Discussion of what might have contributed to the revolution. Includes information about current events and some historical events.

#68 New Ideas to Start Getting Blacks Off the Bottom Rung

16 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: Please note the blog about the 5th revolution in the US is constructed as a story. While not all chapters are linked, after reading a few recent entries, you might want to start at the beginning. More about the blog and about the author. )

Scene: Jordan and Rock Man continuing conversation about how to begin getting blacks off the bottom rung of the economic ladder. First conversation. More about Rock Man.

Jordan: “OK, Rock Man, let’s get back to the topic at hand. How do we get blacks off the bottom rung of the economic ladder?”
Rock Man: “Jordan, seems like we’ve had a version of this conversation before.”
Jordan: “We had it before your sabbatical. But nothing got resolved. And the need for a plan keeps gnawing at me. It should gnaw at you even more.”
Rock Man: “Maybe I’m too close to it…or maybe used to it.”
Jordan: “We need to change some thinking. It has been 150+ years since the Emancipation Proclamation. It has been 50+ years since the Civil Rights Act. 150 years is 6-7 generations.”
Rock Man: “A very long time in those terms. You have some advice?”
Jordan: “Yes, but like much of this conversation, not politically correct.”
Rock Man: “Let me guess. Blacks need to take the lead and quit following.”
Jordan: “The man did learn something on sabbatical. Seriously, that needs to happen. Blacks need to figure out a plan, spell out the key points and then, if necessary, ask for help.”
Rock Man: “Any ideas where to start? Tell me your idea Contro-man.”
Jordan: “What’s with the Contro-man? What are you talking about?”
Rock Man: “You’re bringing up a very controversial topic – why do blacks remain at the bottom of the economic ladder. You ready for all the heat when this starts to get public attention?”
Jordan: “If you think the conversation so far has been controversial, have another sip of coffee.”
Rock Man: “Keep talking Contro-man.”
Jordan: “I casually mentioned this idea before but we never really put much meat on it. One other rule when we discuss this topic.”
Rock Man: “What’s the rule?”
Jordan: “There’s always a lot of finger-pointing and blaming when this come up. Too much of government something caused something else. A lot of looking in the rearview mirror and trying to figure out who’s to blame.”
Rock Man: “Jordan, if there’s one thing I remember about all our conversations, it’s that you cannot drive very fast looking in the rearview mirror.”
Jordan: “I’m glad you remember that. Now, let’s start looking out the windshield and driving faster.”
Rock Man: “I’m mashing the accelerator.”
Jordan: “You’re southern roots are showing. First question, ‘In what occupations are blacks most successful?’”
Rock Man: “That’s easy, sports. Football, basketball, track and some baseball. But especially professional football and basketball – NFL, NBA.”
Jordan: “Right. In the NFL, what 2 of 3 players are black? NBA must be about 4 of 5 are black. Blacks are very successful in both sports.”
Rock Man: “Entertainment, also. But what’s your point?”
Jordan: “Question #2, ‘Where do you see the least number of blacks?’”
Rock Man: “At a KKK meeting…and that’s not a college fraternity.”
Jordan: “Good one smartass. Really, what professions?”
Rock Man: “Engineering. More like occupations that require lots of math and/or science.”
Jordan: “I agree.”
Rock Man: “Come to think of it, I don’t know of a highly successful software company started by blacks.”
Jordan: “I’m sure there are some but no company comes to mind.”
Rock Man: “When you were at MIT how many blacks were there?”
Jordan: “MIT was a long time ago but black students were few and far between.”
Rock Man: “OK, so Contro-man, what’s the idea?
Jordan: “We both agree that making incremental changes won’t work. Something radical is required.”
Rock Man: “Get to the idea, already.”
Jordan: “The idea is simple. Black refuse to play professional sports. No blacks enter the NFL. No blacks enter the NBA.”
Rock Man: “What about professional curling?”
Jordan: “That’s OK.”
Rock Man: “Seriously, what about college athletics.”
Jordan: “Yes, because those athletes have an opportunity for a college degree at little or no cost. And without the pressure to enter professional sports, more will student athletes will complete the degree. But, I’m talking about real, marketable degrees and not Afro-American studies.”
Rock Man: “You are pushing the envelope. You really want to deny these athletes a chance to make millions of dollars playing professional sports?”
Jordan: “In a word, ‘yes.’ Besides, what do these athletes do for the black community?”
Rock Man: “They hold sports camps and go to schools and talk about their sports.”
Jordan: “My point exactly. The athletes, many of whom…in fact I would venture to say most of whom never graduated college…are promoting the one thing at which only a handful of people excel – professional sports. Where’s the emphasis on education? Where’s the role model?”
Rock Man: “Point well taken.”
Jordan: “Rock Man, you are an excellent role model for black students. I’m always fascinated with your background. How many kids in the family?
Rock Man: “Eight.”
Jordan: “And what did your parents do?”
Rock Man: “You know what they did. Cotton farmers in eastern North Carolina.”
Jordan: “And they were high-end, wealthy cotton farmers?”
Rock Man: (Laughing) “Jordan, you know we were dirt poor. We were so poor that I literally…and I mean literally…did not have a pot to piss in.”
Jordan: “OK, so how did you go from no pot to piss in to all eight kids getting a college education and what, half the kids with a graduate degree? Was your role model some athlete?”
Rock Man: “No. The role model was my parents pushing all the kids hard to get an education. Neither of my parents graduated from high school. In fact, they barely got out of grammar school.”
Jordan: “Rock Man, now I need a break. Let’s go get a pizza.”

(Want a PDF version for Entries #1-10, #11-20, #21-30 formatted as an e-book? Entries #31-60 available when I get some time. Click links for download. America’s 5th Revolution Volume I (Entries 1-10), America’s 5th Revolution Volume II (Entries 11-20), America’s 5th Revolution Volume III (Entries 21-30)

#66 Next Phase

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: Please note the blog is constructed as a story. While not all chapters are linked, after reading a few recent entries, you might want to start at the beginning. More about the blog and about the author. )

I noted in Entry #65 (Independence Day Musings) that nothing of late has changed my belief the US is headed for a 5th revolution, which I labeled the “Revenge Revolution.” The lack of change by people to avoid the revolution should not be a surprise. I believe we all suffer from some degree of procrastination, and some changing only when faced with cataclysmic circumstances. And some never change despite the consequences.

But another phenomenon also exists — blatantly disregarding facts. For a number of years I have been puzzled by seemingly educated people taking positions on certain issues, despite overwhelming empirical data to the contrary.

This past weekend results of a study were published in The New York Times indicating many reasonably educated people simply discard facts to support an ideological position. The study suggests people who ignore facts are not uneducated about the issue but are familiar with the issue and simply ignore the facts.

Another finding of the study is those who discard facts are highly unlikely to change opinions. Not a surprise, but certainly disheartening.

So what do the findings of this study mean for this blog? While I am curious about the cause of the behavior, the focus of this blog is to discuss consequences of this type behavior. Based on the study, it is highly unlikely the hard-core on either side of an issue are unlikely to change…unless, of course they are faced with the motivating cataclysmic event. That event might be the 5th US revolution.

Being naïve and optimistic (but not bored), I’ve decided to continue writing the blog. OK, so no one reads the blog and no one changes his or her mind. But maybe, just maybe some people read the blog, talk to others and we avoid the revolution.

I’m going to spend the next few days sorting out topics for the next phase of blog. Topics are numerous but some attitudes and activities by groups in the US are real head scratchers. These attitudes and activities deserve more discussion.

As a reader, if you think I pick on Republicans more than Democrats, you’re probably correct. All writers look for material and right-wing Republicans make themselves such easy targets.

Some positions are so absurd that I have to laugh. A perfect example is the group that claims, “As a landowner I can do what I want on my land. And no government regulation should get in my way.” Excuse me son, but who or what organization provided you the title to the land? The king? Probably not. Try the dreaded government.

Government laws allow you to think you own the land, government laws allow you to transfer ownership to someone else and government laws protect you from private individuals confiscating your land. But, please keep in mind, without government you would have no ownership. Comprende?

OK, so not everyone is that extreme. But a surprising number of people think similarly. Some other topics being considered for the next phase include:
• When did liberal become a dirty word? This is especially intriguing since the founders of this country were liberals by standards of the day.
• When did conservative begin to mean not conserving?
• If Republicans keep harping on blacks to get an education and make something of themselves, why is Barack Obama not the poster child for Republicans?
• Why do blacks continue at the bottom of the economic ladder when every other ethnic group has made significant progress within a few generations? This might be the most controversial topic. As a country, we…left and right…have to find an answer. The problem is perplexing, especially since it has been 150 years since the Emancipation Proclamation and 50 years since the Civil Rights Act.
• Not to worry I’ll add a couple more issues on the left

If you have a topic of interest, please let me know. Thanks.

(Want a PDF version for Entries #1-10, #11-20, #21-30 formatted as an e-book? Entries #31-40 available soon. Click links for download. America’s 5th Revolution Volume I (Entries 1-10), America’s 5th Revolution Volume II (Entries 11-20), America’s 5th Revolution Volume III (Entries 21-30)

#65 Independence Day Musings

05 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Background, Causes of the Revolution, Personal Stories, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

July 4, 2014, Independence Day in the US. I thought it might be a good time to pause and reflect on recent events and the possible impact of those events on the future.

The theme of this blog is the anticipated 5th revolution in the United States, which I am labelling the “Revenge Revolution.” The idea of such a revolution occurred to me 5-6 years ago while finishing a long overdue paper for the University of Michigan. The paper included a short reference to a possible revolution.

For some reason the notion of a revolution kept hanging around in my head. Finally in summer 2013, I began expanding the idea, which then lead to the blog, which was published beginning December 2013.

Now almost a year after I started writing, I asked myself does the tagline about a possible 5th revolution make sense? Is the US still headed for a 5th revolution? Or have events this past year made the idea of a revolution less likely?

Unfortunately, the probability of a 5th revolution, the Revenge Revolution, seems higher today than the initial paper to University of Michigan and higher than last year. One could argue the probability seems higher because I spend more time writing blog entries associated with a possible revolution. That’s a fair argument. However, even if writing blog entries has exaggerated my perception of the likelihood, I think events of the past year have increased chances of the Revenge Revolution.

Probably the most disturbing trend, and it seems to be a trend and not just a couple of data points, is the lack of objectivity by the Supreme Court in ruling on cases having impact on the US populous. Given the rulings in these cases, the Court seems to have become a key “talking head” for the ultra-right wing of the Republican Party.

Yes, I know many self-proclaimed conservatives will pronounce I’m just a reactionary liberal. But, before you make such statements, let’s look at outcomes in countries where ultra-conservatives have ended up as the dominant political power. In the last 100 years, we have examples of Germany and Italy between WWI and WWII, as well as several other European countries. Today there are a number of countries in the Middle East dominated by ultra-conservatives. As much as it pains me, even Israel is heavily influenced by ultra-conservatives.

One is hard pressed to find an example…in fact, I do not think there is an example…where a country run by ultra-conservatives has not been subject to major internal turmoil within a reasonable time after the ultra-conservatives were in power. Obviously we are looking at countries with elections and not countries with dictators. The emergence of the ultra-right wing in this country and the unrelenting shift to the right by the Supreme Court do not bode well for future stability in the US.

Why? Because what is emerging in the US is increased “unfairness.” Being fair does not mean everyone having the same things. Being fair means reasonable opportunities.

The trend of decisions by the Supreme Court has been to redefine “fairness.” In Citizens United, the Supreme Court declared corporations to be “people” during the election process. The decision allowed corporations to be “people” but since corporations are legal entities…and therefore not really people… corporations are not subject to any of the liabilities that people face for wrong doing. Not a bad deal. Corporations are “people” for political campaigns but not “people” when it comes to criminal liability. Heads I win. Tails you lose…again.

Corporations have been buying politicians. Go ahead and claim I have no way to prove it and therefore I must be wrong. Well, folks, if you don’t think money buys influence, you are living on a different planet. Money buys access and access buys influence.

Are both sides guilty? Yes, but we are talking degrees of guilt. The argument that one is either pregnant or not does not apply. One side is walking around with a .50 caliber machine gun and the other with a BB gun. That is not fair. Remember I did not claim fair meant equal.

The Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case makes corporations even more of a “person.” Corporations do not have to behave in ways that conflict with their religious beliefs. Tell me that again? Corporations have religious beliefs? Yes, of course says the Supreme Court. You don’t seem to understand, you idiot liberal.

The Court is saying, “Let me explain this to you. Corporations are legal entities with many protections for executives working in the corporation. But these corporations have religious beliefs that are protected by the Constitution. In fact, you idiot, we are going to allow these corporations to have more religious freedom than you have. We are going to let corporations now decide if they want to follow portions of a federal law based on the religious beliefs of the corporation.”

Personally, I don’t care if you like the Affordable Care Act or not; it is the law. But you should be incensed at the Court. For those that argue that the Supreme Court ruling was narrow and applies only to a few corporations, you too have been living on another planet. Within two days of the initial ruling the conservative members of the Court expanded the scope. An old saying and one repeated at dinner recently by a long-time friend, the ruling “…is like the camel’s nose under the tent. This is only the beginning.”

I call Citizens United and Hobby Lobby rulings major judicial activism. You don’t think so? Corporations were established by law for a specific purpose. Corporations are not people. Repeat corporations are not people. If you think they are then you must support the following logic.

One can buy and sell stock in many corporations. Therefore, if corporations are people, then people that buy and sell stock in these corporations are like plantation owners who bought and sold slaves. Didn’t the 13th Amendment abolish slavery? Maybe the Supreme Court needs to read the US Constitution.

Oh, yes, if you are an “originalist” of the Constitution, just in case you forgot, amendments are supplements to and not part of original documents. Remember the First Amendment to the Constitution is a supplement and not part of the original document. And the beloved Second Amendment is a supplement and not part of the original Constitution.

From where I sit, Conservative Republicans should be outraged at the activism of the court and these rulings. A very few Justices are redefining the very foundation on which this country was built. Yet most Conservative Republicans are cheering. Why? Because Conservative Republicans have not yet connected the dots.

Allowing a corporation to act like a person without having the liability associated if a person acted the same way, creates an environment for corporations to act more irresponsibly. Think about this Conservative Republicans – who is likely to suffer from actions that ship more jobs overseas, increase water pollution, increase air pollution, renege on benefit programs, etc.? The corporation won’t suffer nor will the executives running the corporations suffer. The executives will gain. The losers will be the ordinary citizen.

Least you think I am promoting socialism, think again. I am talking about fairness. It baffles me why ultra-conservatives never talk about solutions to address the decline in real median income and the increased likelihood of reduced pensions for many employees. Other than a small percentage of the population many people in this country are going backward economically, not forward. Like countries with ultra-conservative political parties, countries with pronounced disparity of wealth do not have sustained economic growth.

Conservatives don’t seem to understand that letting the populous gain enough ground to feed their families and provide decent shelter will quell unrest. People with full bellies are more tolerant of political and corporate shenanigans than people who go to bed hungry.

In 1776, the colonists, all illegal immigrants, declared their independence from Britain. Achieving that independence was a long and difficult struggle with many lives lost on both sides.

The Declaration of Independence states, “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” Many Conservative leaders as well as certain Justices of the Supreme Court, have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not support the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

By today’s standards, Conservatives would view the colonists as rebels…and yikes, liberals! Can you imagine, a country founded by liberals. Said the conservative, “You colonists, listen to me, I’ll tell you what’s good for you.”

How I dare make such an assertion, you say. Well, guess what Conservatives and non-thinkers on the Supreme Court? Those rebels, the nasty lazy liberals of today are going to revolt, just like their brethren revolted in 1776. And when they revolt, you will be out of power and possibly in physical danger. Many of those being suppressed have weapons. And there are far more of them than you.

Now you have my musings from July 4. Not very pretty and not very encouraging. No, I’m not optimistic. I believe the Revenge Revolution is inevitable because all of us are prone not to change behavior until faced with severe negative circumstances. And then some people still refuse to change.

Exactly what year the Revenge Revolution begins is hard to predict. In the past, while my predictions of major change have been generally correct, predicted timing was usually earlier than the actual event. For talking purposes let’s assume the Revenge Revolution begins July 4, 2020. Like I said, I hope I’m wrong. (More background about the Revenge Revolution.)

#62 More about Creating Wealth. What’s Fair and What’s Game.

25 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: Please note the blog about the 5th revolution in the US is constructed as a story. While not all chapters are linked, you might want to start at the beginning. There are also some sections of interest — #41-60. More about the blog and about the author. )

Scene: Italian restaurant. Jordan with long-time friend, aka “Ms” and daughter, Maggie, whom Jordan knows but has not seen in years. Conversation is continuation of Entry #61 and resumes after dinner is served.

Ms: “I’m anxious to hear your definition of ‘fair-and-square’, especially since the youngster here is married to a mutual fund manager.”
Maggie: “Yes, Jordan, please define ‘fair-and-square.’”
Jordan: “Alright. Let’s take mutual funds. Maybe the entire finance industry.”
Ms: “This should be good. You might manage to alienate both of us. Or have you forgotten I worked at a bank for a while.”
Jordan: “Well, here goes. Banking is very important to commerce. The securities market is also very important. Both functions can help the country’s economy grow.”
Maggie: “He’s OK so far…but really hasn’t said much.”
Ms: “Foot not in mouth yet so please continue.”
Jordan: “What I view as the problem is when the bank and the securities traders…”
Maggie: “Spell that please.”
Jordan: “T-r-a-d-e-r-s.”
Maggie: “I thought you might have said traitors.”
Jordan: “The problem is when banks and securities traders start moving money back and forth with no benefit to the populous.”
Ms: “What do you mean?”
Jordan: “Banks and securities firms should be focused on creating wealth for the country. When wealth is created everyone benefits.”
Maggie: “What’s wrong with just trading securities?”
Jordan: “Without wealth creation, then trading becomes a zero-sum game. In a zero-sum game, there is a winner…and a loser.”
Ms: “I’m still not sure what you mean. Define wealth creation.”
Jordan: “Simply put, taking raw materials and making something of more value that the individual parts.”
Maggie: “You’re talking about like making a car.”
Jordan: “Yes. There are lots of examples of manufacturing. At the end of the day, the value of the product is worth more than the raw materials used to make it…including any cost for labor.”
Ms: “What about medicine? Is that manufacturing. Certainly expensive and the cost is a whole lot more than the individual parts. What about banking? Hotels?”
Jordan: “All your examples are considered services. No new wealth is created for the country.”
Ms: “But some doctors make lots of money…”
Maggie: “…especially plastic surgeons in Southern California.”
Jordan: “Individuals performing a service – plastic surgeons to use your example – can get rich. But the surgeon got rich because money was transferred from one person’s pocket to another. No new wealth was created, merely a transfer of money between people.”
Maggie: “”Ok, what about securities traders. They way you’re talking, you probably consider them traitors with a ‘t’.”
Jordan: “If we are talking about trading stocks, I have no problem. Because stocks are linked to an organization that is supposed to make a profit.”
Maggie: “Pardon me for my ignorance, but what else gets traded besides stocks?”
Jordan: “There are trades where one person essentially bets interest rates will go up and other person bets interest rates will go down.”
Ms: “Sounds like gambling to me.”
Jordan: “Gambling is exactly what it is. Other than a few instances, such trades are no different than rolling dice in Las Vegas.”
Maggie: “Are you opposed to gambling?”
Jordan: “Not at all as long as…repeat as long as one gambles with his or her own money.”
Ms: “Whose money is being gambled?”
Jordan: “Yours.”
Ms: “Mine? How?”
Jordan: “Banks, mutual funds, securities brokers all use your money to gamble in a part of the market that has little, if any, regulation. And when the gamble goes bad…as it did in 2008…the firms beg for a bailout from Washington. Your money.”
Ms: “Why should they get a bailout?”
Jordan: “Because you and Maggie and many other people would get the royal shaft when the firm went bankrupt.”
Maggie: “That does not seem fair.”
Jordan: “For much of the securities trading, if you are the little guy, the game is the proverbial ‘Heads I win. Tails you lose.’ And if I lose really big, you lose even more.”
Ms: “So when things go really bad on Wall Street, they ask for some type of taxpayer bailout.”
Jordan: “You got it.”
Maggie: “Has it always been like this?”
Jordan: “No, not to this degree. Securities trading on Wall Street has always been subject to some insider trading and favoring the larger players. For many years most of the money these guys traded was their own. When it’s your own money, most people take less risk. That all changed in the 1990’s.”
Ms: “You talking about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act?”
Jordan: “Ms, sometimes you amaze me. Yes, Glass-Steagall was passed in the early 1930’s to prevent securities firms from trading with client’s money. It was repealed in the late 1990’s. Lots of shenanigans since.”
Maggie: “Why can’t congress reinstate Glass-Steagall?”
Jordan: “There was an effort after 2008-2009 crash but no real progress. Banks and investment houses basically bought off congress…pardon me…encouraged members of Congress to take the teeth out of the proposed reinstatement.”
Maggie: “Any chance now. We have a new Congress.”
Jordan: “Maybe. The revolution resulted in a new Congress. What the new Congress considers fair remains to be seen.”
Ms: “Jordan, you talk a good game. What are you doing to address the problems in this country?”
Jordan: “Haven’t lost your touch with the harpoon, have you?”
Maggie: “Yes, Jordan, what are you doing besides yapping?”
Jordan: “And just like your mother. Well, guys, the last few months I’ve been working on a project to help rebuild manufacturing in the US.”
Ms: “Doing this on your own?”
Jordan: “Project for POTUS.”
Maggie: “POTUS? What’s that or who’s that?”
Ms: “I forget how much knowledge one acquires with age. POTUS stands for President of the United States.”
Maggie: “Wow. That’s impressive. You’re a big dog.”
Jordan: “Part of a team working on the project.”
Ms: “When does it go public?”
Jordan: “Don’t know exactly but soon. I’ll let you know.”

Dessert arrives. To be continued.

#61 Herpes Handbags? So, What’s Not Fair?

21 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Societal Issues

≈ 3 Comments

(Readers: Please note the blog about the 5th revolution in the US is constructed as a story. While not all chapters are linked, after a few recent entries, you might want to start at the beginning. More about the blog and about the author. )

Scene: Italian restaurant. Jordan and friends, Ms and daughter, Maggie.

Jordan: “Great to see both of you. Maggie, your mother and I had dinner a few weeks ago. It’s been years since we’ve seen each other. Bring me up to date.”
Maggie: “Short version is finished college. Got married. Got divorced. Moved to California and started working in high-end fashion.”
Ms: “Really high-end fashion. Maggie is too polite to mention she managed a fashion store in Beverly Hills.”
Jordan: “Wow. That’s impressive. What kind of stuff did you sell?”
Maggie: “Probably a better word than ‘stuff.’ We sold women’s shoes, handbags, other kinds of accessories. All fairly high-end.”
Ms: “High end is an understatement. Outrageously expensive.”
Jordan: “Coming from you, it must be expensive.”
Maggie: “Excuse me but the waiter is here to take our order.”
Jordan: “Speaking of giving orders. Maggie, you remind me of your mother. Do this. Do that. I think what we have is a case of ‘Like mother, like daughter.’”
Ms: “Jordan, let’s order as Maggie is suggesting.”

(Order complete. Waiter leaves.)

Jordan: “Just how expensive are these handbags? A thousand, two thousand?”
Maggie: (Laughing) “Two thousand would be our Wal-Mart model.”
Ms: “Add some more money.”
Jordan: “OK, five thousand.”
Maggie: “You’re still cold. Try $20,000 plus.”
Jordan: “$20k for a handbag? What’s it made out of, dinosaur skin with kryptonite locks?”
Ms: “You’re not far off. They use some really exotic skins and precious metals.”
Jordan: “Does anyone really buy this stuff?”
Maggie: “Each handbag is a limited edition. We usually have a waiting list.”
Ms: “There’s even a market for used handbags. Not used a lot, but still used.”
Maggie: “A few years ago a college student starting buying used handbags and reselling on eBay. In a couple of years he built a very nice business.”
Jordan: “There was an article in the NY Times about the guy. He was selling herpes handbags…”
Ms: ”…Jordan, those are not herpes handbags. They’re Hermes handbags. Hermes. Got it?”
Jordan: “Hermes handbags, herpes handbags, what’s the difference? You’ve been screwed either way.”
Ms: “You are awful. And in front of my daughter.”
Maggie: “Mom, I’m not some kid. Besides, I think calling it a herpes handbag is pretty funny.”
Jordan: “Anyway, there was some controversy because the used bag man left one company and went to Christie’s Auction House. Is a used bag man like a used car salesman?”
Ms: “Sometimes I just have to shake my head when I hear you talk.”
Jordan: “Really, this all seems rather stupid to me.”
Maggie: “That’s because you’re not a woman. It is a big deal. There is a real market for used bags.”
Jordan: “Funny, I know a few old bags and no one seems interested in them.”
Ms: “Careful. Were you talking about me?”
Jordan: “Did I say you were an old bag?”
Maggie: “You guys always talk to each other like this?”
Ms: “He’s usually not so polite. Must be because you’re here.”
Jordan: “C’mon, Ms. When have I not been polite to you?”
Ms: “Well, OK. You do always respect me…in the morning.”
Maggie: “Children. Back to the story, please.”
Jordan: “I don’t really care what people do with their money. But I do think when one company files suit to stop a used bag salesman from going to another company to sell used bags, the country’s value system has gotten out of whack.”
Maggie: “BH…I mean Beverly Hills…has always been a little out of whack.”
Jordan: “True, but at some point sanity needs to take over. Selling handbags that cost more than many people earn all year seems over the top. And waiting lists!”
Ms: “Are you implying that’s not fair?”
Jordan: “I suppose I am.”
Maggie: “What’s not fair? I mean didn’t these people earn the money fair and square?”
Jordan: “Earned yes. Fair and square? A lot of times, not really.
Ms: “Here’s dinner. Hold that thought.”
(To be continued)

#60 Being Fair. Part of POTUS’ Project on Manufacturing

18 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Personal Stories, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan and Matt, Jordan’s Office

Jordan: “Matt, thanks for taking time to talk again.”
Matt: “Jordan, the least I could do. You spent a lot of time preparing for the POTUS project. My guess is these comments will be a good add.”
Jordan: “Hope so. Some of the ideas stem from actions by GM. Others are based on recent experience.”
Matt: “OK, let’s get started. What’s the theme? What idea…or ideas do we want to add?”
Jordan: “The idea might seem obvious or naïve or both. And it might be. I want to talk about fairness.”
Matt: “Mmmm, that is interesting. And talking about ‘fairness’ does seem appropriate. We never talked specifically about it. Implied, yes but not fairness as a specific topic.”
Jordan: “Reason I bring it up is some recent experience and a conversation with a long-time friend. I was going to say old friend but she would not like that.”
Matt: “What happened?”
Jordan: “Incidents with the cell-phone company and airlines and TSA. The conversation with my friend led to a discussion of an earlier incident with GM – not product but culture.”
Matt: “I need some details to help understand the issue.”
Jordan: “I figured you might. Rather than take your time now, I wrote several papers describing what happened.”
Matt: “Good. I’ll read those later. What was your conclusion?”
Jordan: “Simple. Fairness is a critical component for long-term success of an organization.”
Matt: “Keep going.”
Jordan: “Do you deal with people or companies that have a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ approach?
Matt: “Not if I can help it.”
Jordan: “Everyone feels the same way. Why get the shaft in every situation?”
Matt: “So how does fairness affect POTUS’ policy on rebuilding US manufacturing?”
Jordan: “Fairness needs to be a key component. We talked a lot about how GM became a money machine and then started to focus on earnings and slid into bankruptcy. And then the turmoil over ignoring obvious safety issues.”
Matt: “You’re saying…if I hear you correctly…the overarching issue for GM’s downfall was fairness, or really lack of fairness.”
Jordan: “Fairness for customers. Fairness for employees. Fairness for suppliers. And fairness for people who sell the product.”
Matt: “What about fairness for the community?”
Jordan: “Great point. You’ll see in one of the write-ups that I think GM’s chairman in the 1980’s, Roger Smith, took revenge on Flint, Michigan.”
Matt: “Really? I’ll read the paper. Now, how do we translate fairness into some policy recommendations?”
Jordan: “Take your question about fairness to the community. Tell me why as a country do we encourage states to recruit businesses from other states?”
Matt: “Economic development, I suppose.”
Jordan: “Economic development for whom? The policy forces a winner and a loser. The state where the business moved considers itself the winner. The state where the business moved from is the loser. In fact, there is probably a net loss when add the incentives are added up. The US as a country gains nothing by the move. ”
Matt: “What about competitiveness of the company moving? Lower wages will make the company more competitive.”
Jordan: “That’s often the argument but it’s not necessarily true. In fact, I’d claim it is not true far more often than true. Why not increase worker productivity enough to offset any wage differential?”
Matt: “You think companies can really increase productivity to offset wage increases?”
Jordan: “Did we talk about the company I ran in California?”
Matt: “Not sure. What’s relevant?”
Jordan: “Short story is with some changes to the manufacturing process we reduced labor cost dramatically.”
Matt: “How much?
Jordan: “We could have doubled the wages of workers in California and paid workers in China zero and still come out ahead.”
Matt: “What? You could pay workers in California twice what they were making. Then pay workers in China nothing and still have lower costs?”
Jordan: “You got it. And the reason is twofold. First reason is increased productivity. By the way, we did not lay off any workers. We actually added workers.”
Matt: “You added workers and increased output? That’s un-American.”
Jordan: “I know. Counter intuitive, huh? The second reason is all the other costs associated with producing in a remote location.”
Matt: “You had a term for that. I remember now…a holistic approach to cost.”
Jordan: “Taking all costs into account.”
Matt: “Is that example a one-of-a-kind or are there more examples?”
Jordan: “An example few people know about is the coal industry.”
Matt: “Not a very popular topic, especially among environmentalists.”
Jordan: “Not a very popular topic among former coal miners either.”
Matt: “What do you mean, former coal miners? Still lots of coal being produced in the US.”
Jordan: “Actually, production is higher than during the 1970’s.”
Matt: “What about employment. You said former miners.”
Jordan: “Productivity is way up. We need to confirm these numbers but I think employment is down from about 250,000 miners to only about 50,000 today.”
Matt: “That’s all that work in coal mining? That’s a blip on the employment radar screen. That’s it?”
Jordan: “All because of productivity.”
Matt: “Makes you wonder why some politicians claim environmental laws will destroy coal mining jobs.”
Jordan: “The coal industry destroyed the jobs through productivity.”
Matt: “That’s a good and bad example for POTUS. Good because technology can increase output. Bad because of reduced employment.”
Jordan: “We need a balanced policy in manufacturing policy. Companies should adopt technology but not just dump workers on society. They have an obligation to their employees.”
Matt: “How can that policy work? Sounds like socialism. Won’t such a policy just encourage companies to produce outside the US?”
Jordan: “Not if the policy is structured properly. We’re talking about being fair. If some people view being fair as socialistic, then so be it. But being fair does not mean being equal.”
Matt: “You’re really hammering on being fair. Few people ever talk about companies being fair.”
Jordan: “Lack of fairness is why we had a revolution. In fact, lack of fairness has been the cause of each revolution in this country…”
Matt: “…and, if you think about it, elsewhere as well.”
Jordan: “So why not make being fair part of the manufacturing policy recommendations for POTUS? Maybe fair should be part of every policy in Washington.”
Matt: “Jordan, you might be on to something. Get people to move away from hard-core ideology…”
Jordan: “…which most ideologues do not really understand…”
Matt: “…and focus on fairness. Sounds so simple.”
Jordan: “It is simple. Start addressing problems with the premise, ‘What’s fair?’ Then work out the details.”
Matt: “Listen, I gotta run. And I need to start drafting a formal paper for POTUS. But I want to make sure we include your thoughts about fairness.”
Jordan: “I’ve written a couple of papers on fairness. I should write a couple more.”
Matt: “If you want. But I’m a reporter. I’m used to working from interviews with people. If it’s OK with people you talk to, just record the interview and send me the audio or the transcript.”
Jordan: “Alright. We each have our assignments.”
Matt: “Let’s keep in touch and meet periodically.”
Jordan: “Deal. And just to be fair, I’ll buy coffee next time.
Matt: “No, just to be fair, I’ll buy.”
Jordan: “Get out of here.”

#57 Being Fair Is Good for GM and Good for the Country

07 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, General Motors, Personal Stories, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: Please note the blog about the 5th revolution in the US is constructed as a story. While not all chapters are linked, the story might be more meaningful by starting at the beginning.)

Scene: Coffee shop with Jordan and JC. Catching up on recent events. They’ve finished their first cup.

JC: “Thanks for buying my coffee refill. You’re so generous.”
Jordan: “You’re welcome. Next time, you buy…dinner.”
JC: “So when you look back at what went wrong at GM, is there one overriding issue that comes to mind?”
Jordan: “Yes. And I am not sure I actually said this to Matt. GM’s downfall started when it stopped being fair.”
JC: “Stopped being fair? Jordan, that seems odd and naïve, especially from you. You want companies to be fair? What planet are you living on?”
Jordan: “Think about it? Do you deal with people or companies you don’t think are fair? They must win and you must lose.”
JC: “Occasionally, we all end up with the short end of the stick. But I try to avoid situations where I am always the loser and getting screwed.”
Jordan: “That’s what I mean. Everyone makes mistakes and not every situation is fair. But people try to stay away from situations where ‘heads I win, tails you lose.'”
JC: “Now give me an example. And not just the car stuff.”
Jordan: “OK. Do you know what COLA means?”
JC: “Cost of living allowance.”
Jordan: “Hey, you’re good.”
JC: “Jordan, most everyone knows what COLA means. So tell me the story, already.”
Jordan: “I don’t remember the exact year…sometime in the early 1980’s…and the economy was in a mild recession. Car sales were down and GM was under pressure to maintain profits. More self-induced pressure but that was the claim.”
JC: “And who was captain of the GM ship at the time?”
Jordan: “Roger Smith.”
JC: “Oh, Mister ‘focus-on-cost’ himself. This story should be good.”
Jordan: “So Squeaky decides all salaried people should sacrifice some compensation in order to help earnings.”
JC: “Everyone was to sacrifice? Across the board?”
Jordan: “All salaried employees. And Smith decides the most equitable way is to stop paying COLA. That way no one has to take a salary cut.”
JC: “How is…or was COLA calculated at GM. I know for Social Security, COLA is a percentage of benefits. Everyone gets an increase, say 2-3%. The higher the benefit payment, the higher the amount of the COLA increase. A benefit of $1,000 per month would receive $30 more per month. A base benefit of $2,000 per month would get $60 more per month.”
Jordan: “COLA was different at GM. COLA was not tied to salary amount. COLA was a specific dollar amount. And COLA was paid each quarter, not every month. The amount was linked to the UAW contract.”
JC: “You in the UAW? I mean really. ‘Look for the union label…’ That’s really funny.”
Jordan: “C’mon. By linking COLA for salaried employees to the UAW, GM thought it would deter people from joining the union.”
JC: “So Squeaky…I mean Mr. Smith…decides fair means every salaried person should give up COLA. But COLA for salaried is the same dollar amount, whether the person is chairman of the board or a mail clerk. That seems like a new definition of fair.”
Jordan: “That was Smith’s definition of fair. For Smith, COLA was barely pocket change. For lower-paid staff, eliminating COLA meant a noticeable pay cut.”
JC: “What really troubles me about the story is Smith not understanding what’s fair. If everyone had to give up say 5.0% of salary, then people would not like it…but they might understand…and think its fair. But pocket change to one person and 5.0% to another is not fair. For the lower-paid employees, that might have been grocery money.”
Jordan: “I hear you. Before announcing the plan, I wonder if Smith discussed it with anyone or if he did, if anyone tried to talk him into making it more fair?”
JC: “This story is maddening…and probably all too typical. How do we make sure CEO’s and Boards of Directors of companies become more fair? I’m convinced if POTUS wants to rebuild US manufacturing, there needs to be strong emphasis on companies being as fair as possible.”
Jordan: “Telling stories like the one about taking away COLA is a good start. Everyone…well, most everyone…will understand that was not fair.”
JC: “Here’s another fairness issue. Fast forward to GM post bankruptcy, which is a whole lot more recent. GM starts recalling millions of cars. What was it for… something to do with starting the car?”
Jordan: “The ignition switch.”
JC: “That’s it. What really happened?”
Jordan: “Short answer is GM was still run by bean counters. GM saved about $1 per car by not fixing a design flaw in the switch. Then GM spent hundreds of millions, maybe a billion dollars or more, to recall the cars and fix the problem.”
JC: “What about all those people who died?”
Jordan: “When the switch failed, the power to the rest of the car, including the airbags was cut off.”
JC: “How many people died?”
Jordan: “We’ll never know exactly. Initial reports indicated 13 or so…but likely more.”
JC: “That’s awful. Why didn’t they fix the problem?”
Jordan: “I’m not trying to defend any actions by GM. But most people have no idea how complicated an automobile is…and how driver’s abuse it.”
JC: “Stuff happens. I understand that. But what’s not fair is the way GM knew about the problem for 10 years and never fixed it.”
Jordan: “I agree. But the report said the problem was confined to a group, not all of GM.”
JC: “Not fixing a problem is a reflection of corporate culture. And culture starts with the CEO. Worse yet, from what I read, the lawyers were some of the main culprits. Jordan, when you were at GM, was there a culture of burying problems…I don’t mean for 10 years…or even five years. And did a bunch of bean counters and even worse a bunch of lawyers effectively run the company?”
Jordan: “The problem would have been fixed…and quickly.”
JC: “That’s my point. GM ran amok. Why? And, you know why.”
Jordan: “GM management go so focused on trying to generate earnings by controlling cost, it lost sight of why it was in business.”
JC: “And, oh great GM historian, when did that culture begin to change?”
Jordan: “You know when. With the reign of Roger Smith.”
JC: “You know something, Jordan, as much as I agree with your assessment of GM changing starting under Roger Smith, GM was not alone. The United States when thru a similar transition starting at the same time.”
Jordan: “You mean under Ronald Reagan?”
JC: “Yes. Just take a look at some basic economic statistics, especially median household income. We talked about this before. Upper incomes started to gain and lower incomes remained flat. The disparity got worse, and worse and worse. Then the disparity became so great…and so unfair…that people revolted. The unfairness resulted in US having its 5th revolution.”
Jordan: “Point well taken. And lesson for the project for POTUS.”
JC: “And the lesson is ‘Why being fair is good for General Motors and good for the country.’ I know, a variation on what Engine Charlie Wilson said but still true.”

#56 Catching Up with JC. Can’t Shake GM.

04 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, General Motors, Personal Stories, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: Please note the blog about the 5th revolution in the US is constructed as a story. While not all chapters are linked, the story might be more meaningful by starting at the beginning.)

Scene: Coffee shop with Jordan and JC. Catching up on recent events.
JC: “Jordan, old boy, where have you been? Besides, you look awful.”
Jordan: “Thanks for the compliment JC. Nice to see you, too.”
JC: “Seriously, where have you been? You OK?”
Jordan: “I’m fine, I think. And I appreciate your concern.”
JC: “So, where have you been?”
Jordan: “Holed up in my office on an assignment for POTUS.”
JC: “Some project where you’ll be put on double-secret probation if you tell me?”
Jordan: “Nothing secret…at least no one told me not to discuss it.”
JC: “So what is it?”
Jordan: “POTUS is developing a plan to rebuild US manufacturing. He asked me to use my knowledge of and experience at GM for any lessons that might be helpful.”
JC: “You’ve been away from there for a while. Besides GM seems to be in a lot of trouble.”
Jordan: “That’s one of the lessons. How did GM go from the world’s leading company to basically a so-so player…at least in the car business?”
JC: “You have to write all the stuff yourself?”
Jordan: “No, fortunately. POTUS’ office assigned a reporter.”
JC: “I came by your office the other day and saw Matt…”
Jordan: “Pardon me for interrupting but his involvement you have to keep quiet. We don’t need a bunch of people claiming liberal bias before the report is written. Forget you saw him. But, he has been a great help.”
JC: “But why the haggard look?”
Jordan: “Talking about GM…or at least what I know about GM…during the early years was great fun. And frankly, truly inspiring. They did a great job.”
JC: “A lot of those years Sloan was in charge, right?”
Jordan: “How did you know that?”
JC: “Remember, I’m an American history major. Plus I read a lot. Plus I’ve known you since you could barely see over a split-rail fence.”
Jordan: “A very long time.”
JC: “When you said you were going to the Sloan School at MIT…I knew about MIT but not Sloan…I did some research on who Sloan was.”
Jordan: “So you read up on Alfred P. Sloan.”
JC: “And his middle name was Pritchard. So there.”
Jordan: “You are good. Anyway, telling the story about GM quit being fun when we started to discuss the 1980’s under Roger Smith.”
JC: “You were at Buick, then, right? From all you’ve said that was a great assignment.”
Jordan: “Buick was loads of fun. And I’d like to think I helped.”
JC: “So what’s the conflict, already?”
Jordan: “Until Matt starting probing, I’d never put the Smith regime in proper context. I’d thought about a lot of what went on but never put all the pieces together or really assessed the impact.”
JC: “And what was your conclusion?”
Jordan: “Smith…aka Squeaky in certain circles…put GM on the path to bankruptcy.”
JC: “You think intentionally?”
Jordan: “No but he intentionally caused harm to parts of GM.”
JC: “Such as?”
Jordan: “Such as the UAW and such as Flint, MI.”
JC: “Why?”
Jordan: “I don’t know exactly why. But I think Squeaky believed the UAW members made too much money.”
JC: “And therefore were effectively stealing money from GM…or at least taking it unfairly.”
Jordan: “More like taking part of Squeaky’s bonus.”
JC: “But why Flint?”
Jordan: “Because GM was forced to recognize the UAW after a sit-down strike at Fisher Body #1 in Flint.”
JC: “When was that strike? Late 1930’s?”
Jordan: “1936-37. And I don’t think Smith ever forgave the workers in Flint for the strike…or the people who supported the workers.”
JC: “I don’t want to dredge up old stories but I can tell by your voice talking about the decline of GM has been painful.”
Jordan: “The pain only gets worse the more we talk about GM post 1980. Let’s get a refill.”

#40 Why Manufacturing in the US Can Be Less Expensive

09 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions

≈ 1 Comment

Note: Entry #41 begins a series of blogs about General Motors. How did an apparent culture change over time likely lead to bankruptcy and an apparent disregard for addressing safety issues. Such actions by corporations affect societal attitudes.

(Want a PDF version for Entries #1-10, #11-20, #21-30 formatted for tablets and e-books? Click links for download. America’s 5th Revolution Volume I (Entries 1-10), America’s 5th Revolution Volume II (Entries 11-20), America’s 5th Revolution Volume III (Entries 21-30)

Scene: Jordan met former college economics professor. Just got a coffee refill.

Professor: “A few minutes ago you asked why US companies manufacturer electronic products in China when much of the production is automated.”

Jordan: “I really do not understand. But I think the #1 reason by far is perceived lower labor costs.”

Professor: “The perception of lower labor costs, not necessarily the reality of lower labor costs.”

Jordan: “Let me give you some personal experience. I realize data points of one are dangerous but the more I talk to people about their real experiences, the more my experience seems typical.”

Professor: “This should be interesting.”

Jordan: “I was recruited to run a small, publicly held company in northern California.”

Professor: “Lucky you. Near wine country?”

Jordan: “Smack in the middle of it. The area is great for grapes and apples but not what one calls a hotbed for manufacturing.”

Professor: “What was the product line?”

Jordan: “Electric bikes and scooters, all of which are assembled at company facilities in the same town.”

Professor: “What’s the issue? The company was manufacturing, or at least assembling in the US”

Jordan: “The Board of Directors wants to move assembly to China and lay off many of the US employees.”

Professor: “Because labor costs were too high?”

Jordan: “That’s what they thought but none of the Board members had any real manufacturing experience.”

Professor: “They could have been right. If the area is not a major manufacturing center, the costs could be too high.”

Jordan: “My analysis? To understand true labor costs we also needed to analyze other systems. When I started average production was 37 scooters per day. Some days production was 75 scooters and other days production was zero scooters.”

Professor: “Seems like a production scheduling issue.”

Jordan: “Scheduling and parts sourcing at a minimum. The company did not fully evaluate how quality of parts could affect the rate of production.”

Professor: “Give me an example.”

Jordan: “The scooter drive system included a sprocket that linked the electric motor and a belt, which turned one of the wheels. The price of the sprocket appeared cheap…”

Professor: “But further analysis…”

Jordan: “Further analysis indicated 80% of the parts were not to specifications. As a result the output of the motor assembly line was lower. Even worse was when the workers tried to make the sprocket fit, they sometimes inadvertently damaged the motor, which caused more problems.”

Professor: “So to get 100 good sprockets you had to buy 500 sprockets. Where were the sprockets manufactured? Let me guess…China.”

Jordan: “Yes. Look, China makes some quality products. I asked the chief engineer to call a contact of mine in automotive. We sent the drawings. He quoted parts from a US manufacturer that cost 30% less and guaranteed all parts were to spec.”

Professor: “The individual part cost 30% less?”

Jordan: “Each part. Not the total but each part.”

Professor: “Good move. Quality goes up, production goes up and purchase costs go down and warranty goes down. As if that’s not enough, anything else?”

Jordan: “We made some changes to the assembly line.”

Professor: “Equipment and automation?”

Jordan: “No capital equipment or automation, just basic layout and processes. Most of the ideas came from the employees. We also implemented some recommendations from lean manufacturing techniques…but all ideas you would learn before the first coffee break on the first day of class.”

Professor: “You’re telling me you used very basic information to begin to make improvements.”

Jordan: “I am embarrassed to tell you how basic. We literally taped off work stations, color-coded hand tools by worker, bought a few hand carts and implemented employee suggestions.”

Professor: “What happened to production?”

Jordan: “Give me a guess. In just 7 months how much do you think production increased?”

Professor: “50%? No make it 100%. You doubled production.”

Jordan: “Try a higher number.”

Professor: “OK 300%. Production increased from 37 to 150 per day.”

Jordan: “Try 37 to 250 per day. Well above a 500% increase in production with basically the same equipment…and workforce.”

Professor: “You didn’t add any people?”

Jordan: “We added a few in shipping because they could not keep up. But nowhere else.”

Professor: “What about labor costs? How much more did you pay people?”

Jordan: “We gave people bonuses for reaching certain targets. Here’s an interesting statistic. Take the US labor rate and bonus at the seven months and double it.”

Professor: “So you are going to pay the US twice as much?”

Jordan: “Yes. Now take the labor cost for products made in China and make it zero.”

Professor: “Double the labor cost in the US and make labor cost in China zero…free.”

Jordan: “And tell where it’s cheaper to build the product?

Professor: “I know this is a set up. Cheaper in the US.”

Jordan: “Hard to believe but it is true.”

Professor: “That’s remarkable. But seems like an extreme example.”

Jordan: “I agree the percent increase in production is unusual but not the savings in other costs. What companies often overlook are the less obvious costs – lead time between order and receipt of goods. Cost of not being able to adjust production quickly for parts changes or even a bad part. You might end up with container loads of product before the change.”

Professor: “What is the lead time between ordering and receipt.”

Jordan: “Usually months. Unless you air freight, you have 6-8 weeks shipping time on the ocean versus days by train or truck in the US.”

Professor: “Is quality control really an issue?”

Jordan: “Quality control is a problem for any manufacturing company. But when your supplier is thousands of miles away and with long lead time, the impact of problems grows exponentially. Plus, the cultures are different when it comes to quality. Also ask companies how difficult it is to protect IP.”

Professor: “Intellectual property?”

Jordan: “Yes. Product knock-offs are a real problem.”

Professor: “In your example labor costs became a very small piece of the overall cost. Why do you think the companies continue to source outside the US when total cost seems to be cheaper when manufacturing in the US?”

Jordan: “That’s my frustration. And let’s take electronics specifically. Virtually all of the manufacturing and assembly of many electronic products are automated. Why go outside the US?”

Professor: “US offers competitive…and maybe lower cost…and faster turnaround time.”

Jordan: “That’s why we need a national policy to get more companies to start manufacturing in the US. Even with automation, there will be more people employed in the US. And we can start to rebuild wealth.”

Professor: “The administration can begin rebuilding with some macro-economic policies. The first recommendation might sound silly but the administration needs to promote buying products made in America. I’m not talking about everything but products that can be made here at a very competitive price.”

Jordan: “Are you suggesting that as a policy?”

Professor: “Jordan, you know as well as I know the power of persuasion. If the president begins to discuss in understandable terms why people should buy products made in America, then customers will begin to force companies to change.”

Jordan: “You talking about fireside-chat talks, like FDR did?

Professor: “Have you ever listened to those chats…or read the transcripts? If you have not, you should. FDR presented major issues and solutions in an understandable way.”

Jordan: “None of the hyperbole of today?”

Professor: “Incredibly straightforward. You need to listen to them. If fact, all politicians need to listen to them.”

Jordan: “A series of fireside chats might be a great start.”

Professor: “The chats will give you time to refine some recommendations.”

Jordan: “OK, we have a plan. I’ll propose fire-side chats. Can you help with the longer-term recommendations?

Professor: “Thought you would never ask. It would be an honor. ”

#38 Duke Refuses to Clean Its Ash

02 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: Please note the blog about the 5^th revolution in the US is constructed as a story. While not all chapters are linked, I think the story will be more meaningful by starting at the beginning.)

Want a PDF version for Entries #1-10, #11-20, #21-30 formatted for tablets and e-books? Click links for download. America’s 5th Revolution Volume I (Entries 1-10) America’s 5th Revolution Volume II (Entries 11-20) America’s 5th Revolution Volume III (Entries 21-30)

Scene: Jordan’s office with JC — conversation continues.

Jordan: “OK, JC, we’ve got our coffee refill. What else qualifies Duke Energy for ‘Stupid Is as Stupid Does’?”

JC: “There are several. #1 is Duke, in their terms, wants to take a disciplined, fact-based approach to evaluating long-term solutions for coal-ash basins.'”

Jordan: “What more facts do they need?”

JC: “Ya’ got me. Of course earthen dams can leak. Some of the coal ash earth dams have been there for decades. And CEO Goody-Two-Shoes claims Duke needs more time to study.”

Jordan: “That does seem a bit bizarre. Duke is supposed to monitor dams so where are the data?”

JC: Jordan, that coffee must be clearing your brain. You are starting to understand why people are so upset with Duke.”

Jordan: “What else are they doing?”

JC: “Duke wants to restrict the release of information it gives to legislators and environmental groups. Let me read what an attorney said who is representing Duke. Now Duke has an outside attorney as a talking head instead of a Duke employee. Here goes, ‘Duke Energy strongly denies it has in any way knowingly violated the law or committed a crime.’ OK, if no crime, then why outside counsel and not CEO Goody-Two-Shoes talking?”

Jordan: “Some info is private.”

JC: “Mmm. The info is about violations of environmental laws. And they want to withhold the info from the NC DNR.”

Jordan: “What’s their rationale?”

JC: “Duke claims the info might be used in a civil lawsuit against them.”

Jordan: “No info to regulators and no info to people who might want to sue Duke.”

JC: You got it. Goody-Two-Shoes heads a monopoly that is supposed to be monitored by government. Everything smells like Duke violated the law. Now, Duke refuses to provide any info and therefore no one can prove any wrongdoing.”

Jordan: “Are you implying a cover-up?”

JC: “I am not implying anything. I just look at the facts. Duke dumps coal ash into the Dan River, causing a major pollution problem. The NC DNR finally decides to investigate. And now Duke does not want to provide any info. What does that smell like to you?”

Jordan: “At a minimum, smells like a lot of arrogance.”

JC: “And what has been the pattern when companies display a lot of arrogance?”

Jordan: “Some type of wrong doing.”

JC: “And one other little item about Duke.”

Jordan: “What’s that?”

JC: “Gee, somehow Duke was caught dumping coal slurry into some river in eastern North Carolina.”

Jordan: “Illegally?”

JC: “They had a permit to release small amounts. But they were pumping many times over the limit.”

Jordan: “Who discovered it?”

JC: “Believe it or not, the NC DNR. As tight as Duke is…or at least was…with the DNR, the violation must have been really gross for DNR to report Duke.”

Jordan: “What you’ve told me is Duke seems to have a pattern of ignoring the law and/or viewing any fines if they get caught as a cost of doing business.”

JC: “The cost of which they probably figure out how to charge back to rate payers. I don’t condone that behavior from any organization. If a company acts that way, usually you can boycott them and buy a product from someone else.”

Jordan: “But not Duke, because it is a monopoly.”

JC: “Hey, he does understand. Duke is a monopoly that’s run amuck. Now, Jordan, what action is the government going to take.”

Jordan: “Good question. People need electricity. Converting Duke to a publically owned utility is an option but fraught with problems…and lots of lawsuits.”

JC: “What about changing CEO’s?”

Jordan: “The CEO sets the tone for the organization. We might be able to do that.”

JC: “Who was the former CEO at Duke? Something Rogers. All I can think of is Roy Rogers.”

Jordan: “It wasn’t Roy Rogers.”

JC: “But the guy was a cowboy. Seemed to shoot any executive that might question his judgment.”

Jordan: “He did fire his announced successor and then reinstated himself as CEO.”

JC: “Then he picked Goody-Two-Shoes to succeed him.”

Jordan: “The Board of Directors approved.”

JC: “Jordan, don’t be stupid again. Roy Rogers picked the Board members. Why wouldn’t they approve Two-Shoes?”

Jordan: “Alright. I see two major issues with Duke that flame public outrage. #1 is a monopoly disregarding the law. #2 is a monopoly that wants to withhold information from regulators and the public.”

JC: “Duke’s behavior is what leads people to seek revenge…like this revolution. Changing the CEO seems like a great first step.”

Jordan: “Let me get started.”

JC: “Don’t take too long. Duke is a loose cannon and the ship is headed into rough waters.”

Jordan: “Aye, aye, captain. I’ve got my orders. By the way, nice to see you JC.”

JC: “You too Jordan. Good luck.”

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Category Archives: Causes of the Revolution

#68 New Ideas to Start Getting Blacks Off the Bottom Rung

#66 Next Phase

#65 Independence Day Musings

#62 More about Creating Wealth. What’s Fair and What’s Game.

#61 Herpes Handbags? So, What’s Not Fair?

#60 Being Fair. Part of POTUS’ Project on Manufacturing

#57 Being Fair Is Good for GM and Good for the Country

#56 Catching Up with JC. Can’t Shake GM.

#40 Why Manufacturing in the US Can Be Less Expensive

#38 Duke Refuses to Clean Its Ash