Category Archives: Business

Nintendo Shares Plummet – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

stock-market-downThe New York Post wins the Misleading Headline of the Week contest with this doozy.

Nintendo shares plummet on fears Pokémon GO is worthless

It’s true the stock did drop 18% but only after an initial run-up of 122% after the wildly successful Pokemon Go game was introduced.

It’s a very natural bubble. People saw the company release a popular game and hoped to buy shares while the price was low and then sell them later at a profit. It’s the way the market works. Perception is often as important as reality, at least in the short term.

Nintendo as a company has been suffering in recent years and purchasing the stock is a risk. This article is, in my opinion, more bashing of Pokemon Go by authority figures who fear the game is destroying the social boundaries they rely so heavily upon.

Well done, New York Post. Winner!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

 

Made in America is Meaningless

Posted on by

make-america-great-again-hat-minI just read an interesting article that is a mix of clickbait and excellent writing. At the heart of the article is the idea that products available to consumers around the world are almost impossible to define as Made in Wherever.

The headline attracts readers who are eager to learn that Donald Trump hats proclaiming Make America Great again and sporting a Made in America label are, in fact, at least partially produced abroad. Once you get past the political nonsense there’s an important and interesting message in the well-written article.

The problem is tracing the origin of all the materials needed to make a single product is not easy and in most cases simply impossible. Oil is used to make many things besides gasoline and certainly gasoline is used to transport the products from the factory to the store. The origin of this gasoline is impossible to trace. The oil came from the ground but it was shipped, refined using chemicals, shipped again, and eventually arrived at the pump. The same is true for virtually everything you purchase.

The article goes into detail about how even with microscopic examination of the threads used in the Trump hats its pretty much impossible to tell where they came from. It’s possible to rule out certain threads and one of the Trump hats was made from thread not in the lots it reportedly came from. But that’s totally beside the point.

The point is that we have a global economy. There’s no way around it. Raw material is mined or produced all over the world. It is then shipped to another location to be processed. Then parts are shipped somewhere else to be assembled. The assembled parts then go to a warehouse somewhere and are eventually shipped to a store where you purchase it at a low price. That low price is absolutely a product of the global economy. Without it prices go up and you cannot afford the things you currently enjoy. That’s reality.

Made in America is meaningless. There’s no way to ensure it is accurate nor should we care if it is. Is the product in the store the one I want at a price I can afford?

Made in America doesn’t keep jobs in America, it doesn’t improve the American economy, and it most certainly does not get you a better price on the goods you desire. Products largely produced in China create and maintain many, many jobs here in the United States.

If you want to pay $20 for a Trump hat supposedly, but likely not, made in America or $5 for a Trump hat supposedly, but not completely, made in China, that’s your business.

I’m saying I want the best product at the best price and the global economy provides that far better than any local economy.

You may not like it, but it’s true.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

If We Expect Businesses to be Villains they will be

Posted on by

good-corporate-citizenI’ve gotten emotional and interesting reactions to the blog post I made yesterday, Jun 15, 2016, about Mars Candy and that reaction is quite fascinating. I’m going to talk about what I think it means today.

First off let’s look at all the places from which I got reactions.

I made a comment on the original story, posted the blog here, reposted at Liberty.me, and linked to it on Facebook and Twitter.

Across the board people have reacted in one way. They don’t believe Mars acted in the interests of their customers. People find it impossible to imagine that a modern business would do something that benefited its customers, particularly if that action seems to cut into profits. I’ve been laughed at. I’ve been given all sorts of explanations about how Mars was actually engaged in better business practices that had nothing to do with the customers. I’ve been called stupid.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not whining. People can laugh at me and call me stupid all they want. I’m comfortable being me.

What I am doing is sitting in astonishment that the public’s opinion of a business has changed so dramatically in my lifetime. I think businesses are still quite often excellent corporate citizens but the expectation that they will be so has changed, and that’s not good. If the executives of a business are expected to be selfish and self-serving with no interest toward their community or customer, it is only a matter of time until they become so. Why be a good corporate citizen when you get no credit for doing it and there is no expectation you will do it?

One thing that I think is completely lost in the modern world is that a business cannot be good or evil. It is the executives and employees of that business who make policy decisions. Those are the people who are good and evil and they are us. If Victoria Mars runs a candy company it doesn’t mean it is impossible for her to be worried about the well-being of her customers. Cutting down the size of candy bars for the health of customers doesn’t have to result in more sales immediately. If the customer lives longer it can be both a good corporate decision and a good health decision for their customers.

I’m of the opinion that too many decisions are made looking only at the short-term benefits and not the longer lasting effects. Decisions made that benefit the employee, customer, and business are often the same thing. What is good for the corporation is generally also good for the customer. Decisions that harm the customer can be beneficial in the short-term but often have negative effects down the road.

It concerns me tremendously that there is such a negative opinion about business in this world. I even got negative comments at my Libertarian website!

Businesses and capitalism provide me with almost everything in my life. I’m happy to pay money for particular goods and services. I think there was a time when almost all businesses felt they wanted to provide those things for me and make sure I was happy. I think that’s changing and at least partially because our expectations of a business have been warped to assume they are simply out to maximize their profit. When we expect business leaders to go for as much profit as possible and take advantage of the customer, they will eventually do so. That’s a recipe for disaster in the long run.

Remember, a company is run by people.

Greed is not good. What is good is making a profit, employing people, helping the community, and providing a desired product or service. When you purchase something you should be looking for companies that behave in such a manner.

When we expect the worst from someone, we often get it.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Mars Candy – Doing What’s Right Just Because

Posted on by

mm-candyI just read an absolutely fascinating article about Mars Candy. It states that Mars is looking to reduce the presence of their world famous M&M Brand candy in third party products like McDonald’s McFlurry because of concerns that people are eating too much sugar.

It’s why they are doing this that makes this Libertarian beam with happiness. You see, Mars is a privately held company. They are not beholden to stock holders. The reduction of sugar is not being done because the government is forcing them to do it. They are doing it because they are concerned about their customers, as well they should be.

Mars has a history of this behavior so it’s not a one time publicity stunt. Mars was the first candy company to put sugar amounts and calories on the packaging of their product. Not because the government told them to do it but because they wanted their customers to be aware of how much sugar they were consuming!

In 2013 Mars voluntarily removed “King Sized” candy bars from their product lines and limited the amount of calories to any single bar at 250. Again, not because any politician made them do it. Because they are concerned their customers are eating too much sugar and adversely effecting their health. From a candy company!

These sorts of moves cannot be easy for a company like Mars to consider. Too often we look at short term economic strategies. Mars wants their candy loving customers to live longer and buy more product during that lifetime! They have a long-term strategy that is not only good for the company but good for their customers, which makes complete sense.

Mars advises customers to consume their products modestly and as a treat!

Mars has promised to match health guidelines for sugar intake by limiting sugar in their products.

By golly, three hearty huzzahs for Victoria Mars and those who work for her company!

I urge all my friends to go out and buy some Mars candy remembering to consume it as an occasional treat. Live long, my friends.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Jordan Spieth and Professional Autograph Sellers

Posted on by

Jordan-Spieth-signing-autographs-PGA-ChampionshipThere was an interesting story from the United States Golf Open this morning that I think gives us a fairly keen insight into the nature of capitalism, both good and bad.

A professional golfer by the name of Jordan Spieth refused to sign autographs for two adults while signing for a child who was being “smooshed” by said adults. Spieth determined, and I absolutely believe he was correct, that the adults were what are called Professional Autograph Seekers. Such people collect autographs for resale at such outlets as eBay.

This practice has angered quite a number of celebrities from politicians to athletes to actors and beyond. Many of them have instituted policies to try and ensure their autographs only go to those who want them as a souvenir rather than as a money generator.

There are several thoughts behind this line of thinking.

One of the main arguments is that the celebrities can and do make a great deal of money by selling their own signature. That professionals are simply stealing profits that are legitimately the celebrity’s.

Another is that time spent signing for professionals takes away from available time to sign for legitimate fans who want a personal souvenir.

Both reasons are legitimate and I certainly don’t have a problem with Spieth, or any other celebrity, who tries to limit their signature when it comes to professionals.

But now I’ll come to the point of today’s blog. The economic reality is that there is a ready-market of people willing to pay fairly significant sums for those signatures. Where there is a market there will be suppliers. Suppliers will find a way to meet demand. Professional Autograph Seekers pay children to collect signatures. They seek autographs through the mail. There really isn’t much a celebrity can do except stop signing altogether. That, of course, deprives those who want a souvenir both at live events and at auction sites.

It’s a situation that brings to light the full gamut of capitalism. Good and bad.

The selling of signatures makes money for the celebrity and the Professional Autograph Seeker. It means that many people who want a signature as a souvenir get it despite never being in close proximity to the celebrity. Those are both good things.

It also means that the amateur is often pushed out of the way. That a child who wants an autograph is smooshed. Let’s not mince words. Celebrities don’t sit and sign until the last person is gone. They have limited time and every professional means one less signature for an actual fan.

There really is no villain here. Spieth wants to give his signature to people who value it for personal significance. Professional Autograph Seekers are simply making money from a ready market. Those buying on eBay or other outlets are spending their money freely knowing full well who is selling the autograph.

A politicians might try to outlaw selling signatures that are not your own and thus create a giant black-market with all the violence and fraud such illicit underground situations always bring.

The world ain’t always pretty and many times there just isn’t an equitable fix. Striving to find political fixes for things that cannot be fixed leads to bigger problems than the original issues. Don’t do it!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, and the role of Government

Posted on by

elizabeth-holmes-theranosOverview

There’s a fairly big story in the news about a company called Theranos and its founder, a woman named Elizabeth Holmes.

Holmes founded Theranos based on the idea that they could perform accurate lab tests with a few drops of blood, using a secret test called Edison, when before it took vials to do the same thing. The promise of such tests and the charisma of Holmes was enough to attract over $800 million in investments. The original claims of Holmes, who attended Stanford in an attempt to get a degree in Chemical Engineering but dropped out, were met with skepticism by the medical community but that didn’t stop hopeful investors.

Building the Labs

Theranos built their labs and began performing tests for companies like Walgreen’s. Eventually it came out that the Edison test Holmes and Theranos claimed was accurate was anything but. Their lab conditions did not meet any sort of standards and they were actually using machines built by competitors, not Edison testing machines.

At one point Theranos tried to get a contract with the United States military. Military inspectors found serious problems in Theranos labs and asked the Food and Drug Administration to step in and investigate. This request was denied by Marine Corps General James Mattis. Mattis then retired and took, among other things, a position on the Board of Directors of Theranos.

The latest news is that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering banning Holmes and Theranos from owning or operating a laboratory for up to two years. They became embroiled because the company was collecting money from those government services.

Role of Government

That’s all background though. What I find interesting is the role of the government in all of this. What Holmes did was clearly dangerous to many people. Patients and their physicians were getting bad lab results and acting in good faith on them. Investors believed the lies of Holmes and gave her a great deal of money.

What I want to examine is how Theranos was eventually brought down, or at least curtailed.

It all started when the Wall Street Journal published an article back in October of 2015 citing many problems in Theranos labs and also numerous inaccurate statements made by Holmes. She claimed partners that did not exist and regulation approvals from the government that had not been issued. Later that month the Food and Drug Administration stepped in because they had not tested the Edison equipment (Theranos was claiming it had been approved). Soon after this Walgreen’s, Safeway, and the Cleveland Clinic Hospital pulled out of contracts with Theranos.

Conclusions

This is all good. I’m totally on-board with this. This is government doing what it is supposed to do. It made information available, thanks in no small part to media intervention from the Wall Street Journal, which then allowed businesses like Walgreen’s to make informed decisions.

My anarchist friends will argue that the result would have been arrived at without the government at all. My social democratic friends will argue that with all that money involved it was only the government that allowed the story to come out at all, businesses would have covered it up otherwise.

To my way of thinking it is the combination of the two that offers the best results. Government gives us pertinent information and lets businesses and people make the final decisions.

It’s certainly not perfect but suspect nothing is.

Tom Liberman

Chess and the Internet Live Update Controvery

Posted on by

agon-limit-broadcast-chessI know the title of this blog isn’t too exciting but if you’ll put up with me for a moment I think I can show how a controversy that is roiling the chess world might well have a big impact on you.

The situation is this: A company called Agon Limited contracted with the FIDE (World Chess Federation) to have exclusive rights to develop, organize, and commercialize the World Chess Championship cycle. As part of this exclusive control they demanded that no other site publish information about ongoing games in the just concluded 2016 Candidates Tournament. In the past other chess orientated sites have broadcast such events on a move-by-move basis. They didn’t broadcast a live view of the players, just the moves those players made on an image of a chessboard that was updated regularly.

Several sites refused to accept this demand and went ahead with their broadcast. Agon is now moving forward with legal action against those sites.

At this point, if you’re still with me, you’re probably wondering how this effects you.

If Agon is successful in their efforts it means that no one can legally give information about an ongoing event without permission from the original content provider. This is an extraordinarily broad restriction. It means that sports websites like ESPN could not give you updates on the status of current events. It would mean, for example, that the only way you could learn what was going on in the currently running 2016 NCAA Basketball Championships would be to tune into the primary broadcaster. No other outlet could give you so much as an update on the score of the game.

It could be extended to non-sports events like awards shows. No entertainment outlet would be allowed to broadcast the winner of an award until the conclusion of the show.

The benefits for the original broadcaster are obvious. If the only way to get information about an event is to watch said event from the provider, it forces more people to watch the show. The drawbacks for everyone else are likewise apparent. Every other outlet that gains an audience by broadcasting information about the event is out of business. All users that cannot or do not want to watch the original broadcast are left without recourse.

One can certainly imagine if the primary broadcaster has sole rights to updates of an event, they might well find a fee-based structure in order to gain access. They have a captive audience. That also cannot be good for consumers.

Paying attention to what this about yet?

I’m hard pressed to believe the courts will support Agon in this lawsuit but it bears watching.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Kicked Out of a Bar for Being Eight

Posted on by

drinking-age-minimumOnce a month we have a company happy hour after work at the tavern downstairs in our building. We drink a few drinks, sing a few songs, eat some pizza, and have a nice time. The owner of the company often brings his eight year old daughter because she likes the pizza.

I just arrived home after said event. Sadly Sophia was unable to enjoy her pizza tonight. My boss and his daughter were removed for the premises. Apparently she’s too young to be in a bar. Yeah, I’m angry. Yeah, we’re not having our happy hour there next month.

I’m of the opinion this incident gives us great insight into why laws generally fail to accomplish their purpose.

Let me say up front that I don’t blame the bar. I blame government. I think the bar was probably under pressure because they had underage drinkers in the past. They had most likely been warned or even fined for allowing underage drinking.

I also don’t want to talk about the general stupidity of drinking laws. I’m going to focus on the abject idiocy of what happened tonight.

Tonight a father and his eight year old daughter were prevented from doing something they loved because the government thinks it knows better than the parent. That’s the long and the short of it and it if doesn’t disgust you, well, there’s something wrong with you.

Let’s imagine minimum age drinking laws make sense (they don’t, but allow the fantasy for the moment). There was no chance Sophia was going to sneak up to the bar and trick the lovely, and I do mean lovely, bartender into making her an Old Fashioned. If my boss wanted to allow her a sip of his drink then he could easily and legally do so at home.

I ask you this question. Who was protected by what happened tonight? Who?

The answer is obvious, no one. No one! A law that protects no one and prevents a father and daughter from enjoying a fun evening together cannot be anything other than evil. Yes, evil. I’ve gone there. Sophia looks forward to this happy hour. She loves spending time with her parents and the other member of our company. She was denied enjoyment. Her parents were denied enjoyment. Most importantly, I was denied the pleasure of my boss, his wife, and Sophia this evening.

The ridiculous application of a law caused suffering. Again, let’s imagine the government has a vested interest in keeping nineteen year olds from drinking. At what point aren’t you allowed to use a little self-discretion? A little judgment? Sophia was not going to be drinking. She was not going to be getting drunk. She wasn’t going to fool anyone into serving her.

I understand people will say that yes, Sophia was hurt, but we must protect the nineteen year olds from the danger of drinking at a bar. That we must have laws. That the laws must be enforced.

I disagree. I think any law that isn’t flexible enough and thus causes absurd enforcement should not be a law at all. What do you think?

Is it proper to prevent young children from being in bars?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Advertisement, Outrage, or both? Terry Crouppen Superbowl Ad

Posted on by

crouppen-superbowl-angerIt’s been a few days since the Denver Broncos defeated the Carolina Panthers in the Superbowl but I wanted to take just a moment to discuss the commercial a fellow named Terry Crouppen paid to have shown during the game.

The backstory is that the owner of the Los Angeles Rams football team, Stan Kroenke, moved the team from St. Louis to Los Angeles. There was a protracted and ugly campaign between Kroenke and various interests in St. Louis on whether the team should stay or move. In the end Kroenke got his way.

The Rams football team had very little success while in St. Louis except for a short span from 1999 to 2002. They have been one of the worst teams in the league in recent years although have moved more towards the middle of the pack the last few seasons. One of the reasons Kroenke listed for moving was lack of fan support. So, obviously, there was a lot of animosity.

Crouppen’s commercial was basically him taking Kroenke to task for moving the team despite arguable good support from a fan and business base despite all the years of losing. That while Los Angeles certainly offered more revenue, Kroenke was already quite wealthy and could have kept the team in St. Louis without causing any sort of financial burden. Or was that really his point?

Now to the real reason for my blog.

I don’t doubt Crouppen’s anger at Kroenke. I’ll take him at his word. The reality of the situation is that Kroenke just doesn’t much care what Crouppen thinks and the commercial does nothing to change the fact that the team has already moved. What it does is make a lot of people in St. Louis appreciate and admire Crouppen, who is running a business. He’s a personal injury lawyer here in town who has long run advertisements on local media offering his services. Was this not really just more of the same?

He’s known, perhaps accurately or perhaps inaccurately, as an ambulance chaser. A lawyer who takes advantage of people who are desperate. A lawyer who feeds the Compensation Culture.

I do not know if these accusations are true or not but I do know it is the general perception of people here in St. Louis.

So was this attack against Kroenke a sign of moral outrage from Crouppen or merely a shrewd and, judging from the comments I’m reading, effective advertising campaign for his law firm? Or both?

You tell me!

Was Crouppen Angry, Shrewd, or Both

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Cybersquatting Los Angeles Ram Domain Name

Posted on by

cybersquattingAs a fan of the former St. Louis Rams there’s an interesting case involving domain names that caught my attention.

The team is moving from St. Louis to Los Angeles and their old domain name of stlouisrams.com is obviously of little use. A fellow named Brian Busch registered losangelesrams.com and now wants to charge the team $650,000 to transfer it.

This brings me to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999. Basically this act makes it legal for entities like the Rams to go to court and force Busch to relinquish the domain for no fee at all. The name of the act is, as usual for legislation in this day and age, a bit misleading. It should have been called the Anticybersquatting Corporation Protection Act of 1999.

The idea is that well-known trademarks cannot be used in bad faith. Thus if Busch doesn’t intend to create a website about the Rams or have a legitimate reason to use that domain, the team can simply take it from him. If Busch happened to be named Angel Ramos he might have a case but otherwise it is very likely the courts will rule against him should the Rams decided to pursue that domain.

All this is really just prelude. As a Libertarian and also an author I find this case extraordinarily interesting. I have written eight books and I plan to write many more. Lets take my most recent one, The Girl in Glass as an example. What if someone out there registered girlinglass.com with the sole purpose of extorting me for the domain should my novels ever become best sellers. This person has no connection to the books nor any real intent of creating a website based on the books. She or he just wants to sit on the name in the hopes of getting a payoff at some future point.

This is currently illegal. I could take them to court and most likely get the name for myself.

As a Libertarian I often think the government oversteps its bounds and creates laws that cause far more trouble than they’re worth. But this one hits me in my house. As a writer my gut reaction is the law makes sense. As a Libertarian my gut reaction is the government shouldn’t be involved.

I’m not an anarchist and I believe that government has a useful purpose in society and good laws are quite helpful in maintaining order. I’m certainly not a proponent of government oversight of everything and I think bad laws cause many problems.

There are examples of abuses on both sides of this situation. Microsoft sued and eventually forced a young man named Mike Rowe to relinquish mikerowesoft.com

Proctor and Gamble is pg.com because someone else owns proctorandgamble.com but they themselves have registered thousands of domains like deoderant.com to keep others away.

This is where creating laws to try and prevent things gets ugly and often time counterproductive. The laws often end up twisted and abused.

In the end I have to come down on the side of the person registering the domain. If they registered it, it’s their domain. If someone registers girlinglass.com and its many derivatives, then it’s up to me to find a substitute domain name. If one of my customers ends up on girlinglass.com instead of gig.book, I have to trust my customer enough to find their way to my site.

It’s an interesting case to be certain and I see arguments on both sides. Perhaps I could be swayed ….

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

U.S. Government Murders Phedras de Blondel

Posted on by

phedras-de-blondelA prize Show Jumping horse was recently killed, dismembered, and it’s meat taken from a rural farm in Florida and it’s the United States Government’s fault.

This will my third blog on this topic. I wrote in May of 2013 about why horses were essentially being tortured. I followed up with a blog in June of 2013 about how this came to be.

This new story about Phedras de Blondel again shows how governing beyond the Constitution causes many unintended consequences. That horse is dead today because of the United States government. That’s the long and short of it.

What happened is that Senators and Representatives of the United States government allowed themselves to be swayed largely by T. Boone Pickens who apparently loves horses and is bothered that other people like to eat them. People in the United States are largely against slaughtering horses for consumption although other nations largely do not have such misgivings on the subject. Congress attempted to pass laws banning the slaughter of horses but failed to get them signed into law.

Thus failing they resorted to other methods. They included no funding for USDA inspection of horse slaughtering facilities. By law all such facilities must be inspected. No money for inspections means they can’t legally sell the meat. The existing packing plants immediately offered to pay the USDA themselves for such inspections but the courts ruled this illegal.

Naturally the export of horses for slaughter to Mexico and Canada increased dramatically and, of course, the fact that there are many more horses nobody wants leads to abuse. This includes up to 50,000 horses who are currently living in pens in the western states in what can only be called a horrific existence.

Yes, most people don’t eat horses in the United States but clearly some people do. A group of people killed Phedras de Blondel for his meat. Meat but for the government’s actions they could have easily purchased instead.

There’s a lesson in here for those that want to listen.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Farmers’ Market as Example of Anarchy

Posted on by

farmers marketI recently got into a somewhat cantankerous although not particularly angry or heated debate at my Libertarian website about why I was a Libertarian rather than an Anarchist. One of those who disagreed with me brought up the example of a Farmers’ Market as a working anarchy.

I thought it was an excellent example of exactly what happens in a anarchic system. I’m fairly certain I will get more disagreement from my anarchy promoting friends. Let me explain my position and you can tell me what you think.

I live in the suburbs of a fairly large metropolis, St. Louis, and I’ve seen any number of Farmers’ Markets spring up around me. There was originally one in my home community of University City and also a fairly large one in a downtown neighborhood called Soulard. Since then I’ve seen others pop up in other suburbs nearby. Each time I’ve witnessed the exact same transition from small farmers cooperative into undercover, secret major produce outlet market.

What happens is a group of local farmers get together to start a market in a metropolitan area to get their produce directly to their consumers. It immediately becomes popular with the locals of that community. Major suppliers take note and begin to buy up the booth space with disguise names; because of their deeper pockets they are able to outbid the local farmers. Soon all the local farmers are driven from the market leaving only the major produce players.

Let’s contrast this with the places I’ve seen small farmers have the most success. At my local chain grocery store! The small farmer sells to the major chain that puts the local, seasonal, produce in a bin up front and resells it for a profit, but still at a lower rate than their non-local produce. Everyone wins. The small farmer has an excellent and reliable outlet for their seasonal produce, the chain makes a nice profit, and the customers get produce at a reasonable price without having to drive a long distance.

This is exactly why I’m not an Anarchist. Anarchy cannot sustain itself, at least at this time. What happens to virtually all anarchistic situations is they attract people who take over the system to their own benefit. In a Farmers’ Market this inevitably is the major produce suppliers. In a political “market” this is the despot.

What works is a combination of limited government working with small but largely free people. Libertarianism!

To me the choice is not between government and no government but between reasonable government and dictatorial insanity. There is no stable anarchy and the Farmers’ Market seems to be evidence to that point, not against it.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Do not take Stelara if …

Posted on by

stelaraI do most of my television watching on the computer using Hulu, ESPN3, and other outlets. Lately I’ve seen a commercial for a drug called Stelara quite frequently. There is something in that commercial that hit me right in my Libertarian breadbasket.

A few years back the federal government regulated advertisement for pharmaceuticals. One of the rules is that any such advertisement must list major side effects and contraindication of the drug in question.

In the rundown of side effects for Stelara, which includes death by the way, we get the following.

Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara.

What more do you need to know that the entire process is an exercise is silliness? The reason behind the rule about advertising is so people won’t take a drug that harms them. This relies on the idea that people won’t take a drug if they know it has harmful side effects or they won’t take it under certain conditions like after drinking. That idea is utter nonsense. People are idiots. If they are willing to take a drug whose side effect is death, what’s the point of any warning?

People will talk with their doctor and either make an informed or uninformed decision about taking medication. Stupid people will make bad choices more often than smart people, that’s reality. No amount of warning in a commercial is going to prevent stupid people from doing something stupid. Likewise, an intelligent person who cares about his or her health and what he or she put into his or her body is not going to trust a commercial, but will consult with their doctor prior to making such a decision.

It’s a rule designed to make us feel better about helping people when we’re not actually helping them at all. Do you think anyone bent on taking the medication is deterred by the warnings? Of course not.

Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara? You have to be kidding me.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

$400 a Month Forever Student Loan

Posted on by

student-loansI went down to my corner bar the other night to watch my beloved St. Louis Cardinals play, eat a delicious burger, have a nice gin & tonic, and generally try to shake off my anti-social tendencies. The place was largely empty and I struck up a conversation with the young (and attractive) bartender. What I learned was disturbing. She’s been paying $400 a month to pay off her $35,000 student loan for seven years and she still owes $29,000.

What, what, what?

There’s a problem here. Let’s solve it.

The first step is to identify the problem. It turns out to be systemic and rather like the 2008 housing crisis that cost We The People billions of dollars.

Colleges are charging huge fees for tuition that are far above the value of the education. Banks are giving out loans to people who cannot afford to repay them in a timely fashion. Loans are structured in a predatory fashion to ensure people pay essentially forever. People are willing to take out ridiculous loans. People who should never go to college are going and incurring debt. Lots of blame to spread around.

The next question is to find out how this all came to be. The root cause is money, as is often the case. The federal government, banks issuing loans, and higher education facilities can make huge amounts of money from these loans. 2005 legislation, The Bankruptcy Reform Bill, included provisions that meant declaring bankruptcy did not absolve students of debt. This means that you can’t legally get out from under the debt, you owe forever.

So we understand the problem and its causation, what’s the solution?

I’m no Socialist. I don’t think making higher education free for all is a reasonable solution. It sounds good and it certainly has some appeal. The big problem, from my perspective, is that higher education costs will rise to take advantages of this government larder. Many students who have no business going to college will do so at a cost to the taxpayer.

I am a capitalist and I think loan institutions should make money on their loans. The loans are a good thing in that they provide young people a chance at a higher education when they otherwise could not afford such. They also make money for the banks. That’s good.

So where does that leave us?

The Higher Education Act of 1965 created something very useful called the Perkins Loan. It is more like a car or home loan as opposed to a never-ending credit card charge. It’s a ten year loan at a fixed 5% rate.

Let’s take my new bartender friend’s case. She has paid $400 a month for seven years. That’s $33,600 off a $35,000 loan. Add the annual 5% to the principal and she’s pretty much got the thing paid off. Another three years and she’d be done. However, she didn’t get a Perkins Loan. Seven years into it and she’s nowhere near paying it off and there is no end in sight.

The problem becomes how to limit student loans to just Perkins type structures. If a student agrees to pay a ridiculous loan is it the bank’s fault for offering it? If banks give out insane loans are higher education institutions wrong to raise the fees to absurd amounts? Can the government legally force banks and schools to be less predatory and make a reasonable profit while allowing students to get an education without mortgaging their future? Can we force students to be reasonable about their future and crush their often misguided dreams?

No easy answers here.

I do think predatory loan practices are essentially stealing. It’s more egregious than taking money from a person via direct criminal actions. Yes, people are foolish to willingly sign for a loan that will essentially keep them in debt forever but fraud is a crime. I see no issue with charging people with theft for loan conditions that are unmanageable. Put a few loan officers in jail for issuing such loans and I think the problem would largely be solved.

Yes, fewer students would get loans. Yes, higher education facilities would see drops in enrollment. Yes, lenders would take a hit to their profits.

The other option is sit idly by while really nice girls like my bartender are made slaves to debt. Oh, and destroy the economy with a huge student loan default.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Phony Corporate Tax Dodgers Facebook Post

Posted on by

Tax CompaniesOne of my friends shared a post from US Uncut’s Facebook page and because I’m not a friend of them I couldn’t comment. It made me angry so I’m going to write a blog instead of a comment.

The image portrays a white man complaining about his taxes and wanting to see a picture of the “ghetto” family he is supporting. This image naturally enraged some people and they attached a little picture below it showing various corporations who supposedly don’t pay federal income taxes.

The images included Walmart, Kaiser Permanente, Citibank, and BP (British Petroleum).

Why am I angry about the image. Let me explain.

Walmart is one of the companies that I would call a good tax citizen. They don’t have an army of lawyers and generally pay fairly close to the ridiculous 35% corporate tax rate. They were one of the companies that expressed a strong desire to lower the corporate tax rate to 11% percent and remove all loopholes. I’m a proponent of this strategy.

Most of the Enterprise companies in the world are against this, although their publicity staff pretends otherwise. The reason being that they employ a large staff of corporate lawyers and generally pay nothing in corporate taxes, in fact they get refunds. The 35% rate largely only applies small and medium-sized businesses who can’t use tax shelters offshore and other methods used by Enterprise companies.

Kaiser Permanente is a nonprofit organization. Yes, they don’t pay taxes, but they don’t distribute profits to shareholders and they funnel earnings back into the company. Its inclusion on the list is ridiculous.

Citibank belongs on the list. They are one of the Enterprise companies that uses offshore companies and other methods to avoid paying any taxes. They also benefited from the government bailout program in 2008 although they repaid all loans with interest resulting in a profit for the U.S. government.

Finally, BP. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this one out. It’s a foreign company. They don’t pay income taxes on operations in the United States but do pay local taxes. From what I can find they don’t have access to a lot of the loopholes domestic companies have and they pay the standard rates. So it’s hard to justify putting them on this list.

There are plenty of companies out there that don’t pay much in taxes and could easily have been put on this list.

This sort of laziness bothers me. I mean really, how hard is it to find four Enterprise U.S. companies that use loopholes to pay little or nothing in taxes? A quick internet search takes seconds. Do it yourself and see how easy it is.

If you want to make a point by using an example, at least find a good example. Otherwise I’m going to doubt your entire argument, as should any critical thinker.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Sports and the Nature of Capitalism – Spieth vs Day

Posted on by

Spieth-Day-Shake-handsOne of my favorite sporting events of the season is the PGA Championship; thanks in no small part to the enlightened view those in charge take as far as online viewers are concerned. This attitude along with the incredible final round between the two leaders brought to mind why competition is the method by which the best results in life are found.

There are two lessons to be learned here. Both from the streaming coverage provided during the PGA championship and the spirited final round of the event itself between Jason Day and Jordan Spieth.

First as to the viewing pleasure I enjoyed.

In the last few years there’s been a slow but steady shift of people away from traditional television viewing habits to online viewing. I’m one of those that no longer has a traditional television. I consume media via my computer using tools like Hulu, NetFlix, ESPN3, and other content providers. It saves me money and allows me access to only the events I want to watch. The problem is that many content providers don’t see those of us who have eschewed television as a market. Major League Baseball, for example, has a blackout policy that means if I purchase their baseball package I can watch every game of every team except my home market team, the St. Louis Cardinals. Yeah, so, not buying that.

The PGA tour has a livestream channel but whether or not the event broadcasts is rather haphazard from week to week. Some events show nothing at all while others show only on Thursday and Friday, others show all week. The PGA 2015 Championship has a plethora of streaming coverage and have had so for the last few years. They embrace online viewers like myself and I’m grateful to them. They have a featured group channel which is outstanding. You get to watch one group for an entire round. They have a par 3 channel. They have a general broadcast channel.

The point here is that when you broadcast a sporting event you want the largest possible audience. Yes there are advertisements but I gladly put up with them. It is my opinion that by embracing, rather than fearing and excluding, the growing online audience the PGA promotes their product. They bring in new fans. They do themselves, the game of golf, and the fans of golf a great service. That’s smart business. The rise of online media consumption, as opposed to traditional television viewing, has increased the number of ways I can watch a golf event. It has given me more options and more entertainment. It also generates new revenue for the content creators and providers. All good things.

As to the second reason competition is great.

The 2015 PGA Championship pitted Jason Day and Jordan Spieth in the final round. Often times these sorts of pairing don’t result in a great competition because one player does well while the other does poorly. That was not the case this time. Day and Spieth both played well and the drama was intense and exciting. Day eventually emerged triumphant by a seemingly large margin but the reality is that until the last hole there was tremendous doubt. That made for a gripping story and an entertaining event.

Competition is a good thing.

Good for the players who must rise to occasion and reach heights they would not have otherwise achieved. Good for the audience who watches such drama. Good for the content providers who get advertising dollars. Good for advertisers who get good publicity for their spends.

And, as Spieth’s sportsmanship in defeat so ably displayed, there were no real losers. Yes, Day won but Spieth gained as well. As did we all.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

 

 

How to Succeed in Business – The American Way

Posted on by

donald-trumpI’ve been watching the rise of Donald Trump as a viable political candidate with some interest of late and I just saw a sound blip that I thought was very telling.

At question was the fact that Trump led business endeavors have gone bankrupt four times. Trump correctly denied that he had ever gone bankrupt. He pointed out that virtually everyone you see in the business section has used Chapter 11 laws to their advantage and that only Trump is being singled out.

He’s right. I don’t say this to defend Trump. I say this to point out that the way to succeed in business in the United States is to start a company, pay yourself and your chosen friends a huge salary, take out as many loans as possible for as long as possible, and then declare bankruptcy leaving the banks to make up the lost capital by overcharging average citizens. This is our business model now.

If you are a small or medium sized business owner trying to provide a quality product at a reasonable price, trying to employ good people to enrich their lives, and trying to earn a good living; you’re headed for disaster. If you think pro-business Republican candidates are on your side, you’re living a lie. I’m not saying Democrats are any better but if you keep voting for Republicans you are voting against your interests.

There was a time when good business owners did stress making a great product or providing a good service. When employees were part of the team for life. When profit was nice but not the most important factor. Those days are gone.

Want to succeed in business? Give yourself and your friends a huge pay raise. Take out as many loans as possible. Drive your company into the ground. Declare bankruptcy.

Then what, you ask?

Do it again!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

What is the Work Week?

Posted on by

standard work weekThere have been a number of stories in the news this week about something called the Work Week.

We had Jeb Bush suggesting that people need to work more (he “clarified” suggesting he meant part-time workers need full-time jobs, but honestly, that’s not what he meant). A number of people are advocating reducing the Work Week to 32 hours.

The problem seems to me that there is a total disconnect between what the work week means and what people think it means. I aim to rectify that.

The Work Week in the United States is generally defined as Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with an hour for lunch. There are many permutations but largely the perception is that people work 40 hours a week at their jobs.

This is, of course, absolute bollocks! There continue to be a number of jobs where people work while at their office and leave work behind when they leave. These sorts of jobs a becoming an increasingly smaller part of the whole. With our phones, tablets, home computers, and other technologies we work wherever and whenever work needs to be done. The idea of a standard work week is utter nonsense for a growing number of people in the United States and other countries in this Information Age.

One of the metrics by which we measure how much work is done is called Workforce Productivity. The problem is that hours worked no longer has meaning in the equation. That hasn’t stopped people from trying to use that particular equation to calculate how productive we are. Productivity goes into many other economic equations defining the health of a nation. If one of the key measurements is no longer valid then I wonder about the entire equation. Are economic decisions being made at the highest levels of government and business that have no basis in reality? In my opinion, yes.

The reality is that people who work in Information Age jobs work far more than they report working. They are on their phones working for ten minutes here and ten minutes there. They are not in the office but they are working. While it’s possible people over-report time away from the office working I’m of the opinion that most people under-report and by a fairly significant amount. This throws all productivity measurements into disarray.

If we want to get a true indication of productivity we must accept this new paradigm for workers.

If we continue to follow outdated and mathematically flawed models we can only make bad decisions.

The idea of the Work Week is dying and we must accept that. Work can be done from anywhere, anytime.

Do your Over Report or Under Report your Working Hours?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Why Host Olympics and World Cup … Money

Posted on by

sepp-blatter-fifa-scandalHosting major international sporting events like the Olympics and the World Cup is an enormous money loser for the country that takes on the task. So why do countries bid for and apparently bribe officials to get the right to do so?

The common rational is that the prestige of such events brings the spotlight to a nation. That might be true but while I was working out and watching yet another story about the institutionalized corruption in the Federation International Football Association (FIFA) the reality suddenly dawned upon me. It’s all about the money.

Why do countries pay what appears to be tens of millions of dollars in bribes to organizations like FIFA and at least fete members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to host such events when they know they will lose hundreds of millions of dollars?

If we understand the question more fully the answer becomes evident. The question should be: Who is it exactly that loses money?

Let’s take it back a notch. You go to Tutti Frutti frozen yogurt right down the street from where you live and purchase $5.00 worth delicious frozen dessert. As you are walking out the door you trip and spill your ice cream all over the raging hot cement where it instantly melts. You sigh sadly, turn around and purchase $5.00 more of yogurt because you have a problem with ice cream. Mmm, ice cream.

At first glance you have lost $5.00. But the reality is more complex. Yes, you have $5.00 less than when you started but Tutti Frutti now has $5.00 in sales more than they otherwise would have. The gain balances the loss. That is the nature of transactions.

In the case of the Olympics the nation in question is spending billions of dollars building stadiums, hiring thousands of people and paying their salaries, working with local businesses from restaurants to garbage disposal who see massive revenue from spectators. If a nation loses billions of dollars that money goes somewhere. It goes to the business owners who happen to be lucky enough to get the construction contract, have the license to sell their wares near the venues, and get the waste disposal bid. How does such fortune fall into their laps? Take a guess.

The politicians bribe FIFA with a percentage of the money they anticipate getting in bribes from businesses that want to make money during the event. Then the nation awards bids to these companies to the tune of billions of dollars which they pay off with taxpayer revenue.

So all this lost money belongs to taxpayers. The gained side of the equation are politicians and corrupt business owners who share the spoils. Those companies that choose to be honorable get no bids and are driven out of business by the unscrupulous operators.

Crony Capitalism on a level so enormous it’s difficult to fathom.

That’s why politicians want to host such events. My advice? Vote for better politicians.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Cheating to Win – Kendall Schler at the St. Louis Marathon

Posted on by

kendall-schlerI have several friends who run marathons and specifically St. Louis area marathons so when I saw a story about how a woman cheated to win this year’s GO! St. Louis Marathon I was intrigued.

The story gets even worse because the woman, Kendall Schler, apparently successfully cheated to finish third in last year’s race. When she won this year a more thorough investigation was performed and it was determined that she did not run in the race at all. She simply jumped in right before the finish, reminiscent of Rosie Ruiz in the 1980 Boston Marathon.

At first I thought it was a rather amusing story because her attempt to cheat was relatively laughable in that she tampered with electronic tracking equipment but when I learned that she managed to pull off the trickery the previous year and I got a little upset. I’m not going to try and analyze why Schler cheated. I play online chess and cheating is epidemic in that milieu. People cheat for reasons that seem bizarre to me but they still do it.

What I want to analyze today is the overall anti-Libertarian effect that cheating incurs and how a society of Libertarians would deal with such things. The thing about being a Libertarian is that you largely believe people should succeed through their legitimate efforts. When one person cheats to get ahead that not only subverts society by putting a lesser qualified person into a position of power but also denies more highly qualified people at every level.

The person who finished in second should have won, yes, but the person who finished  in eleventh place would have finished in tenth and gotten some particular reward. The cheater cheats every other person behind them and society as a whole. I’m thinking rather broadly here, not just about a race but about business, relationships, and life in general.

Let’s imagine we Libertarians have taken over the world. We have in place a society where achievement is the highest goal and the majority of people simply do their best at everything they attempt. How do we deal with people like Schler? In a Libertarian society there might not be electronic tracking in race bibs because we assume people will not cheat. How do we safeguard our society from such as Schler without becoming the authoritarian state we so detest?

It’s not an easy question to answer. In my opinion we actually must allow Schler to win. Our suspicions aroused, we (all the other racers and officials) now watch her more closely next time. When we try to create rule after rule to safeguard against Schler and her ilk we end up creating a system designed to thwart cheaters rather than promote achievers. Sure, Schler gets the win but does she benefit in the long run in a Libertarian society. My answer is no. She is quickly discovered and shunned.

However, in a non-Libertarian society with millions of rules the cheaters, provided they are stealthy enough, can prosper, as did Schler last year. No one watches too closely because they assume officials and existing rules will eliminate cheaters. Meanwhile the cheaters know the rules and use various methods to skirt them. How many cheaters are out there right now, unbeknownst to the rule makers?

It’s a tough question and the Libertarian answer is not easy to digest and understand. Still, I think it’s the right answer for society and for the world.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition