driving in Atlanta traffic (it does have paddle shifters though - so if you really want to take advantage of the sport capabilities it is easy to do so.) And for those of you who want a great little car that is still kid-friendly, the back seats and seat belts are specifically designed to comfortably accomodate child car seats. (This is certainly not our focus for many years, but since it's a Honda we figure it might last 7 years at which point it might be a consideration.)

So, what's the problem... other than old people who keep trying to run into me because they can't see my small car in their giant boat's mirrors? Well, let's just say that the purchasing process was perhaps one of the most horrible experiences of my life. I'll begin by disclosing that this dealership only sold 5 cars on Saturday (before the whole credit crisis, auto-industry turmoil they would average at least 5 times that many) and that they almost didn't sell this one either. You see, car salesmen don't appreciate young, business savvy, well-researched, thrifty buyers. When we walked in with our spreadsheet that outlined the invoice cost of the vehicle, MSRP (which we had no problem paying), the cheapest HondaCare extended warranty out there that was offered by a dealership in Connecticut, and the BlueBook value of my trade in in addition to having arranged our own financing which was a point lower than market interest rates they were "shocked." The primary salesmen said that we stumped him... which he assures us never happens. They were even more "stumped" that we weren't willing to budge on our values. There were several times at different intervals when we stood up, began walking out, and were stopped by someone higher- up (the Sales Manager and the Finance Manager) who was willing to negotiate with us further. This process went on for 4 1/2 hours. And, the last time we almost walked out, we had been there over 3 hours and were back in the Financing Department. At that point, I was willing to never buy a car and just pray that mine held out long enough until we move closer to better public transit. In the end, we conceded some of the value of my trade in while they cut the add-ons a few hundred dollars and found us an interest rate lower than the one we brought in. Our monthly payment is $2 more than we went in willing to pay (due to a better deal on GAP insurance through our loan issuer.) Therefore, this was a successful deal in our minds and the dealership still made plenty of money although not as much as they had originally hoped.

What I gained from this experience was my own shock at how absolutely appalling all the salespeople were - and we had "nice" ones. Please. If I walked into a restaurant and was treated that way I would demand that my meal be comped. So, why do car salesmen continue to treat their clients so poorly and why is the car buying experience so terrible? Because the salespeople drastically increase their own commissions by throwing more crap you don't need into the vehicle you want or by devaluing your trade-in. This process is well explained in this expose' on Edmunds.com. If you are ever in the market for a new or used car from a dealership I strongly recommend reading this article because is outlines the exact behavior of the car salesman... from the rudeness to them forcing you to wait around in uncomfortable chairs just so that they have the "power" in the transaction to them actually putting you on an intercom so that the sales and finance managers can listen to your private conversations while they are making you wait (I strongly recommend bringing a tablet of paper so that you can write-down your real thoughts while re-directing the listeners through your conversation.)

The whole process is absolutely despicable in my opinion and I don't understand why there isn't a better way of doing this. Instead of making your clients squirm, why not make them feel comfortable and at ease with the situation? Never in my life have I been more on my toes in a negotation or been more of an arrogant jerk myself just to survive the process with any kind of personally desirable outcome. And, it's not like this negotation was a battle of wits in the traditional sense. I don't think there was a person in that whole dealership who was more intelligent than us, yet they emitted an air of superiority merely by the fact that they held the item we wanted hostage and without their "cooperation" we were going home sad and empty-handed. I've heard that when you start buying luxury vehicles this does not happen because the salespeople know that if the buyers aren't catered to they will just leave. I've vowed to never buy a new car again until I can comfortably afford at least an entry-level luxury vehicle.

Our research, stubborness, and understanding of game theory resulted in our vehicle victory, yet when transaction was complete we were forced to sit there an additional 30 minutes or so by the managers reminding us to "spread the word" about our experience (which they assured us was a pleasant one) because "word of mouth" is the best sales driver. Seriously? Buying that car made me feel so awful that despite having a brand new car I still feel a little dirty about the whole thing.

Other than playing hardball and researching the tricks of the car selling trade, I have not further advice for future car purchasers. However, to car salesmen: I learned a lesson once several years ago that I will take with me the rest of my life. I was flying out to Seattle for a conference after which I was flying to Oklahoma for a graduate school interview. I was running a little late and got stuck in Atlanta traffic on the way to the airport (big surprise, huh?). I managed to get to the ticket counter 40 minutes, not the required 45 before my flight departed and they wouldn't let me go through. I was beside myself because I couldn't afford to re-book either ticket and they had no obligation to put me on a later flight because I failed to check-in on time. Well, the guy in front of me was being a complete a**hole, so I decided to plead for help. The airport attendant took pity on me and allowed me to pay a $50 re-booking fee and said I could try to fly stand-by on the next available flight (which left 8 hours later.) She did not have to do this for me, but she said that I was so nice that she was willing to help me out even though she technically was not supposed to. I waited around until that flight and made it on. So, while I don't have a problem playing hardball to get what I want, I prefer to be nice. And, the most successful people I've met share the same opinion. In my experience, the higher title (or more experience) a business person has, they nicer they are. The love their jobs, are good at them, and like working with people. Most along the way learned that playing nice in the sandbox actually gets you farther than causing a mass exodus by starting a sand-throwing fight.

Car salesmen would greatly benefit from the same wisdom.

Voting is Not Your Civic Duty. It's a Right.

It's interesting how opinions change over time. For example, I could not wait until I was 18 and could vote. I bemoaned Bush's first term election because I had to sit idly by (being only 16 years old) and watch instead of voting for Al Gore. Now, I can't even think of Al Gore without busting out laughing (I mean really, have you seen the ManBearPig episode of South Park?)

So, things change. I exchanged my liberal stripes for "bi-partisan" ones in the 2004 election (meaning that I voted a split ticket, but didn't bother to mention where the split was.) I was still incredibly excited to vote though and drove 2 hours out of my way to do so - just so I could have the experience of going to the actual poll to vote for the presidency and senate.

However, in these last 4 years I've become more than disillusioned with anything political... I think the process is corrupt, that we've deviated so far from founding principles that an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens have not even read the Bill of Rights let alone the entire Constitution, and that our national ideology is so skewed that it cannot begin to solve even the most pressing issues because people are unwilling to take responsibility and ascertain logical outcomes of their own behavior (which unfortunately often becomes aggregate behavior.)

A friend sent me an email this week outlining several prominent thinkers' reasons for not voting:
Don Boudreaux, Robert Lawson, and of course for comedy's sake, George Carlin. There are many others. Conversely, there are just as many if not more who advocate getting out to cast your vote. Reasons being it's historically important, it will make you feel good/strong/important/, it's your civic duty (how many times did I hear in college and in the news that other than jury duty voting is our only truly civic duty and even as a duty it's still a privilege which makes it even better!), and lastly it's a right.

However, I have to admit that I know my personal vote DOES NOT MATTER. My sitting at home on the couch while my countrymen vote will not alter the results. And, if I happen to be doing something that is more value-creating that sitting on the couch drumming up ad revenue for the TV station then my time was actually far better spent - for both me and America.

So, why am I going to drag myself to the polls to cast my measly, unimportant vote? Because it is my right and there happens to be a candidate who I actually like and respect - John McCain. I've always liked McCain... and even in the heyday of my personal liberality would have considered voting for him over Al Gore (assuming I was old enough.) I do not agree with him on everything, but I trust his judgment, character, and experience. I don't think there could be a better man running (although there are some women who are not in the race.) Even my overwhelming support of McCain is not reason enough for me to turn out to the polls.

My reason for voting: I was to preserve my fundamental right of citizenship as executed through voting. I do not think this is my duty. I think it's my right and therefore must be considered at least somewhat a privilege. Nothing will happen to me if I don't vote. My rights will not be infringed upon. However, I do think that the current political course of America is heading down a road that wants to restrict freedom and rights in lieu of perceived [domestic] safety and bailouts for those who could not exercise enough judgment to keep themselves out of personally harmful situations.

I also respect my great-grandmother who marched for my right to vote. I respect Hillary Clinton - and especially her Convention acknowledgement that her grandmother could not vote and that her daughter now had the opportunity to cast a vote to nominate her for the presidency. I respect the men and women to fight to preserve our rights and that those rights are founded in the Constitution and nowhere else. Personally, the only reason I think rights exist is because God created humanity and therefore everyone is equal in His eyes. However, that does not extend to the political (although it should and can.) Therefore, I am incredibly thankful that my governing document was changed to incorporate all adult citizens to vote in this country: male, female, black, white, young, old, rich, poor. And, I want to exercise my right because they are often taken for granted and I don't ever want to forget why I am privileged enough to have a right to vote and freely express my opinions.

So, don't vote because it's your duty or it's important. Vote because you want to actively exercise a right that you value. And, if you don't have the time, it's okay. Lucky for you, your citizenship does not depend on exercising your rights and the Constitution still protects them for you as long as it is upheld. My plea for voting day is to read the Constitution even if that means you don't have the time to make it to the polls. Read it. Learn from it. And never forget the fundamental precepts of our government because such knowledge is quickly fading.

Happy Halloween!

Although in many ways this defies reason - I absolutely love holidays. Especially the consumer-driven frivolity that most today hold (Halloween, Christmas, Easter, St. Patty's, etc.) I say, these holidays give us an excuse to be childish in an acceptable way and increase the revenues of costume, decor, other consumer product, and candy companies. It's a win-win. (I do greatly respect people's devout observances of religious holidays. I just was not raised in an environment where that was the case. Therefore, in lieu of being a hypocrite, I openly present my views of holidays: A fun excuse to be frivolous, creative, and spend time with family and friends. Also, I'm not one for merely celebrating the fact that I'm alive, so holidays are a great reason to celebrate life itself even if that is not in a religious context.)

Holidays can also be a great opportunity to engage your creativity (through such avenues as designing a costume, a decorative scheme, or a unique holiday feast) that might otherwise fall to the back-burner. I'm fortunate enough to have a profession where I have to be creative every day, but I've had many jobs where this was not the case. And, once those creative juices are flowing who knows what you can do with your seemingly ordinary mundane tasks?

So, please don a crazy costume, eat too much candy, and enjoy an evening of frivolity! After all, this serious world we live in today will still be waiting in the morning.

Advice of the Day

Learn Excel early on in your life. It's really not a hard program to use, but it's like learning a foreign language - if approached a young age it's incredibly easier to decipher and command.

Everyone should be required to have working knowledge of all basic Microsoft Office programs before graduating from college regardless of major. I distinctly remember only making one PowerPoint presentation and creating one Excel workbook in college. Meanwhile, I wrote nearly 200 papers. Those papers helped hone valuable skills that I use everyday. However, taking crash courses in PowerPoint and Excel on the job can lead to some interesting (often painful) results.

On a related note, props to Microsoft for planning to release free versions of its office suite with Windows 2007 (to be released in 2010.) The spokesperson did add a caveat about the online programs not functioning as well... as an explanation on how they plan to recover for any losses in the software revenue. They probably should have cleared that comment with Marketing, but they have nothing but time to develop and provide top quality products. As much as I trust Microsoft and its ability to innovate and adapt to meet the times (both in its business and technology), it always seems to drag its feet which is not beneficial to its image - especially to web-savvy clients who, for some reason, often favor Macs. Still, kudos for effort and for officially embracing Cloud Computing.

Palin: Caribou Barbie or a Victim of the Right Wing Conspiracy?

This entry needs to be prefaced by saying that I am most likely WAY off base. However, in a discussion the other evening about Palin's candidacy, her previous political behavior (in Alaska), and her general character (not moral per se, but her typical demeanor, actions, etc.) I was thinking that her public portrayal has not aligned with her previous reputation - or even her initial appearances following her introduction as McCain's VP running mate. During those, she was poised, intelligent, and articulate. Sure, her accent and colloqialisms still appealed to working class values-voter America, but she appeared to equally appeal to the Republican cultural elite (which is strong, although not nearly as big as that of the Democrats) who were still bemoaning the choice of McCain.

So, how did Palin result in being portrayed as Caribou Barbie - as shallowly entertaining and demeaning as that lablel is? There are several things that contribute to this outside the accent and being from Alaska (as a native Wisconsinite, I fully understand the joy other people get from making fun of people with northern accents who grew up in the woods. We might as well be space aliens.) First, shame on the campaign for keeping her sequestered. It would be one thing if that caused her to come out blazing in debates and interviews. But, to then only emerge with variations of the same stump speech is not acceptable to an electorate eager to learn more about a candidate - especially a little known candidate (although I still would trust America's hands in Palin's over Obama's any day.) Of course the Media are going to pounce on such behavior...

The second is direct result of the sequestering - Katie Couric's interview was catastrophic. Palin couldn't name one periodical or book she was reading - despite claiming that she is a voriforous reader. How is that possible? Say Time, Newsweek, The Anchorage Daily News (or whatever that paper is), ANYTHING. This is what leads to my conspiracy theory...

Why would an intelligent, driven woman who is making history with her candidacy be willing to portray herself as an idiot on national television where her voters are scrutinizing her? Because her advisors told her to. The GOP isn't known for its upright campaign strategies to say the least, but they also are conniving if nothing else. To give McCain some credit, I think he tries to get above this at least a little, but politics is politics so there's only so much one can really do.

Why, might you ask, would the campaign approve such tactics? Because they are also afraid of what she might say... honest people that hit a cord with mainstream America are dangerous to the political machine and should be marginalized as much as possible so as to not destruct it too much. But, especially with the former Republican base, such a candidate is necessary. They don't care if McCain is a maverick, has some leanings toward Reagan conservatism, and will appoint Supreme Court Justices that would strike down Roe v. Wade. They want a candidate in ways like George Bush: Someone who doesn't sound like he (or she) is from Washington where everyone is rich and corrupt, is willing to protect all life, and will make sure that our nation upholds moral principles despite the opinion of the rest of the world. Palin fits the bill perfectly. So, despite being from Alaska, graduating from U of Idaho instead of Harvard, and having 5 children, if she presents herself as well-read in areas that conservatives deem unacceptable, she is finished. What true conservative reads the NY Times? So, some brilliant strategist decides to make her not give any specific answers... afterall, being vague and not saying anything of substance is better than having to refute a misstep of consequence especially with all the blunders McCain makes on a daily basis.

That's my conspiracy theory in a nutshell. I hope I'm wrong in some ways, but not in others because I really don't want to believe that John McCain was that careless in choosing a potential leader of America (Palin will be the leading force in the GOP for years to come regardless of this election outcome.) I also need to point out the things that incited my curiousity other than my general disbelief that a woman that made me tear up with joy and excitement when she accepted the nomination could become Caribou Barbie. Those are Lorne Michaels' comments about her SNL appearance and Daniel Henninger's Wonderland Column this week.

If I am right, a message to Sarah Palin: Show America what you're truly capable of these last two weeks before the election! Impress us with intelligence, pragmatism, leadership, and poise. That will hit home more than simple language and attack politics.

Great Description of Politicians

Thanks Don Boudreaux for continuing to share your astute opinions. From Cafe Hayek on Tuesday:

"...The general lesson here is that politicians are akin to faith-healers. Both pose as wizards; they use enchanting words to push crackpot potions. The faith-healer dupes his customers into believing that he will suspend medical reality; the politician dupes voters into believing that he will suspend economic reality. Both are frauds."

Glad to see as always that I'm not the only one who doesn't believe in the magical powers of the government. Too bad, unlike the average Obama supporter, I can't dupe myself into feeling good about my reality - the reality one where my husband and I would be better off financially if I quit my job (under Obama's tax plan of course.) I think Adam Lerrick addresses that issue well today in a Journal editorial.

I heard people calling for another "Boston Tea Party" when the bailout was passed... imagine what might truly happen if household making between $75,000-$150,000 begin being taxed at the "rich people" rates. I'm just guessing that socialist policies, i.e, "spreading the wealth around," won't sound so appealing then.

Amazing... Thanks SNL

Amy Poehler's rap for Sarah Palin was one of the most enjoyable bits I've ever seen. Sarah Palin may not be qualified to be president, but at least she's a good sport about things. Besides, people enjoy comedy more than politics anway, right? Therefore, one point for Palin for being a candidate with a sense of humor...

Obama's Welfare State

Have you seen Obama's new economic plan? Well, you should read it... carefully. In sum, he wants to put 40% of Americans on some kind of welfare (yes, tax "rebates" that are for more than you originally paid in taxes are in fact welfare, not your God-given rights as citizens. Some of us worked hard for that money, paid it to the government because we had to or would be thrown in jail, and will never see a cent in return because we are responsible and don't have children, a car, or a house we can't afford.)

Where I come from, we were always taught that welfare is a necessary evil to be avoided at ALL costs unless living without it means starvation or homelessness. And, that area happens to be one of the poorest per capita of any region in these great United States. The reason why this is taught is because hard work, ingenuity, and resourcefullness are all virtues to be valued and praised. The underlying reasoning being that if you work hard enough and can look outside the box that you will be okay. Even if that means shooting a deer for meat and planting a garden and canning your vegetables for the winter. After all, if you can build your own house, why the hell does the government need to give you one?

So, thank you Barack Obama for devaluing hard work, ingenuity, and resourcefullness because we're in tough economic times. For some people, it doesn't take a stock market and financial services industry crash for them to have tough economic times, and you don't see them asking for "bailouts" for lifestyles they couldn't afford in the first place.

I would like to reiterate, stealing is evil (even God says so.) And while we should give unto Ceaser what's Ceaser's and God what's God's that doesn't mean that Ceaser can take what's mine. Redistribution of the wealth is evil. Communism is evil. I have treatises I could post on each of these subjects, but will refrain since this is only a blog. However, the day that a genuine wealth redistribution is passed in America is the day I move to Ireland or Grand Cayman with all my capitalist notions and work ethic with me. It's a bad state of affairs when Ayn Rand is sounding rational.

Asian Markets Plunge

The Nikkei closed at a 9.38% loss.

I really have nothing worthwhile to say about this. It's just staggering and upsetting. Who knows what the next few days will bring for the global economy.

A Google or Mozilla Problem?

I used to be incredibly loyal to Internet Explorer. Mostly because I didn't know any better. Before the last 2 years, I didn't care much about what was going on in the technology space as long as I could access my gmail account, facebook, and Google search. And, part of me was very proud of this - Why care about technology when you can read about ancient Greeks? (albeit certainly not in the ancient Greek itself...)

Amazing how things change. Now, my job centers around me being technologically savvy. I still doubt that I will ever have any programming or computer science skills to speak of, but I have to stay on top of what's going on in the tech space so I can pass it along to my company's customers or potential customers. I also must possess a working tech literacy so I can translate techie's ideas into appealing English so that they can in turn sell their products and services (it's amazing how difficult this can be if you do not understand what the product or service is...)

However, my technological knowledge base shifted when I was introduced to Mozilla Firefox search browser about 3 years ago. At the time, it had a "tabbing" feature that IE did not and was generally faster at enabling Google searches. It also came with the snazzy Google toolbar. All great things. Of course, IE has since done just about everything to catch up with Mozilla since then, but I still prefer Mozilla because until recently IE often had more problem running applications I regularly use (except Webex... ) With the release of Mozilla 3.0, I seem to have nothing but problems with Mozilla. Or at least when it is trying to open Google applications.

This leads me to ask: Is Google sabotaging Mozilla's effectiveness because it released its own internet browser?

I would certainly hope not based on Google's goal of providing the Internet to the masses with ease at any possible location. If this is indeed the case, shame on Google. Google has gained its reputation by being the best (anyone remember the release of Cuil at the end of July?) and should go forward with the same approach. I'm certainly not going to cease using Google and its apps (since I'm obviously posting on Blogger), but will be hesitant to embrace new ones going forward. On the other hand, maybe it's simply a glitch in the new Mozilla browser. Regardless, this is a problem Google should be aware of since it's reflecting negatively on them, which never helps with user loyalty regardless of how cool a new app may be. And, Mozilla should be aware of the problems with Google apps as well if it wants to keep its nitch user-base happy.

On a slightly related note, if Apple tries to make me download Safari one more time when I'm updating iTunes I might have to buy a Zune when my old iPod finally stops working. This illustrates the beauty of technological innovation: there's always something new, better, and faster to keep all the tech company's on their toes thus creating better products for us mere users.

The Vice Presidential Debate Effect

I now have 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Biden was Biden and Palin Palin. Palin didn't tank and Biden didn't wow. Way to keep the status quo guys.

On a separate note, I understand that the Wall Street crisis was in large part due to, oh let's say Wall Street. However, demonizing wall street is getting a little old. How about Washington? McCain/Palin were GREAT at pointing out the flaws in the "good old boy network" of Washington when Palin was chosen as the VP nominee. And now? All we hear is that McCain warned his fellow Senators in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie needed to be regulated more closely. And that Sarah Palin understands what it's like to sit around the dinner table and worry about your personal finances. (For some interesting accounts of Greenspan discussing Fannie with several Senators, check out this article.) Good for McCain's ability to pick up on that fact, but he still wasn't able to accomplish anything with those warnings and what about actions since then? Does McCain never talk to Wall Street? What about his actions on the Commerce Committee? Why did he change his mind on the bailout so quickly? (I happen to agree that he needed to, but not without a better explanation. I'm sick of hearing "We have to help the American people. Get Main Street back on its feet." I agree, but how do you propose doing so?

These are all things that need to be explained, and I have been behind McCain since he was losing in the primaries.

The Third Commandement and the Alliance Defense Fund

Not to overtly endorse Fox News, but this article refers to a new initiative purposed by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization that claims to be the “Christian” version of the ACLU, which calls on pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit in an attempt to challenge IRS rules that prohibit non-profits from endorsing political candidates under the auspices of the free exercise clause of the first Amendment. They claim that “The Internal Revenue Service, in conjunction with radical organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have used the Johnson amendment {the IRS code in question} to create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear for any church that dares to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office or issues”.

With this new initiative, The Alliance Defense Fund might possibly have swept aside moveon.org as my least favorite quasi–political/legal organization working in the US. They apparently missed that whole 3^rd commandment thing from that esoteric, outdated Old Testament. To wrap one’s secular political and public policy viewpoint in the holy cloth of God’s sanction by suggesting an implicit Biblical endorsement of a particular viewpoint through a specious line of moral extrapolation is I suspect the kind of thing that commandment suggests avoiding. Perhaps, I am wrong and it doesn’t go any further than to suggest one is only sinning when they put the word “God” in front of a choice expletive. Who can know?

So back to the point: Why should we as Christians stand up against this new initiative and appeal to our pastors not to get involved? I will release a point by point explanation over the next few days\weeks as time permits. The points will include risks to the financial health of churches, basic theological problems with such approaches, the very secular worldly reasons this issue is being pushed, and, if time permits, a review of why this is bad constitutional law in addition to some philosophical thoughts on why we have the Establishment Clause.

1. The Risk to the Financial Health of Individual Congregations.

The first prudent issue a congregation member should examine before endorsing the ADF plan is what is the risk with and what might be gained from joining with the ADF in this cause. The risk is the loss of non-profit status. The potential gain is the ability for a religious organization to endorse (in every sense of the word) political candidates and remain a non-profit. We will begin by exploring more fully what loosing non-profit status would mean for a church and the probability of realizing such a risk.

First, the realistic chances of this issue being overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. This particular IRS code is about as clear cut and settled of a law that one will find. It is important to understand that the Supreme Courts loves precedent. The Supreme Court expects incredibly compelling new reasons to upturn established law because of their preference towards the status quo. If you think I am wrong please read O’Connor’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. She wants to overturn Roe v. Wade but does not out of respect for precedent. This reveals a great deal about what goes on in the mind of a Justice deliberating a decision.

So the question becomes: Can the ADF provide a compelling reason under the Constitution that this should be overturned? The details of the IRS code were constructed carefully in an attempt to strike a proper balance between the free exercise [of religion] clause and the establishment clause (which prohibits the state establishment, i.e., support, of any church or religion) in the First Amendment. For example, under the current code, pastors, in their individual person, can endorse political candidates as well as preach from the pulpit moral and religious precepts that should guide parishioners’ electoral decision making up to the point of an explicit endorsement of a candidate. It is disingenuous of the ADF to suggest that the current law would have prevented churches from speaking out from the pulpit against an issue such as slavery or to broadly condemn, as a Church, those in Washington who supported such sinful policies.

It is of a high probability that the court will hold with the IRS code because the code does not overtly infringe on the free exercise clause and any further liberality in the law would run a dangerous course smack into the Establishment Clause (will explain more in the next post). Most experts agree the ADF case is one of long odds to even be heard, let alone won.

So when the Supreme Court effectively upholds the Johnson Amendment, the church body, not the pastors or the ADF lawyers, will be bear the tax burden the IRS will lay at there door. The church will be subject to for-profit entity taxes and will be assessed certain steep penalties as well. Having seen much in the way of church finances I suspect this change in legal status would bankrupt many churches. Further, if the church remains solvent it will lose valuable resources given for the holy purpose of ministry. If a congregation or church leader believes this extra bit of freedom expression is truly necessary to fulfill God’s commands they should, through their individual governing laws, change the church’s legal structure to accommodate such speech. Bob Jones University is a good example of an organization that did just that. This way the individuals who have to bear the financial burden of such decisions are the ones involved in the process of making it. It is abhorrent for lawyers who know the real probability of victory, or worse are too incompetent understand it, are promoting such irresponsibility. Engaging in the promotion or execution of risky behavior without bearing any material risk is what one could call “Moral Hazard” and it is what the ADF, like Washington and Wall Street before, are peddling. It is wrong. For the sake of your church’s divinely appointed responsibility to meet the ministry needs of the church body and to serve the specific missions into the community and the wider world, stand up against any further “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” or its like.

When Everyone is the Greater Fool

The presence of great societal action in America amazes me. Actually, it doesn't amaze me, it makes me laugh. Despite the claims of what truly collective efforts can accomplish in America (think the Space Program, universal healthcare, education reform, The Great Society, etc.) are, the truth is that Americans often do act collectively. And that collectivity is almost always rash and self-serving. This is no surprise to me and my vast skepticism of [good] human intentions. However, the current crisis is a perfect example. The Journal had a great editorial today that discussed this matter and I think its points are accurate.

First, no one was complaining when the banks informed them that they could take out mortgages they could not possibly afford previously - where funding was based on credit scores, not real data such as income, debt, and assets. Thousands of people swept up these loans and moved into mcmansions (at least here in Atlanta.) Then, those mcmansions amazingly jumped in value! "What luck!" those mortgage holders thought to themselves. "And really, what is the worst thing that could happen? My house is gaining so much value that when my ARM re-adjusts in 3-5 years, I'll just re-finance or sell my house at its new higher value. Stupid bankers, they're just GIVING money away. Woo hoo!"

Well, those bankers are certainly reaping the benefits of their stupidity. However, everyone - mortage holders, bankers, and politicians who gained initial vast popularity by saying that "Every American has the right to own a home!" - are now suffering largely as a result of a theory a friend introduced me to: The Greater Fool Theory. The theory is very transparent. Basically, the investors know they are buying bad debt, but are confident that there will be a "bigger fool" who will buy the debt from them allowing them to get rid of the bad debt while still turning a profit on fees (and hopefully a jump in value too.) This creates a market bubble - such as the tech bubble of the early 2000s and the housing bubble - which eventually must pop. The unfortunate thing is that the housing bubble showed that everyone was the greater fool. This was certainly aggravated by implicit governmental guarantees of mortgages, but that's a post for another day. Everyone believed that they were gaining "safe" money that would only continue to grow at unrealistic rates. After all, the housing market is the DisneyWorld of investing: It makes all your [Main Street American] dreams come true.

So, what does this say about American societal action? First, Americans are clearly capable of group action. And, apparently incredibly easily manipulated by anything they think will benefit them (which doesn't seem to be universal healthcare or education... maybe because they're not quite so bad as they're made out to be... that's simply a supposition though.) Second, crises rule the day. Americans (and most people who are above subsistence-level existences) LOVE to panic. This may also be a geographical phenomenon where Atlanta has the most concentrated group of panickers, but interesting nonetheless. Bank runs, gas lines, credit crunches which can be an amalgamated disaster if not stopped. The funny thing is that they can be stopped... if people insist on being calm and not fueling each others' fears. But, people don't want to take that kind of responsibility so the magical government must intervene to save the day. This will most likely will work because people will gain back their market confidence (in a subconscious way for most,) yet is certainly not ideal and even opposed by most because they see it as bailing out Wall Street, not Main Street. And all those "rich people" deserve it for being greedy. Wow - American hypocrisy at its very best.

So, what lessons are to be learned from this mess? In my opinion, the most important is a lesson learned in Econ 101: There's no such thing as a free lunch (or certainly not a free house.) If something seems to good to be true, it is. This obviously won't help the situation, but keeping it in mind for the future may help people immensely. The second is related: If people are taking a free lunch en masse, RUN! Or, exploit their stupidity for your own gains, just be careful because if you play the greater fool game there's always a chance that it will be you. And, just to be safe, my family will always own a large track of land with a fully equipped cabin in a rural, wooded area in case one day the government isn't able to bail [the collective] us out. Some politicians might call that an example of clinging to "guns and religion." I just think of it as good sense.

Updated Full Text of the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008

Nothing like 451 pages of legislative goodness to ward off a possible emergency...

I have not had the time to wade through this... although I'm glad to see all the reminders that "the taxpayers' risks must be kept to a minimum" and that things such as homeowners' abilities to remain in their homes, safety of retirement funds, and economic enhancement need to be "kept in mind." Thanks for that reiteration Congress... always good to know you have the rhetorical interests of "main street" at heart.

Why Reason?

A quick explainer on the blog title...

The authors of this blog are huge fans of reason, love rational actors, and admire logic in all its forms (especially syllogisms.) I would like to think that most people feel the same, but am skeptical. This is not to say we don't have biases, but genuinely enjoy having reasonable and well thought out discussions about the world. It also doesn't mean we think we are the only or a supreme "voice of reason." Instead, we merely like to voice what we see to be reasonable and hope others find it to be so as well. And, if not, we would love to know in attempts to gain a clearer vision of reality in any topic we are addressing. Or, at the very least to entertain a point of view we may not have considered previously, although we certainly try to be thorough.

That being said, another equally adequate title for this blog would be "Really?" If you have seen the Saturday Night Live skit, you understand what I mean.

Oh, Congress... Why the Bailout Mattered

The Wall Street Journal astutely captured the importance of what is now the failed bailout. Here are my thoughts on the debacle:

Well, the Dow didn't drop the critical 10% level and thankfully is on the rise after opening this morning. HOWEVER, we are now virtually certain to sink into a recession. There is no credit in the market... making a substantive, rapid rebound incredibly difficult. The Asian markets only lost about 4% and Europe is recovering slightly. I hope this means a true crisis was averted.

Yet, in what has escalated to be a legitimate financial crisis - which does affect everyone in the country (and the world) not just rich wall streeters and greedy politicians (greed being substantially different from wealth in my opinion... at least wall streeters produce something of value... or lose something of value not merely political power, approval, and a stream of endless favors based in worthlessness) - politicians couldn't get over their own political interests (even if supported by their constituents) to solve a problem. Not that the bailout would have been a permanent solution, or even a good piece of legislation. But, it would have served the immediate purpose of calming the critically unstable global markets. And, as many people pointed out this morning, the drop in the markets yesterday cost over $1 trillion to the U.S. economy instead of being bailed out with $700 billion. Personally, I would gladly have taken the $700 billion cash infusion that possibly could have prevented another $300 billion in losses and stopped the impending recession. Recessions are when losses become even more sickening to calculate.

As a proponent of extremely limited government and fiscal responsbility, this bailout is by no means a perfect or even desirable solution. But, sometimes in life we have to do things not for "the greater good" as so many people believe, but for overall [economic] sustainability. The Congress had its chance to restore market confidence and it failed because representatives are afraid they will lose re-election in November. By all means, I hope they ALL do.

Why Blog?

A Voice for Reason blog is essentially an outlet for the authors to express their views on the world, current events, politics, and anything else they find relevant. Our posts may not always be heavily cited or researched to lengths that could be a dissertation, but the authors always put a great deal of thought into them and hope that readers will respond with the same level of thought to produce fruitful conversations.

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an avenue for the expression of ideas based in the principles of liberty, capitalism, and general good sense. The authors believe that people have become too disconnected from not only constitutional principles in the United States, but overall moral philosophies or solid principles that govern their worldviews (and those philosophies and principles do not have to mean religious, conservative, or any other boxed-in interpretation.)

And, while we take our ideas incredibly seriously, this also is just a blog. Please take from it what you will and enjoy our crazy ramblings.