#147 European Economic Amnesia (2 of 3)

30 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Gov't Policy

Scene: Jordan and former colleague, whose views lean far right, are at dinner. Conversation started Entry 146. (More about author and the general content of the Blog, Entry #1.)

Steve: “You asked how much I really understand about economics.”

Jordan: “That’s the question.”

Steve: “What’s there to understand? You cannot spend more than you earn…at least not for very long. I mean, what else is there to know?”

Jordan: “Let’s see Mr. Geophysicist. Oil and gas are stored in the ground someplace. Some rocks are more likely than other rocks to hold oil and gas. If I want to drill for oil, I go find someplace with a bunch of rocks. What else do I need to know?

Steve: “Alright, point well taken. Truth be known I had one economics class in undergrad…and I don’t remember if it was micro or macro-economics.”

Jordan: “But I watch Fox News, therefore…”

Steve: “C’mon, that’s not a fair-and-balanced comment. But really, how complicated is economics?”

Jordan: “Real economics…not political economics…is a science with lots of empirical data and structured analysis, just like any science.”

Steve: “But it’s a dismal science.”

Jordan: “I don’t view it that way at all. In fact, I think economics is quite exciting. Some of the fundamentals are not well understood…or worse, ignored, especially politicians and ideologues.”

Steve: “Well, then tell me what you think was wrong with the EEC demanding Greece repay its debts. The demand to repay seems very logical to me. And logical to a lot of other people as well.”

Jordan: “I am not advocating shirking financial responsibility. However, let me ask you a question. Who do you think has a better chance of repaying debts – someone who is working or someone who is not working?”

Steve: “That’s a really dumb question.”

Jordan: “No it isn’t. That’s the question that should have been asked as Germany was imposing penalties on Greece.”

Steve: “You mean the EEC, don’t you?”

Jordan: “No, I mean Germany. From everything I’ve read about the agreement, Germany drove the decision.”

Steve: “So you think the loan restrictions are too harsh…were too harsh?”

Jordan: “Absolutely. The restrictions effectively limited Greece’s ability to grow its economy and generate enough income to pay down the debt. The restrictions created a death spiral and effectively killed Greece’s economy.”

Steve: “How so?”

Jordan: “By forcing everyone, not just the very wealthy, to take a large portion of income for taxes and debt repayment.”

Steve: “You mean tax rates matter after all?”

Jordan: “Of course tax rates matter. And it’s not just Republicans who say that. Even your hated John Maynard Keynes said tax rates matter…and that was many decades ago.”

Steve: “You think the loan restrictions precipitated the revolution in Greece?”

Jordan: “Yes. And here’s what’s so amazing to me. After WWI, the Allies imposed harsh repayment penalties on Germany. What happened? The economy collapsed, Germany had no income so it printed scads of money, which was followed by hyper-inflation.”

Steve: “I always knew printing money would cause inflation.”

Jordan: “Be careful. Here’s where you need to study economics. The two are not always so directly linked. In Germany’s case, the amount of money was excessive for the good available. Plus some other factors. But, then what happened in Germany?”

Steve: “German people rebelled and elected Hitler…and then we had WWII.”

Jordan: “You’d think the Germans might remember their history. But no, Merkel seemed more focused on extracting revenge on Greece for what she thought was ‘fiscal irresponsibility.’ Rather than allowing Greece’s economy to grow and repay debt over time, she put the screws to it. And Germany claimed forcing harsh terms on Greece was really a lesson in fiscal management.”

Steve: “Pardon me for what might seem like an obvious statement…in order to repay the debt, a country…in this case Greece…needs to grow the economy and generate income, just like a person needs income to repay debt.”

Jordan: “He’s starting to understand.”

Steve: “And for the program to work, people need to retain a decent percent of income. A country or individual cannot save their way into prosperity. You have to earn the money and then spend most of the money for the economy to grow. My expenses are your income, right?”

Jordan: “By George, I think he’s got it. The rain in Spain…”

Steve: “Tell me one more thing. Should families and government take the same financial actions?”

Jordan: “Basically, yes. But they take those actions at exactly opposite times. And the Germans either didn’t understand or refused to acknowledge that. I’ll tell you why over another glass of wine and desert.”

(Conversation to be continued next entry.)

Ebook format of recent series of entries on Federal Budget. 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130

#146 European Economic Amnesia (Part 1)

25 Saturday Jul 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ 2 Comments

Scene: Jordan and former colleague, whose views lean far right, are planning to go to dinner. (More about author and the general content of the Blog, Entry #1.)

Jordan: “Steve, glad you called. What brings you to Washington?”

Steve: “Conference plus I need to check some files at the National Archives…old mining stuff.”

Jordan: “Let’s talk more over dinner.”

Steve: “The usual spot?”

Jordan: “Absolutely. I’m sure they’ve missed us.” (Walk to restaurant.)

Waiter: “Gentlemen, good evening. May I get you something to drink?”

Steve: “Yes, please bring a bottle of a Sonoma County cab.”

Waiter: “Silver Palm or the Mondavi Special Reserve.”

Steve: “Mondovi, please. Thanks.”

Jordan: “And we know what we want to eat.”

Waiter: “Yes, sir.”

Jordan: “We will each have a Caesar salad with salmon. And could you…”

Waiter: “…Pardon me, sir. Are you the gentlemen the manager told us about?”

Steve: “All positive, I assume.”

Waiter: “Yes, he said the way you want the salmon prepared is not on the menu but we should accept the order anyway.”

Jordan: “Yes, we’re the ones. Didn’t know we were so famous. And thank you for accepting the order. We really appreciate it.”

Steve: “No need to rush the salad. We want to catch up over some wine.”

Waiter: “Yes, sir. I’ll bring the wine right out.”

Jordan: “So, Mr. Mining Expert, what shall we talk about this evening?”

Steve: “You get all the inside dope in Washington. Why do you think there was a revolution in Greece…and did that precipitate the revolution in the US?”

Jordan: “Good questions. My take on the revolutions — the underlying cause is the same for Greece, the US…in fact most any revolution.”

Steve: “Which is?”

Jordan: “Inequality. Really economic inequality.”

Steve: “The opposite of economic inequality is economic equality, which sounds very socialist to me…and I don’t like socialism and neither should you. It’s un-American.”

Jordan: “By economic inequality, I really mean unfair economic opportunity, not that everyone makes the same income.”

Steve: “Still sounds like socialism to me.”

Jordan: “You’re a religious guy, right?”

Steve: “You already know the answer to that. Of course I am. That’s why I’m a conservative.”

Jordan: “If you were to state one tenant of your religion that could be a guide for everyone’s behavior, what would that tenant be?”

Steve: “Probably, ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.'”

Jordan: “I’d say that tenant sums up most religions. So let’s take that tenant and apply it to economic policy.”

Steve: “Seriously?”

Jordan: “Seriously. If we have a policy of being fair…treat thy neighbor as thyself…what kind of economic policy would we implement?”

Steve: “I’ve never heard anyone address economic policy quite that way. If they have, there’s so much shouting that basic question gets overlooked.”

Jordan: “Sometime in the next few weeks, you’ll hear POTUS discuss a new way to measure government policy – treat thy neighbor as thyself.”

Steve: “That still sounds like socialism.”

Jordan: “Maybe your religion is socialist.”

Steve: “I’ll ignore that.”

Jordan: “More like you don’t want to think about it.”

Steve: “Put your measurement in practical terms. How would have a ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ economic policy prevented say the revolution in Greece?”

Jordan: “This is no profound statement but economic situations in Greece, the US…in fact most any country… are not pure black and white. Most of the time there’s a big gray area. But a gray area does not prevent or preclude a well-thought-out policy.”

Steve: “Tell me more.”

Jordan: “In my view Greece was affected…actually affected negatively…by three major factors.”

Steve: “The biggest one to me was that the country was filled…maybe still filled…with a bunch of slackards. Those people just don’t want to work. They want to run away from debt.”

Jordan: “You are so Republican. When did they brainwash you? Alright, the country had a less well-honed economic infrastructure than other European countries or the US.”

Steve: “What’s #2?”

Jordan: “The way the EEC (European Economic Community) was configured. Once a country agreed to use the Euro as their currency, they were stuck.”

Steve: “But I thought the Euro was a good thing.”

Jordan: “Definitely helped break down trade barriers between the countries. But if a country gets into economic trouble, like Greece, devaluing the currency to increase competitiveness is no longer an option.”

Steve: “I need to come back to that later. What’s the third issue?”

Jordan: “Germany.”

Steve: “What do you mean, Germany?”

Jordan: “What I mean is Germany gave Greece the royal finger.”

Steve: “How can you criticize Germany? They’re the economic engine of Europe. Other countries should follow the model. What was so bad about insisting Greece become fiscally responsible and pay all its debts? Seems logical to me.”

Jordan: (Pouring another glass of wine) “Oh, how quickly we forget. Steve. Let me ask you something. First, I admit I am not a geologist, a geophysicist, a petrophysicist or whatever other kind of ‘ist’ plays with rocks. I’m not sure I know enough about rocks to even be dangerous.”

Steve: “You and I definitely agree on something. Now what’s your question?”

Jordan: “How much do you really understand about economics and the impact of economic policies on world events?”

(Conversation to be continued next entry.)

Ebook format of recent series of entries on Federal Budget. 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130

#145 Obsession with Old Erections

22 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington, DC. (More about author and the general content of the Blog, Entry #1. More entries about issues surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag, #142.)

Jordan: “Gelly, could you do me a favor, please? Get Ms. on the line? She’s hard to track down.”

Gelly: “OK, but it might take a while.”

Jordan: “That’s alright. I have plenty to do.”

(Short time later)

Gelly: “Jordan, Ms. Is on the line.”

Jordan: “Thanks, Gelly. That was fast.”……”Ms., how are you?”

Ms.: “Fine, thank you. The Big Dog can’t dial the phone anymore? Didn’t know you were so important.”

Jordan: “You know you are always on the go and never easy to find.”

Ms.: “What’s up?”

Jordan: “I want to discuss erections.”

Ms.: “Maybe my question should have been, ‘What’s not up?’ You really need to visit a doctor.”

Jordan: “Why do women in my life give me such a hard time? Not that kind of erection.”

Ms.: “I’m glad that’s not the problem. Why do we give you such a hard time? Because you make yourself such an easy target. Now, what kind of erection do you want to talk about?”

Jordan: “Erections like building and monuments and statues.”

Ms.: “What do I know? I’m not an architect.”

Jordan: “You were born and reared in the south but as an adult have lived all over. I need to understand why southerners are so obsessed with the Civil War.”

Ms.: “Be more specific.”

Jordan: “Why the insistence on having all the monuments to a cause that failed? I don’t get it.”

Ms.: “You don’t get it because you are not southern.”

Jordan: “That is not an answer.”

Ms.: “Some of the people are truly trying to honor ancestors, who happened to be on the losing side.”

Jordan: “I’ll buy that argument and I understand that. And there are ways to honor those folks tastefully and privately.”

Ms.: “Then there is the group that is still in denial.”

Jordan: “150+ years after the Civil War and still in denial?”

Ms.: “Like I said, you don’t understand southern culture do you?”

Jordan: “That’s why I called you.”

Ms.: “People in the south don’t want to admit they were wrong…or even worse, admit they lost.”

Jordan: “Do these folks understand how illogical their argument is? Monuments to rebels…actually terrorists.”

Ms.: “Since when do ideologues use reason?”

Jordan: “Just think about it? For the English, the colonists were rebels. Are there statues of George Washington in England? No. Do the French have statues of Hitler?”

Ms.: “Now, c’mon, Jordan. Those are unfair comparisons.”

Jordan: “What’s unfair about the comparisons? Why should the US erect monuments on public property to those who tried to secede or overthrow the government? Erecting a monument to a bunch of rebels makes no sense.”

Ms.: “I’ll be honest. I never thought about the Confederacy as a terrorist organization. I see your point. Why should a country honor those who tried to overthrow it?”

Jordan: “If you can understand the logic…and aren’t you, or at least were a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy…”

Ms.: “…and Daughters of the American Revolution…”

Jordan: “If you can understand the logic with all that history behind you, then how do we convey the same message to general public?”

Ms.: “You talking about just folks in the south or all the US?”

Jordan: “All the US but primarily the south. Growing up in the north, the Civil War was a bit of history but really a non-issue. Few people talked about it and no one was obsessed with it.”

Ms.: “I think the message needs to be just as you described to me. Honor the dead…but privately. The general message needs to be forthright, including asking the public why there should me memorials to terrorists? Don’t mince words.”

Jordan: “What about including comparisons to attitudes in France and Belgium about monuments to Hitler?”

Ms.: “The question about how the English view the colonists is really what changed my mind. You need to point out those examples.”

Jordan: “Anything else?”

Ms.: “You might want to add one more example, although I’m not sure you need it.”

Jordan: “What’s that?”

Ms.: “Never mind.”

Jordan: “What is it?”

Ms.: “Displaying the Confederate Battle Flag on government property is like asking Jews to display the swastika.”

Jordan: “You’re right. That one is over the top…and way to controversial. The discussion would go sideways immediately.”

Ms.: “Glad you agree.”

Jordan: “Who do we get to be the spokesperson for the campaign? Really we’re trying to put the actions of the Confederacy in the proper context and move on to more important topics?”

Ms.: “I understand…and agree with the logic about not honoring terrorists. Getting the message worded correctly might take some time. Let me think about that for a couple of days.”

Jordan: “Alright. Talk later. Thanks.

Ms.: “You’re welcome. And you can call me directly next time. Bye, Jordan.”

(Continued soon.)

Ebook format of recent series of entries on Federal Budget. 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130

#140 Water Rights: Managing a Precious Resource con’t (10 of 10 in Series)

04 Saturday Jul 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

JC and Jordan concluded the standard measure for future government policies should be ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.’ They also agreed to assess whether the standard is appropriate for corporate policy. This segment is continuation of Entry #139.

JC: “Tails. First topic is ‘using water more efficiently’ and then ‘distribution of water’.”

Jordan: “OK. Obviously the two issues are not discreet. There’s a lot of overlap.”

JC: “Agreed. But we need to start somewhere.”

Jordan: “Whatever we propose as a solution, we still have a problem in getting laws changed. Ok swami, what’s the most effective way to get Congress to change?”

JC: “Aside from donating more money to someone’s campaign? I know, that was a bad joke…sorry.”

Jordan: “Why be sorry over the truth?”

JC: “Really, the most effective way to get Congress to change is simple…public opinion.”

Jordan: “I would agree that’s true for all but say gun control.”

JC: “We’re not talking gun control…yet.”

Jordan: “Here we are post Revenge Revolution. Old and new members of Congress know the public wants change…but they’re not sure what changes to make.”

JC: “Well, now we can lead by the hand members of the House and Senate and, yikes, make it look as if they’ve been thinking. What a concept. A Congressional rep who thinks. In all seriousness, let’s give them a practical solution to the water problem.”

Jordan: “A solution such as…”

JC: “A solution based on the standard for policy, ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.”

Jordan: “You need to be more specific.”

JC: “OK. Then let’s start restricting, or even banning non-productive and really unfair practices that consume excessive amounts of water.”

Jordan: “Here’s what I thought of when you said that. You know the development we live in Charlotte…”

JC: “Same name as some brand of scotch. I’ve forgotten the name but it doesn’t matter. What’s your point?”

Jordan: “So much of each lot must be lawn, either fescue or Bermuda grass. And, of course, in the summer the lawn has to look pretty so it must be watered regularly. You know how much water that takes?”

JC: “That’s stupid. But not as stupid as some housing developments in Arizona and California with green grass. Drive through Beverly Hills some time. I mean, folks southern California and Arizona are a desert. Grass does not grow naturally in a desert.”

Jordan: “You suggesting we ban grass in certain geographic areas?”

JC: “Yes…and a bunch of the prima donnas will scream. I think we should ban any landscaping that is not made up of indigenous plants. Cactus…Miss Watkins would insist on saying ‘cacti’… grows in the desert, not in the southeast US. What grows in Michigan for sure doesn’t grow on its own in southern California. Are you folks living in La Jolla listening? You do not have a right to waste water just because you’re rich.”

Jordan: “The home owners associations (HOA) control the landscaping requirements in many areas. The homeowner needs to follow the guidelines or face a fine or worse.”

JC: “Well, then, get POTUS to craft an Executive Order or Congress to pass a bill that limits HOA restrictions on landscaping to all but indigenous plants.”

Jordan: “That kind of ban might actually work. The homeowner still has flexibility to landscape many different ways. Just that you need to use indigenous plants. It’s really no different from saying you need insurance to drive a car. Pick your car and pick your insurance company.”

JC: “Now, you have the idea. Minimize intrusion on rights but manage the bigger problem – distribution of water.”

Jordan: “What about rights to use water?”

JC: “This problem seems less complicated. Tell me, why do we grow cotton in California? Cotton in California is about as much of a mismatch as I can imagine. Grow cotton in Louisiana or South Carolina…or Pakistan. There’s plenty of water. But California? It’s a desert, remember?”

Jordan: “Same with alfalfa. Seems that we need to ban certain crops in certain locations.”

JC: “Here’s where the problems of use and distribution interact. We should let farmers grow crops based on available water. Not water pumped from some far off river. Not water drawn from some aquifer. Farmers need to use water that’s available.”

Jordan: “Aren’t these restrictions a bit harsh?”

JC: “My answer? TFB. We…collective we…have a huge problem with water. Everyone needs to put on their big-boy pants and help solve the problem.”

Jordan: “Maybe that’s what POTUS should say.”

JC: “You mean ‘TFB’ or ‘put on your big-boy pants’?”

Jordan: “‘Both. Put on your big-boy pants and let’s come up with a solution that is fair. That meets the standard, ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.’ People need to understand solving the water issue is going to cause some economic disruption and some change. But you know what? TFB. I agree let’s take a break.”

JC: “Jordan, I think we have enough material now for POTUS. Why don’t you take some time, draft the outline of a speech and then review with POTUS? If we need to meet afterwards I’ll be available.”

Jordan: “OK, I’ll work on the remarks. Thanks much for the help.”

JC: “You’re welcome.”

More about the origination of the blog and the author, Entry #1.

Ebook format of recent series of entries on Federal Budget. 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130

#139 Water Rights. Managing a Precious Resource. (#9 in Series)

01 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ 1 Comment

JC: “I’m back, let’s talk water rights. The right to water is a big issue that we’ve overlooked.”

Jordan: “We do need to address it. Many people are really upset about why some people get preferential rights to water.”

JC: “Seems as if this is an ideal case for the standard, ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Jordan: “I agree. Water rights might be THE perfect case to test the standard. Water is critical for human life, animal life and plant life.”

JC: “There’s plenty of water to go around…but the water is not necessarily clean, or in the right location, or mixed with something else…like salt.”

Jordan: “Part of the issue is ownership. Over the years some people and groups have gained or bought preferential rights to the water. The policy for rights to water needs to be fair.”

JC: “Agreed that the policy needs to be fair but so does the behavior of those who have existing rights to water.”

Jordan: “Why should those with rights to extra water share with anyone else? They bought the rights. If they want to waste the water, they own it. It’s their right.”

JC: “You sound like some lunatic Libertarian. I paid, therefore…”

Jordan: “Well pardon me but you sound like some socialist. Everyone shares.”

JC: “Let’s just backup and remind ourselves that despite claims by Libertarians and many Republicans, property rights are not an inherent right.”

Jordan: “Excuse me. Say that again.”

JC: “One more time. Property rights are not an inherent right. Property rights, including water rights, are granted and protected by that terrible organization called government. Remember?”

Jordan: “I know that but a lot of people either never learned that in school or remember it only selectively.”

JC: “Part of what POTUS needs to discuss with the public is a reminder of the source of rights to ownership and how rights are maintained. Rights are granted based on a signature on a piece of paper.”

Jordan: “Think he’ll buy that argument?”

JC: “He doesn’t have to buy the argument. He has no choice. Citizens of this country, whether left, right or center politically, need to understand government can giveth and government can taketh.”

Jordan: “You talking about suspending ownership rights to water?”

JC: “Yes. I am. I don’t think there is a choice. We’ve already had the Revenge Revolution. If water rights aren’t resolved fairly, we’ll have another revolution…and it will likely be worse.”

Jordan: “You’re probably right. But how do we get started?”

JC: “Thanks for the compliment about being right. How do we get started? Let’s look at some history. In times of war, certain rights in this country have been suspended.”

Jordan: “True, but this is not war, at least not yet.”

JC: “Then look at government actions in non-war crises.”

Jordan: “You mean like the Great Depression?”

JC: “Yes. Also, look at the environmental crises in the 1970’s…you know with widespread air and water pollution.”

Jordan: “I guess it’s almost shocking by today’s politics, but we had a Republican president driving the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

JC: “Hard to believe — a Republican president creating EPA. Then the EPA set lots of standards that some industries and some of the public thought were too restrictive and invasive.”

Jordan: “The auto industry being one. The companies screamed and said the standards could not be met.”

JC: “But guess what. The companies put on their big-boy pants and met the standards.”

Jordan: “And the auto industry continues to reduce emissions. The result? Air quality… and water quality…are much better today than when the standards were announced. So now we need to frame the water distribution issue in a similar way.”

JC: “We agreed a few minutes ago that deciding on water rights might be the perfect case for implementing the standard ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’?”

Jordan: “How do we really make that standard work?”

JC: “I think there are two issues. #1, distribution of water. #2 using existing water more efficiently.”

Jordan: “Which one should we tackle first?”

JC: “Flip a coin. Heads for distribution; tails for efficiency.”

Jordan: (flips coin)

(To be continued)

More about the origination of the blog and the author, Entry #1.

Ebook format of recent series of entries on Federal Budget. 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130

#138 Corporate Behavior: Call Centers (#8 of Series)

27 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Corporate Policy, Gov't Policy, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Continuation of conversation between Jordan and JC, a long-time friend. Conversation started as deciding on a simple, understandable theme for government policies following Revenge Revolution. Jordan and JC agreed to a one-day deadline to complete the work. When finished, Jordan would schedule a review with POTUS. Conversation begins Entry #131.

Jordan: “Now that we’ve given Disney the one-fingered salute…and put GM on double-secret probation…let’s address another corporate behavior that I do not understand. Location of call centers.”

JC: “…Why do these companies locate call centers in outside the United States? Like the Philippines, Pakistan and India. Why?”

Jordan: “You know why. Cost savings. But do they really understand the impact on customers of foreign-based call centers?”

JC: “Obviously you’ve called one of these places. What was your experience?”

Jordan: “Not very good.”

JC: “Be honest. How many times have you gotten a satisfactory answer quickly? Forget the quickly part. How many times have you gotten a satisfactory…maybe helpful is a better word…helpful answer?”

Jordan: “Not very often.”

JC: “Maybe never, right?”

Jordan: “That’s pretty strong but not often. But from the company’s thinking, locating outside the US saves boatloads of money.”

JC: “I thought we reached the opposite conclusion for Disney.”

Jordan: “We did. But the bean counters inside the companies seem to have the upper hand?”

JC: “I understand there is nothing wrong with saving money. But when you piss-off…excuse me, alienate customers, what real money do you save?”

Jordan: “Well, lots of companies are locating these call centers outside the States so they must think it makes sense.”

JC: “Let’s just think about the decision in the context of our standard measure for decisions, ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’.”

Jordan: “OK, what’s your assessment?”

JC: “First…and probably the biggest problem is differences in cultures.”

Jordan: “In all fairness to the companies, the call centers are located in English-speaking countries.”

JC: “Jordan, you’ve travelled outside the States a lot. Outside of Canada, England is about as close to the US as it gets.”

Jordan: “Agree.”

JC: “Turn the situation around. Do you understand the all cultural nuances when you are in say London or the Lake District?”

Jordan: “No. I can’t even figure out some of the Southern culture in the US. Like when ‘yes’ really means ‘no’ because they think they are being polite. Just tell me ‘no’. I’m not smart enough to figure it out.”

JC: “You’ve made my point.”

Jordan: “So if I can’t figure out some of the southernisms…whatever you call them…why should someone in say the Philippines understand the US culture?”

JC: “I’m not blaming the person in the overseas call center. Not their fault.”

Jordan: “Agreed. The person is looking for a job and probably trying their best.”

JC: “The problem lies with the US companies who decided to move the call centers overseas. Same question as before. How much can they really save?”

Jordan: “Probably not much, if anything, when all costs are included.”

JC: “You mean like costs…or lost profits…because people are so angry at not getting help they quit buying the product.”

Jordan: “That’s exactly what I mean.”

JC: “So we ought to ask the CEO and his or her munchkins if they have ever used the call center to fix a problem.”

Jordan: “You know the answer.”

JC: “The answer is never. One of the munchkins gets the problem fixed so the big dog CEO doesn’t have to waste precious time dealing with ‘those type people’.”

Jordan: “I’ll give you a perfect example. Here’s the scene: Detroit Metro airport. Flight to Washington Reagan cancelled. With the announcement the flight was cancelled, I immediately take out my OAG (Official Airline Guide) – this was pre-smart-phone era – and find a flight to Dulles that leaves in about 30 minutes.”

JC: “I’m impressed.”

Jordan: “Also in the waiting area is recently retired chairman of major company whom I met during my GM days. He has the deer-in-headlights look so I grab him and walk him to the gate for Dulles. We both get on. While he had lots of miles flying, it had been on a company plane or accompanied by a corporate munchkin. Now that he’s on his own he has no idea how the system works.”

JC: “Was he grateful?”

Jordan: “Very. He was a gracious and polite man.”

JC: “A gracious and polite CEO. That’s nice to hear.”

Jordan: “So lesson here is we need…”

JC: “Pardon me, Jordan, but who is ‘we’?”

Jordan: “Good question. We…with ‘we’ being POTUS and staff…need to encourage companies to use the standard ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ for all decisions. In his remarks, POTUS should direct the question to CEO’s and management of companies, ‘Are you making decisions based on the standard, ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’? POTUS should encourage the public to ask the same questions of companies.”

JC: “Let public opinion sway company decisions. It worked quickly for same-sex marriage and getting the Confederate battle flag out of many places.”

Jordan: “Right. But call centers don’t create the same emotion as same-sex marriage and bars-and-stars.”

JC: “Then have POTUS push an emotional button, like ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself,’ and make the call centers an example. Put call centers under the bigger umbrella.”

Jordan: “Good idea. The decision where to house call centers and many other business decisions are not really ones government should make. But raising the question is fair game.”

JC: “Will be interesting to see the reaction of the companies and the public…and what companies will get it and lead the change. What’s the next topic?”

Jordan: “Water.”

JC: “Speaking of water. I don’t need any. I need to get rid of some.”

Jordan: “OK, let’s take a break.”

More about the origination of the blog and the author, Entry #1.

Ebook format of recent series of entries on Federal Budget. 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130

#137 Corporate Behavior: GM Ignitiongate con’t (#7 in Series)

24 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Corporate Policy, General Motors, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

JC: “Whew. I’m back and feel much better.”

Jordan: “I needed a break, too.”

JC: “OK, back to the list. Who’s on the list for being at fault in Ignitiongate?”

Jordan: “We agreed on GM. #2 could be the driver.”

JC: “You implied that before the break. That seems awfully cruel.”

Jordan: “But what if the driver is under the influence of something – alcohol or drugs? Remember during two seconds…one thousand one, one thousand two…a car going 60 miles per hour travels 176 feet.”

JC: “More than half the length of a football field. I remember.”

Jordan: “So any kind of delay in reacting can have major consequences. But I think there’s a third element that I’ve not heard anyone talk about.”

JC: “And that is?”

Jordan: “Driver education.”

JC: “You mean good old driver’s ed classes?”

Jordan: “Exactly. How many students, especially those under say age 30-35, do you think were taught how to drive the car without power steering or power brakes? How many students even know that you don’t need power steering or power brakes to operate the car safely?”

JC: “Probably not many. And from what I read many accidents after the ignition switch failed involved younger drivers.”

Jordan: “The cars with the faulty switch were smaller, lower-priced. Drivers of these cars are generally younger.”

JC: “So you’re saying GM’s at fault but others might be at fault as well, right?”

Jordan: “If we assume that fault is split evenly among GM, drivers and driver’s ed, then merely pointing the finger at GM…or in your case giving the finger to GM…does not address a broader issue – personal responsibility.”

JC: “How do you address the broader problem?”

Jordan: “Fining GM a huge amount of money might make some people feel good and it might change some behavior inside the company, but it doesn’t address the problem of driver responsibility and certainly not address the scope and quality of driver’s education classes.”

JC: “Why isn’t GM fighting some of these cases in court?”

Jordan: “Good question. They likely have data that indicates some very irresponsible driving.”

JC: “How would they get that kind of data?”

Jordan: “You know your car has a black box, much like an airplane’s black box, right?”

JC: “Say what? There’s a black box in my car that tracks my driving?”

Jordan: “Yes, and black boxes have been around since the early 1990’s. And there were two reason the boxes were installed: #1, safety. The data were used to help analyze conditions prior to an accident. #2, and less publicized, the data provided some defense against spurious law suits.” (Article, 13 07 21 NYT re Black-Boxes in Cars)

JC: “With all these data, you’d think GM would fight some of these cases. Why aren’t they?”

Jordan: “My guess is GM doesn’t want to tarnish their image. Think about it. GM clearly was to blame for the faulty ignition switch. How would it look if they started to pin part of the blame on a driver, even if it’s more than justified?”

JC: “I see what you mean. It’s a no-win situation. Go to court and fight and more media coverage about the faulty switch. Then blame some or all of the accident on the driver and you look like a real a-hole.”

Jordan: “And gun-slinging lawyers know the image dilemma for high-profile companies like GM. So what do they do?”

JC: “File a suit, even of the case is flimsy, because they know the company…GM in this case…likely will settle out of court to avoid tarnishing their image.”

Jordan: “For GM, the case is a no-win. For lawyers and the plaintiffs they corral, it’s no lose. The case is on a contingency basis so plaintiffs have no cost.”

JC: “Don’t doctors suffer from the same problem…spurious lawsuits?”

Jordan: “Yes and just for the record, I agree that some, maybe even most of the plaintiffs deserve an award. There are people injured through no fault of they own. But, there are many cases…”

JC: “…like the one against Starbucks. The cop gets free coffee…free mind you…then doesn’t check if the lid is tight. Spills coffee in his crotch and claims some kind of injury. Except when the facts came out, the injury or condition, or whatever he claimed it was, existed prior to spilling the coffee. Talk about ungrateful.”

Jordan: “Fortunately Starbucks won the case. But in cases with multiple claimants, like GM and the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there are a number of people who file lawsuits who have absolutely no right to any damages. In fact I know one of the BP plaintiffs who suffered not a single dollar loss yet claimed damages of something like $400,000.”

JC: “Did he get paid?”

Jordan: “You know, I never asked. I was so infuriated with the idea of filing a claim that I never followed up.”

JC: “Alright, let’s lay out a policy for the GM case based on the standard, ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’. What’s the policy?”

Jordan: “First, GM is at fault. Everyone agrees, even GM. Some fine should be levied. There might have been criminal activity with intentionally covering up the flaw and/or not reporting to NHTSA.”

JC: “What’s NHTSA?”

Jordan: “National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Any safety related defect you have to report. Apparently GM did not. #2, GM should be liable for some of the injuries and deaths that occurred. However, GM should not be responsible for injury or death where there was excessive speed and/or occupants unbelted. GM cannot be held liable for irresponsible behavior by a driver or passenger.”

JC: “What’s the third?”

Jordan: “Driver education classes, whether private or in public schools, need to include a section of learning to operate the vehicle without power steering and without power brakes. Make it part of the driver’s test. You don’t want to take your first lesson in an emergency.”

JC: “You think any of these changes will occur any time soon?”

Jordan: “No, unless the public starts to demand them. As an example of how disconnected some legislators are with reality, Republicans in the North Carolina senate wanted to eliminate all driver training in schools. Turn age 15, take a test and get a permit with no training whatsoever.”

JC: “What a back asswards way of thinking. What happened?”

Jordan: “The public forced them to drop the idea. The legislator’s kind of thinking and lots of other issues helped precipitate the Revenge Revolution. The public is still hungry for change. This is an ideal time for these proposals.”

JC: “One last thought. Does GM deserve the one-fingered salute?”

Jordan: “Not now. Their screw-up with Ignitiongate was some years ago. Management seems committed to improving. Let’s give them a bit more time before you give the salute.”

JC: “I’ll wait. What’s next on the agenda?”

Jordan: “Call centers based in foreign countries…after we have something to eat.”

More about the origination of the blog and the author, Entry #1.

Ebook format of recent series of entries on Federal Budget. 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130

#133 Gov’t Policy for Healthcare (Part 3)

03 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Gov't Policy, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Continuation of conversation between Jordan and JC. Conversation centers on themes for government policies following Revenge Revolution. Jordan and JC have agreed to a deadline of this evening to complete the work. When finished, Jordan will schedule a review with POTUS. Conversation begins Entry #131.

Background: JC and Jordan have concluded that the standard measure for future government policies should be ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.’ This entry uses the policy to address healthcare.

JC: “OK, Jordan, ready to talk about healthcare?”

Jordan: “A good way to start will be having everyone repeat after me, the standard for all government policies is “treat thy neighbor as thyself.”

JC: “Alright old wise one, now how do we link the mantra to healthcare policy?”

Jordan: “Ideally the US adopts to a national healthcare program with the option…emphasis on option…for individuals and families to buy additional coverage.”

JC: “The optional service — you talking about concierge-type healthcare service? Ya know, where someone can visit the doctor pretty much whenever they want? Most of the time little or no waiting. Like having doctors on call.”

Jordan: “That’s what I’m talking about. For those who insist national healthcare cannot be good enough for them, and they have the money, let them buy the concierge option.”

JC: “But wouldn’t the basic national healthcare system cover everyone?”

Jordan: “Yes, covers everyone. One point that really needs to be emphasized. The basic system, as you call it, will be comprehensive, covering virtually all situations. See how simple the approach is.”

JC: “But the plan won’t work.”

Jordan: “Why not?”

JC: “Republicans are opposed to any program the government runs. For Republicans, private industry can always do a better job…and supposedly at less cost.”

Jordan: “What healthcare program have the Republicans proposed that meets the standard of ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’?”

JC: “None. But still they have no policy other than ‘national healthcare can’t work’.”

Jordan: “Much of the time Republicans in Congress…and I’ve said before…ought to be called ‘Republicants’. Congressional Republicans and the general public need to be reminded about how their policy of ‘no, never, nada’ has consequences.”

JC: “This story I assume you’re about to tell me — for real or one of those stories with 10% fact and 90% fiction?”

Jordan: “No the story is for real. When it happened, there was a lot of coverage locally and then the story went viral.”

JC: “You talking about that guy in Charlotte, NC?”

Jordan: “Yes. Actually near Charlotte just over the border in South Carolina.”

JC: “Tell me again what happened.”

Jordan: “The short version is this. The guy has his own business as a handyman. Some of the customers are banks which have foreclosed on homes that need repair. He does do not buy any private insurance and also refuses to buy insurance offered through the Affordable Care Act. And, just to add another dimension to the story, he’s a good right-wing Republican.”

JC: “Yeah, I remember, then he gets sick, like real sick.”

Jordan: “Actually, without an operation he will lose eyesight, at least in one eye. The condition, which I do not remember, was caused in part by diabetes. He also continued to smoke, which I’m certain didn’t help.”

JC: “I remember. Now he needs insurance to pay for the operation and begins complaining because he can’t get coverage, even under Obamacare.” (One of many articles about the situation.)

Jordan: “Alleges he was rejected by Obamacare but the reasons for being rejected kept changing, and he never did get very specific. One time the reason was he kept getting transferred after calling an 800 number. Another time he claimed Obamacare was too complicated. Another time he claimed he did not qualify because he had no income. BTW, at the time he lived in a house valued at $300k…and he still might live there.”

JC: “Didn’t his wife make some claim also?”

Jordan: “She thought he should go to the head of the line for medical treatment, bypassing other people who were, as she implied, less worthy.”

JC: “I get it. Refuse to buy insurance. Blame Obamacare for being too complicated and also blame all those other people who paid for coverage as being less worthy. Neither the husband nor wife seems like the brightest crayon in the box. But, in fairness to them, wasn’t a major provision of Obamacare that pre-existing conditions were covered?”

Jordan: “Pre-existing conditions are covered under the Affordable Care Act…unlike private insurance. But to participate in Obamacare you must buy insurance during the enrollment period, which lasts several months a year.”

JC: “He didn’t follow the rules and enroll during the period, but still wanted the benefits. Reminds of some Republican governors and Congressman who complain about Federal government overreach until there’s a flood, tornado or hurricane in their area. Then ask for government help.”

Jordan: “And have the gall to complain the government didn’t respond quickly enough.”

JC: “Of course, those Congressional reps complaining loudest conveniently forget to mention the budget cuts they forced on the government agencies responsible for responding to disasters. So enough pointing fingers, already. Where does that leave us?”

Jordan: “I think a way to address health care is to use the guy and his wife as an example.”

JC: “What was the guy’s name anyway?

Jordan: “Something like Lois Lane. But I think his name is Luis Lang.”

JC: “Sounds right. By the way, what happened to him?”

Jordan: “He begged for money. And some hard-core Democrats contributed to a fund for the operation.”

JC: “How ironic. He’s helped by the some of the very people he despised. While his behavior smells, I guess using him as an example would help draw attention to why we need national healthcare.”

Jordan: “I agree we need to drop scolding him for stupid behavior. But it seems fair to talk about how one’s actions have consequences.”

JC: “So rather than blame old Luis Lang…I love the link to Lois Lane…we should focus on how national health care would prevent such tragedies.”

Jordan: “That’s why I keep thinking the benchmark of ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ will force more meaningful discussion and action.”

JC: “But isn’t national health care a case of what Republicans would characterize as classic government overreach?”

Jordan: “What’s the alternative?”

JC: “There is no alternative so I guess the Republicans would let Mr. Lang go blind.”

Jordan: “Would a Republican congressman in that situation want his neighbor or family member to go blind? If they do, then they can vote to reject national health care. But I don’t think many will.”

JC: “It’s easy to reject national healthcare as a concept. It’s much more difficult to reject national healthcare when rejecting it has such negative, specific and identifiable consequences.”

Jordan: “National healthcare is not without problems, and no doubt a few people will fall through the cracks.”

JC: “But as you’re suggesting…and I agree…when issue of healthcare is framed in the context of ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself,’ then national healthcare becomes a very obvious and practical solution.”

Jordan: “Obamacare is a great start. We need to put public pressure on Republicans to support the Affordable Care Act and support filling in the gaps.”

JC: “By doing so we’ll have far fewer situations like Luis Lang.”

Jordan: “Exactly.”

JC: “Good story for tonight’s mock broadcast from the Oval Office. What’s the next government policy topic?

Jordan: “Corporate behavior.”

(To be continued)

More about the origination of the blog and the author, Entry #1.

Ebook format of recent series of entries on Federal Budget. 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130

#132 Education Policy: Separate but Equal an Improvement?

30 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Continuation of conversation between Jordan and JC. Conversation centers on themes for government policies following Revenge Revolution. Jordan and JC have agreed to a deadline of this evening to complete the work. When finished, Jordan will attempt to review with POTUS. Conversation begins Entry #131.

Background: JC and Jordan have concluded that the standard measure for future government policies should be ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.’ The first ‘test’ of the standard is education policy.

Jordan: “First criteria for education policy should be a quality education opportunity for all students.”

JC: “Public or private education?”

Jordan: “Public education. The country needs to make a quality education available to everyone. Otherwise the country is not treating citizens fairly.”

JC: “Does fair mean no private education?”

Jordan: “No, fair allows private education as long as public education meets acceptable quality standards.”

JC: “You just implied that separate but equal is OK. You really mean that?”

Jordan: “Yes, separate but equal is OK.”

JC: “That takes the country back to Plessy v. Ferguson and overturns Brown v. Board of Education.”

Jordan: “Think about this. We’re more than 100 years after Plessy v. Ferguson and more than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education. And what’s changed? The US does not have even separate but equal public education.”

JC: “Whoa, Bubba. You really think so?”

Jordan: “Pick a city. Any city.”

JC: “Alright. Let’s take Charlotte, NC. You used to live there.”

Jordan: “Still do when I’m not trapped in Washington.”

JC: “Charlotte claims it is a world-class city and a leader in all that new south stuff.”

Jordan: “And what does Charlotte have? A very strong private school base and a public school system with widely divergent quality and test scores.”

JC: “Maybe Charlotte should balance out the public schools…with you know, more bussing.”

Jordan: “Mandated bussing is what caused the boom in private schools. Charter schools and vouchers made the problem even worse.”

JC: “What’s the problem with charter schools? I thought they were the answer to weak public schools.”

Jordan: “Charter schools…and vouchers…use public money to fund schools that are privately run with little accountability. Why should my tax dollars…or anyone’s tax dollars…support someone’s religious brainwashing…excuse me education.”

JC: “The term ‘brainwashing’ is probably correct. Many religious-based private schools seem to ban critical thinking. The schools might as well build robots the kids are so programmed.”

Jordan: “You asked me whether I supported separate but equal education. My answer is ‘yes.’”

JC: “How are you…we, the country…going to manage ‘separate but equal?’?”

Jordan: “Let’s start with the kids first. And back to the reference point, ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.’”

JC: “I agree that kids should have a neighborhood school. Having a school one can attach to…sort of bond with emotionally…is important. If possible, the kids should walk or ride a bike to school. And go to class with other kids from the neighborhood.”

Jordan: “So what do the kids get with bussing?”

JC: “Kids get to spend a lot of time on the bus and don’t necessarily know the other kids in the neighborhood.”

Jordan: “Exactly. And had we been bussed in grammar school, you and I likely never would have met. And no comment whether that would have been better.”

JC: “I’m all for bussing. Just kidding, Jordan. I agree with you. But how do you enforce consistent quality in the different schools?”

Jordan: “A lot of decisions need to be made at the local level. But the very first standard for all decisions needs to be ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.’”

JC: “I guess that’s what Plessy v. Ferguson was trying to do…but without really enforcing the standard.”

Jordan: “No one said setting new government policies would be easy. But a clear standard allows real discussion to take place, especially at the local level.”

JC: “So the measurement standard for education is ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself?’ That’s it?”

Jordan: “Well, yes, and why not?”

JC: “The standard does not seem very clear.”

Jordan: “Au contraire, I think the standard is very clear. The standard forces the community into equal educational opportunity for all.”

JC: “You’re counting on the local community to enforce the standard?”

Jordan: “Who better to enforce it? Right now, those groups that want unequal educational opportunity find all kinds of ways around supporting public education – private schools, private religious schools, vouchers, charter schools, home schools. Everything but equal-opportunity public education.”

JC: “Your logic seems to be the more specific the standard or rule, the more time and creativity some groups will spend on finding a way around it.”

Jordan: “You got it. Keep the policy standard simple and easy to understand.”

JC: “I get it. The government can then force those who don’t support the standard to justify why.”

Jordan: “The federal government has been perceived as the bad guy in education, at least by many Republicans. Let’s turn that image around. The federal government should set an easy to understand standard that is consistent with the US Constitution…equal justice for all…and consistent with virtually every religion.”

JC: “Hard to argue with such a standard.”

Jordan: “Besides, the entire country needs to crank up the focus on education. The US is way behind much of the developed world in quality of education.”

JC: “Mmmm. The ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ seems to work with education policy. What about say health care policy?”

Jordan: “Let’s tackle that one after a break.”

JC: “Don’t take too long. Remember you’ve got a mock broadcast from the Oval Office at 9:00pm tonight.”

(To be continued)

Previous entries: #121-#130, Issues related to Federal budget. Download in e-book format, 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130.

#131 How Treating Others Affects Gov’t Policy: Overview (Part 1)

27 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Education Issues, Gov't Policy

≈ 9 Comments

Scene: Jordan’s office. (More about the blog’s origin and the author.)

Gelly (Jordan’s assistant): Mr. Abel, you have an unexpected visitor, JC. You have no appointments for the next hour if you want to see her.”

Jordan: “Sure. Send her in.”

JC: “Thanks, Gelly. Well, well, Mr. Bigshot. I feel honored to be able to see you.”

Jordan: “C’mon, JC, cut the BS. Come over here and let me give you a hug.”

JC: “Careful, that might be considered sexual harassment and get you fired.”

Jordan: “I wish. Please report me.”

JC: “What’s the matter? Things not going well for little Jordie? Wanna talk to mama?”

“JC, you have a way of humbling most anyone. Yes, let’s talk.”

JC: “Gelly was nice enough to get coffee for me. You need another cup? I’ll get it.”

Jordan: “Yes, please. Thanks.”

JC: “Well, he still has manners. And, yes, I know, black, no sugar. Now, what’s the issue?”

Jordan: “Not one overriding issue. Just frustrated that progress after the Revenge Revolution seems so slow.”

JC: “What did you expect?”

Jordan: “Thought the country would turn around more quickly. Get on a track where we were making real progress.”

JC: “Progress toward what?”

Jordan: “More effective government.”

JC: “What went wrong? Something happen to put things sideways?”

Jordan: “Nothing in particular. I think people did not have a clear vision of what they wanted after the Revenge Revolution.”

JC: “People knew what they didn’t want – the old way of governing will all the inequities.”

Jordan: “In retrospect, the Revenge Revolution was the easy part. The hard part is what to do afterwards.”

JC: “I suppose like the dog chasing the car. What’s he do after he catches it and sinks his teeth into the tire?”

Jordan: “Good analogy. It’s like war. If the enemy is clear, then war is easy…well the strategy is easy. War is always painful.”

JC: “So pretend you’re king. OK, pretend you’re POTUS. What’s your plan? The people and government need some direction.”

Jordan: “You’re making this tough.”

JC: “I’m making it real. For too long people in Washington functioned by being against something…whatever something was.”

Jordan: “Then the populous revolted.”

JC: “And said, we don’t want you to be against something. We want you to stand for something. So, OK, great swami…I mean POTUS…whadda stand for?”

Jordan: “How much time do I have to decide?”

JC: “Assume you have a nationwide broadcast from the Oval Office at 9:00PM eastern tonight. You better be ready.”

Jordan: “I know this is just an exercise…at least for now. But I think we should finish it and then consider presenting to POTUS…soon. Real soon.”

JC: “Now he understands.”

Jordan: “Gelly, if no major conflicts, could you, please reschedule appointments for the rest of the day? Thanks.”

Gelly: “No major conflicts. I’ll reschedule. And I’ll order in lunch. Tuna sandwiches OK.”

JC: “Great. Thanks.”

Jordan: “Alright, let’s list the topics we need to address.”

JC: “In no particular order, tax rate, national defense, trade policy, infrastructure, election funding…”

Jordan: “Whoa, you’re covering a lot of ground.”

JC: “You need to cover a lot of ground. The list is really made up of sub-topics. But we need to put these topics on the list before we develop a broader strategy. The grand plan, as it were.”

Jordan: “You’ve got my head spinning.”

JC: “Don’t worry, the big picture will become clear in a few minutes. Let’s keep going on the list.”

Jordan: “Social Security, health care, education, social issues…what else?”

JC: “Energy policy, foreign policy, economic policy…”

Jordan: “Yikes!! Enough, already.”

JC: “OK, the list is long enough. If you had to pick a few words to describe how each of these issues should be addressed, what would the words be?”

Jordan: “You are tough.”

JC: “Quit stalling.”

Jordan: “I’m thinking.”

JC: “OK, let me give you an idea that might help.”

Jordan: “When you think of how personal relationships should be handled, what words come to mind?”

Jordan: “Something very basic…and something most of us learned a long time ago.”

JC: “And that is?”

Jordan: “Treat your neighbor as thyself.”

JC: “Well, well, well, Mr. Religion himself. You working on becoming a rabbi soon? Such insight.”

Jordan: “Well, it’s true…and, no I’m not working on going to rabbinic school. My Hebrew is not that good.”

JC: “But you picked out the foundation for many religions? Why not apply the same standard to government policy?”

Jordan: “Separation of church and state.”

JC: “You’re not promoting a specific religion. You’re promoting a philosophy. Let’s try it as a reference for policy.”

Jordan: “Alright, let’s try education policy. The measurement is ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself.’”

JC: “Now, what does education policy look like?”

(To be continued)

Previous entries: #121-#130, Issues related to Federal budget. Download in e-book format, 15 05 23 Do They Really Understand Entries #121-#130.

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Category Archives: Gov’t Policy

#147 European Economic Amnesia (2 of 3)

#146 European Economic Amnesia (Part 1)

#145 Obsession with Old Erections

#140 Water Rights: Managing a Precious Resource con’t (10 of 10 in Series)

#139 Water Rights. Managing a Precious Resource. (#9 in Series)

#138 Corporate Behavior: Call Centers (#8 of Series)

#137 Corporate Behavior: GM Ignitiongate con’t (#7 in Series)

#133 Gov’t Policy for Healthcare (Part 3)

#132 Education Policy: Separate but Equal an Improvement?

#131 How Treating Others Affects Gov’t Policy: Overview (Part 1)