E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Pfizer Faces Alleged $5 Billion in Claims at Trial. Pfizer Inc.'s liability for an alleged $5 billion in claims for asbestos-laden products made over a 20-year period by its Quigley unit will be partly decided at Quigley's bankruptcy trial, a judge ruled. The trial pits the U.S. government and asbestos victims against Pfizer, the world's biggest drugmaker, with claims that its $450 million contribution under a settlement isn't enough to satisfy its liabilities. (einnews.com)".
Here is something you can take some positive action on. I don't refer specifically to the Pfizer/Quigley situation. I am referring to the fact that the US government, individuals, and groups can sue private companies for exorbitant amounts of money, which effectively would hamstring those companies from proper operation in the pursuit of normal business. Companies have enough difficulty in trying to satisfy market requirements, without opportunists in the form of government, groups, and individuals trying to put them out of business through ridiculous lawsuits.
Here are some specifics in the case of asbestos lawsuits. Some years ago asbestos was considered a reasonable raw material for the manufacture of various products. Similar raw materials were wood, sand, water, etc.. There was no indication at the time that asbestos had a propensity to lead to lung cancer (mesothelioma) in some people. Government agencies did not know it. The companies did not know it. The workers did not know it. Therefore, it seems completely unreasonable that a company should be liable for a difficulty which was unpredicted and using a raw material and practice which was consistent with technological and health considerations at the time.
This ridiculous situation has been going on for a long time and should be stopped. We now know about the dangers of using asbestos in products, even though those dangers are highly overrated. Therefore, we expect present product production to be devoid of an asbestos constituent. However, Congress can do something with respect to "grandfather protection" on the asbestos matter.
More specifically, Congress should place limits on the value of lawsuits to avoid opportunistic use of the courts. A trial for damages against the company by an individual, group, or government should be based on proof that the company knew of a particular danger and took no action in protecting its employees or the public. Clarification of the law in this regard, will allow companies to get on with their job of providing goods and services, without a constant worry of whether they will be in business tomorrow because of an unreasonable damage award by the courts.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
EU Bank Regulatory Overhaul
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "EU Unveils Blueprint to Overhaul Policing of Banks. The European Union unveiled its blueprint on Wednesday for an overhaul of the way banks and financial markets are policed, a central plank to new rules designed to prevent a repeat of the global economic crisis. (reuters.com)".
We should take a look at this blueprint in our own efforts at US overhaul. However, let us be cautious by remembering that the EU is a combination of countries embracing the new socialism, which is eventually doomed to collapse.
EIN News says, "EU Unveils Blueprint to Overhaul Policing of Banks. The European Union unveiled its blueprint on Wednesday for an overhaul of the way banks and financial markets are policed, a central plank to new rules designed to prevent a repeat of the global economic crisis. (reuters.com)".
We should take a look at this blueprint in our own efforts at US overhaul. However, let us be cautious by remembering that the EU is a combination of countries embracing the new socialism, which is eventually doomed to collapse.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Housing Costs
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "2008 Census Data: Housing Is Getting Even Less Affordable. More Americans found housing unaffordable last year, even though home prices across the U.S. have taken a major fall. More than 40 million spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs, 600,000 more than in 2007, according to 2008 Census data released Monday. That includes homeowners with and without mortgages, as well as renters. (usatoday.com)".
Do not get excited and try to do something about this. The above is a deceptive remark. If more than 40 million people spend 30% more of their household income on housing costs, they do that by choice. Many householders have opted to purchase more housing than they reasonably need. In other words, they have chosen to live in opulence. If they now feel that 30% of their income is more than they want to spend on housing, they have the choice of moving to smaller digs, rather than whining about high housing costs. This also goes for renters, for which change is actually easier since there's no need to sell their presently occupied home.
EIN News says, "2008 Census Data: Housing Is Getting Even Less Affordable. More Americans found housing unaffordable last year, even though home prices across the U.S. have taken a major fall. More than 40 million spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs, 600,000 more than in 2007, according to 2008 Census data released Monday. That includes homeowners with and without mortgages, as well as renters. (usatoday.com)".
Do not get excited and try to do something about this. The above is a deceptive remark. If more than 40 million people spend 30% more of their household income on housing costs, they do that by choice. Many householders have opted to purchase more housing than they reasonably need. In other words, they have chosen to live in opulence. If they now feel that 30% of their income is more than they want to spend on housing, they have the choice of moving to smaller digs, rather than whining about high housing costs. This also goes for renters, for which change is actually easier since there's no need to sell their presently occupied home.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Cash for Clunkers
E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I received the following message from Dave and consider it a very good mathematical analysis of the Cash for Clunkers program. We need more of this critical analysis on the financial aspects of every program that you folks consider in Congress. Note that it is simple math and logic. It does not contain differential equations or advanced calculus.
Art
"Cash for Clunkers
Maybe we should require our politicians to be more careful with our money:
Pete Kornafel, chairman of the GAAS scholarship committee, writes:
Here's some basic math regarding the average "clunker" which got 15 mpg and the "average" replacement which gets 25?
A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, an average clunker transaction reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The total is about 700,000 vehicles ? so that's 224 million gallons/year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels /yr of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day s U.S. consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million in oil.
Dave's additions:
The average "on the road" lifespan of the new replacement vehicles will probably be 7-10 years, so lets say 9 years.
And the average price of oil over the next 9 years is likely to be roughly $160/barrel.
(http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp)
(Average, annual, inflation adjusted price increase of 17.5%)
So 9 years x 5 million barrels @ $160 = $7.2 billion
3 billion plus interest over 9 years @10.4% would be 7.2 billion, so that looks to be a pretty good return on our investment.
BUT the average time in service of the old "clunkers" that were replaced may have been only 3 years, after which time they likely would have been replaced anyway, without our subsidy, and with replacements that will be even more fuel efficient. So really, for this thing to work, we must recover our $3 billion investment in 3 years.
So 3 years x 5 million barrels @ $104 = $1.6 billion
So most likely, we are only getting 1.6 billion in value for our 3 billion investment. In other words, we are simply throwing away $1.4 billion of our hard-earned money. I'm not sure that is a prudent action and I don't think it is what I want to be doing with my money.
And of course one other question remains: Why aren't the people who are directly benefiting from the replacement of a a clunker paying the whole cost of the replacement? Why do we have to pay part of the cost of their new vehicles? They are the ones benefited with a new vehicle AND fuel savings!
How would you feel if I asked YOU to give me $5,000 toward buying myself a new vehicle? Where is my incentive to work if the government will make you give me your money? And where is your incentive to work, if you know that the government is just going to take away your money that you earned, and force you to give it to me???
If there is any hope of this program being effective, the missing 1.4 billion dollars will need to help our nation thru subsidizing the auto industry by at least that much. That seems unlikely.
I humbly suggest that this kind of poor logic and corruption is part of what contributed to our current financial crisis. And so now it appears that the "cash for clunkers" program, and likely others like it, are shortsighted and ultimately ineffective measures that will only worsen our problems.
I think we each need to require more of ourselves and our elected officials, and make sure they are moving us in the right direction instead of in the wrong one."
I received the following message from Dave and consider it a very good mathematical analysis of the Cash for Clunkers program. We need more of this critical analysis on the financial aspects of every program that you folks consider in Congress. Note that it is simple math and logic. It does not contain differential equations or advanced calculus.
Art
"Cash for Clunkers
Maybe we should require our politicians to be more careful with our money:
Pete Kornafel, chairman of the GAAS scholarship committee, writes:
Here's some basic math regarding the average "clunker" which got 15 mpg and the "average" replacement which gets 25?
A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, an average clunker transaction reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The total is about 700,000 vehicles ? so that's 224 million gallons/year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels /yr of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day s U.S. consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million in oil.
Dave's additions:
The average "on the road" lifespan of the new replacement vehicles will probably be 7-10 years, so lets say 9 years.
And the average price of oil over the next 9 years is likely to be roughly $160/barrel.
(http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp)
(Average, annual, inflation adjusted price increase of 17.5%)
So 9 years x 5 million barrels @ $160 = $7.2 billion
3 billion plus interest over 9 years @10.4% would be 7.2 billion, so that looks to be a pretty good return on our investment.
BUT the average time in service of the old "clunkers" that were replaced may have been only 3 years, after which time they likely would have been replaced anyway, without our subsidy, and with replacements that will be even more fuel efficient. So really, for this thing to work, we must recover our $3 billion investment in 3 years.
So 3 years x 5 million barrels @ $104 = $1.6 billion
So most likely, we are only getting 1.6 billion in value for our 3 billion investment. In other words, we are simply throwing away $1.4 billion of our hard-earned money. I'm not sure that is a prudent action and I don't think it is what I want to be doing with my money.
And of course one other question remains: Why aren't the people who are directly benefiting from the replacement of a a clunker paying the whole cost of the replacement? Why do we have to pay part of the cost of their new vehicles? They are the ones benefited with a new vehicle AND fuel savings!
How would you feel if I asked YOU to give me $5,000 toward buying myself a new vehicle? Where is my incentive to work if the government will make you give me your money? And where is your incentive to work, if you know that the government is just going to take away your money that you earned, and force you to give it to me???
If there is any hope of this program being effective, the missing 1.4 billion dollars will need to help our nation thru subsidizing the auto industry by at least that much. That seems unlikely.
I humbly suggest that this kind of poor logic and corruption is part of what contributed to our current financial crisis. And so now it appears that the "cash for clunkers" program, and likely others like it, are shortsighted and ultimately ineffective measures that will only worsen our problems.
I think we each need to require more of ourselves and our elected officials, and make sure they are moving us in the right direction instead of in the wrong one."
E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I heard, on TV at 11 AM CDT, Pres. Obama's address to Wall Street.
I was very favorably impressed with the content of his message, including the various outline points of government regulatory controls and enforcements for the financial industry.
If we have been looking for something positive from Pres. Obama, with respect to improving our country's financial stability, this may well be it. I strongly suggest that you and your associates get on board with this program. At the same time, I strongly advised that you watch for insertion of any unsavory detail. Please remember that a 900-page bill prepared by anybody is an attempt to deceive. Keep any bill short. I like only a few pages, but I can agree to even 10 or 20. More than that, will likely not be read by most of the lawmakers who need to vote on it, nor even their assistants.
I heard, on TV at 11 AM CDT, Pres. Obama's address to Wall Street.
I was very favorably impressed with the content of his message, including the various outline points of government regulatory controls and enforcements for the financial industry.
If we have been looking for something positive from Pres. Obama, with respect to improving our country's financial stability, this may well be it. I strongly suggest that you and your associates get on board with this program. At the same time, I strongly advised that you watch for insertion of any unsavory detail. Please remember that a 900-page bill prepared by anybody is an attempt to deceive. Keep any bill short. I like only a few pages, but I can agree to even 10 or 20. More than that, will likely not be read by most of the lawmakers who need to vote on it, nor even their assistants.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
New Federal Agency As Watchdog for Consumers
Letter to Congress:
EIN News says, "Obama's Financial Consumer Watchdog in Jeopardy. Obama administration wants to create a U.S. agency to protect financial consumers, but the idea is in jeopardy due to deep resistance from banks and from existing regulators protecting their turf. (reuters.com)".
Consumers generally need protection from sophisticated, unsavory practices of lending institutions.
However, we have existing governmental regulators. Before Congress could possibly consider supporting creation of a new US agency in this area, the Obama administration needs to give Congress a complete listing of all present regulatory agencies, what their present responsibilities are, deficiencies in their performance, why performance cannot be improved, and how a new agency would improve the situation.
EIN News says, "Obama's Financial Consumer Watchdog in Jeopardy. Obama administration wants to create a U.S. agency to protect financial consumers, but the idea is in jeopardy due to deep resistance from banks and from existing regulators protecting their turf. (reuters.com)".
Consumers generally need protection from sophisticated, unsavory practices of lending institutions.
However, we have existing governmental regulators. Before Congress could possibly consider supporting creation of a new US agency in this area, the Obama administration needs to give Congress a complete listing of all present regulatory agencies, what their present responsibilities are, deficiencies in their performance, why performance cannot be improved, and how a new agency would improve the situation.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Boeing
EIN News says, "Boeing Says Asia Pacific Region Will Need 8,960 New Jets. The Asia Pacific region will be the world's largest aviation market over the next two decades, requiring 8,960 new commercial jets, worth approximately $1.1 trillion, according to a forecast Boeing released Wednesday at the Asian Aerospace Expo in Hong Kong. (seattlepi.com)".
Congratulations to Boeing on doing their market research! However, this is a competitive business, with their main competitor being Airbus.
Just think of the number of jobs that can be created in the manufacture of parts and the various assemblies, if the work is done in the US, which I believe most of Boeing's operations are.
May I strongly suggest that you and your associates and Congress do not in the way of this business. Don't monkey with wage and hour laws, ecological limitations and the hundreds of other unreasonable things that people think of end up as being impediments to competition.
One thing the US Government must guard against is the socialistic, Western European likelihood of subsidization to Airbus. This would allow Airbus to undercut Boeing on pricing and likely lose the business. US government should not try to compensate by equal subsidies to Boeing. Rather, the US government should work with Boeing to pressure the European Union to not subsidize Airbus, unless the European Union is willing accept harsh US imposed penalties.
Congratulations to Boeing on doing their market research! However, this is a competitive business, with their main competitor being Airbus.
Just think of the number of jobs that can be created in the manufacture of parts and the various assemblies, if the work is done in the US, which I believe most of Boeing's operations are.
May I strongly suggest that you and your associates and Congress do not in the way of this business. Don't monkey with wage and hour laws, ecological limitations and the hundreds of other unreasonable things that people think of end up as being impediments to competition.
One thing the US Government must guard against is the socialistic, Western European likelihood of subsidization to Airbus. This would allow Airbus to undercut Boeing on pricing and likely lose the business. US government should not try to compensate by equal subsidies to Boeing. Rather, the US government should work with Boeing to pressure the European Union to not subsidize Airbus, unless the European Union is willing accept harsh US imposed penalties.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Squandering Tax Dollars
Gordon,
Thank you for the video on the squandering of our tax dollars on a non-operating Murtha Airport. There are two things we can do about such things.
One is to wait for the first congressional elections in November 2010. That is more than a year away and only half the senators will be eligible for election at that time. We could vote out the Republicans that we now have, because they have been ineffective in allowing liberal Democrats and opportunists such as Murtha to do whatever they wish. However, it would be a wait with very questionable results.
The second alternative may be considerably more promising. We can force our Congressmen (Representatives and Senators) to cooperate with the Blue Dog Coalition to obtain control of Congress. The "forcing" would be that a lack of demonstrating such cooperation will certainly lead to a loss of our votes at reelection time.
In case you believe that the Blue Dog Coalition is composed of the same Democrats, which are leading to all of these oligarchic/socialistic/communistic developments, think again. Their website states, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States. Currently there are 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition."
While the Blue Dog Coalition now only involves the House, the organization could be expanded to also cover the event the Senate. Optimum success would be achieved with the establishment of a new Blue Dog Party, to compete with the present Democratic Party (now oligarchic/socialistic/communistic) and the present Republican Party, which is a little less of the same.
Thank you for the video on the squandering of our tax dollars on a non-operating Murtha Airport. There are two things we can do about such things.
One is to wait for the first congressional elections in November 2010. That is more than a year away and only half the senators will be eligible for election at that time. We could vote out the Republicans that we now have, because they have been ineffective in allowing liberal Democrats and opportunists such as Murtha to do whatever they wish. However, it would be a wait with very questionable results.
The second alternative may be considerably more promising. We can force our Congressmen (Representatives and Senators) to cooperate with the Blue Dog Coalition to obtain control of Congress. The "forcing" would be that a lack of demonstrating such cooperation will certainly lead to a loss of our votes at reelection time.
In case you believe that the Blue Dog Coalition is composed of the same Democrats, which are leading to all of these oligarchic/socialistic/communistic developments, think again. Their website states, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States. Currently there are 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition."
While the Blue Dog Coalition now only involves the House, the organization could be expanded to also cover the event the Senate. Optimum success would be achieved with the establishment of a new Blue Dog Party, to compete with the present Democratic Party (now oligarchic/socialistic/communistic) and the present Republican Party, which is a little less of the same.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
