Tax Rebates a Political Ploy

Magically, a $600 deposit appeared in my bank account this morning. Aren't George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress great to have around?

While all of us like money from the sky, this "economic stimulus package" is going to do nothing to solve the underlying problems in our nation's economy. It's a short-term fix, and a weak one at that. Not surprising for our short-sighted and politically-motivated federal government. This rebate is nothing but a political ploy in an election year, to make voters think the federal government is "doing something." Reality paints a different picture.

This nation's economic growth in recent years has been driven to a large degree by consumer spending, which the rebates are intended to stimulate, and a grossly overvalued housing market. We don't need more economic growth by consumer spending. Why? Because it generally puts people further into debt by spending money on imported goods. We need growth driven by investment, real domestic productivity and exports.

Also, many people are applauding the Federal Reserve for lowering interest rates. Lower interest rates encourage people and businesses to go further into debt. This country does not need more debt - personal, business or government. We already have all the debt we need.

The federal government is working furiously to keep our economy out of a recession - again, for political reasons. No one wants to be in office during a recession, because after the next election, there's a good chance they won't be in office anymore. But they are doing it by going further into debt and by encouraging businesses and citizens to do the same. Sorry, but you cannot borrow your way out of a recession. Check that - you can in the short-term, but eventually your house of cards is going to crumble.

No one will admit this anymore, but a nation's economic growth cannot continue indefinitely, even in a global economy. Downturns are natural and even necessary. We are increasingly preventing economic downturns in this country through greater debt. What do we have to show for it? A negative consumer savings rate, a weak dollar, a mortgage crisis, an overvalued housing market and record federal debt and deficits. All this while our military is fighting a two-front war.

If the federal government would be going further into debt to fund the war by borrowing money from its own people - can anyone say, "war bonds"? - it would be a different story. But that's not what's happening. Our federal government is going further into debt by borrowing money - aka selling Treasury notes - from foreign governments while our citizens spend their money on TVs made in Asia. Combine this with skyrocketing energy prices and this witch's brew of economic calamity could make the late 1970s look like a picnic.

So, closed circuit to George W. Bush and the Congress: keep your tax rebates and take real steps to solve our problems or we're all going to need a lot more than $600.

Fargo mentioned in book

I am about halfway through economist Richard Florida's latest book, Who's Your City? The other night I came across this little nugget...

Dr. Florida (yes, like the state) is a professor at the University of Toronto and he asked some of his students where they would like to live when they graduate. Most responded they didn't care, as long as they had a good job, a lively social circle and opportunities for growth. Then, he got specific and asked if they would live in Fargo, North Dakota (that's where I live). The students said no. They were thinking more like northern California, Seattle, Boston.

Florida's basic premise is that the world is not flat, it is spiky - and increasingly so. Geographic areas that can make themselves attractive to what he has defined as the "creative class" will see economic growth. Other areas will see increasing decline. The gap between the growth areas and the declining areas is widening.

If you're at all intrigued, start with his seminal work, The Rise of the Creative Class and explore his Creative Class Group.

Detergent update

My mom - a certified laundry expert - told me this past weekend that the latest round of concentrated laundry detergents is actually in addition to the concentrating they did in the late 1980s-early 1990s.

I'm not sure I buy it, but who can argue with his mom?

Economic chickens coming home to roost

Debt - consumer, government and business - it turns out, has been driving our economic growth the past decade. Who knew? Anyone paying any attention at all, that's who.

Newsweek has a great article on how we became a debt-based economy, the consequences and the possibly bleak economic future it has wrought.

For those of you with short attention spans, don't worry, the article is short. But it's pretty much a downer, so if you're looking for a pick-me-up, don't click on the link.

Super-concentrated, round 2

All laundry detergents are suddenly in smaller bottles. They're all "ultra," they say, or "super concentrated." The point is that you can use less detergent with each load, reducing the quantity of detergent you use and the size of the bottle it comes in. It's all part of how we can all be more "green" and leave a smaller "carbon footprint."

Funny, I remember this same thing happened in the 1980s when the masses discovered recycling. Then, as now, detergent bottles were suddenly and dramatically downsized. They were labeled "ultra" and "super concentrated." Later, as recycling received less publicity, the bottles gradually grew again and the "concentrated" labeling disappeared.

As this happened, I assumed the detergent was still concentrated, but they were ramping up the bottle sizes again. Still concentrated detergent, just more of it. I mean, why wouldn't they concentrate detergent as much as they can?

But now that we have entered a second concentrated, smaller-bottle period, it has me wondering about this assumption. Is detergent now even more concentrated than it was in the 1980s or did they revert to less concentrated formulas after the public pressure to recycle either waned or became the norm? The new concentrated detergents do not seem any thicker than their immediate predecessors, which was not the case in the 1980s during the first concentrated detergent period. The detergents then were noticeably thicker and more gelatinous, less watery.

I suspect Wal-Mart may have had something to do with this. Wal-Mart was becoming a behemoth at the same time the first concentrated detergent period was ending. Maybe the price pressures they exerted on suppliers forced the detergent companies to put less concentrated formulas in bigger bottles. Maybe that's the only way the detergent companies could supply Wal-Mart with their product and still make money.

Okay, that's probably enough time spent writing about concentrated laundry detergents...

The all-important lapel pin

Is this presidential election really going to be about lapel pins?

Barack Obama's opponents are peppering him with accusations of not being patriotic enough because he does not wear an American flag lapel pin. Seriously? You can criticize Obama for many things, if you like, but if all you have is some conformist fashion faux pas, don't waste my time.

From Ronald Reagan through the 1994 mid-term election, conservatism was on the move in this country, led by Republican calls for fiscal responsibility, a hearty defense and smaller government.

But for the past decade, Republicans have been squandering their surging position of power on impeachment proceedings, gay marriage, ensuring God remains in the pledge of allegiance (like God needs the Republican Party) and, now, Barack Obama's lapel pin. Give me a break.

After the 2002 mid-term elections, Karl Rove believed the Republicans were on their way to a permanent majority. But Rove did not consider that "permanent" majorities are not built by divisions, but by commonalities. And for the past decade, all the Republicans have been doing is dividing, by whatever goofy social agenda they can latch onto. Meanwhile, they spend money in Congress like a 21-year-old heiress who just got access to her trust fund.

I don't want to hear about lapel pins. I want to hear about the shrinking dollar, the debt we all owe China and Saudi Arabia, how we plan to stop American military deaths in Iraq, how we finally plan to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, how we are going to curb carbon emissions and how we are going to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels.

I do not want to hear about lapel pins.

The existential questions of Facebook

There are too many political considerations involved in maintaining a Facebook page. For example, let's say your friend Jane starts dating Richard and, as a result, Richard becomes your Facebook friend. But then one day Jane and Richard break up. Do you banish Richard as a Facebook friend?

And at what point do you declare yourself "in a relationship" in your Facebook profile? If you do it too early, you may scare off your new love interest. If you do it too late, you may offend him or her. It's a balancing act. It says something about your own psyche, as well, and how you are feeling about the burgeoning relationship. If you are giddy about it and want to tell the world, you'll declare it very quickly. If you are indifferent, at best, you'll avoid declaring it to the Facebook universe. So, until you feel comfortable posting it on Facebook, are you really "in a relationship?"

For all these reasons and more, I have not created a Facebook page for myself. And then this weekend, another issue asserted itself into my decisionmaking process.

What happens to a person's Facebook page when they die? Who has the power to delete them from the system?

Which leads to the existential question even more important than the dating issue ... if you still have a Facebook profile, are you really dead?

It's an unanswerable question, like if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? It's just all too much to comprehend.

A tradition unlike any other...

Doesn't it just send chills down your spine to hear the familiar Masters theme on CBS? A peaceful piano playing over one of the dozens of classic Masters moments. Could be Nicklaus draining the bomb on #16 in 1975. Or Mickelson jumping for joy after making the birdie putt on #18 to win his first major. Or Nicklaus following the ball to the hole with his putter on #17 in 1986 while Verne Lundquist says, "Maybe ... yes, sir!" Best golf call of all time during the best sports moment of my lifetime.

Or it could be one of the many Tiger Woods highlights. The miraculous chip-in on #16 in 2005. Or the finishing fist pump on #18 in 1997, his inaugural major.

Whichever highlight they play, they're all classic. Then the announcer says, "A tradition unlike any other. The Masters on CBS."

Indeed.

For Dems, it's personal from now on

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both speaking at the North Dakota Democratic Convention tonight. The state is thrilled that two national political candidates are appearing. With just three electoral votes, North Dakota generally doesn't receive a whole lot of attention in national races.

But this year is different, of course, because it's April 4 and the Democrats still don't have their nominee for president. The eventual outcome of this race is being discussed endlessly online and in traditional media, so I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion. But this one observation sticks in my mind...

The policy discussion between these two candidates was over long ago. We know where each stands, inside and out, on all major campaign issues. After nearly 20 debates, there is nothing left to say about healthcare, Iraq, the economy.

Where does it go from here? The only place it can: personal. Expect to hear much more about Rev. Wright, Bosnia exaggerations, bowling scores and whatever other issues-of-the-day arise that have nothing to do with policy differences or even delegate counts. At this point, it's all on the table and it will be about character and habits and whether one can create a negative impression of the other.

The Democrats would do themselves a favor by resolving this thing sooner rather than later. But don't hold your breath. If anyone thinks Hillary Clinton will drop out, they are kidding themselves. And why should Obama drop out? He's ahead. Will Howard Dean step in and rescue his party? Not a chance. Doesn't have the clout. How about Al Gore? Maybe; he is the only one in this equation who could anoint the nominee. But that seems a long shot.

If we've learned anything this campaign season, it's that we shouldn't make predictions. But this one just feels like it's going to be a bloody battle all the way to the Democratic convention at the end of August. Over four long months from now.

Hillary as Rocky?

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton was campaigning in Philadelphia and compared herself to one of the city's favorite fictional sons, Rocky Balboa. The Italian Stallion. The ultimate underdog.

Seriously? I know candidates are always trying to equate themselves with American icons and heroes and that's fine. But this one is too much of a stretch, even for presidential candidates.

Clinton is only an underdog because she underestimated her opponent and people are not convinced they know the "real Hillary." These two traits are exactly the opposite of what Rocky Balboa was all about. Balboa admitted to Adrian the night before his big fight against Apollo Creed that all he wanted to do was finish the fight; he had no illusions he could win. And he is all heart; he's instinct, not calculation. You can say a lot of things about Hillary Clinton, but that is not one of them.

Finally, does Clinton know that Rocky lost the fight in the movie that made him a legend?

Richard Florida

Ever heard of Dr. Richard Florida? In 2002, he defined a cross-section of the American workforce that he dubbed the "creative class." He uses traditional statistics to draw his conclusions. His innovation is the analysis he applies to the numbers. In his seminal work, The Rise of the Creative Class, he concluded "creative" people are not defined by the traditional demographics of age, education or income. Rather, they are people who strive to be creative in their jobs. To do that, they choose to be hair stylists instead of computer code writers, even though code writers make considerably more money.

That's just one example. Here's another... he disagrees with Thomas Friedman's contention that The World is Flat. Instead, Florida says it is spiky, with sub-regions thriving while others decay. I see that in my home state of North Dakota. Select population centers thrive and bustle, while most of the rural areas crumble. But this phenomenom does not just apply to rural states like North Dakota. It is happening everywhere in the world. According to Florida, wherever the creative class congregates, economic prosperity follows. Through his analysis, he has identified the phenomena on a smaller sub-region level than any other economist I have seen.

His work has revolutionized the way I think about economic growth and decline, generational differences in the workforce, career choices and even politics. One of his blog postings is an excellent analysis of how the creative class has asserted itself in its support of Barack Obama because to them he represents a kind of post-partisanism that meshes with their worldview.

I encourage you to check out his work. Read his blog. Check out the web site for the Creative Class Group, a for-profit he founded to develop and promote his theories. I've seen him twice in person and he is like the rock star economist ... well-dressed, no pocket protector, dynamic. I've been reminded of him lately because his newest book, Who's Your City?, just hit the bookshelves last month. It explains why choosing where you live might be the most important decision you'll ever make, in terms of job, dating, hobbies, etc.