The campaigns are winding down and the rhetoric has been spinning faster than a commode. We've all been listening to the candidates now for what, ten months, maybe four as the formal party candidates? There is one thing clearly obvious - neither candidate is a "change" candidate. Really.
The financial crisis is not a manufacture of the Bush administration. It began before that, with passage of the bill allowing CDS (credit derivitive swaps) that Bill Clinton signed, to Barney Franks ignorance about the oversight of the GSE's. Yes, W was also an idiot, but stupidity had many constituents in Washington. So, no change is going to come in this way; the same congressional leaders will be there, and that doesn't bode well. None are financial geniuses, or even at least smarties, so it's going to be a hard road.
So what kind of change do we need in Washington? Well, mostly the kind neither candidate are tallking about. Will either of them:
- stop cronyism?
- stop appointing campaign high rollers to positions?
- work across party lines in OUR best interests?
- put an end to the influence of political action committees and others?
- work for sensible legislation in opposition to their party wishes?
- be honest to us about the issues raised about them instead of whitewashing them?
- accept campaign reform, including campaign finance reform?
- admit the actual costs of their campaing promises?
- offer to serve only 1 term if they prove to be mismanagers like W?
Well of course not. Wholesale change in politics requires more nerve and strength of character than either candidate has shown or has.
Washington needs change, real change, not the gladhanding, happy talk change these two mainstream candidates have been pushing at us. These are both party functionaries and we can't expect anything from either of them of substance. Changing how we address the issues they raise isn't change, it's just another way of saying something. Change requires courage that could make substantive change but put your political life at risk.
Neither will go that far.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Woe to us!
The campaigns are winding down, and not a moment too soon. So far Obama's been accused of cavorting with terrorists and McCain of being a reincarnated GWB. Attack ads are dominating the airways, not just by the presidential candidates, but by senatorial candidates, the RNC and DNC and those committees senatorial campaign sub-committees.
Half-truths and lies have been common in political campaigns since Thomas Jefferson played dirty in 1800, using surrogates to cast aspersions upon John Adams. Yes, even before that, Aaron Burr worked against Adams during his first election, trying to rig the electoral vote.
This year, however, seems worse than many in memory, or at least in my memory. And the sad thing is, after all the rhetoric is done, all the claims and counter-claims, all the millions and millions spent to tell us how bad the other guy is, neither candidate appears capable of addressing a solution to the economic morass in which we've found ourselves.
Now, I don't expect one person to have an answer to it; it took most of the government to screw it up in the first place, both republicans and democrats again are equally culpable in this fiasco. But neither one has a clear enough grasp of how our country's business works to be able to concoct a workable general outline for progress. Both point the finger to Wall Street, both point to corporate and executive greed. But neither will admit or acknowledge Congress's part in all this. Why should they, they were part of it, happily politicizing away while all this went on.
There are alot of us who have been laid off from financial insitutions who, during our tenure there, raised the red flags, voiced concern and documented the issues. That's why we were laid off, in many cases. But look at this exchange: Rep. Barney Frank to FannieMae chairman Raines, "Do you feel you are under regulated?" Chairman Raines, "No I do not." Rep. Frank, "Then what are we doing here?" Look this up, it was part of one of Barney Franks show trials that did nothing but extend the problem; now he stands back and acts concerned over lax regulation.
Yes, W was an idiot too. There was collusion to make sure everyone could afford to get into a home, whether they could really afford it or not. So lax regulation became "government issue." It looks good politically to show how many more people are in homes than renting under your reign. Unfortunately, now those same people are in foreclosure, bankruptcy and other dire economic straights.
Okay, so I ramble. The upshot of all this is, I'm not keen on either one of these guys. If we're looking for change in Washington, it won't happen under either Obama or McCain no matter what they say. The political parties and a one-party congress assures it; even if the rancor between the parties could be turned to bi-partisanship, the game is the same.
Don't expect change; wish for it all you want, but don't expect it.
Half-truths and lies have been common in political campaigns since Thomas Jefferson played dirty in 1800, using surrogates to cast aspersions upon John Adams. Yes, even before that, Aaron Burr worked against Adams during his first election, trying to rig the electoral vote.
This year, however, seems worse than many in memory, or at least in my memory. And the sad thing is, after all the rhetoric is done, all the claims and counter-claims, all the millions and millions spent to tell us how bad the other guy is, neither candidate appears capable of addressing a solution to the economic morass in which we've found ourselves.
Now, I don't expect one person to have an answer to it; it took most of the government to screw it up in the first place, both republicans and democrats again are equally culpable in this fiasco. But neither one has a clear enough grasp of how our country's business works to be able to concoct a workable general outline for progress. Both point the finger to Wall Street, both point to corporate and executive greed. But neither will admit or acknowledge Congress's part in all this. Why should they, they were part of it, happily politicizing away while all this went on.
There are alot of us who have been laid off from financial insitutions who, during our tenure there, raised the red flags, voiced concern and documented the issues. That's why we were laid off, in many cases. But look at this exchange: Rep. Barney Frank to FannieMae chairman Raines, "Do you feel you are under regulated?" Chairman Raines, "No I do not." Rep. Frank, "Then what are we doing here?" Look this up, it was part of one of Barney Franks show trials that did nothing but extend the problem; now he stands back and acts concerned over lax regulation.
Yes, W was an idiot too. There was collusion to make sure everyone could afford to get into a home, whether they could really afford it or not. So lax regulation became "government issue." It looks good politically to show how many more people are in homes than renting under your reign. Unfortunately, now those same people are in foreclosure, bankruptcy and other dire economic straights.
Okay, so I ramble. The upshot of all this is, I'm not keen on either one of these guys. If we're looking for change in Washington, it won't happen under either Obama or McCain no matter what they say. The political parties and a one-party congress assures it; even if the rancor between the parties could be turned to bi-partisanship, the game is the same.
Don't expect change; wish for it all you want, but don't expect it.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Why don't they respond?
In todays environment, with credit tight and jobs being lost, more people are facing a layoff or have been laid off. Unemployment is rising to 6% and will likely go higher by 2009.
With all this, I'm wondering about employers. As with their accounting and internal compliance, are they also just lazy when it comes to job postings?
Let me expand on this. I've noticed a trend over the past few years when posting for a job that has been advertised. Typically, one doesn't get any response from an employer that they've received your resume and application; over the past few years, however, you don't even get any response if you get selected for an interview. What happens afterward? Sure they make a selection, but why can't they have the simple courtesy of notifying at least those they interviewed of the outcome?
I know, they use the excuse that they get soooo many applications they can't possibly answer them all. Did they ever use the same excuse with loan applications? Of course not. They just don't want to; it places them in a position to have to justify their decision, and heavens knows they can't be dong that! Heck, it's just easier to keep people hanging; so what if they have bills to pay, mortgages to meet, families to feed. They'll figure it out soon enough and apply somewher else.
Balderdash. Corporate America has just become lazy in this as in everything else. People aren't people, they're applicants or "resources" to be managed. We can't have "people" running around, that makes business too messy, what with being considerate, polite, and most of all, [dare I say it], loyal and all. If we're loyal to an employee, next we'll have to be so to our shareholders, then our customers. What about us, the executives, who's loyal to us? Well ya know, it all comes around to bite you on the tush, bud.
There are alot of people out there hurting right now and looking for work. The LEAST businesses can do is to respond to them. So it bumps your expense by ~$800 a month in having to send out postcards saying we selected someone else, or nothing to send an email to 2000 applicants. It's better having a bottom line than not, and treating applicants right means also treating customers right, because many apply to businesses they know. Mess with them and they'll leave you.
Companies have to have a broader perspective than they have, or have had. Maybe if they did, so much of what has happened over the past year would have been avoided. Loyalty comes down to simple respect.
Something many business have lost.
With all this, I'm wondering about employers. As with their accounting and internal compliance, are they also just lazy when it comes to job postings?
Let me expand on this. I've noticed a trend over the past few years when posting for a job that has been advertised. Typically, one doesn't get any response from an employer that they've received your resume and application; over the past few years, however, you don't even get any response if you get selected for an interview. What happens afterward? Sure they make a selection, but why can't they have the simple courtesy of notifying at least those they interviewed of the outcome?
I know, they use the excuse that they get soooo many applications they can't possibly answer them all. Did they ever use the same excuse with loan applications? Of course not. They just don't want to; it places them in a position to have to justify their decision, and heavens knows they can't be dong that! Heck, it's just easier to keep people hanging; so what if they have bills to pay, mortgages to meet, families to feed. They'll figure it out soon enough and apply somewher else.
Balderdash. Corporate America has just become lazy in this as in everything else. People aren't people, they're applicants or "resources" to be managed. We can't have "people" running around, that makes business too messy, what with being considerate, polite, and most of all, [dare I say it], loyal and all. If we're loyal to an employee, next we'll have to be so to our shareholders, then our customers. What about us, the executives, who's loyal to us? Well ya know, it all comes around to bite you on the tush, bud.
There are alot of people out there hurting right now and looking for work. The LEAST businesses can do is to respond to them. So it bumps your expense by ~$800 a month in having to send out postcards saying we selected someone else, or nothing to send an email to 2000 applicants. It's better having a bottom line than not, and treating applicants right means also treating customers right, because many apply to businesses they know. Mess with them and they'll leave you.
Companies have to have a broader perspective than they have, or have had. Maybe if they did, so much of what has happened over the past year would have been avoided. Loyalty comes down to simple respect.
Something many business have lost.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
$7B Ouch!
"Down and down we go, 'round and 'round we go..." The Dow goes down over 700 points, five major financial firms fail, credit markets get themselves in a knot and government largess gives away $700,000,000,000 of taxpayer money to help them get out of it. And, pundits are saying the reason the credit market is still non-functioning is that the banks don't trust each other right now. DUH! When y0u spent the last 8-10 years screwing each other with derivitives, mortgage backed securities and other packages containing crap, of course you don't trust the other guy, and they don't trust you!
Here's a thought. Rather than give the money to these firms by buying their troubled assets, why not just take them over and run all of them under a flagship United States Federal Bank, keeping their assets, both hard and soft, as collateral. Each new failure expands your market base and each becomes branches. The Bank keeps all fee income generated under the acquired banks account schemes in place at time of acquisition and applies it to the bailout account. All mortgage loans are rewritten to at least a 2% discount to help borrowers continue to pay and afford their homes and mitigate foreclosure activity. Management below senior management is retained to run the divisions with regulatory "managers" put in place to run the various regional divisions; this helps assure banking activities are on the level and provides ongoing oversight. Then, as the bank is showing stronger performance, chunks can be sold off to remaining healthy institutions, allowing them growth, market expansion and assuring the acquired assets and liabilities are reasonable and healthy. It also provides for growth to banks in a size they can accomodate, taking a smaller chunk rather than a whole business, such as BofA and Wachovia.
Sure, the government isn't in the business of running companies. Just bailing them out, as we've seen with Chrysler, AIG, etc. Why not get an equity stake in them; it works for Bershire Hathaway!
Here's a thought. Rather than give the money to these firms by buying their troubled assets, why not just take them over and run all of them under a flagship United States Federal Bank, keeping their assets, both hard and soft, as collateral. Each new failure expands your market base and each becomes branches. The Bank keeps all fee income generated under the acquired banks account schemes in place at time of acquisition and applies it to the bailout account. All mortgage loans are rewritten to at least a 2% discount to help borrowers continue to pay and afford their homes and mitigate foreclosure activity. Management below senior management is retained to run the divisions with regulatory "managers" put in place to run the various regional divisions; this helps assure banking activities are on the level and provides ongoing oversight. Then, as the bank is showing stronger performance, chunks can be sold off to remaining healthy institutions, allowing them growth, market expansion and assuring the acquired assets and liabilities are reasonable and healthy. It also provides for growth to banks in a size they can accomodate, taking a smaller chunk rather than a whole business, such as BofA and Wachovia.
Sure, the government isn't in the business of running companies. Just bailing them out, as we've seen with Chrysler, AIG, etc. Why not get an equity stake in them; it works for Bershire Hathaway!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
