EIN News says, "Gordon Brown Joins French and Germans in Call for Global Crackdown on Bank Bonuses. Gordon Brown joined his German and French counterparts today in calling for G20 leaders to impose tough global rules on bank bonuses, after holding out for days to weaken plans for caps on individual payments. (guardian.co.uk)".
In the US, we have also had similar exorbitant bonuses paid to Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and others in Corporate Administrations of industries, banks, and other services. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are particularly egregious examples of this practice within semi-government operations.
Wikipedia defines Unfair Business Practices as encompassing fraud, misrepresentation, and oppressive or unconscionable acts or practices by business, often against consumers. These are prohibited by law in many countries. For instance, in the European Union, each member state must regulate unfair business practices in accordance with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, subject to transitional periods. Unfair business practices may arise in many areas, including matters involving the purchase of products and services by consumers
The US has had for many years a practice of Interlocking Corporate Directorships. Such Directorship operates on the basis that a CEO of Corporation A serves on the Board of Directors of Corporation B. The CEO of Corporation B simultaneously serves as a Director on the board of Corporation A. There has usually been a pre-agreement among two or more of the CEOs and Directors concerning salaries and bonuses. In effect, the CEO of Corporation A will have a very nice salary and bonus approved by the Board of Corporation B, which contains the CEO of Corporation B and likely the CEOs of other corporations. Conversely with one hand washing the other, the CEO of Corporation A will vote for a nice salary-bonus package for the CEO of Corporation B, when such is being discussed by his board.
The net result of this practice is that "Sales and Administrative Expenses" for each Corporation are significantly increased. In order to remain profitable, each Corporation must then increase its prices to the consuming public.
There are many federal, state, and local laws and regulations, which would easily control such abuse, the government has not seen fit to prosecute any of the practices or make changes in Corporation Law, which would not allow such practice to continue.
I encourage Congress to consider a simple change in antitrust laws to disallow an officer of any Corporation to be a Board member of any other corporation. This must also be followed by an enforcement policy, in which Congress will cooperate with the Justice Department.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Pres. Obama and Your Children
Pres. Obama is scheduled to address US schoolchildren this
coming Tuesday. If you do not want your children or
grandchildren exposed directly to Pres. Obama's philosophies, I
suggest you telephone the Administration of your local School
District and the School Board President to ask that they NOT
accept the message into the school communication system. This is
the last day to act.
It has previously been suggested that parents keep their
children out of school next Tuesday. However, that may be
difficult for working parents, and it may be easier but less
certain to look up phone numbers and make two phone calls.
I have heard of one school administrator who has said that
parents will not be ALLOWED to keep their children from school.
This is an indication of a philosophy that is already being
applied in many school systems. It seems to me that as a parent,
you have the responsibility to have your child educated in a
reasonable manner and not a manner dictated by the President and
his staff.
coming Tuesday. If you do not want your children or
grandchildren exposed directly to Pres. Obama's philosophies, I
suggest you telephone the Administration of your local School
District and the School Board President to ask that they NOT
accept the message into the school communication system. This is
the last day to act.
It has previously been suggested that parents keep their
children out of school next Tuesday. However, that may be
difficult for working parents, and it may be easier but less
certain to look up phone numbers and make two phone calls.
I have heard of one school administrator who has said that
parents will not be ALLOWED to keep their children from school.
This is an indication of a philosophy that is already being
applied in many school systems. It seems to me that as a parent,
you have the responsibility to have your child educated in a
reasonable manner and not a manner dictated by the President and
his staff.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Airline Deficits
EIN News says, "Airlines Lost $6 Billion in First Half, Raised Equity. A sample of more than 50 airlines surveyed worldwide showed net losses in excess of $6 billion for the first half of this year, the International Air Transport Association said today. Airlines have also taken advantage of stronger equity markets to raise $15 billion to help offset dwindling operating cash flow, IATA said in a statement (bloomberg.com)".
My opinion is that the primary problem is too many airlines pursuing too little business. However, the fact that the private market is willing and able to supply $15 billion may indicate my opinion is wrong. Let's see what happens.
However, the key point is that the airline business should remain private enterprise, with some minor government control to avoid monopolistic practices and ensure public safety. It is not an area for government to be pouring in public money. Congress should stay out of this, unless it wants to take the next step of proving that it is oligarchic/socialist.
My opinion is that the primary problem is too many airlines pursuing too little business. However, the fact that the private market is willing and able to supply $15 billion may indicate my opinion is wrong. Let's see what happens.
However, the key point is that the airline business should remain private enterprise, with some minor government control to avoid monopolistic practices and ensure public safety. It is not an area for government to be pouring in public money. Congress should stay out of this, unless it wants to take the next step of proving that it is oligarchic/socialist.
Philosophies and agendas
EIN News says, "China Closes Doors to European Businesses. Doing business in China is getting harder, not easier, according to European businesses, as they laid out almost 600 pages of complaints in a new report. The report paints a troubling picture of the Chinese business landscape, filled with discrimination against foreign companies, arbitrary laws and regulations, and abuses of China's World Trade Organization obligations. (telegraph.co.uk)".
Not surprising.
Christians are obligated to convert the world to Christianity. Muslims are obligated to convert the world to Islam. Republics, such as democratic US, believe they are obligated to convert the world to democracy. Communist countries, such as China, believe they are obligated to convert the world to communism.
Be assured that China has two objectives. The first is to become financially, physically, and militarily strong. The second is to use that capability to establish communism wherever it can. China is now financially, physically and militarily strong enough so that it no longer needs the West to build its financial and technological strength. Therefore, it will start to sever relations.
Whatever "do-gooders" may think, the world operates on a competitive basis and will continue to do so. As we have granted power to China, through various operations, we have in turn become weaker. It is a "hardball" game and the sooner Congress realizes this, the better. We cannot count on our Administration,
Not surprising.
Christians are obligated to convert the world to Christianity. Muslims are obligated to convert the world to Islam. Republics, such as democratic US, believe they are obligated to convert the world to democracy. Communist countries, such as China, believe they are obligated to convert the world to communism.
Be assured that China has two objectives. The first is to become financially, physically, and militarily strong. The second is to use that capability to establish communism wherever it can. China is now financially, physically and militarily strong enough so that it no longer needs the West to build its financial and technological strength. Therefore, it will start to sever relations.
Whatever "do-gooders" may think, the world operates on a competitive basis and will continue to do so. As we have granted power to China, through various operations, we have in turn become weaker. It is a "hardball" game and the sooner Congress realizes this, the better. We cannot count on our Administration,
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Government Mandate on Lufthansa
EIN News says, "Lufthansa Cargo Threatens to Close Freighter Fleet. Lufthansa is threatening to close its fleet of freighter aircraft if restrictions on night flights are imposed on its hub at Frankfurt. In order to calm opposition to the growth of the airport, politicians in the State of Hesse agreed to limit the number of night flights to just 17. Lufthansa challenged this condition, but the court rejected the airline's objection stating that the local politicians had the right to agree to such limitations. (transportintelligence.com)".
Congratulations to Lufthansa for objecting! However, see what it got them so far. Nowhere. Government has the power, as demonstrated here by the court agreeing with local politicians. Let's see how it plays out. Will Lufthansa actually close its freighter fleet in Frankfurt? I doubt it. More likely they will try to continue to operate with one hand tied behind their back. Lufthansa executive's now realize the power of government, if they didn't realize it before. Any similarities to England in imposing a tax on imported tea by the US colonies?
All of Western Europe is characterized by oligarchic/socialistic government and Germany is no exception. I can fault Lufthansa for allowing this to happen some years ago, when they had an opportunity to preserve a capitalistic system through use of advertising and education of their employees. Perhaps they did this, but in all likelihood they did not. Private companies and corporations generally concentrate on maintaining a profitable business and usually don't think down the road about government mandates and restrictions which will not only eliminate their development, but may actually drive them out of business, as is now being done with healthcare in the US.
Congratulations to Lufthansa for objecting! However, see what it got them so far. Nowhere. Government has the power, as demonstrated here by the court agreeing with local politicians. Let's see how it plays out. Will Lufthansa actually close its freighter fleet in Frankfurt? I doubt it. More likely they will try to continue to operate with one hand tied behind their back. Lufthansa executive's now realize the power of government, if they didn't realize it before. Any similarities to England in imposing a tax on imported tea by the US colonies?
All of Western Europe is characterized by oligarchic/socialistic government and Germany is no exception. I can fault Lufthansa for allowing this to happen some years ago, when they had an opportunity to preserve a capitalistic system through use of advertising and education of their employees. Perhaps they did this, but in all likelihood they did not. Private companies and corporations generally concentrate on maintaining a profitable business and usually don't think down the road about government mandates and restrictions which will not only eliminate their development, but may actually drive them out of business, as is now being done with healthcare in the US.
Democratic Government
EIN News says, "Borneo Blowpipes Fight Biofuel Barons. Hundreds of Borneo tribesmen armed with blowpipes are blockading roads in protest against companies they accuse of destroying their rainforests to grow oil palms for biofuel, cooking oil, soap and margarine. The confrontation is taking place in the endangered forests of the Malaysian state of Sarawak, where members of the Penan tribe have existed for centuries as nomadic hunter-gatherers living on fish, wild animals and plants. (indiatimes.com)"
Here we have a typical example of a misguided Democratic group. While it involves only a few hundred Borneo tribesmen, it is also applicable to the total population of the United States. People do not always know what's good for them, which is why our government was set up as a Republic rather than a Democracy. Growing oil palms could be very beneficial to the Borneo tribesmen. They would be able to work in the harvesting of palm oil, with economic advantage to themselves, such that they could improve their water supplies, housing, etc.. Could this be a better life style than shooting each other with blow guns, as they have been doing for at least a few hundred years? "Living on fish, wild animals, and plants" also creates an unreasonable sympathetic reaction from semi-educated fundamentalists, who would like to return the world to primacy, without any consideration of the disadvantages of such action. Meanwhile, they love their iPhone's.
Contrary to Democratic leadership in the US government, who forces its position on the US public, I believe the Borneo tribesmen should have a right to maintain their aboriginal standard of living versus opportunities for what they may consider to be improved lifestyle, if it is explained to them. They also need to be educated on the legal aspects of property rights. They are already well accustomed to property rights in an aboriginal society, but are likely unfamiliar with modern legal aspects, as opposed to tribal warfare.
There are also several significant emotional/social aspects in the news quote. Notice the wording of "destroying rainforests" to the questionable advantage of having biofuel, cooking oil, soap and margarine. Environmentalists would certainly kick up their heels on this statement, because they have an unreasonable nostalgic interest in rainforests. However, God put all natural resources on this earth for our benefit of use. If rainforests need to be eliminated for the personal advantage of humans, so be it.
Notice also the use of the term "Biofuel Barons". This is obviously intended to place the reader's emotional sympathies with Borneo tribesmen fighting against the rich and powerful. The average US citizen generally takes the attitude that he has been deprived of economic advantage by the rich and powerful. Through this jealousy, he will always side with the underdog, no matter what the facts of the case may be.
With these obvious deficiencies of the average citizen, it should be apparent that our Congress should take a Republic form of government attitude rather than a Democrat form of government attitude, in the performance of its duties and any necessary confrontation with the Administration.
Here we have a typical example of a misguided Democratic group. While it involves only a few hundred Borneo tribesmen, it is also applicable to the total population of the United States. People do not always know what's good for them, which is why our government was set up as a Republic rather than a Democracy. Growing oil palms could be very beneficial to the Borneo tribesmen. They would be able to work in the harvesting of palm oil, with economic advantage to themselves, such that they could improve their water supplies, housing, etc.. Could this be a better life style than shooting each other with blow guns, as they have been doing for at least a few hundred years? "Living on fish, wild animals, and plants" also creates an unreasonable sympathetic reaction from semi-educated fundamentalists, who would like to return the world to primacy, without any consideration of the disadvantages of such action. Meanwhile, they love their iPhone's.
Contrary to Democratic leadership in the US government, who forces its position on the US public, I believe the Borneo tribesmen should have a right to maintain their aboriginal standard of living versus opportunities for what they may consider to be improved lifestyle, if it is explained to them. They also need to be educated on the legal aspects of property rights. They are already well accustomed to property rights in an aboriginal society, but are likely unfamiliar with modern legal aspects, as opposed to tribal warfare.
There are also several significant emotional/social aspects in the news quote. Notice the wording of "destroying rainforests" to the questionable advantage of having biofuel, cooking oil, soap and margarine. Environmentalists would certainly kick up their heels on this statement, because they have an unreasonable nostalgic interest in rainforests. However, God put all natural resources on this earth for our benefit of use. If rainforests need to be eliminated for the personal advantage of humans, so be it.
Notice also the use of the term "Biofuel Barons". This is obviously intended to place the reader's emotional sympathies with Borneo tribesmen fighting against the rich and powerful. The average US citizen generally takes the attitude that he has been deprived of economic advantage by the rich and powerful. Through this jealousy, he will always side with the underdog, no matter what the facts of the case may be.
With these obvious deficiencies of the average citizen, it should be apparent that our Congress should take a Republic form of government attitude rather than a Democrat form of government attitude, in the performance of its duties and any necessary confrontation with the Administration.
Britain Facing Blackouts
EIN News says, "Britain Facing Blackouts for First Time Since 1970s. Demand for power from homes and businesses will exceed supply from the national grid within eight years, according to official figures. The shortage of supplies will hit the equivalent of many as 16 million families for at least one hour during the year, it is forecast. (telegraph.co.uk)"
Britain is now starting to pay for its conversion to oligarchic/socialist government. When government takes over, it interferes with private enterprise. In this case, we see that the oligarchic/socialist government has discouraged private enterprise through regulations and higher taxes, such that private enterprise had no incentive to invest in electricity production necessary for the market. Theoretically, the British government could have done the job, but practical experience shows that such governments are so tied up in their own red tape, that they are unable to accomplish practical physical developments.
Do we notice any similarities with the state of California?
Britain is now starting to pay for its conversion to oligarchic/socialist government. When government takes over, it interferes with private enterprise. In this case, we see that the oligarchic/socialist government has discouraged private enterprise through regulations and higher taxes, such that private enterprise had no incentive to invest in electricity production necessary for the market. Theoretically, the British government could have done the job, but practical experience shows that such governments are so tied up in their own red tape, that they are unable to accomplish practical physical developments.
Do we notice any similarities with the state of California?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
