As detailed in my previous entry, I’m an open source guy. I argued that it was the right approach for consumers overall as well as a long-term strategy to maximize profits. It would be logical for me to also support net neutrality. Placing a toll on certain internet traffic (or at a minimum prioritization) seems heavy handed. Particularly since so few companies would benefit (ATT, Comcast) in relation to the thousands that could be adversely impacted.
I worked several years at a competitive telecom service provider, so this issue was always front and center. This hurts smaller companies (particularly service providers) so it was a no brainer. It seems the latest ruling in DC was a big blow for net neutrality supporters, but I think the debate will continue for at least a few more years. Unfortunately, I think the law of deep pockets will probably prevail as they generally do when Washington and politics are involved.
For those that are not familiar with the issue at hand: AT&T and others want to have the right to optimize their networks by potentially reducing speeds and priority on bandwidth-intensive traffic. Opponents think traffic should not be regulated -- They say it’s a moral issue. But lets face it, for people like google, its more than just “do no evil.” Imagine a scenario where the few gatekeepers to the consumer’s internet access (ie. your internet service provider) could actually prioritize traffic, charge users for accessing certain content, or in an extreme situation, filter traffic. Hulu or YouTube would need to forge partnerships (read: pay) the likes of AT&T and Comcast to keep their traffic on par with other traffic. This would be fine for companies like Google or Apple that can afford to do so, but what about the millions of upstarts that don’t have that luxury ? Would users be now charged to access Facebook for example? Does this now seem to sound like that red far east country that the US reprimands for filtering internet traffic?
This puts more power in the hands of fewer companies as consolidation has hit the telecom providers (Ma Bell is back). What’s even worse is that these oligarchs are buying content providers which gives a greater incentive to censor traffic (Comcast is buying NBC). Do you think ESPN.com will be placed in the same light as say MSNBC ? Is that right ? No. We as consumers should choose our content, not our ISPs. The ISP should just be the “dumb” pipes that we pay for to access the internet. Sure they would make ESPN available, but it would be as difficult as using Google on new laptops. You have to go out of your way to disable the “ask” or “bing” toolbar and install the google one. It’s not terribly easy and people really don’t “opt-in” when that is their option. Something about this large telco utopia just doesn’t seem right.
But, from an Atma standpoint, is this the right position to take ? From an ISP perpsective, they have a decent gripe about net neutrality. They are spending billions of dollars upgrading their networks and have the right to optimize their networks since they own them. It would be one thing if the internet pipes were the legacy networks that were laid by the US government, but they are not. Building “always on” robust internet networks to fulfill the needs of our ever increasing bandwidth demands are not cheap. Our $50/mo hardly covers the cost of these capital expenditures.
And they are not getting subsidized by anyone. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to charge what they want? If applications like Napster are putting such a strain on their networks, why can’t they route that traffic differently in order to optimize their network performance?
Moreover, what happened to all the alternative internet sources that were supposed to compete with ATT ? Wireless? Ethernet over power? To a certain extent, wireless (over 3G/4G networks) has become a viable alternative, but this factor hasn’t increased competition. The same companies that provide internet to your home also do so over your mobile (ATT, Verizon). My point is, although I don’t like the idea of having a few providers with this potential power to control our internet experience, they are the ones with skin in the game. Other competitiors have not been viable – why hasn’t any true alternatives surfaced? In a free market system, you follow the flow of money. And unfortunately, the money, in this case, has come from the companies we love to hate.
So where do you stand on net neutrality and why? I’ve been so trained to believe that it is of utter importance for the US to maintain its neutrality stance, but I’m wondering if this has the effect of enabling freeloaders to benefit from others’ investments. I don’t think there is an easy answer. My sense is the optimal position would be that net neutrality be maintained but that the large telcos are allowed to charge more based on bandwidth usage versus a flat fee we enjoy now (ATT just enacted this for thier wireless networks). In the end, I think it will cost us as consumers a bit more, but the current subsidized pricing model is just not sustainable in the long-term anyway. I’m quite surprised that I actually see myself siding with the ATTs of the world a little bit, but perhaps that’s what happens when you stay away too long from an entrepreneurial environment.
11 June 2010
18 May 2010
closed systems - bad for us and bad for profits
As a free market technology enthusiast, the concept of closed systems is in simple terms, evil. I’m all for protecting intellectual property, but companies that try to force its customers to buy inferior products through its market dominance disgust me. If you sell widgets, don’t make me buy your screws. They don’t embrace uniform standards, and focus more on competition squishing rather than creating quality products. They stifle innovation, leave consumers with fewer alternatives, and create far less value for society as a whole as they are no better at making screws than I am. The good news, however, is that these strategies generally fail in the long term. Some instances require more patience than others.
Sony tried to do this in the early 90’s. They had the first mover advantage with digital cameras. The early adopters adopted. They proceeded to create a proprietary-based system where a Sony customer was forced to buy closed memory cards, batteries, and parts for their camera. I’m not sure about you, but Sony doesn’t come to mind when I think batteries. The Nikon’s and Canons of the world adopted more open standards (USB, SD, etc.) and crushed Sony. Trying to make a few extra bucks on something they had no competitive advantage in cost Sony a multi-billion dollar market opportunity (and their shareholders dearly).
Microsoft. The company everyone loves to hate. They tried bundling a much inferior IE web browser using their Windows platform. They were a bit more successful, primarily because of their near 100% PC market share. Talk about lack of innovation though. How about the 5 year project known as Vista? Microsoft is closed-source, restricts the number of 3rd party apps, and has no real incentive in giving the consumer what they wanted. It merely became a product one was forced to use when you bought a computer. And that’s the reputation they carry today.
But watch out. The desktop is dead. The laptop is aging rapidly. Sure, Microsoft 7 is supposed to be better (or a rip-off of Mac). As the devices change, so will the operating system. Microsoft failed in its attempt of cornering the mobile OS market, and is behind in the new generation of IP-based smart devices. Internet-based technologies struck straight through the heart of Microsoft. Google made search, just that. A simple, user friendly task. Linux and other open source platforms came back to life. Programmers were willing to share their talents to make the world a better place. Companies like Warner Brothers cringed (and almost died) when their world of $15 CDs came to a grinding halt. Although Microsoft has more money than god right now, their success is not assured. Their cash generation may have covered many bad bets in the past (can you say XBOX or Zune?), but the game, thanks to open technology, is changing.
There are hundreds of other examples. I can’t wait until 2014 until the Wright Amendment finally relieves Southwest Airlines from the illogical DFW Airport monopoly. Can you believe it’s the only major airport with no public transportation access to it? Although the $17/day parking looks juicy right now, it won’t survive in the long-term.
I love companies that create markets, products, and innovation that we as consumers embrace. Not because we are forced into it, rather its’ because the product is better than what’s currently available in the market. This not only benefits society as a whole, but it also forces companies to constantly adapt, and stay abreast of its customer needs. Sounds like a winning long-term business plan to me. Companies like Apple and AT&T have learned this and moved from restricted to more open distribution models. Perhaps this free “Office” online is the start of Microsoft’s changing ways, but somehow I doubt they get it. Steve Ballmer was the one that exclaimed the IPhone would never “make it” at one of the CES shows a few years ago.
Sony tried to do this in the early 90’s. They had the first mover advantage with digital cameras. The early adopters adopted. They proceeded to create a proprietary-based system where a Sony customer was forced to buy closed memory cards, batteries, and parts for their camera. I’m not sure about you, but Sony doesn’t come to mind when I think batteries. The Nikon’s and Canons of the world adopted more open standards (USB, SD, etc.) and crushed Sony. Trying to make a few extra bucks on something they had no competitive advantage in cost Sony a multi-billion dollar market opportunity (and their shareholders dearly).
Microsoft. The company everyone loves to hate. They tried bundling a much inferior IE web browser using their Windows platform. They were a bit more successful, primarily because of their near 100% PC market share. Talk about lack of innovation though. How about the 5 year project known as Vista? Microsoft is closed-source, restricts the number of 3rd party apps, and has no real incentive in giving the consumer what they wanted. It merely became a product one was forced to use when you bought a computer. And that’s the reputation they carry today.
But watch out. The desktop is dead. The laptop is aging rapidly. Sure, Microsoft 7 is supposed to be better (or a rip-off of Mac). As the devices change, so will the operating system. Microsoft failed in its attempt of cornering the mobile OS market, and is behind in the new generation of IP-based smart devices. Internet-based technologies struck straight through the heart of Microsoft. Google made search, just that. A simple, user friendly task. Linux and other open source platforms came back to life. Programmers were willing to share their talents to make the world a better place. Companies like Warner Brothers cringed (and almost died) when their world of $15 CDs came to a grinding halt. Although Microsoft has more money than god right now, their success is not assured. Their cash generation may have covered many bad bets in the past (can you say XBOX or Zune?), but the game, thanks to open technology, is changing.
There are hundreds of other examples. I can’t wait until 2014 until the Wright Amendment finally relieves Southwest Airlines from the illogical DFW Airport monopoly. Can you believe it’s the only major airport with no public transportation access to it? Although the $17/day parking looks juicy right now, it won’t survive in the long-term.
I love companies that create markets, products, and innovation that we as consumers embrace. Not because we are forced into it, rather its’ because the product is better than what’s currently available in the market. This not only benefits society as a whole, but it also forces companies to constantly adapt, and stay abreast of its customer needs. Sounds like a winning long-term business plan to me. Companies like Apple and AT&T have learned this and moved from restricted to more open distribution models. Perhaps this free “Office” online is the start of Microsoft’s changing ways, but somehow I doubt they get it. Steve Ballmer was the one that exclaimed the IPhone would never “make it” at one of the CES shows a few years ago.
02 May 2010
Greedy Goldman
I havent been following the Goldman scandal particularly closely - because i generally think government tends to overreact as they look for scapegoats for their failings (lets give cheap money to everyone to buy houses whether they can afford it or not!) or after a large crisis (remember Sarbanes Oxley?). So please don't ask me to define "Abacus" or whiteboard the flow of money of the Goldman transactions. I'm also going under the assumption that Goldman didn't break the law. If they did end up doing so, then its a different post.
But as I see it - here's the crux of the issue at hand. Goldman brokered the buying of securities by their clients. Either as solely a market making intermediary, but in other instances as an advisior. And quite an expensive advisor - we're not talking about $8.95 online trades. On the other hand, they were using their own money to "short" many of these same investments they were recommending & brokering. Thus, as their clients were taking it in the shorts, Goldman was raking in lots of money through their short positions. A conflict of interest ? Absolutely. But should the government intervene ? Absolutely not (unless they truly have a case that executives broke the law).
I'd be pretty pissed if I was a Goldman client. I'd leave and go to one of the many other wall street firms that would chomp at the bit for a chance for my millions of investment dollars. Despite Goldman making all this money for me in the past, they betrayed their fiduciary obligation. Have all of their clients left ? No, not yet anyway. Goldman's stock has always outperformed its peers during the crisis (and actually stayed pretty firm during the investigation until the government announced a criminal investigation).
To me, its merely a question of channel conflict. Every industry has this conflict, and customers are always angry about it. But if they like the product or service, they seem to bite their tongue and continue as a client. Every large corporoation, for example, sells through distibutors in addition to directly to consumers. This happens everywhere, successful corporations hit a ceiling in their profit-making ability, so they go and try to capture some of their customer's profits. There was good ol' channel conflict at Goldman here. They have one side of the house trying to serve institutional clients. And the other that is trying to make a return on their own money. Neither side talks to each other, and neither side shares information with the other. Even though the two divisions rollup into corporate, they act as two separate entities. Sometimes one side does better, sometimes the other does well. Rarely do they move in the same direction. At least that's what is supposed to happen in theory.
Where was the government when my 1000 shares of CDNow.com went to $0? What about when my Citigroup preferred stopped paying dividends and fell by 98%? Why aren't they suing Al Gore and the internet for not making my investments viable ? If they are looking out for the multi-zillionaires that were betrayed as Goldman clients, what about the regular investors like you and me ? Presumably, we need the protection far more thang Goldman's informed institutional investors.
Everyone's pissed at Goldman. They made a ton of money, while the taxpayers bailed out subpar banks. Goldman didn't get the country in this mess. They didn't underwrite and package worthless residential mortgages, nor do they even loan money to homebuyers. They didn't need bailout money, rather they were forced to take it by the government. Guess who paid it back first ? So the bonuses and expontential stock grants should be meaningless to taxpayers or shareholders of other companies as long as they don't create harm to society. Is this right ? Am i missing something here ? If i'm not an investor in Goldman or I didn't have to backstop this company, why should i care how much their employees make ? Jealous, of course. A right to be? Probably not.
So let's lynch them. Its popular and easy. We as the government are highly unpopular right now with our ballooning of the entitilement system and taxes. Let's go after the bad boys that are easy to hate. Let's take away their millions of bonuses. That will show them. Show them what exactly ? You think these greedy bankers will stop being greedy. No. They'll just find another sandbox.
Why are we attacking successful corporations for being too successful ? Financial innovation (although I agree that all of this should be regulated) has kept the US as the financial center of the world. This has attracted jobs, international money, and a core strength that other countries have had a hard time replicating. By turning wall street into the EU, i don't think we're helping the country out in the long run.
If Goldman did break the law - they should be punished. Enron and Worldcom should be punished (and were). But from what I have read so far, this investigation seems like a witchhunt. If it proves to be just that, we will have tarnished the most reputed financial institution in the world. But my concern is not for Goldman, rather more about if the government goes too far and tarnishes one of the few industrial advantages that this country still maintains. Let's see how the story plays out....
But as I see it - here's the crux of the issue at hand. Goldman brokered the buying of securities by their clients. Either as solely a market making intermediary, but in other instances as an advisior. And quite an expensive advisor - we're not talking about $8.95 online trades. On the other hand, they were using their own money to "short" many of these same investments they were recommending & brokering. Thus, as their clients were taking it in the shorts, Goldman was raking in lots of money through their short positions. A conflict of interest ? Absolutely. But should the government intervene ? Absolutely not (unless they truly have a case that executives broke the law).
I'd be pretty pissed if I was a Goldman client. I'd leave and go to one of the many other wall street firms that would chomp at the bit for a chance for my millions of investment dollars. Despite Goldman making all this money for me in the past, they betrayed their fiduciary obligation. Have all of their clients left ? No, not yet anyway. Goldman's stock has always outperformed its peers during the crisis (and actually stayed pretty firm during the investigation until the government announced a criminal investigation).
To me, its merely a question of channel conflict. Every industry has this conflict, and customers are always angry about it. But if they like the product or service, they seem to bite their tongue and continue as a client. Every large corporoation, for example, sells through distibutors in addition to directly to consumers. This happens everywhere, successful corporations hit a ceiling in their profit-making ability, so they go and try to capture some of their customer's profits. There was good ol' channel conflict at Goldman here. They have one side of the house trying to serve institutional clients. And the other that is trying to make a return on their own money. Neither side talks to each other, and neither side shares information with the other. Even though the two divisions rollup into corporate, they act as two separate entities. Sometimes one side does better, sometimes the other does well. Rarely do they move in the same direction. At least that's what is supposed to happen in theory.
Where was the government when my 1000 shares of CDNow.com went to $0? What about when my Citigroup preferred stopped paying dividends and fell by 98%? Why aren't they suing Al Gore and the internet for not making my investments viable ? If they are looking out for the multi-zillionaires that were betrayed as Goldman clients, what about the regular investors like you and me ? Presumably, we need the protection far more thang Goldman's informed institutional investors.
Everyone's pissed at Goldman. They made a ton of money, while the taxpayers bailed out subpar banks. Goldman didn't get the country in this mess. They didn't underwrite and package worthless residential mortgages, nor do they even loan money to homebuyers. They didn't need bailout money, rather they were forced to take it by the government. Guess who paid it back first ? So the bonuses and expontential stock grants should be meaningless to taxpayers or shareholders of other companies as long as they don't create harm to society. Is this right ? Am i missing something here ? If i'm not an investor in Goldman or I didn't have to backstop this company, why should i care how much their employees make ? Jealous, of course. A right to be? Probably not.
So let's lynch them. Its popular and easy. We as the government are highly unpopular right now with our ballooning of the entitilement system and taxes. Let's go after the bad boys that are easy to hate. Let's take away their millions of bonuses. That will show them. Show them what exactly ? You think these greedy bankers will stop being greedy. No. They'll just find another sandbox.
Why are we attacking successful corporations for being too successful ? Financial innovation (although I agree that all of this should be regulated) has kept the US as the financial center of the world. This has attracted jobs, international money, and a core strength that other countries have had a hard time replicating. By turning wall street into the EU, i don't think we're helping the country out in the long run.
If Goldman did break the law - they should be punished. Enron and Worldcom should be punished (and were). But from what I have read so far, this investigation seems like a witchhunt. If it proves to be just that, we will have tarnished the most reputed financial institution in the world. But my concern is not for Goldman, rather more about if the government goes too far and tarnishes one of the few industrial advantages that this country still maintains. Let's see how the story plays out....
27 April 2010
M&A - good or evil ?
Hertz announced today its acquiring Dollar/Thrifty for $1.2B. My initial reaction was "Great, rates are going to go up." And they will. I was also reminded of how I really never understood a rental car company's business model. I was in philly a few weeks ago and rented a midsize car for $40 for three days. And that was after $15 of airport fees. No advance reservation required, no cancellation fees (you can just not show up and you won't be billed). How does this business make money? I heard its on insurance (vis -a vis-the Circuit City "warranty" model) - we know how that generally works out in the long-run.
It may be at the business-customer level. But I digress.
It got me thinking about something very personal. Is M&A good or evil ? Is it a net gain or loss for society as a whole ? Being a corporate M&A guy, it behooves me to think the former, otherwise it's like I'm working for Microsoft :). But looking at it from a purely long-term, Atma standpoint, i'm not so sure. Just to clarify, i'm talking about mega-mergers such as the Hertz/Thrifty deal.
First - lets look at it from a shareholder point of view. Everyone's heard the old adage that at least 80% of all mergers fail to create shareholder value. The hedge funds have this right - buy the acquiree, short the acquiror. Synergies are never fully realized, but more often than not, it comes down to simply overpaying. So why does EVERY corporation try to beat the odds? The quick answer is that Management is incentivized to do so. It's much easier to do one big acquisition then try year over year, quarter over quarter, to churn out consistent growth. But in the end, shareholders always lose.
Now - the employees. Initial view is that layoffs are always part of a megadeal. "Cost synergies", while I argue should be last on the list of benefits, are always the first to be announced. It's almost as important as the deal itself. Although short-term, this looks like a negative, it may not be in the long-run. If the company being acquired is poorly run or not competitive, a merger may actually save more jobs than the failing company could do on its own. Its sort of like the concept of "outsourcing". Even though its a net gain to the US (US multi-nationals realize the biggest returns on outsourcing), people are a bit myopic and see the short-term cuts as bad. So my vote here is that its "too close to call."
Now us as consumers. We ALWAYS lose. Even if some synergies are realized, those profits stay within the companies (look at the massive cash balances on most large company's books) or show up as bonuses to executives. Plain and simple - there is one less competitor in the marketplace. The impact varies from case to case. If #1 buys #2, forget about any consumer benefits. If #1 buys #10, it may have a much lesser impact. But the impact will generally be negative nonetheless. Prices generally rise (after an initial integration period where companies change as little as possible so they don't frighten away customers and other stakeholders), and selection generally drops. With Hertz, you're going to get increased pricing all around. Has anyone bought a razor blade under $20 bucks these days? Gilette (now P&G) did a great job of swallowing its peers. Look at consolidating markets; it's hard to find true competition in those arenas. The good news is technology and internet are game-changers that will impact even the most monopolistic industries.
So what about the historical strategic deals ? You know those instances where 1 + 1 = 3 ? The ones that the thought leaders describe as brilliant, or light years ahead of its time ? AOL + Time Warner. Sprint + Nextel. Can anyone name any of these that fit this category ? Any ideas ? I can't think of one.
So who wins? Well, for one, its the bankers and attorneys. The fees generated are sick. I'm all for the market dictating the price for goods and services - but even a free market capitalist like me has a hard time justifying the excessive advisor fees. For two, its management. I alluded to this earlier, they all have employment agreements which pay huge sums of money (in the form of cash, unrestricted stock, in the money options, etc..) for a "change in control." Huge. All in, these fees can easily total 10 -15% of the overall deal size (depending on circumstance of course). Hard to find synergies to compensate for that ? So are they acting in the best interest of sharholders or themselves ?
So all signs point to Evil ? We'll i hate to sound like a cynic, but generally on the mega deals, I think its true. There is so much execution risk and so many wrong incentives by executives trying to "push" deals through that shareholders, employees (maybe), and consumers are generally worse off.
So where is the good ? I think its in upstarts. In new ideas not acquired ones. Businesses built from the ground up, not from the top of the ivory tower. It's the Buffets, and Rockfellers, yes and even the Gates of the world that become respected industrialists by just that. They weren't "Barbarians at the Gate" or financial engineers, or even people that buy companies for a living (present company excluded). So in my opinion, business is good if it creates a tangible benefit to consumers, not just recycled through retained earnings.
So you tell me, is this post good or evil ? Right or Wrong ?
It may be at the business-customer level. But I digress.
It got me thinking about something very personal. Is M&A good or evil ? Is it a net gain or loss for society as a whole ? Being a corporate M&A guy, it behooves me to think the former, otherwise it's like I'm working for Microsoft :). But looking at it from a purely long-term, Atma standpoint, i'm not so sure. Just to clarify, i'm talking about mega-mergers such as the Hertz/Thrifty deal.
First - lets look at it from a shareholder point of view. Everyone's heard the old adage that at least 80% of all mergers fail to create shareholder value. The hedge funds have this right - buy the acquiree, short the acquiror. Synergies are never fully realized, but more often than not, it comes down to simply overpaying. So why does EVERY corporation try to beat the odds? The quick answer is that Management is incentivized to do so. It's much easier to do one big acquisition then try year over year, quarter over quarter, to churn out consistent growth. But in the end, shareholders always lose.
Now - the employees. Initial view is that layoffs are always part of a megadeal. "Cost synergies", while I argue should be last on the list of benefits, are always the first to be announced. It's almost as important as the deal itself. Although short-term, this looks like a negative, it may not be in the long-run. If the company being acquired is poorly run or not competitive, a merger may actually save more jobs than the failing company could do on its own. Its sort of like the concept of "outsourcing". Even though its a net gain to the US (US multi-nationals realize the biggest returns on outsourcing), people are a bit myopic and see the short-term cuts as bad. So my vote here is that its "too close to call."
Now us as consumers. We ALWAYS lose. Even if some synergies are realized, those profits stay within the companies (look at the massive cash balances on most large company's books) or show up as bonuses to executives. Plain and simple - there is one less competitor in the marketplace. The impact varies from case to case. If #1 buys #2, forget about any consumer benefits. If #1 buys #10, it may have a much lesser impact. But the impact will generally be negative nonetheless. Prices generally rise (after an initial integration period where companies change as little as possible so they don't frighten away customers and other stakeholders), and selection generally drops. With Hertz, you're going to get increased pricing all around. Has anyone bought a razor blade under $20 bucks these days? Gilette (now P&G) did a great job of swallowing its peers. Look at consolidating markets; it's hard to find true competition in those arenas. The good news is technology and internet are game-changers that will impact even the most monopolistic industries.
So what about the historical strategic deals ? You know those instances where 1 + 1 = 3 ? The ones that the thought leaders describe as brilliant, or light years ahead of its time ? AOL + Time Warner. Sprint + Nextel. Can anyone name any of these that fit this category ? Any ideas ? I can't think of one.
So who wins? Well, for one, its the bankers and attorneys. The fees generated are sick. I'm all for the market dictating the price for goods and services - but even a free market capitalist like me has a hard time justifying the excessive advisor fees. For two, its management. I alluded to this earlier, they all have employment agreements which pay huge sums of money (in the form of cash, unrestricted stock, in the money options, etc..) for a "change in control." Huge. All in, these fees can easily total 10 -15% of the overall deal size (depending on circumstance of course). Hard to find synergies to compensate for that ? So are they acting in the best interest of sharholders or themselves ?
So all signs point to Evil ? We'll i hate to sound like a cynic, but generally on the mega deals, I think its true. There is so much execution risk and so many wrong incentives by executives trying to "push" deals through that shareholders, employees (maybe), and consumers are generally worse off.
So where is the good ? I think its in upstarts. In new ideas not acquired ones. Businesses built from the ground up, not from the top of the ivory tower. It's the Buffets, and Rockfellers, yes and even the Gates of the world that become respected industrialists by just that. They weren't "Barbarians at the Gate" or financial engineers, or even people that buy companies for a living (present company excluded). So in my opinion, business is good if it creates a tangible benefit to consumers, not just recycled through retained earnings.
So you tell me, is this post good or evil ? Right or Wrong ?
25 April 2010
tea parties and obama-nomics
So despite being a self-proclaimed liberatarian, I haven't quite yet joined the ranks of the tea partiers. Less is more when it comes to government, but there are too many scary people involved in the latest fad (read: palin).
I'll admit, i was charmed by the spell of Obama in 2008. He was so pragmatic, technologically savvy (I was impressed by his grassroots online platform), and seemed to "get" the new world from a new generation's perspective. As small government minded as I am, I thought he would take a practical approach to healthcare, world politics, and the new economy. Plus, I think everyone, including myself, was still reeling from the bluderous Bush years from ill-fated wars to the distarous "relief" in my homebase of Lousiana after Katrina.
A year or so later, I am disappointed in how foolish I was. I feel like a grandma who just bought some magazines in hopes of winning the $1M sweepstakes. Turns out, not only was Omama a Pelosi-esque "tax and spend" extremist liberal, he possessed the dangerous charisma and political knowhow to get bad legistlation passed. And the next generation will be left to suffer the consquences.
I, like most people, think universal healthcare is a good thing. I think all people (not just americans) have the inalienable rights of adequate health and education. Everyone deserves this much. But strong-arming a bill that makes no systemic changes to our broken system and doing so with outright misrepresentations (10 years of revenue and only 6 years of costs in their $1T 10 year estimated costs).
Who will be hurt the most ? In reality, all of us. Small businesses will employ less people or face stiff penalties. Everyone get ready for queues to your internist. Taxes will now see the same hockey stick growth unseen since the dot-com growth projections. Does everyone know that a VAT tax is not optional but imminent? This will happen. Can you believe it ? Obama actually sees Europe as a model for America. Has anyone looked at unemployment, prosperity, and GDP growth historically in the US compared to Europe ? There is no comparison.
Don't believe me that it doesn't work? Compare Texas to California. California is riddled with red tape, beauracracies, and a tax and spend governmental DNA so deep that even the "Terminator" could not change the state of affairs. Where are they now? Businesses can't find exits quick enough. The government is issuing "IOUs" because they are near bankrupt. Nice job Pelosi. Texas, on the other hand, is business friendly, has no income tax, and a free market system. How are they doing in the downturn ? Unemployment 2-3% less than the overall nation. 4 of the Top 6 growing cities last year. For the first time this year, Texas tied California for tops in the number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in a state (guess at who's expense!). Look at the Austin real estate market; Its propped up by all of the Californians planning their move. The only downside is that the recession highlighted the sucesses of Texas and now people are flocking in huge numbers. Stay out! Collect your IOUs and continue to tax others for your never-ending entitlements.
So Bush doesn't look so bad after all ? No, he still does. I can't put the federal deficit on just Obama. I think Bill Clinton had it right. I know he was fortunate that he governed during the boom times so had a big pile of tax revenues at his disposal. But he did good things in the right way. He protected the integrity of free markets, opened international trade, reduced spending, created welfare reform, and did generally "moral" things with respect to social issues. And never mischeviously or through brute political force that Obama and Bush did. I never thought I would say this, but perhaps we all should have voted for Hilary....Or maybe Ron Paul.
YC6BAVAJTNVE
I'll admit, i was charmed by the spell of Obama in 2008. He was so pragmatic, technologically savvy (I was impressed by his grassroots online platform), and seemed to "get" the new world from a new generation's perspective. As small government minded as I am, I thought he would take a practical approach to healthcare, world politics, and the new economy. Plus, I think everyone, including myself, was still reeling from the bluderous Bush years from ill-fated wars to the distarous "relief" in my homebase of Lousiana after Katrina.
A year or so later, I am disappointed in how foolish I was. I feel like a grandma who just bought some magazines in hopes of winning the $1M sweepstakes. Turns out, not only was Omama a Pelosi-esque "tax and spend" extremist liberal, he possessed the dangerous charisma and political knowhow to get bad legistlation passed. And the next generation will be left to suffer the consquences.
I, like most people, think universal healthcare is a good thing. I think all people (not just americans) have the inalienable rights of adequate health and education. Everyone deserves this much. But strong-arming a bill that makes no systemic changes to our broken system and doing so with outright misrepresentations (10 years of revenue and only 6 years of costs in their $1T 10 year estimated costs).
Who will be hurt the most ? In reality, all of us. Small businesses will employ less people or face stiff penalties. Everyone get ready for queues to your internist. Taxes will now see the same hockey stick growth unseen since the dot-com growth projections. Does everyone know that a VAT tax is not optional but imminent? This will happen. Can you believe it ? Obama actually sees Europe as a model for America. Has anyone looked at unemployment, prosperity, and GDP growth historically in the US compared to Europe ? There is no comparison.
Don't believe me that it doesn't work? Compare Texas to California. California is riddled with red tape, beauracracies, and a tax and spend governmental DNA so deep that even the "Terminator" could not change the state of affairs. Where are they now? Businesses can't find exits quick enough. The government is issuing "IOUs" because they are near bankrupt. Nice job Pelosi. Texas, on the other hand, is business friendly, has no income tax, and a free market system. How are they doing in the downturn ? Unemployment 2-3% less than the overall nation. 4 of the Top 6 growing cities last year. For the first time this year, Texas tied California for tops in the number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in a state (guess at who's expense!). Look at the Austin real estate market; Its propped up by all of the Californians planning their move. The only downside is that the recession highlighted the sucesses of Texas and now people are flocking in huge numbers. Stay out! Collect your IOUs and continue to tax others for your never-ending entitlements.
So Bush doesn't look so bad after all ? No, he still does. I can't put the federal deficit on just Obama. I think Bill Clinton had it right. I know he was fortunate that he governed during the boom times so had a big pile of tax revenues at his disposal. But he did good things in the right way. He protected the integrity of free markets, opened international trade, reduced spending, created welfare reform, and did generally "moral" things with respect to social issues. And never mischeviously or through brute political force that Obama and Bush did. I never thought I would say this, but perhaps we all should have voted for Hilary....Or maybe Ron Paul.
YC6BAVAJTNVE
intro to atma
There are many places that detail the philosophy of Ayn Rand and its current day relevance. While her writings have built the foundation of my views, particularly as it applies to the "morality" of business; this is not what Atma attempts to do in its blog.
Here is where I rant. About what I enjoy the most. Business, strategy, the philosphical underpinnings of current events within the context of my core beliefs. What I envision is a southern style gumbo of wsj, unapologetic capitlism, and modern day hinduism. Only you can tell me if this needs slightly more cayenne or that we should just start over from scratch.
How do disruptive concepts and innovative companies such as google or starbucks preach the Rand way of life ? Why do rackets such as the mls and real estate agents need to face real competition like newspapers have ? What is fine line between free market and "american greed" ? These are just a few of my ideas...
John Galt turned his back to society when the unrelenting demands of an entitlement-driven society asked for more. While I generally agree, I take a more balanced approach. Like Alan Greenspan recently said during the aftermath of the financial crisis, he was shocked that his core belief of "free markets" failed for the first time. It seems like they do from time to time (albeit very rarely), and I want to contemplate why.
Hopefully for the few that will read this, atma will lead to open, balanced discussions, new approaches to business, and thought-provoking, philosophical-driven debates about the current market headlines. Hope you enjoy.
Here is where I rant. About what I enjoy the most. Business, strategy, the philosphical underpinnings of current events within the context of my core beliefs. What I envision is a southern style gumbo of wsj, unapologetic capitlism, and modern day hinduism. Only you can tell me if this needs slightly more cayenne or that we should just start over from scratch.
How do disruptive concepts and innovative companies such as google or starbucks preach the Rand way of life ? Why do rackets such as the mls and real estate agents need to face real competition like newspapers have ? What is fine line between free market and "american greed" ? These are just a few of my ideas...
John Galt turned his back to society when the unrelenting demands of an entitlement-driven society asked for more. While I generally agree, I take a more balanced approach. Like Alan Greenspan recently said during the aftermath of the financial crisis, he was shocked that his core belief of "free markets" failed for the first time. It seems like they do from time to time (albeit very rarely), and I want to contemplate why.
Hopefully for the few that will read this, atma will lead to open, balanced discussions, new approaches to business, and thought-provoking, philosophical-driven debates about the current market headlines. Hope you enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)