Here on earth, there is an abundance of life. That I'm aware of, we usually consider all these life forms to be "Carbon-based" life. I was pondering on that term, when an entirely new thought entered my mind, and it is the topic on which I'd like to write.
Carbon, depending on it's form, can be one of the cheapest and abundant resources we have, or it can be one of the most expensive and rarest that we encounter.
I'll start with the first: Coal. Coal is one of the most abundant sources of fossil-fuel we still have left. It's all over the place in some areas. In Wyoming, where I grew up, a person can go pick up a load of coal for pretty much nothing. Much of the coal is at, or just below the surface of the earth, making it easy to find, easy to mine, and easy to burn.
The second: Diamonds. Made of the same carbon as coal, these gems are very rare and are highly sought after. Finding them is very difficult and expensive. Mining them requires much skill, and women just can't seem to get enough of them.
I find it odd that 2 things made of the same substance could be regarded so differently as to their worth and use. Now, I'm no geologist, but if I was ever asked to explain the difference between the two, I'd have to say that the difference lies in their "life experience."
Coal and other fossil fuels are the remains of plants and animals, basically a bunch of carbon that ended up in the same spot. Coal's life is pretty basic and simple. It's creation is more of a consequence of the carbon-based life breaking down than anything. The coal is brittle, dirty, and after it's been burning for a couple minutes, it's extremely disposable and fairly unwanted.
Diamonds, on the other hand, have "lives" that are much more difficult. They pass through extreme heat and pressure, that slowly, over time, turn the carbon into one of the most exquisite and expensive gems on the face of the earth. Their worth increases over time and nobody would consider throwing them out.
Humans are also carbon based; however, their fate is much more up to their choosing than that of the dead plants and animals.
There are those who want a life of ease, wanting to be like everybody else and get their moment in the spot-light. Perhaps without realizing it, they become the coal: Easily found, crudely formed and molded into something that the world can use for a quick moment and then dispose of. The light gained from burning the coal is brief, but I suppose the coal could see itself as having some purpose.
There are others, the Diamonds. They are those people willing to go through the intense heat and pressure of difficult lives. Slowly, over time, they develop into something incredible. They're hard to find, but once found, they can be cleaned, cut, and polished. With each difficult cut, they are shaped and molded by a masterful hand. Once they've taken their proper and unique shape, they are polished and shown to the world as something of much higher value.
I guess the question for this post is.... What have you chosen to be? The coal or the diamond?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Murders, Drugs, Human Trafficking and Pilliaging? That's just Economics 101
This past Spring Break, there was a warning issued to college students leaving for Mexico. Basically It said... "Stay away from Mexico". There have been 100's of murders recently, and the armed forces of both the United States and the Mexico have been called in to take care of the situation. Some people looked at the dilemma and thought that things must be real bad across the border for something like that to happen. We feel like we should really go after those awful awful drug lords who are murdering and killing people. The truth is, while that aspect of the problem is most visible on the news, the real problem and fault lies in our own neighborhoods here in the the good 'ol US of A.
After graduating from college, I can't say that everything I learned stuck with me. One principle that was hammered home over several semesters, however, was that of Supply and Demand. There are a few complex concepts involved in it, but here are a couple of the basics.
1) A producer can only stay viable selling a product or service that someone is willing to buy.
2)If there is no buyer, there is no reason for the business to exist.
3)A business owner will only lose so much money before deciding to move on to something different.
4) The greater the demand, the higher the price people are willing to pay to get it.
5) The more profitable it is to a producer to make or do something, the more he or she is willing to invest or do to keep those profits coming in.
Those are some of the basics and hopefully they're very logical ideas.
You see, if for example, Honda tried to sell a car here in the U.S, and nobody bought it, they wouldn't offer it here. In fact that type of thing is very prevalent in the business community. As a business, you want to find a product you can sell. If the car isn't selling, you pull it.
How does all this apply to the title of this post? Bluntly speaking, things such as drugs and sex-slave human trafficking are businesses. The reason they stay in business? Because we are their demand.
If we didn't ask for the drugs, or were willing to pay for them, countries producing them would stop sending them our way. Women and children being raped and plundered in human trafficking? Yeah, the reason those women and innocent little kids are being trafficked is because people know that if they get them across the border, there is a market of Americans willing to pay for them.
And what of the soldiers and civilians that die, trying to fight the drug lords? Those are what economists refer to as "negative externalities" or unintended negative consequences. We send "our finest"... the proud the few.... the servicemen and women into battle to fight. What are they fighting? Mexicans who just love killing Americans? Nope, they're fighting our addictions. They're fighting the "good times" we have at parties. The difference between the hits of this drug or that which we take at parties, and the hits our soldiers take in the battle field? Our hits will leave our system after a couple minutes or hours. Their hits will end their lives.
Next time we look at the problems of the world and wonder why it's so terrible "out there," maybe instead we should take an account of how things are going right here. As we're buying our marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc, that "really isn't hurting anybody but ourselves"... realize that the cost needs to include and reflect the cost and worth of your buddy who just got sent off to war. All those costs need to be taken into account. After all, It's a matter of Supply and Demand.
After graduating from college, I can't say that everything I learned stuck with me. One principle that was hammered home over several semesters, however, was that of Supply and Demand. There are a few complex concepts involved in it, but here are a couple of the basics.
1) A producer can only stay viable selling a product or service that someone is willing to buy.
2)If there is no buyer, there is no reason for the business to exist.
3)A business owner will only lose so much money before deciding to move on to something different.
4) The greater the demand, the higher the price people are willing to pay to get it.
5) The more profitable it is to a producer to make or do something, the more he or she is willing to invest or do to keep those profits coming in.
Those are some of the basics and hopefully they're very logical ideas.
You see, if for example, Honda tried to sell a car here in the U.S, and nobody bought it, they wouldn't offer it here. In fact that type of thing is very prevalent in the business community. As a business, you want to find a product you can sell. If the car isn't selling, you pull it.
How does all this apply to the title of this post? Bluntly speaking, things such as drugs and sex-slave human trafficking are businesses. The reason they stay in business? Because we are their demand.
If we didn't ask for the drugs, or were willing to pay for them, countries producing them would stop sending them our way. Women and children being raped and plundered in human trafficking? Yeah, the reason those women and innocent little kids are being trafficked is because people know that if they get them across the border, there is a market of Americans willing to pay for them.
And what of the soldiers and civilians that die, trying to fight the drug lords? Those are what economists refer to as "negative externalities" or unintended negative consequences. We send "our finest"... the proud the few.... the servicemen and women into battle to fight. What are they fighting? Mexicans who just love killing Americans? Nope, they're fighting our addictions. They're fighting the "good times" we have at parties. The difference between the hits of this drug or that which we take at parties, and the hits our soldiers take in the battle field? Our hits will leave our system after a couple minutes or hours. Their hits will end their lives.
Next time we look at the problems of the world and wonder why it's so terrible "out there," maybe instead we should take an account of how things are going right here. As we're buying our marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc, that "really isn't hurting anybody but ourselves"... realize that the cost needs to include and reflect the cost and worth of your buddy who just got sent off to war. All those costs need to be taken into account. After all, It's a matter of Supply and Demand.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Animal Farm: Yes We Can
Until I graduated from school, I never really had time to read. That may sound funny, but reading then was always for a paper, a project, something stressful. Recently I picked up a book that I had seen on my mom's bookshelf for a lot of years, Animal Farm. The book basically tells of a group of animals that decide they want change, they want more equality. They kick out the humans and try to equalize everything among them. The book shows the move to socialism and then to a socialist dictator regime. Some animals on the farm were obviously smarter than others and soon found ways to leverage their intelligence over the less educated animals. A group that particularly got my attention were the sheep. The sheep were unable to follow a lot of the political happenings going on in the farm. They did however pickup a slogan "Four Legs are good, two legs bad." It was easy to remember, and when people started fighting about things, that's what they started shouting.
The last little while, politics have really grabbed our attention in the media. There's a lot going on and it's easy to 1) get caught up in all of the rhetoric 2) get completely lost on the issues 3) start spouting off what we've heard in the media. One thing that I noticed right away was the slogan "Yes We Can." All the sudden people are screaming for change and shouting "Yes We Can." I think the phrase is a good one, if it was more honest and more sincere. More than that, I wish it was backed up with appropriate action. More often than not, however, it seems to be a retaliatory cry to excite the crowds and drown out the critics. I have a couple questions to those who have been using this phrase so much.
1) Who said we couldn't in the first place?
2) If there was someone who said you couldn't, why did you believe them?
3) Why did it take someone someone you've never met, in nice clothes on a flashy stage to get to you to believe you could again?
Yes "we" can, implies you. That's right, you. The slogan isn't "Yes the government can" (which we're seeing isn't really working anyway). Many people are sitting back, waiting for the government to pull them out of their miserable state. They want the government to take care of their bad debts, their health and healthcare, their groceries, and many other aspects of their lives that they are fully capable of handling themselves. I honestly believe that there are those who really do need help in some of these areas, people that have done all they can, and still come up short. They shouldn't need to go hungry. They should be able to get medical help. But I believe a large proportion of those shouting "Yes we can" have yet to discover the I and Me in this particular WE.
As Orville's book Animal Farm comes to an end, the sheep are still shouting slogans, though slightly modified. Their situation has worsened significantly, and yet they still look to others to solve their problems. I certainly hope that isn't our fate. I do hope that people change this particular slogan, however, to "Yes I can, and here's how I'm going to do it."
The last little while, politics have really grabbed our attention in the media. There's a lot going on and it's easy to 1) get caught up in all of the rhetoric 2) get completely lost on the issues 3) start spouting off what we've heard in the media. One thing that I noticed right away was the slogan "Yes We Can." All the sudden people are screaming for change and shouting "Yes We Can." I think the phrase is a good one, if it was more honest and more sincere. More than that, I wish it was backed up with appropriate action. More often than not, however, it seems to be a retaliatory cry to excite the crowds and drown out the critics. I have a couple questions to those who have been using this phrase so much.
1) Who said we couldn't in the first place?
2) If there was someone who said you couldn't, why did you believe them?
3) Why did it take someone someone you've never met, in nice clothes on a flashy stage to get to you to believe you could again?
Yes "we" can, implies you. That's right, you. The slogan isn't "Yes the government can" (which we're seeing isn't really working anyway). Many people are sitting back, waiting for the government to pull them out of their miserable state. They want the government to take care of their bad debts, their health and healthcare, their groceries, and many other aspects of their lives that they are fully capable of handling themselves. I honestly believe that there are those who really do need help in some of these areas, people that have done all they can, and still come up short. They shouldn't need to go hungry. They should be able to get medical help. But I believe a large proportion of those shouting "Yes we can" have yet to discover the I and Me in this particular WE.
As Orville's book Animal Farm comes to an end, the sheep are still shouting slogans, though slightly modified. Their situation has worsened significantly, and yet they still look to others to solve their problems. I certainly hope that isn't our fate. I do hope that people change this particular slogan, however, to "Yes I can, and here's how I'm going to do it."
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Late Night Television
So, I'm not sure how many people watched the Olympics this past year? Yeah, well, a couple nights, I stayed up pretty late watching them... Every once in a while when they'd go to a commercial, I'd flip through all 10 of the channels that I have... and I discovered some pretty amazing things. Apparently, there are 100's of hot local singles in my area, that are laying in their beds wearing clubbing clothes, that are just dieing to talk to me on their cell-phones. This fact was confirmed by multiple channels, including 2 of the 6 spanish channels.
It's commercials like those that really make me mad. Here I am, innocently looking through my local cable channels at 2:30 in the morning and I find out that other people actually get cell phone coverage when they're in their bedrooms. I couldn't believe it. I have to go outside, completely leave my house, just to talk on my phone.. I very nearly called one of those nice gals to see which cell phone company they're with.
That's not all. On one channel, i was introduced to the most interesting piece of clothing. Men, make sure you're listening to this. There is an article of clothing out there that completely transforms women's bodies. It pushes this up, that down, and makes other things completely disappear. Amazing.
It's commercials like those that really make me mad. Here I am, innocently looking through my local cable channels at 2:30 in the morning and I find out that other people actually get cell phone coverage when they're in their bedrooms. I couldn't believe it. I have to go outside, completely leave my house, just to talk on my phone.. I very nearly called one of those nice gals to see which cell phone company they're with.
That's not all. On one channel, i was introduced to the most interesting piece of clothing. Men, make sure you're listening to this. There is an article of clothing out there that completely transforms women's bodies. It pushes this up, that down, and makes other things completely disappear. Amazing.
Introduction to my Blog
I listen to, read, and watch a lot of the news and commentaries published each day. As I go throughout my day, I find other people talking about those very subjects. Whether it's a heated debate, or a simply comment, usually people just repeat what we've heard, watched, or read. We're like parrots, echoing the new things we've learned, but not really comprehending or thinking about the things we're saying. The purpose of this blog is to hopefully give some thoughts on different subjects that maybe aren't heard very often in the media. The other purpose is for me to write down some of the goofy thoughts I have each day on a variety of subjects, from Politics to Food.
CEO's and Corporate Salaries
I find that lots of people are very angry and passionate about this subject all of the sudden. They see failing companies, some of which the government feels are worthy of using tax money to save, and wonder why on earth the CEOs of these companies are receiving such large amounts of money. It seems unfair to see our tax dollars lining the pockets of men that have "failed" their companies and we're starting to get angry about it. In many cases, I think our anger might be justified. I'd like to mention a couple scenarios that I think might be useful when addressing this subject.
Imagine you're the owner of a very large company. Your product lines are vast and diverse and your sales figures are in the millions, we'll say $10 million. Your profits have pretty much stayed at that same figure for several years now, and you realize that with encroaching competitors, this figure is going to need to increase and you're going to need to expand or else get out of the market. You hire some brilliant new talent. Your new CEO seemingly works 80 hours per week, tirelessly coming up with new ideas and brilliant strategies. When he\she goes home at night, he\she goes home to a stack of emails, voice mails, and tweets, some needing his\her signature, others just updates and figures that will likely keep him\her up until the wee hours of the morning, the time other people get to sleep. After the year is over, instead of the normal $10 million, you find that your profits have sky-rocketed to around $100 million. The question is, how much was the CEO worth to you? Your projected profits were going to be around $10 million, and your CEO has made $90 million above that. Would it be fair to say that your CEO is indeed worth $90 million to you? How much of that would you give them? Half? A quarter? Would you be willing to pay someone $45 million to bring in $90 million in profits? I sure would.
Lets flip the situation, and this is where things might get a little dicey. Your company has been around a long time and in the past has been very successful. Through whatever reason, you now find your company losing $100 million dollars per year and you've decided to make some changes. Time however, is of the essence, and you're running out of assets and cash with which to run your company. You decided to bring in some bright new talent from a company that has recently increased it's profits from $10 million to $100 million. (see above situation :) ) The new CEO shows up and gets right to work, working tirelessly throughout the year. When the end of the year comes, instead of seeing a $100 million dollar loss, miraculously, you've only lost $10 million. The question is, how much was the CEO worth to you? Your projected losses were going to be around $100 million, and your CEO has reduced that loss by $90 million . Would it be fair to say that your CEO is indeed worth $90 million to you? How much of that would you give them? Half? A quarter? Would you be willing to pay someone $45 million to reduce $90 million in losses? Just something to think about.
Should our tax dollars be used to make up for the $55 Million in losses that the company accrued (CEO salary about 45 Million + 10Million in operational losses)? Well that all has to do with the politics, and has very little to do with the company and what they paid their CEO. A company looking to survive is willing to pay huge amounts, hoping for even larger improvements. Maybe we should be angry at the people that gave away our tax money, and not at companies asking for money to continue changing things around. You see, the company is almost always going to do what's in the best interest of the company. Does the government always do what's in the best interest of the American people? Maybe I'll save that for another blog.
Imagine you're the owner of a very large company. Your product lines are vast and diverse and your sales figures are in the millions, we'll say $10 million. Your profits have pretty much stayed at that same figure for several years now, and you realize that with encroaching competitors, this figure is going to need to increase and you're going to need to expand or else get out of the market. You hire some brilliant new talent. Your new CEO seemingly works 80 hours per week, tirelessly coming up with new ideas and brilliant strategies. When he\she goes home at night, he\she goes home to a stack of emails, voice mails, and tweets, some needing his\her signature, others just updates and figures that will likely keep him\her up until the wee hours of the morning, the time other people get to sleep. After the year is over, instead of the normal $10 million, you find that your profits have sky-rocketed to around $100 million. The question is, how much was the CEO worth to you? Your projected profits were going to be around $10 million, and your CEO has made $90 million above that. Would it be fair to say that your CEO is indeed worth $90 million to you? How much of that would you give them? Half? A quarter? Would you be willing to pay someone $45 million to bring in $90 million in profits? I sure would.
Lets flip the situation, and this is where things might get a little dicey. Your company has been around a long time and in the past has been very successful. Through whatever reason, you now find your company losing $100 million dollars per year and you've decided to make some changes. Time however, is of the essence, and you're running out of assets and cash with which to run your company. You decided to bring in some bright new talent from a company that has recently increased it's profits from $10 million to $100 million. (see above situation :) ) The new CEO shows up and gets right to work, working tirelessly throughout the year. When the end of the year comes, instead of seeing a $100 million dollar loss, miraculously, you've only lost $10 million. The question is, how much was the CEO worth to you? Your projected losses were going to be around $100 million, and your CEO has reduced that loss by $90 million . Would it be fair to say that your CEO is indeed worth $90 million to you? How much of that would you give them? Half? A quarter? Would you be willing to pay someone $45 million to reduce $90 million in losses? Just something to think about.
Should our tax dollars be used to make up for the $55 Million in losses that the company accrued (CEO salary about 45 Million + 10Million in operational losses)? Well that all has to do with the politics, and has very little to do with the company and what they paid their CEO. A company looking to survive is willing to pay huge amounts, hoping for even larger improvements. Maybe we should be angry at the people that gave away our tax money, and not at companies asking for money to continue changing things around. You see, the company is almost always going to do what's in the best interest of the company. Does the government always do what's in the best interest of the American people? Maybe I'll save that for another blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)