Ports issue: Another view

I see that my colleague Matthew is blogging on the same topic but he appears to have a slightly different view than I do. Since I am really exploring this topic, I will be very interested to read his posts. I hope that you take a look at his blog for info also: Abaraxas

Ports saga

Here are some of the articles that I read about this issue over the past few days.

Port Control: It's a No-Brainer
The politics of Ports
Protectionism by another name

You will see that these are all from TownHall.com which is pretty conservative in nature, yet the authors disagree with each other. I personally feel that both sides have very valid viewpoints but I personally still think it is a deal best kept from happening.

Why can't activists just let go when the case is over?

Okay, I am probably going to rant a bit in this post. I watched the movie North Country last night. It was a pretty good movie. It was actually set in Northern Minnesota where I grew up which probably made me want to see it even more. It is a pretty good story about a sexually harrassed woman who tries to stop the treatment. All in all a pretty good movie.

So anyway I complete the movie and I want to hear more information on the original case that occurred that was the inspiration for this movie. I start watching the documentary that is included on the DVD and guess who is one of the first people on there: spokesman for NOW. I let it go because I figured that maybe they actually did something right and helped in this case. Then here she comes again. This time she is saying what a great victory it was and how more people need to get involved because we still have a long ways to go. This is where I kind of lost it. The women in the movie are being sexually assaulted not just harrassed. I may be nieve but I don't think that a lot of sexual assault is occurring in the workplace anymore.

Now, my big issue with this is the message that is conveyed that we have a long way to go. I think that the case brought up in the story was the long way to go. I believe that the women in this story were extremely strong and deserve a lot of credit for what they did. Women did not have the rights in the workplace then that they do today. Why trivialize their contributions by saying that it was just a start? In the places that I have worked women are treated with respect. Now, I understand that things still happen but the law protects women now. I guess my point is, why is it that once the problem is dealt with activists still believe that "they have a long way yet to go". This appears to be the case with women rights, civil rights, etc.

I am defintely not saying that women should be protected, they should. I just question why activists have to be militant about changing things when the things have already been changed.

Could it possibly be because the campaigns happen to make some of these people very rich and they don't want to cut down the money tree?

Ports Argument

I mentioned in a previous post that I am unsure of the ports deal with the UAE. I just found a great editorial and I thought I would share. I think it gives a good explanation of why it is not a problem.

Ports of Politics

I especially thought the following quote makes a lot of sense:
"Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials."

A Veto from the No-Veto President?

I must say that this story is extremely disappointing to me all the way around. I personally am not sure whether the U.S. should outsource our ports to the UAE company or not but the political storm around it has brought up some of the most ridiculous statements that I have heard since the last Presidential election.

#1 - Why should we treat this UAE business differently than the British company that is trying to make the deal? To me this is a ridiculous statement because the answers are really to easy. First, the British company is not partially owned by a foreign government. This seems like enough of a reason for me. Second, how many of the terrorist actions have been committed by native Brits?

#2 - If we don't allow it we show prejudice toward the Arab world. Again, I disagree. I think that we show restraint. We are attempting to protect our borders. As Jay Leno said, should we outsource our immigration policy to Mexico?

#3 - President Bush will veto any legislation trying to stop it. This is probably the most irritating one to me. He skipped vetoing the campaign finance reform, the education giveaway, the medicare explosion act, the transportation bill but NOW I will veto a bill that has a real justification in the eyes of the American people?

I think that is time for serious discussion on this issue and not just posturing, threats, and scare tactics. Is it the right solution? I really don't know but I am beginning to believe that some of the politicians in Washington aren't.

What is it?

Did you read the strange story of the black tarlike substance in LA? Seems kinda strange to me.

Mystery blob eating downtown

Here's the explanation:

Oil Buckles Street and Damages Building

Racism for Political Gain

Why is it that anytime anything happens that people seem to find a racist way of looking at the problem? I was just reading an article about the Detroit Zoo where the city politicians are saying the state of Michigan is trying to control them because they are black. Are the animals black too? I think that the only color that the decision has anything to do with is green (the state funds the zoo).

The Future of the Detroit Zoo

The same thing happened in New Orleans when the hurricane hit. The federal government didn't respond because it is a "black city". When hurricanes hit other states guess who responds first -- the state and local government. Then the federal government responds. So who didn't respond properly? But instead of questioning state and local government it is immediately a racial issue.

I believe that many black politicians have become so programmed with their racial rhetoric that can't respond with anything else. This kind of thinking is not helping anyone except the politicians. Get over it and come up with real solutions to real problems.

Offshoring Woes

I am continually amazed at how many people are so worried about the offshoring of technology and call center jobs. The U.S. has been offshoring jobs for many decades and probably even longer.

As we have been sending jobs overseas our unemployment rate has stayed the same or even dropped. On a historical basis our current unemployment rate is extremely low. During most of America's history economists would have been thrilled with and unemployment rate below 6%. Yet today because of the political waters it is being viewed as very poor number.

We are also reading many articles about how the offshoring of jobs is not working as planned for many companies. Many are finding that it costs much more in the long run than they had been promised. Also, as more and more companies offshore the work the prices for skilled people in those areas is ballooning. This article points out a problem that is currently being experienced in the Philippines:

Philippine BPOs facing dearth of skilled workers

I think that this issue is much more of a political issue than a job issue. Jobs exist in the United States. In many fields there are shortages of workers. The offshore resources are filling that shortage in some cases. In other cases companies are saving money by using cheaper resources. By saving money, they are making more which is profitable for their shareholders. Who are their shareholders? Probably each and every one of us. Remember your retirement account?

As this continues to happen costs will rise overseas and it will become less and less profitable to send jobs overseas (look what happened in Japan 25 years ago). Our economy will continue to create jobs both here and overseas. What will our economy look like in 10 years? Only time will tell, but if it is larger and stronger it will be partially due to offshoring.

M-Learning World

Well, unfortunately it looks like our previous host for M-Learning World is not going to provide us with a web presence in the near future. Matthew has created a new blog for the time being to discuss the mLearning issues. Please take a look:

M-Learning World Blog

Networking made easy

Vincent has a phenomenal LinkedIn introduction idea. A very simple yet informative introduction. Take a look:
Linkedin Business Discussion Index: Introducing MLPF Micro-Introductions

Kudlow's Money Politic$: Shrinking Budget Deficit

Why is it so difficult to understand that if taxes are cut that in time the government will actually make more money(Laffer curve)?
Kudlow's Money Politic$: Shrinking Budget Deficit

The New Market Bubble Theory

I just read an article on Wired News called "The New Market Bubble Theory". The article is a summarization of a discussion with economist Harry S. Dent. Dent believes that the economy will go into a boom cycle for the next few years reminiscent of the late 90s. He believes that this bubble will burst in 2010 and will cause a much more severe downturn than the last recession that we saw. He says worse than the 1970s but not as bad as the Great Depression.

I am not sure that anyone can really tell what is going to happen in the future. If you could would you really need to make forecasts or would you be living on your own tropical island because you are a multi-gazillionaire. If you have the ability to tell the future, you should be investing or gambling.

On the other hand, the economy is cyclical. It does follow cycles. History has shown that every time we think that we have it under control, we don't.

My biggest issue with the forecasting the future is that you can't tell what the government will screw up or who they will upset. In most big downturns there is a very large political element (Hoover raising taxes during a downturn) or a drastic change world relations (OPEC embargo) that causes them. It is not purely cyclical, it is largely political.

"This Is A Remarkable Economy"

I just read an article in BusinessWeek with that as the title. Then there is the subtitle - "But President Bush isn't getting much credit for it, says Allan B. Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council"

Article

Why is it that the there is no discussion of how the tax cuts really did spark a growing economy?

Trade Deficit

This morning I read that the trade deficit has begun to narrow.

U.S. Trade Deficit Narrows Slightly

This is a good piece of information but of course the dreaded asterisk is added to the story. We still have the third highest deficit on record. Doesn't that stand to reason based on a theory called inflation?

There is another part of this article that really makes me question people's understanding of the economy. The article states: "The soaring trade deficits are being used by Democrats as evidence that President Bush's policies of striking free trade agreements around the world have failed to protect American workers from unfair competition from low-wage countries such as China. They blame the loss of 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since mid-2000 on trade liberalization policies that have allowed U.S. companies to move factories overseas." This statement makes no sense to me. Our unemployment rate still sits at very low levels compared to historical averages. Our economy has been creating jobs for the last two years. Lastly, the Democrats strongly support the union policies that make our workers unable to compete with foreign labor.

Just seems to me that the Democrats are playing on the fact that many don't understand economic numbers. What are your thoughts?

Conservatives call for return to values

This is a very good article that discusses the problems in Washington today. The Republicans are not following through on their ideas even though the people gave them the majorities that they claim that they needed to make changes happen.

Conservatives call for return to core Republican principles

What needs to happen in order for politicians to begin to realize that they can not take their positions for granted?

Founder's Quote 1/10/06

Today's Founders Quote from the PatriotPost really struck me this morning:

"The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, andif this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure,than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and theforms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty."
-- John Adams (letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June 1776)
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (371)`

Tax Parasites

I just read a very interesting post on The Reform Club blog:

The Reform Club: Democrats: Tax Parasites

My opinion is that people who are carrying the largest majority of the tax burden tend to be most interested in the candidate that wants to lower taxes. Then people who aren't paying taxes or are paying much smaller percentages tend to not be as concerned about the tax rates.

Then, the people who have the most to gain from social programs tend to follow the candidate who is promising the most free money. Again this tends to go against the people who are paying the taxes because whether politicians want to admit it or not the someone has to pay the bill.

Those concepts probably better define the difference in the red and blue states.

Dale Carnegie Quote

I just received this quote in an email and thought that it was so simple yet very powerful:

“Keep your mind open to change all the time. Welcome it. Court it. It is only by examining and reexamining your opinions and ideas that you can progress.”
- Dale Carnegie

Worlds Most Admired CEOs ranked by their peers

I just read this post on the Harvard Business School's website and found the results very interesting. The peers had a much different viewpoint than BusinessWeek's survey.

2005 World's Most Admired Chief Executives (Harvard Business School)

How can this allow us to improve ourselves?

Real Estate Venture Part 2

As I am sure some people know (although I didn't), many real estate investors in the U.S. function with the properties held in their name. The other option that I am finding, if you need financing, is to purchase the property in your name and then use a quit claim deed to pass ownership to your corporation. There are some issues with this but it appears that is how many handle the issue.