• Home
  • Booklets/Grouped Entries
  • Tech Tsunami
  • List of Entries to Date
  • About the Author

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

usrevolution5

Category Archives: Economics

#123 Do They Really Understand? The Impact of Accounting on Federal Deficit. (Part 3)

16 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Education Issues, Possible Solutions

≈ 7 Comments

Scene: Jordan and Sandy, a former business colleague, are having coffee.  The discussion, which began Entry #121, has centered on Sandy’s frustration with Federal government policies and Jordan’s attempt to explain the rationale and benefit of certain policies – politely, why Sandy’s thinking is incorrect.

Sandy:  “OK, Jordan, we’ve had our break.  Now let’s get back to the federal budget.  Why can’t we have an amendment to make sure it’s balanced every year?”

hunterJordan:  “You sound like some Tea Party Republican.”

Sandy:  “Well, that’s what I am.  So why not?”

Jordan:  “In an attempt to answer your question, I’m going to tell you a story.”

Sandy:  “Typical bureaucrat.  Never…and I mean never…gets to the point.  OK, I’ll be nice and listen.  What’s little Jordan’s story?”

Jordan:  “You would have enjoyed what happened to me the other day.  I was playing golf…”

Sandy:  “Excuse me, playing golf is a waste of time.  It’s the only game I know where people who play less are happier than those who play more.  You’d think if you were spending all that money for a round of golf, you’d want to hit the ball more times, not less.  Yes, I’ll be quiet.  What’s the story?”

TurtleneckJordan:  “I was playing in a charity tournament and lo and behold, whom do I meet in the locker room afterwards but two of your favorite people.”

Sandy:  “I cannot imagine since the people I like would be at the shooting range, not the golf course.  Who?”

Jordan:  “The Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader.”

Sandy:  “You’re kidding.  You guys pal around with each other?”

Jordan:  “Hardly.  Remember, I said this was a charity golf tournament.”

Sandy:  “That is interesting.  What happened?”

Jordan:  “Finally, he’s willing to listen.  I’ll tell the story as best I remember it.  Here goes.”

The following is Jordan’s dialogue explaining the encounter.  Scene: in the locker room after the tournament.

CongressJordan:  (Addressing the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader) “Gentlemen, what a pleasant surprise.”

Speaker of the House (aka, John Boy):  “Well, well, well, if it isn’t one of POTUS’ lackeys, Jordan Abel.”

Jordan:  “Thanks for the compliment, John Boy.  Glad you are so supportive of people who try to help.”

Senate Majority Leader (aka, Mackey): Forgive him Jordan, he had a bad round of golf.  I’m glad to see you…well, sort of.”

Jordan:  “By the way, what I have ever done to you guys?”

John Boy:  “It’s not you, Jordan.  Your boss is the problem.”

Jordan:  “OK, what’s the issue?”

Mackey:  “Where do we start?  The list if issues is very long.”

man_with_speechJohn Boy:  “First of all, why won’t he cooperate?  He’s like a rock.”

Jordan:  “What do you mean?  Give me an example.”

Mackey:  “You buy us a drink and we’ll talk.  Deal?”

Jordan:  “Deal.  (Order drinks.)  OK, give me a couple of issues.”

Mackey:  “Environmental stuff.  POTUS keeps pushing to reduce coal consumption.  Why?  We need more coal, not less.”

Jordan:  “You mean your constituents like coal because they think it means jobs.”

Mackey:  “Coal equals jobs.”

Jordan:  “Mackey, you and I both know that the coal industry has far fewer jobs per ton mined than it used to.”

Mackey:  “But we can’t lose those jobs that are left.  And POTUS is a major threat to those jobs.  What’s wrong with him?”

Jordan:  “What if there were a way to create jobs and reduce coal production?”

Mackey:  “Sounds like some liberal gibberish.  We need coal.”

Jordan:  “What about emissions from coal?  What about scarring the land?””

occupations_lawyerMackey:  “More liberal gibberish, Jordan.  You just don’t understand.  Quit being so rigid and uncompromising.”

Jordan:  “Think I’ll probably have another drink.  John Boy, what’s your issue?”

John Boy:  “Budget.  We need a balanced budget.  In fact, we should have a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget.”

Mackey:  “I agree.  The country is going to run out of money.”

Jordan:  “Excuse me?  Run out of money?  How?”

John Boy:  “You know what I mean.  The country cannot afford all this debt.”

Jordan:  “Tell me why not.”

John Boy:  “The private sector pays its debts.  Why shouldn’t the government?”

debtJordan:  “You really think the private sector pays its debt?”

Mackey:  “Of course it does.”

Jordan:  “Mackey, you’ve been inhaling too much coal dust.  Most private debt debt…commercial anyway…is rolled over and new debt issued.”

John Boy:  “C’mon, Jordan.  Stop the BS.”

Jordan:  “Really, think about this.  Do financial institutions ever…and I mean ever…pay off their debt?  No.  They merely issue new bonds.”

John Boy:  “But the private sector has collateral backing their debt and the government.  So another liberal lie.”

Jordan:  “So you’re claiming the government has no assets?  What about all the land, buildings and equipment it owns?  You don’t think those are assets?”

John Boy:  “I’ll be honest with you since we are off camera – I never thought about government debt being backed by collateral.”

Mackey:  “Frankly, I hadn’t either.  Wonder why no one explains the debt structure the way you just did?”

Piggy BankJordan:  “Part of it is the problem is the approach to accounting – and I’m not talking about counting beans.  Unlike private industry, the government is forced to use what I call “piggy bank” accounting.  Piggy bank accounting is just like it sounds – how much cash goes in the piggy bank and how much is taken out.  Does not matter that the money went to buy something that will last say 50 years?  You have to account for it all right now.”

John Boy:  “Accounting.  I almost failed that and I only had one semester.”

Jordan:  “Remember debits on the window side and credits on the chalkboard side.”

John Boy:  “How’d you know?”

BeanCounterMackey:  “OK, while we’re confessing, I don’t understand accounting either.  But what real difference does some accounting system make?  A bunch of bean counter stuff.  The government should not run a deficit.”

John Boy:  “You know, I never thought I would say this but Mackey, let the man explain.  We might learn something.”

(To be continued)

#121 Do They Really Understand? (Part 1)

07 Tuesday Apr 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Economics

≈ 10 Comments

(Readers: The blog centers around the author’s prediction that the US will experience a 5th revolution by 2020-2025.  Some early vignettes precede the revolution; later vignettes follow the revolution.  Many characters appear regularly.  More about the blog and the author.)

Scene: Jordan runs into former work colleague at coffee shop near office.

Jordan:  “Sandy, great to see you.  What brings you to Washington?”

Shunterandy:  “Not here by choice.  You know how I hate this place.  And, yes, nice to see you, too, Jordan.”

Jordan:  “Well, why are you here?  Gun show?”

Sandy:  “You’re funny.  Or at least you attempt to be funny sometimes.  You know there are no gun shows in DC.  Would make it too easy to wipe out stupid legislators.  I’m here to testify why a new drilling technique for oil and gas is not harmful to the environment.”

Jordan:  “Sounds like fun to me.  You’re the right guy to be testifying.”

Sandy:  “Testifying will be about as much fun as going to the dentist.  Remember when I had two root canals and a bunch of other work done?”

Jordan:  “How can I forget?  You were not a happy camper.”

Sdentist clipartandy:  “Think I would rather go back to the dentist than testify.  Most of the people in Washington are idiots…at least the dentist is reasonably smart.”

Jordan:  “Glad to see you haven’t lightened up, even after the Revenge Revolution.”

Sandy:  “Another smartass comment.  Well, these people are idiots.  Most of them have no idea what they’re talking about.”

Jordan:  “OK, I agree many legislators are not well versed on some key topics but give me some of your examples.”

Scheckbook2andy:  “Let’s start with the budget. Why does the Federal budget always have to be in the red?  The budget should be balanced, just my household budget is balanced…or our company budget is balanced.”

Jordan:  “What else?”

Sandy:  “Why can the government print money without any backing?  US currency is like vaporware – nothing there.”

Jordan:  “One more.”

Sandy:  “Only one?  I could go on for weeks.  Why do we still have Obamacare?  The Democrats rammed that down our throats.”

Jordan:  “Alright, let’s start with Obamacare.  You realize that Obamacare…really the Adoctor-clipart-illustration-31325ffordable Care Act…was designed by and implemented first by Republicans.”

Sandy:  “What?  Obamacare was designed by Republicans?  And implemented where by Republicans?”

Jordan:  “Designed by Republicans to ensure private insurance companies continued to receive premiums and continued to operate.  The Republicans plan was implemented by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.”

Sandy:  “Really?  I did not know that.”  (BTW, actual quote.)

Jordan:  “Sandy, you’re a smart guy.  I can’t believe you did not know that.  Where are you getting your information?  Fox News and the internet?”

Sandy:  “Both sources, but mostly the web.”

Jordan:  “If you are still looking at some of those sites you used to send me links to, I suggest you rethink your sources.  You need more credible information.”

Sthe-new-york-times1andy:  “Like that liberal rag you read, the New York Times?”

Jordan:  “Sandy, Sandy, such venom.  You might not like some of the Times’ editorials…if you’ve ever read any…but unlike some of your sources, the NYT has a clear separation between reporting and editorials.”

Sandy:  “It’s all the same to me.”

Jordan:  “And I think not understanding or appreciating the distinction is a major problem.  People seem to have a hard time…or maybe refuse to separate reporting and editorial comments.”

Sandy:  “What’s really the difference?  I know that might sound stupid but no one ever explained the difference to me.”

Jordan:  “Good question.  For many years I thought everyone understood the difference…but obviously not.”

Sandy:  “Ok, so tell me.”

Jordan:  “The staff reporting the news is separated from the editorial staff.  In large reporter on typewriter clipartpapers…New York Times, for example…the management of the news reporting is completely separate from the editorial side.  Really two separate organizations.  The editorial board has no control over what is reported in the news section.”

Sandy:  “As simple as this sounds, you’re saying the news is reported by, well, reporters.  What about the articles on the editorial page?  Don’t the reporters write those?”

Jordan:  “Reporters do not write stories on the editorial page or the Op-Ed page…you know, the page opposite editorials.  Many of those articles are written by what you might call free-lance writers.”

122213_1311_9Guruandthe2.jpgSandy:  “You mean like that Paul Krugman guy?  He’s a reporter for the NYT, right?”

Jordan:  “No, Paul Krugman he is a professor of economics.  In fact he was a graduate student at MIT when I was there.  He then taught at Princeton.  By the way, he also won the Nobel Prize in economics.”

Sandy:  “You listen to too many of those Northeast liberals.  Those guys are all alike.  No wonder you’re so screwed up.  I need a refill.”

#114 Fixed Fuel Price: Incentives for More Domestic Production (Part #10)

21 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: The blog centers around the author’s prediction that the US will experience a 5th revolution by 2020-2025.  Some early vignettes precede the revolution; later vignettes follow the revolution.  Many characters appear regularly.  More about the blog and the author.)

(Background for this series of entries. Earlier POTUS asked Jordan for ideas how to convince politicians and the public that it would be a good idea to fund rebuilding US infrastructure by fixing the price for gas and diesel fuel.  Original conversation with POTUS Entries #104, #105.)

Scene: Jordan’s office.  Receives call from POTUS.

Jordan:  “Hello, Mr. President.  Nice to hear from you.”

021214_1242_24Resultsof1.gifPOTUS:  “Jordan, I called to thank you for all the help getting Congress to support the idea of funding rebuilding infrastructure with a fixed fuel price.  That was quite an achievement.”

Jordan:  “I didn’t really do anything.”

POTUS:  “You might not think so but I do.  The key was support from the oil-and-gas industry executives.  When they bought into the idea, Congressional Republicans had no reason to resist.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “Pleased I could help.  What else is on your mind?”

POTUS:  “Jordan, so cynical.  Why would you think I called about something else?”

Jordan:  “Why?  Because you are not bashful about asking.  And I appreciate being asked.”

POTUS:  “Well, since you are so eager, I do have another request.”

Jordan:  “Why do I volunteer like this?  What do you need help with?”

POTUS:  “Need you to be on call for the group putting together the details how to implement the fixed price for fuel plan.  The concept is easy to understand but there are some sticky details.  And we’re going to need some rules.”

JUsed Car royalty-free-car-salesman-clipart-illustration-443283ordan:  “You’re not suggesting some companies might try to game the system?”

POTUS:  “Of course not (laughing).  But we really need some clear rules for a couple of areas.”

Jordan:  “Such as?”

POTUS:  “For starters we need to agree on the maximum fuel price.  If the retail price is $5.00, do we set the maximum portion for fuel price at say $3.00?  And how do we adjust that price over time?”

Jordan:  “What about source of the fuel?”

Poil-clip-art-2589801-illustration-of-oil-rigOTUS:  “We need to have a high percentage of fuel from domestic sources.  One of the benefits of the plan is to increase availability of domestically produced fuel.  But how much is enough?”

Jordan:  “What about some protection of the environment while encouraging domestic production?  Republicans are going to push for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  How will sensitive environmental areas be protected?”

POTUS:  “You’re getting the picture why I want you to be on call.  You have a more balanced perspective on these issues.”

Jordan:  “Alright, I’ll make myself available.”

POTUS:  “Good.”

Tax CutsJordan:  “Here’s a thought.  One way to make encourage domestic production and avoid environmental areas is to offer a tax incentive to extract more oil from existing fields rather than drilling new.”

POTUS:  “I forgot you were involved with an oil-and-gas company.  You must be an expert.”

Jordan:  “My knowledge might fill a couple of thimbles, which qualifies me as dangerous.”

POTUS:  “Welcome to Washington.  Many of the so-called experts here don’t have enough knowledge to one thimble, let alone two.  You think the incentives would work.”

thimbleJordan:  “Yes.  For example, I know that mapping technology – think GPS but underground rather than satellites – and integration of certain software programs can point out many untapped reservoirs, or reservoirs that have lots of oil and gas left behind.”

POTUS:  “How much do you think?”

Jordan:  “I’ve heard the geologists and petrophysicists claim that in the US alone at least 70% of the oil and gas remains untapped…and it might be as high as 90%.”

POTUS:  “That’s the kind of data we need to counter the argument about drilling in ANWR and other sensitive areas.”

Jordan:  “I can get these geologists and petrophysicists guys to testify before Congress if necessary.”

POTUS:  “That would be great.  By the way, what’s a petrophysicist do?  I’ve never heard that term before.”

Jordan:  “Neither had I.  It’s the guy who analyzes the rock formation for how much and how fast the oil or gas will flow…and a bunch of other stuff.”

POTUS:  “Doesn’t a geologist do that?”

Jordan:  “At a macro level.  But the petrophysicist works with the driller…at least the good ones do.  Think of economics.  The geologist is more like macroeconomics.  The petrophysicist is more like microeconomics.”

POTUS:  “That helps a little bit.”

PP_For_Dummies_0_IntroductionJordan:  “Don’t feel bad.  I had no idea what a petrophysicist did.  Then I found a segment on YouTube based on a book titled “Petrophysics for Dummies.”  I watched it and, as they say, now I are an expert.”

POTUS:  “I might watch it, sometime…after I’m out of this place.  Jordan, thanks again for the help.  I’ll let the implementation team know you are available.”

Jordan:  “You’re welcome, Mr. President.  Call any time.”

 

 

#113 Oil Industry Buys into Fixed Price for Fuel (Part 9)

14 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: The blog centers around the author’s prediction that the US will experience a 5th revolution by 2020-2025.  Some early vignettes precede the revolution; later vignettes follow the revolution.  Many characters appear regularly.  More about the blog and the author.)

(Background for this series of entries. Earlier POTUS asked Jordan for ideas how to convince politicians and the public that it would be a good idea to fund rebuilding US infrastructure by fixing the price for gas and diesel fuel.  Original conversation with POTUS Entries #104, #105.)

Scene: Jordan on the phone with Oil Man, who recently gave talk at an oil-industry trade show.

Jordan:  “Oil Man, thanks for making the speech to the API (American Petroleum Institute) meeting.  Understand you did a great job.”

cowboy-clip-artOil Man:  “Thanks, Jordan.  Not sure all my colleagues liked it but the reception was better than I expected.”

Jordan:  “No one booed?”

Oil Man:  “At least not too loud.”

Jordan:  “I thought your link to the Gettysburg Address was masterful.  ‘Two score and about 10 years ago…”

Oil Man:  “Well, it was just about 50 years ago that the energy world changed.  Those little Middle East…”

Jordan:  (Interrupting Oil Man) “Don’t call them that Oil Man…at least not on the phone.”

Oil Man:  “That’s what they deserve to be called…little you know what’s.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “Why do you feel that way?”

Oil Man:  “C’mon, Jordan.  At times I wonder what world you live in.”

Jordan:  “Keep going.”

Oil Man:  “Not to worry.  I was going to continue talking anyway.  If it had not been for American oil companies doing all the work, the ‘you-know-what’s’ would still be riding around on camels and living in tents.”

Jordan:  “Calm down, Oil Man.  Be more diplomatic.”

camel-rider-36033Oil Man:  “Why?”

Jordan:  “When the oil companies got involved, I’m not sure they really analyzed all the possible outcomes.  Sometimes actions have unintended consequences.”

Oil Man:  “Face it Jordan, you are turning into some pointy-headed academic.  We help these guys and then they turn against us.  You of all people should appreciate that.  Many of them don’t think you ought to exist.”

Jordan:  “I agree they’re rough on Israel.”

Oil Man:  “…and many deny the Holocaust.  And you call that ‘rough’?  I’d call it being a real a-hole.  Now, see how polite I was.”

Jordan:  “I think the only reason they leave Israel alone is there’s no oil…plus the superior Israeli military.”

Oil Man:  “How ‘bout that.  Moses spends 40 years wandering around and picks the one spot in the area with no oil.  I guess that’s funny…but in the long run probably best for Israel.  One gets more creative when resources are tight.”

Jordan:  “Back to the topic at hand.  Talk more about your colleague’s reception to the fixed_price_left_imgidea of fixed price for fuel.”

Oil Man:  “Frankly, the reception was much better than I ever imagined.  I think most of the oil-and-gas CEO’s will support POTUS’ proposal.”

Jordan:  “Good.”

Oil Man:  “But the reason for supporting is probably different from what you think.”

Jordan:  “Another unintended consequence?”

Oil Man:  “Exactly.  Executives like the idea of a fixed price because it makes it easier to run the business.”

Jordan:  “Reduces competition?”

Oil Man:  “Not really.  In fact, it probably increases competition, especially from alternative energy sources.”

Jordan:  “You mean wind and solar?”

Oil Man:  “Yes.”

Jordan:  “Then what’s the attraction?”

Oil Man:  “A fixed price for fuel reduces…effectively eliminates…the impact of the wide swings in spot process for oil and gas.  Those swings where like a whipsaw.  When spot prices were high, the oil companies were in hog heaven.  When prices were low, exploration stopped and widespread layoffs occurred.  The whole process was…I should say is…terribly inefficient.”

Jordan:  “So you think the fuel companies – including companies selling alternative fuels – will support the idea…and actually develop more domestic fuel sources.”

Oil Man:  “Think about second half of 2014.  Price of oil drops like a rock.  And what happens?  Oil companies, even the big ones, stop exploration.”

Jordan:  “Isn’t that good for companies producing lower-emission fuels?”

Oil Man:  “Did you learn anything in school?  Profits at oil companies are plummeting because fuel prices are falling.  Why would that be good for alternative fuels, which fallingPricescost a whole lot more?”

Jordan:  “Capitalism at its best…letting the market sort out the weak players and who should stay and who should go.”

Oil Man:  “Except with the current system the US is more dependent on foreign sources – and being so dependent really does hurt national security.”

Jordan:  “Well, well.  So the old Texas oil cowboy is not quite so rough-and-tumble after all.”

Oil Man:  “You’ve known me a long time.  And you know that part of my ‘tough-guy’ persona is for show…and many of my colleagues as well.”

Teddy_Bear_PocketJordan:  “So deep down, oil guys are really like cuddly teddy bears??

Oil Man:  “I wouldn’t go that far but I know many in the oil industry…and many will find this hard to believe…care about America and care about the environment.”

Jordan:  “May I quote you on that?”

Oil Man:  “Might as well lose all my credibility.  Yes, Jordan, you may quote me.”

Jordan:  “Great.  Thanks.”

Oil Man:  “Now, please let me go before I throw up over my own remarks.”

Jordan:  “OK bye, Oil Man.  Talk soon.”

#112 Oil Man Supports Fixed Fuel Price Proposal (Part 8)

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: The blog centers around the author’s prediction that the US will experience a 5th revolution by 2020-2025.  Some early vignettes precede the revolution; later vignettes follow the revolution.  Many characters appear regularly.  More about the blog and the author.)

(Background for this series of entries. Earlier POTUS asked Jordan for ideas how to convince politicians and the public that it would be a good idea to fund rebuilding US infrastructure by fixing the price for gas and diesel fuel.  Original conversation with POTUS Entries #104, #105.)

Scene: Jordon on the phone with Oil Man, a well-respected executive in the oil-and-gas industry and former grad-school classmate of Jordan’s.

Jordan:  “Oil Man, nice to see you at the Super Bowl party.  Been a while.”

cowboy-clip-artOil Man:  “Yea, it was nice.  I enjoyed the chat and I especially liked the outcome of the game.”

Jordan:  “Well, what’s your reaction to POTUS’ idea about funding infrastructure?”

Oil Man:  “You mean what’s my reaction to raising taxes on fuel?  You know how Texans view taxes, especially those imposed by Washington.”

Jordan:  “OK, so it’s a tax.  I understand that and I think POTUS will call it a tax.  If he doesn’t, everyone else will.  Now what about the idea?”

Oil Man:  “At first, I thought you were nuts to bring up the idea.  Typical liberal wanting to raise taxes.”

Jordan:  “But now you’ve changed your mind?”

Oil Man:  “Changed my mind about you?  Never.  But I admit…and I really hate to admit…the idea makes sense.”

JTurtleneckordan:  “So you’ll be a spokesperson for the project?”

Oil Man:  “Hold it buddy.  I said this idea makes sense.  I didn’t say anything about being a spokesman.  Spokesman, Jordan, not spokesperson.  Do I look gender neutral to you?”

Jordan:  “What will it take to convince you to be a spokesperson…oops, spokesman?”

Oil Man:  “You not like me?  I thought we were friends.  Why would I want to subject myself to ridicule from my colleagues?”

JMickey-Mouse-fingerordan:  “I thought you were a tough guy.  Little Oil Man afraid of some criticism?  Ah, might hurt his feelings.”

Oil Man:  “Let me push up my glasses with my middle finger.”

Jordan:  “So you’ll do it.”

Oil Man:  “Where did you learn to manipulate me so well?  No, I’m not afraid of a little criticism.”

Jordan:  “Good.  Now how do we get your colleagues on board?  If we don’t get them on board, the idea will be DOA by the time it reaches Capital Hill.”

Oil Man:  “Congress still that much of a problem…even after the Revenge Revolution?  I thought you’d have Congress under control by now.  The Revolution really jolted thinking iCongressn the oil industry.  But most oil people are still hard-right Republicans and not very sympathetic to anyone politically left of them.”

Jordan:  “Understand.  You included in that hard-right category?

Oil Man:  “Yes, I’m included…and you know that.”

Jordan:  “That’s why I asked you to get involved.  If you support the idea, the hard right will have a tough time saying ‘no.’”

Oil Man:  “Alright, I’ll support it…but on one condition.”

Jordan:  “That is?”

Oil Man:  “You let me write the outline of my remarks.  I want to use my own words, not some wishy-washy crap from a DC-based PR firm. “

Jordan:  “Deal.  When can you have a draft ready to review?”

Oil Man:  “You are pushy.  Give me a few days.”

Jordan:  “Time is tight.  And your support is critical.  I’ll call in a few days.”

Oil Man:  “Why am I agreeing to this?”

Jordan:  “Because it’s the right thing to do…and you know it.”

Oil Man:  “I know.  Goodbye Jordan.”

(To be continued)

#111 Working with “Opinionaters” (Part #7 of Rebuilding Infrastrucutre)

31 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan alone in office working on the paper for POTUS.  Earlier POTUS asked Jordan for ideas how to convince politicians and the public that it would be a good idea to fund rebuilding US infrastructure by fixing the price for gas and diesel fuel.  The paper is overdue, POTUS is frustrated and Jordan struggling to finish.  Original conversation with POTUS Entries #104, #105.

Jordan (mumbling to himself): Need to get this draft finished.  The Super Bowl starts iTurtleneckn a few hours. Usually not a great football game but fun to watch.  Besides I’m supposed to meet some friends at a party.  Get out of here for a while and relax.

The entire project now seems to make sense.  I mean, can you think of a better and more equitable way to fund rebuilding infrastructure than having a fixed price for fuel?  Everyone shares in the funding.  The higher fuel prices are an incentive to increase fuel efficiency on cars and trucks…plus the lower fuel consumption reduces emissions.

So what can sidetrack a perfectly logical, practical plan that should have widespread Congresssupport among the voters, private industry and the Congress?  Should be relatively easy to implement…right?  We’ll be lucky if it flies.

A major question is whether POTUS has the passion to turn the idea into a reality.  No doubt the Republicant diehards will resist the idea.  For Republicants, having private industry lead rebuilding infrastructure would be considered a smart investment and Republicants would support it.  But the very same plan, if lead by government, Republicants would consider wasteful and inefficient.

If private industry raised prices to help fund such an effort, there would be no resistance from Republicants since higher prices were necessary.  When government makes such a proposal, it is considered an unfair tax on the wealthy and any and all effort to raise taxes, no matter how rational the idea, must be thwarted.

POTUS knows all this but is he willing to strong-arm Congress to approve the plan?  Chances of approval are much better since the Revenge Revolution…but many good legislative ideas still seem to get bogged down in Congress.

Plus, the radio talking heads will have a field day with this proposal.  Somehow…and I really do not understand how…the radio psychobabblers and the Fox News bobble heads have brainwashed a large percentage of the population.

Good example is their proposal for an amendment forcing a balanced Federal budget.  Do the idiots proposing the amendment have any idea of the consequences?  Forcing a balanced budget in a recession is exactly the opposite of what should occur.  A balanced budget in a recession creates a death-spiral for the economy.

parrothead_tnsFunny…well, not really funny since the potential effect is so tragic…is the true lack of understanding of economics by these parrot-heads.  At dinner the other night, I was floored when Sonny said to me, “Well you have your opinion and I have mine.”  Sonny, I hate to remind you again that I was dealing with facts and loads of empirical evidence, not just an opinion.

What was even more maddening is when pressed for facts, Sonny – like many others brainwashed – changed the subject and started to blame someone else.  Hey pal, don’t go around spouting off stuff you claim are facts but have no support for.  Oh, well, that’s an ideal world I’m wanting to live in.  I guess “opinionaters” don’t let facts get in their way.

But POTUS is up against some influential “opinionaters” so he will have to make a spoliticstrong case for the benefits of higher fuel prices.  He might even cite some of the opinionaters’ irrational arguments.

Boy, am I glad I am not a politician.  Schmoozing is not my game.  Plus some of the politicians have no shame, which really galls me.

Enough kvetching, already.  Let’s wrap up this draft.  Final check – what are the real problems with the idea to fund rebuilding infrastructure with higher fuel prices?

Real problems.  None, at least from my end.

Perceived problems.  Well, probably three and all about equal.  First is the perception ttaxpayerhat the extra cost for fuel is a tax.  The perception will exist even among those who support the idea.  And, they’re right.  POTUS can call it something like “infrastructure investment” or some other euphemism.  At the end of the day, it’s a tax.  Worthwhile but still a tax.  Let’s just cut the BS and call it a tax.

Second perception is that some of the money will be spent on non-infrastructure issues.  I agree that’s a valid concern.  Addressing the concern would be a good way to get Republicants involved and to claim partial victory with their constituents.

royalty-free-cell-phone-clipart-illustration-1067376Third perception problem is oil-and-gas industry will claim the fixed price takes away their profit potential.  Hooey.  But we need to address and demonstrate how their profits can be more stable and higher over the long-term.

All these problems are theoretically manageable.  What a great term, “theoretically manageable.”  Reminds me of some academic class.  But the problems can be addressed successfully with the right people involved.  We can talk about the right people when I meet with POTUS.  In the mean time I need to talk to my namesake about lining up the oil guys.  I wonder if he’ll be at the Super Bowl party tonight.

N122913_1337_14BringingU2.pngow, time to bail out of here, go have a drink and a good time.

(To be continued)

#110 Does the Plan Pass the “Practical” Smell Test? (Part #6)

29 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan alone in office working on the paper for POTUS.  Earlier POTUS asked Jordan for ideas how to convince politicians and the public that it would be a good idea to fund rebuilding US infrastructure by fixing the price for gas and diesel fuel.  The paper is overdue, POTUS is frustrated and Jordan struggling to finish because of a series of interruptions.  Original conversation with POTUS Entries #104, #105.

Jordan (talking to himself):  Alright, I really need finish the draft.  POTUS Turtleneckmentioned the need for rebuilding infrastructure in the State of the Union speech.  Now people are asking for details.  Why am I so far behind on this?

I’ve got most of the draft completed.  What’s left to cover?  Plan details will take a while to hammer out.  However, I need to make sure the plan is reasonably practical before it hits the press.

Practicality – does it pass the smell test?  Is the plan practical or is this some ‘inside-the-beltway’ mirage that has no chance in the real world?

do-i-smell-whatSetting a fixed price for fuel – gasoline and diesel – is practical.  Setting the price is the easy part.

What about profit margins?  The oil-and-gas executives and the fuel-station operators could gouge prices under this plan given half a chance.

What if the plan ensured that the infrastructure tax – quit calling it a tax?  The “infrastructure investment” would be limited to say $2.00 to $2.50 per gallon?  Having a ceiling on the amount of infrastructure investment would be an incentive to the oil-and-gas companies to increase domestic exploration and production.  The ceiling would also encourage the companies to reduce costs.

Funny, I suspect the oil-and-gas guys will scream about more government intervention scream-1-1024with this proposal.  But they don’t seem at all upset that the industry and the companies are whipsawed by a limited number of oil traders, who basically decide the price of oil.

I need to ask these guy, “Would you rather have fate in your own hands or someone else’s?”  But Texas being Texas, I can hear them now.

If they’d stop and think about how the proposal could benefit them directly, they might support it.  As crazy as it first seems, under this plan the oil-and-gas companies could increase profits and have a more predictable cash royalty-free-cell-phone-clipart-illustration-1067376flow.  But they’ll never buy that idea on their own.

I need to find a respected oil-and-gas executive who can carry the torch on this idea.  And I know just who to call.  He’ll say no at first, then have a drink or two, sleep on it and call back saying he supports the idea.  I need to call him.  (To be continued)

#109 Privatizing Functions of Gov’t: the Fallacy (Part #5)

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan alone in office late working on the paper for POTUS.  Earlier POTUS asked Jordan for ideas how to convince politicians and the public that it would be a good idea to fund rebuilding US infrastructure by fixing the price for gas and diesel fuel.  The paper is overdue, POTUS is frustrated and Jordan struggling to finish because of a series of interruptions.  Original conversation with POTUS Entries #104, #105.

(Jordan talking to himself.)  Getting support from Republicans for $5.00 gasoline is Turtleneckgoing to be tough, even those elected after the Revenge Revolution.  They seems obsessed with privatizing a whole range of functions of government, including infrastructure.

Claiming societal benefits by privatizing many government functions is a fallacy.  Look, government is not the most efficient organization at many tasks, but…and this is what many people fail to grasp – Republicans and some Democrats…government is a system that works most efficiently when tasks are grouped or integrated.

Any one task might be completed more efficiently by private business.  But “outsourcing” these tasks results in even more inefficient government.  I can hear the RantRepublicans screaming now.

Many Republicans congressman and many business leaders seem to forget a key lesson from private enterprise.  The lesson?  Companies that are more vertically integrated make the most money.

Historical examples.  General Motors, when it was the most vertically integrated might as well have printed money it was so profitable.  More recently, Apple, has become hugely profitable because it controls the integration of apple logohardware and software.

Vertical integration – I wonder if the lawyers in Congress really understand what it means and the potential benefits vertical integration offers.  Probably not.  OK, I’ll need to include a definition for POTUS.   The Wikipedia definition is a good overview.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_integration

POTUS will have to link the discussion of vertical integration to why many functions of the Federal government should be vertically integrated and how vertical integration applies to rebuilding US infrastructure.

Maybe we start the conversation with a discussion of roads.  During the Obama Administration Republicans kept pushing to privatize rebuilding the infrastructure.  Many Republicans said the government should have private enterprise provide the capital to rebuild roads, bridges, water treatment facilities…and a bunch of other stuff.  But, with the private capital came one caveat – the companies could charge the public tollfor using the privately funded infrastructure.

What a dumb-ass idea.  It basically turns control of the public infrastructure to the private sector.  Why?  Because some Republicans were opposed to any function run by government?  I dislike the idea intently…and I hope POTUS opposes strongly.

What if the company decides profits are more important and neglects maintenance and repair of infrastructure?  What if the company decides to increase fees or tolls?  The company could also decide the terms of the contract are onerous and then declares bankruptcy.  And what is the public left with?  The tab for repairing the infrastructure.  Meanwhile the company has reaped profits…maybe raped the public is more appropriate.

The idea of private water and sewage treatment is even more risky.  A failure by the company could have a huge negative impact on the public with virtually no accountability by the company.  I need to have POTUS remind people of the financial Prisonercrisis of 2008.  Let’s see, how many executives from the banks and Wall Street firms went to jail?  Goose egg, nada.  There was no accountability then.  The only difference today is the Revenge Revolution and people are fed up with executives and corporations not being held accountable.

The public might not understand effective oversight of private companies requires government staff.  Republicans, of course, will claim “market forces” will keep the companies competitive.

Excuse me…but the last I looked roads, bridges and water treatment facilities were all monopolies, not free-market enterprises.  Monopolies do not have a natural check-and-balance system.

Since we’ve had the Revenge Revolution I think there’s a better chance people will understand why infrastructure should be funded and managed by government.  Using private companies to help rebuild infrastructure is OK and keeps government out of certain businesses.  But government needs to manage the process.

Once POTUS makes this argument, he’ll need to talk about why $5.00 gas is necessary.  Avoid getting into too much detail about cost during the early sessions.  021214_1242_24Resultsof1.gifIt’s an easy way to get sidetracked.  But he needs to make the case that $5.00/gallon gasoline will make enough funds available to fund rebuilding infrastructure.

Maybe he should mention the Apollo program of the 1960’s.  When President Kennedy said the US would put a man on the moon in less than a decade, I think the budget was 3-4% of GDP.  Need to confirm but seems right.  That program was highly successful with vast spin-off benefits.  Rebuilding could have the same benefits.

OK, I think this section is OK for now.  I’ll need to polish and make sure it flows smoothly.  But POTUS needs to make the strong argument that government, not private companies, needs to fund and manage rebuilding infrastructure.

(To be continued)

#108 POTUS Infrastructure Project: Perception (Part 4)

08 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: POTUS’ office calling Jordan.  Earlier POTUS asked Jordan for ideas how to convince politicians and the public that it would be a good idea to fund rebuilding US infrastructure by fixing the price for gas and diesel fuel.  Original conversation with POTUS Entries #104, #105.

Jordan:  “Hello, Jordan Abel here.”

Caller:  “Mr. Abel, this is Harriet Breadsaker in POTUS’ office.  He asked me to remind 021214_1242_24Resultsof1.gifyou that you owe him a draft of how he should propose the idea of a fixed price for gasoline and diesel fuel.  When can we expect the draft, please?”

Jordan:  “Part of its complete.”

Caller:  “Mr. Abel.  Maybe my question was not clear.  When will you send the draft for POTUS to review?”

Jordan:  “Give me another week.”

Caller:  “I’ll tell him more like 10 days.  Hope we don’t have to talk again.  Goodbye Mr. Abel.”

Jordan (mumbling to himself):  “I’ve got to get going on this project.  POTUS is already on my case.  What’s the next item I need to address?

(The balance of the entry is Jordan talking to himself.”

The next “P” is “perception”.  How did I overlook perception?  The issue of perception should be upfront.  Calm down, Jordan, you are where you are.  Just be diligent and plow through the balance of the “P’s” and you will make the deadline.  Besides you told POTUS it would be a “working draft” and not a final recommendation.

“Perception.”  I need to make sure as many people as possible understand the “extra” cost of fuel is really an investment in America…and not a tax.  People should consider cost to rebuild infrastructure as an investment.   Considering as an investment seems so obvious, but not everyone gets it.

I recall before the Revenge Revolution – sometime late 2014, early 2015 – just before the Republican Congress was sworn in, there was an article in the New York Times about the lack of support for increasing the gas tax.  Some Republicans were resisting a Federal tax increase and wanted responsibility for roads transferred to the states.  (15 01 04 NYT re Little Support for Gas Tax

I recall being dumbfounded anyone would think like that.  Can you imagine having a highway system without national standards?  No guarantee of consistency among the states for road quality, signage, bridges, etc.  Talk about a potential negative impact on commerce.  What were these Republicans thinking?

ORantK, there’s a few wackos still in Congress.  Fortunately the public threw out most of them following the Revenge Revolution.  POTUS still might need to throw the wackos a bone to avoid a fight or have the legislation stalled, especially in the Senate.  What bone?  Maybe consider allocating part of the revenue from the fixed fuel price to reduce the deficit.

Another head scratcher.  Why do some Republicans think the US should pay down the Federal debt…and some even want a surplus.  Why they think like that is beyond me.  What I do know is no matter what I say or POTUS’ says, or any professional economist loaded with empirical data says, that group will never change its mind.  Do these same guys really think commercial and investment banks have enough money to pay depositors or pay off their debts?  Wall Street prints money every day.

OK, enough sidebars, back to the issue at hand.  POTUS’ proposal needs to build a credible and well-understood argument that: (i) reinforces why repair to infrastructure is needed; (ii) emphasizes the benefits of a wide range of infrastructure projects, not just road and bridges; (iii) makes it clear the extra cost for fuel is really an investment, not a tax.  Jordan, stop even considering the word “tax.”  Take the word “tax” out of your vocabulary for this project.  Repeat after me: the extra cost is an investment, the extra cost is an investment; the extra cost is an investment.

board-clip-art-300x224An unresolved issue is how to allocate the funds generated.  To avoid the perception of partisanship, maybe the solution is to create a team of different key constituents – business leaders, academic, politicians and citizens.  Need to keep the team small – ideally no more than say 9 members.  Each team member could have a supporting workgroup.  A team larger than 9 will get out of control and not provide real guidance.  Recommendations from a highly respected smaller team will be more cohesive and more difficult for Congress to reject.

Just for fun, who could be on the team?  I’ll make a list and then prune it after checklistreviewing with some other people.  For now, let’s include representatives from: (i) auto industry (ii) airline industry (iii) water transportation (iv) communications industry (v) municipal infrastructure – water, sewer, local roads (vi) environmental groups (vii) 2-3 academics – engineering (civil), business, maybe an anthropologist.  That would make for an interesting group. (viii) electricity generation industry – need alternative energy also (ix) energy producers.  Alright you are already over the limit…but a decent start.

Whew.  Some progress.  No go get some coffee and take a short break, then back to work.  No more calls from old Harriet Breadsaker.  Be nice to Ms. Breadsaker, Jordan.

(To be continued)

#107 Selling the Idea of a Fixed Fuel Price (Part #3)

28 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan calling JC about meeting to review a communications proposal.  POTUS asked Jordan for ideas how to convince politicians and the public that it would be a good idea to fund rebuilding US infrastructure by fixing the price for gas and diesel fuel.  Original conversation with POTUS Entries #104, #105.

Jordan:  “JC, are you ready to review the communications proposal for POTUS?”

010414_1635_16TeachingS1.jpgJC:  “Jordan, send me what you have and let me look at it first.  You know I like to spend time reviewing ideas before making comments.  Besides, I have some errands to run.”

Jordan:  “Alright, I’ll send an email later today with some of the ideas.  When I get another section drafted, I’ll send that.  You review.  Then can we talk, please?”

JC:  “I know we can talk but yes we may talk.  You are finally beginning to understand how to work with other people.  It’s taken a while but I guess old guys can learn.”

Jordan:  “Old.  If I’m old, then what are you?”

JC:  “Younger than you.  I’ve always been younger than you…and probably always will be, don’t ya think?”

Jordan:  “OK, you win.  I’ll email a draft of some ideas later today.”

JC:  “OK, bye.”

Scene: Jordan begins drafting marketing-like plan for POTUS.    

(Jordan finds talking to himself helpful.) “I think most people understand that infrastructure needs to be rebuilt.  But will they understand why it makes sense to fund the rebuilding using mirror-clipart_jpga fixed price for fuel?  Fixed prices, especially ones set by government, are such a foreign idea to most US citizens.  Maybe the best approach is to pretend we are launching a new product or service.  Then use the ‘15 P’s’ approach.  The 15 P’s approach has worked well in the past.  Think I’ll try that.

Now, Jordan, listen.  Take your time and follow the steps in 15 P’s procedure.  Otherwise, you’ll get ahead of yourself.  You know it’s easy to take shortcuts.  And when you do, problems inevitably occur.  Remember the time you painted the room before you prepared it properly?  What a mess, and it took forever to fix.  Slow down Jordan and take your time.

Also, don’t worry about making all the wording perfect.  Remember, Jordan, this is a draft-stamp-hidraft.  A draft…not the final presentation.  Make some notes for yourself.  OK, got it.

What’s the purpose of the project?  “Create a fund for rebuilding infrastructure throughout the United States – rebuild and/or expand roads, bridges, rail lines (especially for public transit), water treatment facilities, airports and communications infrastructure.”

How will you position the project with the public?  Why is the project necessary?   “Rebuilding infrastructure will help increase US competitiveness in the world economy and help increase the standard of living for all US citizens.”   (Note: good concept that probably needs some more explanation, but not right now.  Work on that later.)

Where will the projects be located?  Projects will penetrate all 50 states.  All states have a need to rebuild infrastructure although the mix of what’s needed varies by state.  For example, more populated areas need to improve or build new public transit, while more rural areas need to improve roads and communications infrastructure.  (Note: water and sewage treatment a major issue in all states.  Might be separate section.  Also, need to emphasize reusing water rather than just processing.)

How will we pay for the infrastructure projects?  Create a fund based on the difference money_24077_lgbetween what the price of gasoline and diesel would have been in the open market and a pre-determined price.  Fuel prices will be fixed beginning a certain date.  The difference between a ‘free-market” price and the “fixed” price will be sent to a fund to pay for rebuilding infrastructure.  (Notes: (i) if there is a phase-in period for increased fuel prices, make sure it is very difficult to delay the increase.  Otherwise a constant political battle. (ii) Think about delaying the proposed fixed prices for gas and diesel until we can lay out clearly the extent of the problem.  If people understand, $5.00 per gallon gasoline might seem more than justified.)

How will the fund be protected against other uses?  Look what happened to Social Security Trust Fund?  Fund for infrastructure needs to be separated and protected from politicians diverting it for other uses…and not just some paper wall of protection as with Social Security.  The Highway Trust Fund seems reasonably well metro_north_logoprotected (Note: need to confirm.)  However, infrastructure extends well beyond highways and in some cases projects might appear to conflict with highway construction.  (Note: need to really make solid argument for public transit, especially rail, which is the most efficient in populated areas.)

How will the project be approved given the politics in Washington?  First step will be to conduct assessment of current state of infrastructure.  Second step will be to politicsdetermine what is required to make the US and a particular geographic area more competitive.  Focus the project initially on assessing “Where is the United States today with respect to how inferior infrastructure is slowing economic growth and costing US jobs?  Make the assessment as objective and credible as possible.  Also make sure the public understands that the investment in infrastructure is a way to accelerate economic growth and create jobs.  (Note: consider measuring using ROI.  Doing so will address Republican concerns about ‘tax-and-spend.’)

What people should be involved in the project?  Mmmm, good question.  Maybe I should create a list of the types of people affected negatively by inferior infrastructure.  Just jot them down as they come to mind.  You can sort the list later.  OK, here goes:

  • People who use public transportation, especially to get to/from work, medical appointments, school, etc.
  • Businesses which rely on cost-effective and timely transportation for inbound and outbound freight
  • People who use electronic means to communicate and/or order products
  • Transportation companies that deliver products – FedEx, UPS, USPS, freight companies, railroads, etc.
  • People who commute to work using private transportation. (Note: discourage more private use where possible.)
  • Schools that use the Internet for some instruction, data gathering
  • Homeland security, local police, fire, emergency services, etc.
  • Farmers getting crops to market

OK, it’s a big list already and you’ve only scratched the surface.  In fact most everyone in the US is affected.  So now, how do we put a group together that is representative and not mired in all the politics?  The project seems as if it’s such an apolitical issue…and it might be since we’ve had the Revenge Revolution…but I am always amazed at how Washington gets bogged down in politics.  (Note: Be careful and watch out for chat-roomsanimals wounded in the Revolution – they can lash out.)

Promoting the idea.  Maybe we should create a giant “chat room” and let people tell their own stories how inferior infrastructure affects them.  Let people sell themselves and each other on the idea.

OK, stop for now.  I need to send what I have to JC — I’m already a day late.  Make sure she knows it’s a draft and encourage her to comment on it.  Then I’m going to get a coffee refill and work on this some more.  Remember, Jordan, this is a draft and not the final document.

(To be continued)

(Readers: The assumed chronological date for most of the entries in this blog is after the expected 5th revolution in the US.  For more background about  the expected revolution – labeled the Revenge Revolution – and author, please view entry #01.) 

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013

Categories

  • Affordable Solutions
  • Back Asswards Thinking
  • Background
  • Background Stupid Is as Stupid Does
  • Benefits of Revolution
  • Causes of the Revolution
  • Common Sense Policies
  • Corporate Policy
  • Definitions
  • Diversions
  • Economics
  • Education Issues
  • Federal Budget
  • General Motors
  • Gov't Policy
  • Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices
  • Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products
  • Lessons of Revolution
  • Personal Stories
  • Possible Solutions
  • Post Trump Presidency
  • Rebranding Black Community
  • SCOTUS
  • Sense Check
  • Societal Issues
  • Stupid Is as Stupid Does
  • Tech Tsunami
  • Trump 47
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • usrevolution5
    • Join 32 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • usrevolution5
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...