I gather that the public is tiring of Mr. Obama. I actually understand that even if I don't happen to share the perspective. People seem to have a fairly dim view of his ability to deliver what is most needed at this time: JOBS. The problem though is that Obama is not the problem, the problem is the system.
Here's what I think: the problem is that for at least a couple of decades, probably three, so that's a good thirty years, the US has hung on to modus operandi that are inimical to the nation's best interests. By allowing lobbyists to stymie the development of reasonable, balanced regulation; by allowing the beneficiaries of the status quo to hamper the establishment of any legislation that would negatively impact their profitability; by focusing less and less on infrastructure and development, I believe this nation has dug itself a pretty deep hole. The massive natural gas explosion in a community in Southern California some weeks ago is, I think, proof positive of how far the nation has to go to get itself back on track.
One commentator on the television used the phrase "Patch and Pray" to describe the approach to maintenance of national infrastructure. He said, "We have been using a 'Patch and Pray' method" with infrastructure for years. As someone who hails from a country where Patch and Pray is the order of the day, I think I know it when I see it. In a great many arenas in this country, P&P is the way things are done. The problem with Mr. Obama, is that he doesn't seem to think that the patch and prayer method is a good one for existing national challenges. More than that, he's not even about to pretend that they are.
Where fault lies really, is in all of us who are expecting quick solutions to deep and in some cases, intractable problems. Where the fault lies is with the President who simply hasn't done nearly enough to sell the American public on the notion of personal sacrifice (ie, you can't eat out 4 nights a week or otherwise spend like a maniac, and still be OK financially in the long term). This is true both of citizens and of states, and indeed of all these united states.
Americans are very enamored of their freedoms, and I understand that. I too love my freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility, both to self and to others. Far too little time is spent teaching, talking about or focusing on the responsibility part of freedom. This is where I fault the President. I'm not annoyed that he hasn't created more jobs, nor indeed that the deficit is out of control, nor even that the health care legislation is pretty crappy but better than nothing. No, I'm annoyed because he has allowed people to develop this sense that he was 'Barack the Magician' who would change (aka fix) everything that was broken once he came down from the mountaintop with his magic plan of action. Nothing could be further from the truth. He can do nothing without committed foot soldiers ie, citizens who are responsible about their use of resources (both financial and natural) and make an effort to create and add value nationally.
Time should have been invested making sure that people understood some economic fundamentals such as, if it is small business that is the heart of job creation, we need more successful small businesses. That means ME and YOU. If small business is the heart of job creation, then that means you and I must patronize these establishments to ensure their longevity. Time should also have been spent educating consumers that reckless consumption (and not just on overpriced houses in an overheated housing market) helps no one. It only drives bank profits (which do not generally redound to consumer benefit) and drives consumers to the brink of financial ruin.
Taking a patch and pray approach to national infrastructure is a bad idea. Taking a similar approach to national development (and yes, America is still a developing nation as all nations seek to be) is even worse of an idea. Prayer is a marvelous thing, so too is hope. But neither is a particularly good strategy for responding to national or life challenges.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Doing more with less my hindparts
Who is the idiot that first coined this phrase? It is the most asinine piece of nonsense I have ever heard.
How do you do MORE with LESS? I'd really like someone to tell me. Here's what I propose: instead of talking nonsense about doing more with less, why don't we try to figure out how to fill as many competing needs as we can, to some satisfactory degree with whatever the 'less' is. We can't do more with less, so we really need to stop saying it as though it makes sense. It doesn't.
My suggestion is that we try to balance the competing interests by holding on to the critical things and sacrificing others. As a musician this pains me because I know that when it comes to schools, 'sacrifice' usually means kicking music to the curb, but volunteers can do as great a job teaching music as paid teachers can.
'Doing more with less' should mean looking for creative ways of filling old needs, ways that don't require large outlays of cash. That's more with less. Sometimes doing more means asking more of participants and less means less free stuff, more self pay or co-pay. In cases of financial hardship which currently abound, it will mean finding ways to help each other along without making anyone ashamed of their difficult circumstances.
Look I don't have answers here. All I know is that we really need to run as fast as we can from the notion that we can possibly do more with less. It's such a stupid saying, I can't believe it has so caught on. Can you feed a family of 5 with the food supplies needed to feed a single person? Certainly you can, but no one is satisfied nor is anyone appropriately nourished. Perhaps we should try to focus on ensuring that there's satisfaction and nourishment, even if it means it's a no-frills meal. It's a meal. Needs are met and that's the whole point.
There's a way to make do in tough times that doesn't sacrifice quality, but saying, "Let's get out there and do more with less" isn't it. This stupid one liner doesn't acknowledge the efforts of administrators large and small, who struggle to keep their programs running on fumes and faith. What this sentence is, in a nutshell, is an insult to the intelligence of the listener and the effort of the administrator and frankly, it's an excuse to bully and harass staff into working like Hebrew slaves, but don't let me get started on that.
How do you do MORE with LESS? I'd really like someone to tell me. Here's what I propose: instead of talking nonsense about doing more with less, why don't we try to figure out how to fill as many competing needs as we can, to some satisfactory degree with whatever the 'less' is. We can't do more with less, so we really need to stop saying it as though it makes sense. It doesn't.
My suggestion is that we try to balance the competing interests by holding on to the critical things and sacrificing others. As a musician this pains me because I know that when it comes to schools, 'sacrifice' usually means kicking music to the curb, but volunteers can do as great a job teaching music as paid teachers can.
'Doing more with less' should mean looking for creative ways of filling old needs, ways that don't require large outlays of cash. That's more with less. Sometimes doing more means asking more of participants and less means less free stuff, more self pay or co-pay. In cases of financial hardship which currently abound, it will mean finding ways to help each other along without making anyone ashamed of their difficult circumstances.
Look I don't have answers here. All I know is that we really need to run as fast as we can from the notion that we can possibly do more with less. It's such a stupid saying, I can't believe it has so caught on. Can you feed a family of 5 with the food supplies needed to feed a single person? Certainly you can, but no one is satisfied nor is anyone appropriately nourished. Perhaps we should try to focus on ensuring that there's satisfaction and nourishment, even if it means it's a no-frills meal. It's a meal. Needs are met and that's the whole point.
There's a way to make do in tough times that doesn't sacrifice quality, but saying, "Let's get out there and do more with less" isn't it. This stupid one liner doesn't acknowledge the efforts of administrators large and small, who struggle to keep their programs running on fumes and faith. What this sentence is, in a nutshell, is an insult to the intelligence of the listener and the effort of the administrator and frankly, it's an excuse to bully and harass staff into working like Hebrew slaves, but don't let me get started on that.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The American Dream
The other day, I was reading an article in the Washington Post, written by the President and CEO of ING Direct - Arkadi Kuhlmann, Friday 3 September - in which he was positing that the American Dream was undermining America. His basic premise (if I understood him correctly), was that 30 year mortgages are an old fashioned tool for home ownership in a world of advanced financial tools. He further contended that homeowners, should be encouraged (through an eventual elimination of the tax credit for interest and its replacement with a credit for payments to principal) not only to take shorter term mortgages, but also to make efforts to pay down the principal balance on their loans. Interesting.
To some extent, this makes good sense to me, but I wonder though about obvious requirement to manage one's credit that his recommendation would necessitate. The core premise of his proposal is that 30 year loans should become much shorter loans, perhaps even as short as 5 years. He writes, "[o]n a typical $225,000 mortgage, a buyer who gets a five-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 3.50 percent might well pay 4.75 percent for a 30-year loan. The savings would come to more than $11,000 when it's time to refinance the five-year agreement." While an owner might certainly appreciate the $11,000 in savings, is the s/he willing to pay the price of that 11K? Because it ain't about to be free. S/he is going to have to monitor and manage their credit like they're trying to buy their first home. And they're going to have to be diligent about that credit score, pretty much FOR LIFE under this model. So the issue then becomes, what happens at year number five if the buyer's credit score is too low to qualify for a refinance on favorable terms? What if, Heaven forbid, we're in a recession such as we are in now, where almost 10% of the population is unemployed? What happens then? Does the 5 year loan simply renew at existing rates (using the qualifying credit score perhaps?) or or does the buyer, now with poor credit, have to renegotiate the loan at whatever rates the banks are offering at the time? Suddenly, that $11,000 savings isn't looking nearly as attractive.
As good an idea as this might seem, it requires of consumers an approach to managing money that doesn't currently exist in this society: FRUGALITY. That word doesn't have a much of a home in the American lexicon, nor indeed, does it even fit with the way the economic engine of the society works. The engine of the American economy is the American consumer. To rewrite that equation would require such significant change to the American psyche that frankly, I can't see it happening. Perhaps, if this current recession were prolonged (Heaven forbid!) and people were to learn the value of saving over spending; perhaps if, during this dreadful period, people came to understand that a credit card is not a financial buffer, perhaps then it might be possible to inch gingerly in this direction. But I'm not feeling that happening.
Mr. Kuhlmann's idea may have great merit, but it fails to take in to consideration the sociology of the society involved. A new model for financing is a great thing, but it must be based on the context into which it is to be applied. The context here: spend, spend, spend; go out after 9/11 and spend; we're at war so spend; we're in a recession, I'll send you a check for you to spend; is diametrically opposed to the model Mr. Kuhlmann recommends.
The reality is that the American consumer spends so much time consuming and being encouraged to consume, that the idea of having to perennially manage the credit score may well be inimical to national best interests. This is not my personal feeling but when I listen to the talking heads blather on about restarting the economy, what I hear is much talk about consumer confidence - i.e.: consumer willingness to shop. It's not about the innovation or creativity; it's about shopping. If this new model of home-ownership were to take root, it would seem to me that it would either, (i) put a serious dent in consumer spending as we would all be more focused on managing our use of credit not simply for the first purchase of the house but through the life of the loan; or (ii) there would ultimately be far more bankruptcies and foreclosures, as people unwilling/unable to manage their spending would find themselves in a nasty bind 5 years out, much as has happened over the last 2 to 3 years.
The unstated premise of Mr. Kuhlmann's idea is that Americans need a radical reframing of how they use their disposable income. We need to 'dispose' of far less and much more 'retain' far more of it. Even now, as the economy struggles to regain its footing, the idea that people are choosing to pay down debt and save is already making economists sweat. I can't begin to imagine what would happen if a movement towards frugality and fiscal responsibility were to take hold more generally. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I don't really see that happening any time soon...the iPhone5 is bound to be a must have, as is the next gen iPad and the next gen iPod. In truth there's always a must have 'next gen' something just waiting to catch me at a moment of weakness.
Here's a link to the Washington Post article: Rebuild the Path to American Homeownership
To some extent, this makes good sense to me, but I wonder though about obvious requirement to manage one's credit that his recommendation would necessitate. The core premise of his proposal is that 30 year loans should become much shorter loans, perhaps even as short as 5 years. He writes, "[o]n a typical $225,000 mortgage, a buyer who gets a five-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 3.50 percent might well pay 4.75 percent for a 30-year loan. The savings would come to more than $11,000 when it's time to refinance the five-year agreement." While an owner might certainly appreciate the $11,000 in savings, is the s/he willing to pay the price of that 11K? Because it ain't about to be free. S/he is going to have to monitor and manage their credit like they're trying to buy their first home. And they're going to have to be diligent about that credit score, pretty much FOR LIFE under this model. So the issue then becomes, what happens at year number five if the buyer's credit score is too low to qualify for a refinance on favorable terms? What if, Heaven forbid, we're in a recession such as we are in now, where almost 10% of the population is unemployed? What happens then? Does the 5 year loan simply renew at existing rates (using the qualifying credit score perhaps?) or or does the buyer, now with poor credit, have to renegotiate the loan at whatever rates the banks are offering at the time? Suddenly, that $11,000 savings isn't looking nearly as attractive.
As good an idea as this might seem, it requires of consumers an approach to managing money that doesn't currently exist in this society: FRUGALITY. That word doesn't have a much of a home in the American lexicon, nor indeed, does it even fit with the way the economic engine of the society works. The engine of the American economy is the American consumer. To rewrite that equation would require such significant change to the American psyche that frankly, I can't see it happening. Perhaps, if this current recession were prolonged (Heaven forbid!) and people were to learn the value of saving over spending; perhaps if, during this dreadful period, people came to understand that a credit card is not a financial buffer, perhaps then it might be possible to inch gingerly in this direction. But I'm not feeling that happening.
Mr. Kuhlmann's idea may have great merit, but it fails to take in to consideration the sociology of the society involved. A new model for financing is a great thing, but it must be based on the context into which it is to be applied. The context here: spend, spend, spend; go out after 9/11 and spend; we're at war so spend; we're in a recession, I'll send you a check for you to spend; is diametrically opposed to the model Mr. Kuhlmann recommends.
The reality is that the American consumer spends so much time consuming and being encouraged to consume, that the idea of having to perennially manage the credit score may well be inimical to national best interests. This is not my personal feeling but when I listen to the talking heads blather on about restarting the economy, what I hear is much talk about consumer confidence - i.e.: consumer willingness to shop. It's not about the innovation or creativity; it's about shopping. If this new model of home-ownership were to take root, it would seem to me that it would either, (i) put a serious dent in consumer spending as we would all be more focused on managing our use of credit not simply for the first purchase of the house but through the life of the loan; or (ii) there would ultimately be far more bankruptcies and foreclosures, as people unwilling/unable to manage their spending would find themselves in a nasty bind 5 years out, much as has happened over the last 2 to 3 years.
The unstated premise of Mr. Kuhlmann's idea is that Americans need a radical reframing of how they use their disposable income. We need to 'dispose' of far less and much more 'retain' far more of it. Even now, as the economy struggles to regain its footing, the idea that people are choosing to pay down debt and save is already making economists sweat. I can't begin to imagine what would happen if a movement towards frugality and fiscal responsibility were to take hold more generally. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I don't really see that happening any time soon...the iPhone5 is bound to be a must have, as is the next gen iPad and the next gen iPod. In truth there's always a must have 'next gen' something just waiting to catch me at a moment of weakness.
Here's a link to the Washington Post article: Rebuild the Path to American Homeownership
Friday, September 3, 2010
Up and down
Several months ago, I started thinking about my dissatisfactions. They aren't legion, but they're a few of them. I started thinking about it because I was chatting with a girlfriend who had the one biggest thing I wanted but didn't have (a fabulous career and a great paycheck) but she too was dissatisfied. On chatting with yet another friend, I found that friend number two also had a career that she loved, but that the paycheck was insufficient to her needs. All three of us, smart, capable women, were dissatisfied. I began to wonder whether this was the best we could do. Were we destined to be dissatisfied?
Some level of dissatisfaction is, I suppose, to be expected. No life is perfect. If you are a believer or person of faith, you know that the Creator is more interested in your character than in your comfort, so you expect there to be ups and downs, and you accept that character development often comes by battling through the 'downs'. The trouble is, why do we all seem to be more focused on the down than the up? Do we even notice when we're up? Do we know what up even looks like anymore, or what the appropriate feelings are that go with up? Have we simply forgotten how to be satisfied, and I'm not talking about being 'satisficed'* but really satisfied? Do we know how to be happy with what we have?
I don't think that being happy, and thankful, for what we have today precludes our seeking more tomorrow (or even later today), I just think it means that we recognize the blessings that we've already received and remember to say, "Thank you". These friends of mine are successful women by many measures. One is a partner in a NYC law firm and the other a Social Worker. Both have the careers I would love to have, but are dissatisfied for one reason or another. I haven't the career I've always dreamed of, but I do have a life of the mind that keeps me extremely happy, perhaps not wealthy but intellectually stimulated and satisfied. Do I want more? Absolutely, but every now and again, I realize that it's a damn good thing to be able to think, think aloud and maybe even be heard when I do so. And sometimes, it's enough.
The cause of perennial dissatisfaction, it seems to me, is trying to keep up with some externally established standard. The standards go something like this: by the time you're 26, you should be married. (Grade for Liesl: FAIL.) By the time you're 32, you should have an advanced degree. (Grade for Liesl: FAIL.) It's enough to make you dissatisfied with your life.....which it seems, is the whole point. Dissatisfied people you see, engage in retail therapy. And that's where the good people of Madison Avenue come in. They show you all the lovely things that you need to make yourself feel better. How many people, I wonder, realize the happy coincidence that all the important life milestones - marriage, baby, house and land, car, luxury vacation - neatly coincide with some industry which stands ready to take your hard-earned dollars?
As for me, I'll determine when I'll do what thank you and more than that, I'll determine whether I'll do it at all. To let someone outside of myself determine the course of my history is beyond ridiculous. Far more ridiculous though, is to let some advertiser (who is only trying to get a buck off me for some industry) make those decisions.
So I'm taking a vow of satisfaction. Whatever you folk are selling, I'm not buying, especially if you're selling dissatisfaction which only some product will cure. I'm not saying that I wouldn't love to drive a Jaguar XK-8, navy blue, tan leather interior, wood paneling. Nor am I saying that I would turn down an opportunity to go on a luxurious trip to Italy (primarily to attend an opera at La Scala). Nor indeed am I saying that I couldn't go hog wild in a Talbot's store. All of those are very attractive options to me but if I ever do do those things, it will be on terms identified by me and at a time appropriate to my finances. I won't let marketing shame me into doing stuff I have no business (or no funds) to be doing. If dissatisfaction drives sales, then ya'll will need to look elsewhere. I've taken a vow of eternal satisfaction and I'm off the market. I will keep my eye on Talbot's clearance events at the Outlet though. That, I can still manage.
Satisficing (definition from BusinessDictionary.com)
Some level of dissatisfaction is, I suppose, to be expected. No life is perfect. If you are a believer or person of faith, you know that the Creator is more interested in your character than in your comfort, so you expect there to be ups and downs, and you accept that character development often comes by battling through the 'downs'. The trouble is, why do we all seem to be more focused on the down than the up? Do we even notice when we're up? Do we know what up even looks like anymore, or what the appropriate feelings are that go with up? Have we simply forgotten how to be satisfied, and I'm not talking about being 'satisficed'* but really satisfied? Do we know how to be happy with what we have?
I don't think that being happy, and thankful, for what we have today precludes our seeking more tomorrow (or even later today), I just think it means that we recognize the blessings that we've already received and remember to say, "Thank you". These friends of mine are successful women by many measures. One is a partner in a NYC law firm and the other a Social Worker. Both have the careers I would love to have, but are dissatisfied for one reason or another. I haven't the career I've always dreamed of, but I do have a life of the mind that keeps me extremely happy, perhaps not wealthy but intellectually stimulated and satisfied. Do I want more? Absolutely, but every now and again, I realize that it's a damn good thing to be able to think, think aloud and maybe even be heard when I do so. And sometimes, it's enough.
The cause of perennial dissatisfaction, it seems to me, is trying to keep up with some externally established standard. The standards go something like this: by the time you're 26, you should be married. (Grade for Liesl: FAIL.) By the time you're 32, you should have an advanced degree. (Grade for Liesl: FAIL.) It's enough to make you dissatisfied with your life.....which it seems, is the whole point. Dissatisfied people you see, engage in retail therapy. And that's where the good people of Madison Avenue come in. They show you all the lovely things that you need to make yourself feel better. How many people, I wonder, realize the happy coincidence that all the important life milestones - marriage, baby, house and land, car, luxury vacation - neatly coincide with some industry which stands ready to take your hard-earned dollars?
As for me, I'll determine when I'll do what thank you and more than that, I'll determine whether I'll do it at all. To let someone outside of myself determine the course of my history is beyond ridiculous. Far more ridiculous though, is to let some advertiser (who is only trying to get a buck off me for some industry) make those decisions.
So I'm taking a vow of satisfaction. Whatever you folk are selling, I'm not buying, especially if you're selling dissatisfaction which only some product will cure. I'm not saying that I wouldn't love to drive a Jaguar XK-8, navy blue, tan leather interior, wood paneling. Nor am I saying that I would turn down an opportunity to go on a luxurious trip to Italy (primarily to attend an opera at La Scala). Nor indeed am I saying that I couldn't go hog wild in a Talbot's store. All of those are very attractive options to me but if I ever do do those things, it will be on terms identified by me and at a time appropriate to my finances. I won't let marketing shame me into doing stuff I have no business (or no funds) to be doing. If dissatisfaction drives sales, then ya'll will need to look elsewhere. I've taken a vow of eternal satisfaction and I'm off the market. I will keep my eye on Talbot's clearance events at the Outlet though. That, I can still manage.
Satisficing (definition from BusinessDictionary.com)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Brevity, the soul of wit (and wisdom)
I've realized that the marginalization of the outlier is standard practice. Average is so much easier to countenance. Unfortunately, it is the exceptional who make things happen and usually they do so in spite of the squeeze forces of mediocrity.
We fear what we don't understand and we marginalize that which we fear. All too often, the outlier is marginalized not because she/he is wrong but because we are afraid the she may be right.
Having ignored the brilliant, if outside-the-norm, ideas of the outlier, what do we rely on instead for direction? Usually the run-of-the-mill. But the run-of-the-mill can only generate run-of-the-mill results. I wonder, is it the outlier we fear or is it the success that the outlier's ideas may birth that frightens us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)