Revolutions often result in society adopting new ways of thinking. The ideas often are suppressed until the revolution, then voila, the ideas are allowed to come forth. Some ideas are adopted, some are not. Posts in the “Category” reflect some ideas whose time might be right. The first hybrid car was when? Hint: Porsche in ’98. That was Ferdinand Porsche in 1898. You get the idea.

#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.

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. Disney was the first case. GM the second case.”

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

#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

#120 Lessons from Einstein and Aretha (Part 3 of 3)

26 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Education Issues, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

(Readers: The blog centers around the author’s prediction that the US will experience a 5^th 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 and Gelly continue conversation about why “race” is not the issue. Conversation starts segment #118.)

Gelly: “Asking blacks to focus on showing respect for others seems counter-intuitive, almost insulting.”

Jordan: “I know. Had exactly the same reaction when Carnac suggested I start respecting Mr. E.S. Cue.”

Gelly: “You thought he was the problem, not you, and he should respect you.”

Jordan: “Exactly how I felt. I knew he was the problem.”

Gelly: “Why did you change? Why did you start respecting him?”

Jordan: “Two reasons: One, I had some experience with Carnac. Not a lot but enough so I knew most of her advice was sound.”

Gelly: “So Carnac had some credibility with you. What was the second reason?”

Jordan: “There was no risk on my part. What was the downside?”

Gelly: “Nothing really. If the current approach wasn’t working, then what’s the risk of a new approach?”

Jordan: “What’s the adage, which many attribute to Einstein…”

Gelly: “… the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”

Jordan: “With Mr. Cue, I wasn’t voting for insanity, at least not voluntary insanity, so I needed to change the approach.”

Gelly: “But why not get Mr. Cue to change? From what you’ve said, and knowing you as I do, your assessment of his behavior was probably correct.”

Jordan: “Correct or not, what was his incentive to change? He had none. I’m not his boss…plus most of the consequences of what I considered bad decisions were in the future, which I’m not certain he really understood.”

Gelly: “So as obvious as this seems, people who have no incentive to change are highly unlikely to change.”

Jordan: “You got it. It is obvious when you think about it. And that’s why the other person needs to change, even if the person thinks they are not at fault.”

Gelly: “Mmmm. That idea might be a tough sell.”

Jordan: “Like I said, what’s the risk? For the black community, what has really changed in the last 50 years?”

Gelly: “A few laws and more protection…but I see your point. Have attitudes changed much?”

Jordan: “Some attitudes for certain, but there is an underlying frustration within US society about why blacks can’t get off the bottom of the economic ladder.”

Gelly: “Is that attitude among just Republicans?”

Jordan: “Not really. You’ve meet Greenie, right?”

Gelly: “She’s a friend of JC’s. And the same hometown as you.”

Jordan: “Same grammar school. Anyway, one is hard pressed to find someone more liberal than Greenie.”

Gelly: “And her attitude toward blacks has changed?”

Jordan: “One day we were talking and she made a very perceptive comment.”

Gelly: “Which was?”

Jordan: “Greenie said, ‘I fear all the civil rights legislation and social support programs have inadvertently created a dependency among blacks.’ She wasn’t being critical as much as making what I think was a very astute observation.”

Gelly: “That’s really disturbing. She really thinks the programs have created a dependency?”

Jordan: “Yes. Like I said, she wasn’t being critical, merely observing. And I agree with her. While the civil rights legislation and social programs were needed and well intentioned, the perception of dependency is clearly an unintended consequence.”

Gelly: “Does Greenie’s observation mean the Republicans are right – we should abolish the social safety net?”

Jordan: “Gelly, remember the Revenge Revolution was caused, in part, by Republicans trying to slash spending for social programs, including Social Security and Medicare, both of which are really insurance programs.”

Gelly: “So, what’s the solution?”

Jordan: “I think the solution gets back to the people most affected.”

Gelly: “Taxpayers?”

Jordan: “Sometimes I think you’ve been around JC too much. You both have that biting sense of humor.”

Gelly: “OK, then who…or whom…whatever.”

Jordan: “The black community needs to take the lead the charge. They need to put people in charge who are willing to look their colleagues straight in the eye and discuss the facts.”

Gelly: “You mean no more blaming someone else or trying to force someone else to change?”

Jordan: “That’s exactly what I mean. Has anyone ever been able to force you to change your opinion? They might have tried but did they force you?”

Gelly: “No, of course not. In fact, when someone tries to force me to change, I did in my heels.”

Jordan: “Have you ever changed your beliefs about someone?”

Gelly: “Yes.”

Jordan: “And what made you change?”

Gelly: “Their behavior toward me. When I thought they were sincere in an effort to change, then I changed my attitude toward them.”

Jordan: “So what we’re talking about is the base for any kind of long-term relationship – treating others with respect.”

Gelly: “Maybe the black community needs to make Aretha Franklin their spokesperson.”

Jordan: “I know that was intended as a tongue-in-cheek comment but it is an interesting idea.”

Gelly: “At least her music could be the foundation for beginning to make the change. R-E-S-P-E-C-T.”

Jordan: “I think that would be a great start.”

#118 Discrimination Is Not the Issue? (Part 1)

16 Monday Mar 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues

≈ 2 Comments

Scene: Jordan having coffee with his administrative assistant, Gelly.

Gelly: “Jordan, don’t we need to get back to the office? What if someone calls – I mean someone really important.”

Jordan: “Relax, Gelly. The real important contacts…if we really have any…”

Gelly: “Well, POTUS is important, really important.”

Jordan: “All those contacts have the number for my secure cell phone. Besides, what could be so important? I’m not involved in any black-hole stuff.”

Gelly: “You’re not? I thought you were some big-shot guy. I’m disappointed.”

Jordan: “Thanks for the vote of confidence.”

Gelly: “Jordan, you know how much I like you. Why are we here? We have coffee in the office?”

Jordan: “We’re here because I need your advice. And you are good at listening and giving sound advice.”

Gelly: “Thanks for the compliment and your vote of confidence. OK, what’s the issue?”

Jordan: “I can’t decide if I’m getting to be a grumpy old codger and out of touch or…”

Gelly: “Hold the ‘or.’ You’re not a grumpy old codger to me. But, to those teenagers over there, you’re probably a grumpy old codger…at least they think you’re old.”

Jordan: “They think their parents are grumpy old codgers…and their parents are probably younger than we are.”

Gelly: “For sure. Now what’s the real issue you want to talk about?”

Jordan: “I don’t understand the tone of the conversation about discrimination.”

Gelly: “I’m not sure what you mean.”

Jordan: “A lot of the conversation about blacks seems to conclude that blacks are discriminated against because of race.”

Gelly: “I don’t see what the issue is – there is discrimination against blacks.”

Jordan: “I didn’t say discrimination was not an issue. Every civilization has discrimination. My frustration is the proposed solution. Every body wants to blame the other guy for discriminating.”

Gelly: “People have to stop discriminating.”

Jordan: “Gelly, that’s never going to happen.”

Gelly: “Why not?”

Jordan: “You cannot legislate or mandate attitudes or morality. You know that.”

Gelly: “I know…but what else can be done?”

Jordan: “Only one thing I know of.”

Gelly: “OK, great and wonderful Oz, what’s that?

Jordan: “People who are being discriminated against need to quit demanding others stop discriminating.”

Gelly: “Huh? You saying those being discriminated against need to stop demanding others change their behavior?”

Jordan: “You got the picture. They’ve got to get off the same old street and take a different road.”

Gelly: “And what are those on the short end of the stick supposed to do?”

Jordan: “Change their behavior.”

Gelly: “So if I’m being discriminated against, I need to quit demanding you stop discriminating…but change my own behavior?”

Jordan: “Yep.”

Gelly: “That’s a pretty radical idea. You think it will work?”

Jordan: “Yep. What’s the downside? It’s 50+ years after the civil rights marches, passage of the Voting Rights Act and some other laws…and what’s really changed?”

Gelly: “Other than some cosmetics, probably not much.”

Jordan: “Now, think about this. Changing behavior has worked for every other ethnic group that entered the US. Look at the list.”

Gelly: “Italians, Irish, Japanese, Chinese, Jews…and Hispanics today. All of them suffered discrimination, and some pretty severely.”

Jordan: “That’s my point.”

Gelly: “But those groups were different from blacks?”

Jordan: “How?”

Gelly: “Blacks were brought over as slaves…and the others weren’t.”

Jordan: “What about Chinese laborers who were forced to work building railroads in the west? What about the Japanese being interned in WWII?”

Gelly: “Alright. Point well taken. But I need to think about your idea some more. Let me get a refill.”

(To be continued.)

#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

(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.”

POTUS: “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.”

Jordan: “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.”

Jordan: “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?”

POTUS: “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.”

Jordan: “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.”

Jordan: “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.”

Jordan: “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

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.”

Oil 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.”

Jordan: “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.”

Oil 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 idea 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 cost 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.”

Jordan: “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

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.”

Oil 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.”

Jordan: “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?”

Jordan: “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 in 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)

#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 mentioned 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?

Setting 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 with 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 flow. 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 going 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 Republicans 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 hardware 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 for 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 crisis 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. It’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 you 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?

OK, 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.

An 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 reviewing 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)

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Category Archives: Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products

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

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

#120 Lessons from Einstein and Aretha (Part 3 of 3)

#118 Discrimination Is Not the Issue? (Part 1)

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

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

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

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

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

#108 POTUS Infrastructure Project: Perception (Part 4)