As of yesterday, I've been shocked by a mighty epiphany.
As I await my summer internship with the Cato Institute, I've been maintaining expenses with two different types of work:
One is at a Macy Retail Store.
The other is as an enumerator for the United States Census Bureau.
---
At Macy's, I must be on time. I start to get paid from the moment I punch into a computer, which records my time on the company clock down to the very second when I punch out, and I get paid me accordingly to their wage rate with precision.
At Macy's I must spend 8 hours a day on my feet, continuously moving, continuously provided exceptional service to consumers whose patronage is purely voluntary.
At Macy's, there is oversight. More than merely relying on my work ethic, pressure not to shirk is present in the form of various management staff to increase the probability that during the whole of 8-hour period, I am actually being productive.
I go home on sore feet on these nights, and for all this I get paid...$8.75 per hour.
Then there is the Census Bureau...
---
At the Census Bureau, they want me to estimate for myself when I began on the clock, starting from the moment I get in my vehicle, and ending on the very moment I am back home. They are assuming that my estimate is going to be perfectly honest, though they naturally do not expect it to be precise.
Most of my "work" has been training. At the training, the first two hours is spent merely waiting for our crew leader to do the paperwork of our timesheets. Rather than moving about, we sit on our rears as he goes through the necessary protocol of reading the training manual to us. We also spend time getting our fingerprints done. This goes on for three days for 8 hours. On the day we finished early, we are encouraged to log in the missing time anyway.
Two days are actually spent "working", after the obligatory time waste waiting for timesheets to be processed, we drive to an area to look for homeless people without actually stepping out of our vehicles. Since this enumeration happens at night, we get paid extra apparently.
I go home with nothing sore other than my rear end. For this I get paid....$18 per hour. Plus 50 cents for each mile I drive.
...
Where I produce, I get $8.75.
Where I produce nothing, I get $18.
...
I am an example of government waste.
~David Morris~
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Massachuets Election - Voter Scorn Strikes Obama
63 Years. 63 years.
Incredible.
63 years, the voters of Massachuets were content to elect the democrat party to be their represenatives. Yet after 1 year of the Obama administration, the backlash against his approach to governance has resulted in the famously liberal state to vote republican.
Clearly, Barack Obama underestimated the full effect pushing unpopular policy at the cost of instigating voter scorn, so much so that his decisions are bringing ruin to his own party.
It is here that I hold pity for the democrats, as I ponder how things may have been were the Clintons once again in control. For all their arguable faults, the Clinton's did have a redeemable value in that they knew of and greatly respected the potential of public opinion. Their presidency was successful in part of the fact that they, like many politicians, were incensed by their own probabilities of re-election, and formed policy likely to take themselves (and their party) in such a direction. Overall, this resulted in mostly non-intrusive government during the Clinton years, as the former president was willing to do what it took to maintain consistent pole ratings above 60%. From stepping back and leaving "Wall Street" to the competent hands of Greenspan, to the elimination of trade barriers via the NAFTA agreement (as well as avoiding new barriers via the Kyoto Protocol), from learning to compromise with Newt Gringrich for truly bipartisan policy.
Clinton, whatever his personal ideology may had been, would not be blinded it. Though he may be remembered by many as flawed on a individual level, credit must be given due to his sensitivity in doing that with which a maximum amount of constituents (be they democrat, republican, or independent) would be satisfied with, leaving it no wonder why he would leave office with some of the highest job approval ratings in several decades.
The would-be return of Team Clinton, this time with Hilary at the helm, would have likely been a repeat of the same policies that defined the first Clinton administration, in which public opinion held a strong influence in their decisions. A concept that the Democrats appeared to have lost under Obama's leadership. Barrack Obama it would seem, appears to be a visionary who is too focused on his personal dream of "remaking America" than to react to the will of the people, as we now see what many were concerned with when they accused Mr. Obama of "inexperience." With only a prior two-year term in the senate, the current president appears to have yet learned the number one lesson of public policy - that one will not run policy that is overwhelmingly against the will of the public.
Where the concept of rational ignorance does not exist, it is unwise to pursue any form of policy that is counter to the constituency, and perhaps the upsetting new election will sound a wake up call for Mr. Obama. The future has yet to fully unfold, and the possiblity for learning from one's mistakes is always present. Nevertheless, the Clinton's would have already been familiar with this concept had they stepped into office in '08, and I for one would be regretting the decision to have made him the presidential canidate were I currently Martha Coakley.
Whatever happens, the debate on health-care will truly be remembered as a classic case study on distrusted government reform in a political environment of wide-spread voter scorn. How the recent Supreme Court decision to lift spending caps from corporate entities will surely serve to further the intriguing quality behind the matter matter.
~David Morris~
Incredible.
63 years, the voters of Massachuets were content to elect the democrat party to be their represenatives. Yet after 1 year of the Obama administration, the backlash against his approach to governance has resulted in the famously liberal state to vote republican.
Clearly, Barack Obama underestimated the full effect pushing unpopular policy at the cost of instigating voter scorn, so much so that his decisions are bringing ruin to his own party.
It is here that I hold pity for the democrats, as I ponder how things may have been were the Clintons once again in control. For all their arguable faults, the Clinton's did have a redeemable value in that they knew of and greatly respected the potential of public opinion. Their presidency was successful in part of the fact that they, like many politicians, were incensed by their own probabilities of re-election, and formed policy likely to take themselves (and their party) in such a direction. Overall, this resulted in mostly non-intrusive government during the Clinton years, as the former president was willing to do what it took to maintain consistent pole ratings above 60%. From stepping back and leaving "Wall Street" to the competent hands of Greenspan, to the elimination of trade barriers via the NAFTA agreement (as well as avoiding new barriers via the Kyoto Protocol), from learning to compromise with Newt Gringrich for truly bipartisan policy.
Clinton, whatever his personal ideology may had been, would not be blinded it. Though he may be remembered by many as flawed on a individual level, credit must be given due to his sensitivity in doing that with which a maximum amount of constituents (be they democrat, republican, or independent) would be satisfied with, leaving it no wonder why he would leave office with some of the highest job approval ratings in several decades.
The would-be return of Team Clinton, this time with Hilary at the helm, would have likely been a repeat of the same policies that defined the first Clinton administration, in which public opinion held a strong influence in their decisions. A concept that the Democrats appeared to have lost under Obama's leadership. Barrack Obama it would seem, appears to be a visionary who is too focused on his personal dream of "remaking America" than to react to the will of the people, as we now see what many were concerned with when they accused Mr. Obama of "inexperience." With only a prior two-year term in the senate, the current president appears to have yet learned the number one lesson of public policy - that one will not run policy that is overwhelmingly against the will of the public.
Where the concept of rational ignorance does not exist, it is unwise to pursue any form of policy that is counter to the constituency, and perhaps the upsetting new election will sound a wake up call for Mr. Obama. The future has yet to fully unfold, and the possiblity for learning from one's mistakes is always present. Nevertheless, the Clinton's would have already been familiar with this concept had they stepped into office in '08, and I for one would be regretting the decision to have made him the presidential canidate were I currently Martha Coakley.
Whatever happens, the debate on health-care will truly be remembered as a classic case study on distrusted government reform in a political environment of wide-spread voter scorn. How the recent Supreme Court decision to lift spending caps from corporate entities will surely serve to further the intriguing quality behind the matter matter.
~David Morris~
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Rustici Prediction
People have spoken. Over 60% of the American people oppose the purely democrat owned health care proposition. Still they attempt to ram it through via nuclear option. Should it pass, opponents of the package have until 2013 to stop it once and for all before its, and what amounts to arguably one of the worse nationalized medicine schema ever devised will suppress American prosperity for generations to come, as this new form of mandatory spending burdens the future.
Having recently spoken to Professor Thomas C. Rustici of George Mason University about the present political situation, an intriguing prediction was made under assumption that Democrats successfully push the thing through (of which he predicts that they will). As well as his own political strategy of how to roll it back.
In short, if this bill passes via nuclear option, then starting 2010 under the new congress led by perhaps Micheal Steele, republicans are going to have to nuclear option Obama right back.
The first point Professor Rustici raises, is that if this bill passes, then the Democrat party may as well be considered extinct considering the anger it will incite. Seniors are already aligned against him and what this bill will do to their medicare payments, the young who supported Obama grow ever more disillusioned as they struggle most of all to find work, and everyone else between will be insulted as their taxes are automatically raised (in a climate of heavy recession and inflation no less) courtesy of the soon-expired Bush cuts.
"Obama promised hope yet delivered fear..." cites the professor, especially with this health bill . And from the 60% disapproval of the democrat proposals, Rustici predicts a public outrage and disapproval rate for these so called "reforms" to peak upwards of 70%.
In other words, the Republicans will have overwhelming majority support to stop a successfully forced healthcare proposal before the cement drys. Over 100 seats between the House and Senate will be lost by the Dems in 2010, and Obama will be forced into a no-win situation as the final conspirator left unpunished in the eyes of the American people. Were he Micheal Steele says Prof. Rustici, he'd then use his position over the budget to completely shut down the federal government, until Barack Obama signed a bill annulling the launch of universal health care. Completely.
No federal funding for anything. At all. Not until Obama signs an annulment. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Nothing at all.
No federal funding for social security payments. No federal funding for student loans. No federal funding for further, "shovel-ready" porkulus projects. No federal grants. No federal subsidies. Not even the military, said Professor Rustici. Nothing budgeted to NORAD, FBI, CIA, the Army, etc.
Nothing. At all. Period. With it made very loud, and very, very clear, that the new Republicans will continue their nuclear winter of the federal government, until Obama is ready to sign the annulment of his nuclear rammed Health Care bill. After all, who'll care about a national defense when the greatest threat to liberty in the entirety of U.S. History has already been launched by the (and by this point, defunct) Democrat party? No terrorist attack, no external invasion is poised to ruin as many lives as this bill is set to do, should it be allowed to fully hatch in 2013.
Given the current public outrage and terror over the possibilties of a the rammed healthcare bill, it will be Obama left with the bag. According to Rustici, It will be Obama left with the blame, come what may from the republican controlled federal freeze. A line must be drawn says the Professor. An ultimatum must be set. The American people will be in overwhelming support of this courageous stand, and no amount of media spin will shake the polls in support of a conservative Congress's action. Micheal Steele must force an annulment out of Barrack Hussein Obama. Just as he would have originally forced his unpopular agenda against we, the American people.
~David Morris~
Having recently spoken to Professor Thomas C. Rustici of George Mason University about the present political situation, an intriguing prediction was made under assumption that Democrats successfully push the thing through (of which he predicts that they will). As well as his own political strategy of how to roll it back.
In short, if this bill passes via nuclear option, then starting 2010 under the new congress led by perhaps Micheal Steele, republicans are going to have to nuclear option Obama right back.
The first point Professor Rustici raises, is that if this bill passes, then the Democrat party may as well be considered extinct considering the anger it will incite. Seniors are already aligned against him and what this bill will do to their medicare payments, the young who supported Obama grow ever more disillusioned as they struggle most of all to find work, and everyone else between will be insulted as their taxes are automatically raised (in a climate of heavy recession and inflation no less) courtesy of the soon-expired Bush cuts.
"Obama promised hope yet delivered fear..." cites the professor, especially with this health bill . And from the 60% disapproval of the democrat proposals, Rustici predicts a public outrage and disapproval rate for these so called "reforms" to peak upwards of 70%.
In other words, the Republicans will have overwhelming majority support to stop a successfully forced healthcare proposal before the cement drys. Over 100 seats between the House and Senate will be lost by the Dems in 2010, and Obama will be forced into a no-win situation as the final conspirator left unpunished in the eyes of the American people. Were he Micheal Steele says Prof. Rustici, he'd then use his position over the budget to completely shut down the federal government, until Barack Obama signed a bill annulling the launch of universal health care. Completely.
No federal funding for anything. At all. Not until Obama signs an annulment. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Nothing at all.
No federal funding for social security payments. No federal funding for student loans. No federal funding for further, "shovel-ready" porkulus projects. No federal grants. No federal subsidies. Not even the military, said Professor Rustici. Nothing budgeted to NORAD, FBI, CIA, the Army, etc.
Nothing. At all. Period. With it made very loud, and very, very clear, that the new Republicans will continue their nuclear winter of the federal government, until Obama is ready to sign the annulment of his nuclear rammed Health Care bill. After all, who'll care about a national defense when the greatest threat to liberty in the entirety of U.S. History has already been launched by the (and by this point, defunct) Democrat party? No terrorist attack, no external invasion is poised to ruin as many lives as this bill is set to do, should it be allowed to fully hatch in 2013.
Given the current public outrage and terror over the possibilties of a the rammed healthcare bill, it will be Obama left with the bag. According to Rustici, It will be Obama left with the blame, come what may from the republican controlled federal freeze. A line must be drawn says the Professor. An ultimatum must be set. The American people will be in overwhelming support of this courageous stand, and no amount of media spin will shake the polls in support of a conservative Congress's action. Micheal Steele must force an annulment out of Barrack Hussein Obama. Just as he would have originally forced his unpopular agenda against we, the American people.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Healthcare Debate - A New Case Study in Public Choice
I am one who has always believed that governments should adhere to and follow the guidance of their constitutions. The question is then raised however in what is to actually enforce a constitution's rules upon said government. When raised with this question, I concluded that only a significant threat level of voter scorn can perform such a deed. That in a republic of theoretical constitutional bonds, rational ignorance is the primary threat to the continued liberty of the citizens. Where they are apathetic, leviathan will attempt to shake its binding off in that particular area. Where they are fervently aware, leviathan will stay put and obey.
For example, the constitution states restrictions on the government in respect to discrimination based on race, nationality, etc. At first, government ignored these precepts, however in the present day, such is the awareness of the voter in regards to issues of race, that blatantly racist laws could never pass through the congress, and leviathan now stays put in that area in fear of the punishment it would receive were it to pull anything like the Jim Crow laws ever again.
In regards to the current health care debate, the H.R. II proposal provides a number of questionable legitimacy issues concerning the Constitution, from the inherent takings of insurance companies as the public option begins to monopolize the health care sector, to the notion of fining those who would prefer not to be insured. Surely, thought the current political administration, under the guise of good intentions, the people would prove apathetic to this issue, and the bill could be passed without challenge.
Evidently, according to the fervor of town halls and the poll numbers that correlate to them, this is not to be the case. Congressmen are discovering rational ignorance to be surprisingly absent in regards to this issue, and a career-level make-or-break decision awaits many democrats who may be partisan to this issue. Surely, given the unpopularity of H.R. II and the falling approval of President Obama on this issue, any democrat who votes for this bill can expect this to be the final act of their political career come next election, especially those democrats from districts that voted for McCain as president. On the other hand, to resist the will of the White House could alienate them from their own party, and leave them without party support in vying for their reelection anyway.
Pass or fail, negative consequences or not, the choice these congresspeople face in the vote of H.R. II will undoubtedly be one for the text books in regards of issues concerning public choice.
~David Morris~
For example, the constitution states restrictions on the government in respect to discrimination based on race, nationality, etc. At first, government ignored these precepts, however in the present day, such is the awareness of the voter in regards to issues of race, that blatantly racist laws could never pass through the congress, and leviathan now stays put in that area in fear of the punishment it would receive were it to pull anything like the Jim Crow laws ever again.
In regards to the current health care debate, the H.R. II proposal provides a number of questionable legitimacy issues concerning the Constitution, from the inherent takings of insurance companies as the public option begins to monopolize the health care sector, to the notion of fining those who would prefer not to be insured. Surely, thought the current political administration, under the guise of good intentions, the people would prove apathetic to this issue, and the bill could be passed without challenge.
Evidently, according to the fervor of town halls and the poll numbers that correlate to them, this is not to be the case. Congressmen are discovering rational ignorance to be surprisingly absent in regards to this issue, and a career-level make-or-break decision awaits many democrats who may be partisan to this issue. Surely, given the unpopularity of H.R. II and the falling approval of President Obama on this issue, any democrat who votes for this bill can expect this to be the final act of their political career come next election, especially those democrats from districts that voted for McCain as president. On the other hand, to resist the will of the White House could alienate them from their own party, and leave them without party support in vying for their reelection anyway.
Pass or fail, negative consequences or not, the choice these congresspeople face in the vote of H.R. II will undoubtedly be one for the text books in regards of issues concerning public choice.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Latest Market Rally - Signs of a turn around?
Having been self-teaching myself investing lately, I have by extension grown to pay attention everyday to business news via CNBC. Last month of February, the Dow Jones bottomed out a 6876, a score it hadn't had since 1997. However for the month of march, it would appear to be slowly recovering, with the three day rally of last week (as of the time of this writing), restoring the Dow at a recent peak of 7571. What could attest to this market behavior? Could it be a sign of market recovery, or be merely a short run rally on account of some of the good news from the week of last?
Some of the attributes that may attest to the market's slow attitude shift would include the assurance by Bernanke (chairman of the Fed) that helped quell some of the pessimistic fear of the naturalization of banks. Talk of abolishing the Mark-to-Market rule that brought chaos to the books of many of these financial institutions, and the memo that was leaked from CitiGroup and Bank of America that they are still profitable has also aided in this. Bank of America for instance announced today (March 18th) that they in fact planned on being able to repay their TARP fund loan by the end of 2009 or early 2010, leading to a rally (which as an aside, led to this rookie investor making a profit in his practice portfolio, as I predicted that economic recovery would have to begin with real estate and financial sectors).
But is this really a long term recovery we are seeing? These market effects may be temporarily caused by the buy outs of Short Sellers in the market. Short sellers thrive on bearish markets, as they "borrow" a quantity of stock they speculate is going down, sell it, and then replace the borrowed quantity of stock after the stock price drops. If the price goes up against their bet, they are still contractually obligated to replace the stock they borrowed, whereby they would lose money.
Say for example you know that the price of your friend's used movie or videogame is $25, though in a week you understand that it will sell at only $15. You borrow the DVD from your friend, sell it for $25, and as the price becomes $15, you buy it back just as your friend is beginning to wonder what you've done with his disk. Your friend still has his DVD, but you just made $10. The risk you took was, had price of the movie actually gone up to $35 after you sold it at $25, you'd still need to replace the what you borrowed anyway, lest your friend discover what you were really doing with with his precious DVD and snap you in two as though you were a disk. You'd had lost $10.
Since the financial sector as experienced some unexpected good news as of late, this would account for a short term rally, as short sellers only profit on dying stocks, and must replace what they borrowed to protected their gains. However, President Obama still seeks his social programs and considers raising taxes on households above the $250k mark, and Nancy Polosi has begun speculative talks of starting a new stimulus package, which would no doubly lead to more pessimism of the future within wall street. Before this recession can truly, the sources of the Housing and Mortgage Crisis must be addressed. Mark-to-Market accounting must be forever done away with, and the policy mandate of Freddie and Fannie to promote indirect subprime Housing Welfare must cease.
Time will tell.
~David Morris~
Some of the attributes that may attest to the market's slow attitude shift would include the assurance by Bernanke (chairman of the Fed) that helped quell some of the pessimistic fear of the naturalization of banks. Talk of abolishing the Mark-to-Market rule that brought chaos to the books of many of these financial institutions, and the memo that was leaked from CitiGroup and Bank of America that they are still profitable has also aided in this. Bank of America for instance announced today (March 18th) that they in fact planned on being able to repay their TARP fund loan by the end of 2009 or early 2010, leading to a rally (which as an aside, led to this rookie investor making a profit in his practice portfolio, as I predicted that economic recovery would have to begin with real estate and financial sectors).
But is this really a long term recovery we are seeing? These market effects may be temporarily caused by the buy outs of Short Sellers in the market. Short sellers thrive on bearish markets, as they "borrow" a quantity of stock they speculate is going down, sell it, and then replace the borrowed quantity of stock after the stock price drops. If the price goes up against their bet, they are still contractually obligated to replace the stock they borrowed, whereby they would lose money.
Say for example you know that the price of your friend's used movie or videogame is $25, though in a week you understand that it will sell at only $15. You borrow the DVD from your friend, sell it for $25, and as the price becomes $15, you buy it back just as your friend is beginning to wonder what you've done with his disk. Your friend still has his DVD, but you just made $10. The risk you took was, had price of the movie actually gone up to $35 after you sold it at $25, you'd still need to replace the what you borrowed anyway, lest your friend discover what you were really doing with with his precious DVD and snap you in two as though you were a disk. You'd had lost $10.
Since the financial sector as experienced some unexpected good news as of late, this would account for a short term rally, as short sellers only profit on dying stocks, and must replace what they borrowed to protected their gains. However, President Obama still seeks his social programs and considers raising taxes on households above the $250k mark, and Nancy Polosi has begun speculative talks of starting a new stimulus package, which would no doubly lead to more pessimism of the future within wall street. Before this recession can truly, the sources of the Housing and Mortgage Crisis must be addressed. Mark-to-Market accounting must be forever done away with, and the policy mandate of Freddie and Fannie to promote indirect subprime Housing Welfare must cease.
Time will tell.
~David Morris~
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Why Bailing Out the Auto Industry is a bad idea.
In the midst of the current economic downturn, many businesses have called for bailouts from the government to save them from their dire circumstances. Admist the top of these to make the news as of late has been the auto industry. Their bailout proves tragic for not only will it fail to address the fundamental issues behind their poor performance, but also give congress leverage over on how to dictate the future activities of the industry.
The fundamental root problem behind the American big auto workers have been their cost structure, which is choked upon by obligations to unions. The high wages companies such as GM must pay for their workers, combined with the numbers of retirees who they are obligated to, has made such a company more of a retirement home first, and a auto producer second. Until these companies can be permitted to shake off such archaic union concessions in order to compete with the cost structures of their foreign competitors, no amount of taxpayer money can truly "resurrect" the industry.
What we have instead of a ressurection will in fact bear closer resemblance to necromancy; a zombie company that cannibalizes on taxpayer rather than healthingly sustaining its own self based on the merit of their products.
~David Morris~
The fundamental root problem behind the American big auto workers have been their cost structure, which is choked upon by obligations to unions. The high wages companies such as GM must pay for their workers, combined with the numbers of retirees who they are obligated to, has made such a company more of a retirement home first, and a auto producer second. Until these companies can be permitted to shake off such archaic union concessions in order to compete with the cost structures of their foreign competitors, no amount of taxpayer money can truly "resurrect" the industry.
What we have instead of a ressurection will in fact bear closer resemblance to necromancy; a zombie company that cannibalizes on taxpayer rather than healthingly sustaining its own self based on the merit of their products.
~David Morris~
An example of everyday government spending.
The following is an a interesting anecdote taken from the back cover of a book called "Burning Money" by Joseph Peter Grace (ISBN 0025449303). Its a common example of bueracratic processes unfortunately.
---
"An actual case.
One day the U.S. Navy decided to buy a hammer, the kind you buy for $7 at the corner hardware store. To the $7 cost of the hammer, add:
---
Makes one ponder why anyone would want to trust the government with other aspects of the economy, if they can't even handle a transaction as simple as this without spending wastefully on pork.
~David Morris~
---
"An actual case.
One day the U.S. Navy decided to buy a hammer, the kind you buy for $7 at the corner hardware store. To the $7 cost of the hammer, add:
- $41 to order the hammer and figure out how to use it.
- $93 to make sure the hammer worked.
- $102 for "manufacturing overhead."
- $37 to make sure there were spare parts for the hammer.
- $3 for packing the hammer for shipment.
- $90 for the contractor's "general administrative costs."
- $56 for the finder's fee.
- $7 for the "capital cost of money."
---
Makes one ponder why anyone would want to trust the government with other aspects of the economy, if they can't even handle a transaction as simple as this without spending wastefully on pork.
~David Morris~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)