A Few Get It -- Only a Few Dozen Generations to Go and Change will Arrive

I saw another article over on the "ESOP News" gadget I set up to the right of this blog: "Hire smart people, get out of their hair." It's an encouraging article, give it a read.

I actually have seen two articles in the LA Times regarding this same TV business (The other article is, "The Power of Being Local and Employee-Owned." That, to me, is encouraging. A for-profit newspaper has allowed a reporter to highlight an alternative capitalistic model. It is encouraging that the business has been prospering; it is encouraging that the reporter, and her editor, felt the story was worthy of publication; and it is encouraging that their owners allowed the story to be published.

[Actually, I notice that it is "FROM HOWARD'S 65TH ANNIVERSARY, A SPECIAL ADVERTISING FEATURE" and is not a product of a reporter, or editor, or even a publisher's tolerance of alternative models of capitalism. I guess I should have stuck with my snakiness about humanity.]

That is what it is going to take to achieve change, intelligent people spreading the word about how to construct a sustainable capitalistic economy. Repeated stories over a lengthy period of time until others recognize the validity of the alternative capitalistic models and begin to follow suit. It is also encouraging that the writer didn't not grow snarky as I normally do.

The business highlighted in the article has been around for years, and has been employee-owned since 1976. Publix has been around a similar amount of time, and the Bank of North Dakota has been around for over a hundred years. Those are the dismaying points, to me. That the model of sustainable capitalism, which is a style of socialism, has been around for so long yet Americans have ignored it.

But, as I highlighted a few posts ago on November 7, Gars Alperovitz points out that the number of worker-owned corporations has increased. So, change is coming, it is just going to be very slow. Evolution is frustratingly slow, I guess. But at least there is some hope of a more just economy for our great-great-granchildren.

Change the Economy, Change Politics

I somewhat criticized Gar Alperovitz in my last post when I wrote, "I would have hoped that Mr. Alperovitz would have explained the evolutionary aspects of this shift in ownership." Given my critique I think I should explicitly lay out my thoughts.

Basically, my thoughts are that everything is interconnected. That may seem like a, "Well, duh, tell me something I don't know," type of statement, but, apparently, it does need to be stated. But everything is connected, in more ways than I can even express. Without rambling on about everything, I will just stick to the big three that I would like to highlight today: culture, economics, and politics.

Given a type of culture, certain types of economies would logically, and realistically, follow. Given certain economies, certain types of politics would logically, and realistically, follow.

In the United States our society, as a whole, suffers from a style of cognitive dissonance. Americans will say they value independence, yet the vast majority are almost completely dependent on the government or a corporation. Think about it, Americans puff up their chests and say they are so independent, yet they go to work everyday when told to and then go home when allowed to.

Or, Americans worship of the military, or a football team -- a worship of a role where the individuals do as they are told … And even which football team they are loyal to, i.e. the team that is nearest and that everybody else around them cheers for, basically, Americans have no independent preferences, no independent wills, they are apparently the people most susceptible to peer pressure on earth, they are completely servile.

OK, enough on the American culture of servility. But given a certain culture, a certain style of economics would follow. In this case, we have a somewhat capitalistic system, meaning a small sliver of the nation owns the factories and the offices and the vast majority then file into those factories and offices everyday and create continuous profits for the sliver of the nation that are the owners of those factories and those offices.

This suits the servile Americans quite well; though they may occasionally grumble about that reality, there is little reason to think they actually want it otherwise.

So, a small sliver of the nation owns the factories and the offices and that small sliver thus reaps the profits from the workers who staff those factories and offices. Then, given the style of politics in America, where the politicians have been allowed to craft the laws which regulate themselves, they have crafted the laws to funnel money to themselves through 'political donations' from the wealthy. They then use those political donations to saturate the media with messages to the servile populace to then vote for them again.

And this system also seems to be working out fairly well. Again, there are small groups that grumble, but the entire system is plain for all to see and the vast majority seem to be satisfied with this system.

So, I should title this piece, "Change the Culture, Change the Economy, Change Politics," but that is lengthy and clumsy and isn't as catchy as the current title. ;-) So that is why I leave it as it is.

So that is my too long explanation of why I am so fixated on worker ownership. Independence! Freedom! Those are my goals, that is the path that I try to steer Americans towards.

While a co-operative, or a worker owned factory, may resemble dreaded socialism to many Americans, holding the reins to steer your own destiny appears much closer to freedom, to me, than filing in to an office everyday, when told to, to create a profit for an owner you don't even know, and who may not even live in this nation…

My final point being, money controls politics, and money accrues to the owners of the businesses, therefor, continuing to work for a business in which a person has no ownership interest abdicates political power.

Successful Activist Amplifies My Cause

Though I have been jotting down my thoughts about worker ownership here in obscurity, another writer with a far greater reach has touched on some of my them. "Capitalism fading in the evolutionary revolution" is a very good article by Gar Alperovitz, a professor and published author. I sugest anybody who is now reading this to go check it out.

The short snippets that I support are:

Over the last three decades, for instance, more workers have become owners of their own companies than are members of unions in the private sector; indeed, 5 million more.

and

14 states are considering the creation of state banks following the long-established North Dakota model, a trend that is also likely to grow.

Given the title of the piece I would have hoped that Mr. Alperovitz would have explained the evolutionary aspects of this shift in ownership. That he doesn't leaves me with some hope that I may yet have a role to play.

"Crowdfunding" on the Horizon

I saw another article that I wanted to comment on and I thought I should go ahead and write post before I lose the article. The article is "When 'Friending' Becomes a Source of Start-Up Funds". The article is about legislation [PDF] "To amend the securities laws to provide for registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities, and for other purposes."

The article summarizes: "Critics say the idea is dangerous for investors, and even dicey for the entrepreneurs. Yet, it is gaining traction with small-business owners from the Bay Area to New York, who say they eagerly await an opportunity to sell stakes in their businesses through social networking—a process known as crowd funding."

The House Financial Services committee last week backed legislation that would make it possible for small businesses to use crowd funding to raise money from investors in exchange for equity stakes.

Under the proposal, investors would be able to buy stakes of up to $10,000 a year, or 10% of their annual income, whichever is less. Companies would be able to sell up to $2 million in equity—but must provide audited financial statements if the total exceeds $1 million.

I agree with the critics, somewhat, it could be dicey. But it could open up capitalism to the people, which you know, is one of my main interests, and it intersects with my other interests. I am going to be watching this Bill closely and acting upon it if it passes. I think it is a great opportunity, for myself and all Americans.

I'll add more thoughts later, I just wanted to get this "out there" for now. There's another article on the same topic, "A Split in the Crowd-Funding Crowd", and I will post more after I have read the Bill carefully and have done a little more research.

A Joke, But I'm Not Laughing: The SBA is Off Target

I noticed a little article with a fairly partisan and incendiary headline, "How did Solyndra get $500 million when I can’t get $5,000?", and, to amuse myself and waste a little time, I gave it a read. Now, it is clear the article is meant to be a right-wing indictment of the president of the United States by another right-wing media outline that is more concerned with destroying an American President, and America, than it is with helping America progress, but I basically agree with the meat of the article (I just find the blatant partisanship distasteful.)

First, the actual meat of the article. The article is written by Lisa Qualls, "the CEO and managing partner of Fresh ID, an agency dedicated to improving and socializing the brand experience across all forms of media." (A BS description of a consulting firm trying to make money from actual companies by just telling them what they should be doing if I ever heard one.) She 'serves' on boards for the Salvation Army and the Christian Foundation for Children, and she lives in Kansas City, so it is obvious she is a hard-core "Christian soldier" that concentrates her time on bolstering the prison industrial complex by getting heathens thrown in jail.

So, I am sure that if I met her in person I would retch. Which is a shame, because she has an ounce or two of intelligence, and alludes to valid criticisms of the Small Business Administration (SBA), though she never really discusses them. She mentions her desire for the SBA to "make these loans fair and accessible to those who truly need [them]." That sentence was near the end of the article, and is presented like a great revelation. It should have been in the first paragraph and should have lead to a serious discussion of the history of the SBA. Ms. Qualis notes, briefly, that the SBA requires a business to prove a "minimum three years of top line revenue and profit growth of 20 to 30 percent." Well, those are pretty demanding requirements, and makes it clear that the SBA doesn't want to get involved with helping a small business grow, but only wants to ride along after a small business has already been growing at a healthy rate for many years.

The SBA doesn't want to help small business grow, but wants to tag along after the SBA perceives there is no stopping this business. The SBA doesn't really make loans to what you and I would think of as small businesses. I drive around town and see small businesses all over. The small, family owned auto shop that I visit, or the one the son opened up across town; local restaurants and bars; specialty grocery marts like fish or health food stores; small book stores and craft shops; and on and on. These are small businesses in my mind. None of these would qualify for a "small business" loan. (And if you go by the SBA website they constantly put "small" in quotation marks, signifying that the manner in which they are using the word is not the actual meaning of the word.)

Basically, the SBA is looking for semi-large corporations that are already growing at a healthy clip and they want to loan them hundreds of millions of dollars so they can make the leap to huge, multinational mega-corporations. Their basic criteria is that the are not the leader in their industry. Growing, but not yet the leader. So, a huge chain like "Panera Bread" might manage to qualify, or maybe something like "Target" department stores. These obviously aren't small businesses. They know this. The data says that most new jobs are created in companies with less than twenty employees. Those are small-businesses. But most of those won't qualify for an SBA loan.

My second point, besides what a joke the SBA is, would be what a joke these massive media outlets are. The Washington Post has carefully found an individual who will parrot their own partisan ideals. The SBAhas been a joke for many decades. Yet Ms. Qualis has managed to seize on a high-profile disaster and imply that it is a recent development that needs to be changed. Ms. Qualis is attempting to lay all of the blame at President Obama's feet. Now, I'm not fond of President Obama, and he probably deserves plenty of criticism. But the SBA catering to only large businesses is not a recent development, and probably has more to do with the long history of our right-wing influences than today's African-American President.

So instead of the Washington Post running lame little articles they should be taking a serious look at the history of the SBA and advocating that it actually help small businesses that are in danger of failing. Just betting on the New England Patriots doesn't really help anybody. Helping a great little family run auto shop to expand, like Aaron's Auto Center, here in Jacksonville, would help the economy.

But the SBA only bet's on big companies, and the Washington Post only takes partisan pot shots at the president. Niether are helpful to the United States of America or its economy.

WHERE You Work Matters

I keep trying to tackle this issue about 'ownership' and the currently accepted structure of capitalism, but I am (apparently) much too abrasive. (I believe this because I find no allies and create enemies.)

I point out the specific hypocrisy and dependence that is currently the rage. I believe this leads people to believe I am attacking them personally, and they, of course, calm their fear by attacking me…

ESOP's are my obsession. Publx [www.publix.com] is one of my favorite examples and is the largest corporation based out of Florida. Every employee receives stock; the employees seem happier than at other grocery stores; they seem more involved, more concerned, with their tasks. I personally know an older guy who works at one nearby part-time and, after 5 years, he has $5000 in stock.

Yet, the average Joe on the street shows no preference in filling out applications. They show no preference in jobs. They will work at the grungy store next door for the same wage, minus the yearly stock benefits. People don't shop differently either. Shoppers don't seem to care if the profits go to their neighbor or to Dubai.

Also, I see "liberal" group after liberal group shouting the same thing as the conservatives; "Jobs, jobs, jobs." They do not seem to care that the sole purpose of a job is to create a profit for the owner. (Strike that, many [politicians] probably do realize that--but they are concerned about their ownership stake in GE, or Wal-Mart… and need more bodies to work for subsistence wages and create more profit for them, the owners …)

I often snap at posters online. I go through posts of right-wing talking points and rip at them … I create more enemies..

Anyway, I have a sick feeling that if Wal-Mart or GE or Raytheon or Credit Suisse offered to hire all the current 99% protesters, I see no evidence that they all wouldn't file off to to work to while away the rest of their lives creating a profit for their new owners. [And yes, I see it that drastically, that harshly. They would be 'owned,' they would be "human resources" no more valuable to the corporation than any other "resource," like a lump of coal or a piece of paper. And the owners would owe them nothing, other than the subsistence wage previously agreed to, and the 'human resources' can usually be fired at will, and if they get to uppity the owners will just close that factory, or office, and move it to India and buy some cheaper human resources …

The owners of an ESOP [like Publix] are also the employees, giving them an incentive to not close their own store. It also gives them an incentive to think long-term and not skip on maintenance or investments. It also keeps the profits in their community, benefiting the community. It also allows them to feel less alienated, more involved in determining their own future. And on, and on …

So, there's my thoughts for the day. I am currently in law school and have researched and thought about these concepts extensively, from start-up financing to products to marketing and promotion. But, alas, I have found few who are interested, and most run off to apply to Wal-mart or Koch Industries while simultaneously complaining about the influence the profits (those same human resources create for Wal-mart or Koch Industries) are applied by the owners in the political realm … as lobbying to change laws to benefit the owners and cripple the workers. That is how the profit the workers create is used, yet people are clamoring to work to create those profits for corporations. So that the corporate owners can then use it to harm the workers.

So you know my position--the workers need to "own the means of production." But the worker's revolution should be in their own minds and spirits. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." Right now, Americans don't seem to care where they work--but they should.

One final note: I spoke of Publix … which is a multi-billion dollar corporation, entirely owned by its employees. Americans should aim high. You don't need to be sole owner of a little used clothes shop, you can be part owner of a huge corporation… a corporate and a community leader. I am advocating evolution, not revolution. Eventually the workers will realize they are better off working at Publix rather than at Wal-mart. Eventually, greedy bastards like the Walton family will die off, and people like George Jenkins will rightfully be held in high regard.

Thoughts on jobs, etc.

[An email I sent recently.]

Friend,

You seem rational, educated, compassionate, etc. and thought you could give me some outside perspective. (Here's a rambling overview ….)

I am interested in starting a non-profit business that starts for-profit ESOPs.

Many things have contributed to my thoughts.

JaxLegalAid was involved in a program to help ex-cons start businesses. (I haven't seen any evidence of success…)

I spoke with a Libertarian at school who felt the lack of ownership rights was at the root of the BP spill;
"When people own something they take care of it… sell off the Gulf of Mexico…"

I agree about the ownership stake …

Publix is the largest corporation out of Florida, and is an ESOP. An acquaintance who works at Publix says after five years he now has $5000 in Publix stock. I don't understand why the workers don't show a preference about where they work… but the workers at Publix sure seem friendlier than those at Winn-Dixie ...

Jobs create wealth for the corporations. When I worked as a freelance lighting tech the company would pay me $12/hr and bill the client $36/hr. When I went to law school professors pointed out that you have to bill three times your wage; if you make $50,000/year you need to bill $150,00/year. That's how capitalism works. One third to pay you, one third to pay for the building, the equipment, the electricity, whatever, and one third for the money men, the capitalists, profit. So, getting a job is getting exploited, getting taken advantage of, basically, for chumps. But thats what we [working class chumps] teach our kids; "Get a job."

(The SBA is worthless… but that's another story…)

And everyone knows that a house is "the average Americans largest investment, their largest asset" Yeah, the average chump. From the business perspective it is just a very big widget to sell the average consumer. Reagan said, "Buy a house ['cause I have stock in Lennar Homes…"]

Obviously, instead of teaching our kids "to get a job" and "buy a house" we should be teaching "start a business."

I believe this could be done sustainably. Loan a group $50,000 to start a business, they pay back 10,000/yr and they "buy-out" the business and are the employee-owners, and the loan is repaid with interest!!

I've thought about this from many more levels….

I've thought about approaching Peter Rummell, a wealthy local business man who "switched sides" and contributed $100,000 to Alvin Browns mayoral race and now is with the Urban Land Institute (ULI).

I've thought about approaching Chef Gordan Ramsey: "Hey, we have ten folks that are starting a restaurant… you can do a TV show that would inspire people..."

I thought about creating support by writing blogs. But comments are very tepid. Again and again people are like, "Just give me a job…" I see no ambition to be part of the ownership…! Just more, "Give me a job… I'll work to create a profit for somebody else"

I wonder if I should continue down this path. Why should I help these fools. I should just buy a boat and sail off
to the Cayman's…

Even after I explain all this to people, they are like, "Just give me a job… I'll work to create a profit for somebody else… " Yet working for Wal-Mart, or Raytheon, or BP, just creates more profit for Wal-Mart, or Raytheon, or BP, who then hire more lobbyists…

People are in fear, and overcompensate by acting macho and independent. (I joke, "the bigger the pick-up truck, the smaller the penis." People over-compensate for their weaknesses.

They convince themselves that getting a job is independent -- but it is pure subservience to the corporation. At least the folks at Publix are working for their corporation, one they have part ownership in.

Politics and the economy and culture are all intertwined.
We need to build a culture of true independence, where kids want to start a restaurant or a software company. (Of course you can make a lot more money working as an engineer at Raytheon than running a flower shop. But, at Raytheon you are spending your time working to pay for your own wage and then both to pay the owner's electric bill and making the owner a profit, and, ultimately, the job isn't very secure…)

Writing blogs and trying to generate interest is frustrating, and I am starting to think it's the wrong way to go.

That's where my thoughts are at this point…

Again, you seem rational, educated, compassionate, etc. and I'd like to sit down over a beer and hear your thoughts…

Drop me a line whenever.

Crazy Thoughts

So my thoughts are starting to coalesce into a semi-coherent plan. (If I said this to any of my friends they would, since they know my personality, undoubtably laugh, or at least chuckle… they would think, "Danger, danger Will Robinson!") I have this concept, this thought, and it dwells in the shadows of my mind and takes over my thoughts in quiet times of contemplation, and I polish the concept.

The thought that occupies my mind is, in the simplest words, starting a business that starts businesses. Obviously, the thought is greatly polished by this point. It is fancy by now and I call it a concept, and I have many layers of thought attached to that concept. At the start is the reason why I want to do this. The reason is itself a many-layered story.

I was going to point out that these days it has become much more common for people to notice the corporate bias built in to modern reality, but it occurs to me I should start back even further in time, back before I had the thought that became a concept.

The thought grew from other thoughts, thoughts on interconnectivity and arrogance. That everything is so greatly interconnected and overlapped that none of us can truly perceive the extent, and that we are also all so arrogant that we are, to some extent, willfully refusing to perceive.

I'd like to say one word on arrogance here. I pointed out the wisdom in a line from a Who song: Nobody knows what it's like to be the bad man…" Of course my friend just said, "Yeah, it rhymes with 'sad man'." I went on to explain that nobody ever feels that they are the bad man; nobody. Everybody has a perfectly reasonable explanation for their actions, reasonable explanations we can all somewhat agree with, or at least have heard before and understand. From the person who is late for an appointment who leaves their fast food bag of trash in an inappropriate place as they rush off to an interview, to the executive making a cost/benefit analysis on a piece of [safety] equipment for the factory, or oil rig.

Later, each decision might be called bad. Not just incorrect 'bad', but morally wrong 'bad'. That's human arrogance. Even though we have each done something bad at some point, something evil, none of us feels evil. That's human arrogance.

Human arrogance leads us to feel that we are individual, independent. Yet we live in a society, with roads, and buildings, and laws, all built and erected by many other people.

So since we are all so arrogant, and "independent," it is easy for us to gobble up the reasoning that we should get a job and take care of ourselves. And buy a house. That seems rational.

When I worked as a freelance lighting tech the company would pay me $12/hr and bill the client $36/hr. When I went to law school professors pointed out that you have to bill three times your wage; if you make $50,000/year you need to bill $150,00/year. That's how capitalism works. One third to pay you, one third to pay for the building, the equipment, the electricity, whatever, and one third for the money men, the capitalists, profit. So, getting a job is getting exploited, getting taken advantage of, basically, for chumps. But thats what we [working class chumps] teach our kids.

And everyone knows that a house is "the average Americans largest investment, their largest asset" Yeah, the average chump. From the business perspective it is just a very big widget to sell the average consumer. I saw somebody in finance joke, "Yeah, in the office we say 'it's a wasting asset.'"

Obviously, instead of teaching our kids "to get a job" and "buy a house" we should be teaching "start a business." And now I'm gonna' loop this around to American jobs getting shipped overseas: If you ran a restaurant/hardware store/flower shop/auto repair shop/beauty saloon/whatever, how quick would you ship that store overseas?

And, yes, I know that's overly simplistic. Of course you can make a lot more money working as an engineer at Raytheon than running a flower shop. But, at Raytheon you are spending your time working to pay for your wage and then both to pay the owner's electric bill and making the owner a profit, and, ultimately, the job isn't very secure. (I'll not talk about our ever-present fear right now, our fear that, hand-in-hand with our arrogance, drives us to always be "in control," to always be right.") (Nor do I have time or space to point out that by adding to Raytheon's coffers you build Raytheon's political clout, by working for a multi-national corporation you add to the lobbying efforts of a multi-national corporation.)

An acquaintance here in Florida works at a nearby Publix. Publix is an ESOP. After five years, he said, he's got $5,000 in Publix stock. He gets an ownership stake in the company. (Yes, the largest corporation out of Florida is an ESOP. Eeks, they let the workers own the means of production! Don't let the wage slaves over at Winn-Dixie know what those socialists are up to.) And I swear, and I realize this is just my anecdotal perception, but the employee-owners at Publix never seem as surly as the human resources at other supermarkets.

So that's the twisted maze that leads me to my thought at the top of the page: I want to start a business to start businesses. But not just any businesses: ESOPs! I got this crazy thought that if the workers owned the factory they wouldn't relocate to China. But, that's just me.

And oh, there's more, so much more …

Apple - Remembering Steve Jobs


"Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose, there is no reason not to follow your heart."

— Steve Jobs, 1955 - 2011

New possibilities, new alternatives ...

I left a a comment over at FDL on an article, and video, by Gar Alperovitz: "Movements, History, & Economic Transformation, Part 4: New possibilities, new alternatives"

My particular comment, praising the video, is here:

11,000 worker-owned companies!! Exactly, that is hopeful. Actual ownership of industry is directly linked to political power. Economics, politics and culture are all hand-in-hand and move together.

While some clamor for freedom from corporate ruled politics, they still advocate for “jobs”–not seeming concerned that they clamor for corporate jobs, which increase corporate profit, which increase corporate political strength.

While advocating for worker-owned businesses, advocating for community businesses, is actual advocating for worker political strength, for community political strength.

Excellent video.

The REAL Reason Why the U.S. and Europe Are Back at the Brink

I just read:
Recovery Lost: Why the U.S. and Europe Are Back at the Brink
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/recovery-lost-why-the-us-and-europe-are-back-at-the-brink

Normally I would agree with the young author. But nowadays I see that he has been brainwashed by the neo-cons and the BS about "an ownership" society. Owning a house isn't the American dream. Running your own business, contributing to your community, is.

"...and a culture of risk and entrepreneurship."

That is not true. Americans have been trained to be good little zombies. The children file through metal detectors and into school. The populace are trained to "get a good job" where they work day and night to make a profit for the oligarchy, for their wealthy masters.

"This has wiped out the most important source of net worth to most middle income families." And that's part of the problem, part of the brainwashing. Buy another shiny bauble, you brain dead consumers, because Lennar and DH Horton and Toll Brothers need more profits. And you can pay with your wages from Raytheon, or Wal-Mart, or whichever corporation pays you subsistence wages.

Yes,shop at and work your days away at Wal-Mart and help the wealthy oligarchs, the Walton family, destroy your brave neighbors who attempted to run a clothing store, or a hardware store. Work to destroy any local business that reinvested in your own community. Make sure they know that individual entrepreneurship will be punished.

In other words, the demise of the American economy is because of the demise of American individualism, the demise of American entrepreneurship. The demise of the American economy is because of the demise of individualism and of community--now Americans are trained, and have accepted, that their sole purpose is to work to make a profit for the multinational corporation. Buy a car, a house, an iPod, and do not expect any equity in the actual business you spend all day building.

Are Americans Stupid or Self-destructive?

This whole "debt-ceiling debate" is rather disgusting to me as very few actually talk about reality…

People seem extremely fond of analogizing the US economy with a household's budget, or running a business. That analogy is non-sensical for many reasons, as outlined in this nice little article: The Federal Budget is NOT like a Household Budget: Here’s Why.

But just for fun, let's look at the US economic situation through that analogy, let's look at the US as a business.

Suppose you, along with your brother, inherit a piece of land with a small building on it that has a stove, a sink and a refrigerator inside. And you and your brother agree to open a burger stand. You have very little money so you suggest getting a loan, and manage to convince your brother to go along. So the business takes out a 5 year loan for $1000 and you and your brother buy some meat and potatoes and start selling burgers and fries.

The burgers are good and people start buying them. Your place is very small so you can only seat one person at a time and therefor sell a lot less burgers than you could, as you see people walk on by when they see there is no room in your stand.

Now, for some reason your brother is very upset about the debt the business has incurred. He insists that you spend all the cash the business has, barely $1000, to pay off the debt. You urge that the business take another loan and expand one wall so that there can be more seats.

You explain to your brother that if you pay of the debt with your cash that would basically put you both out of business, since you could not then buy supplies. You explain that not using the loan would be foolish, would create wasted capacity. You insist that the way forward is to expand and sell more burgers and make more profit.

Your brother is a hard core conservative though and continues to argue that the business should stop expending money on expenses like buying supplies or electricity, and that the only way to save the business is to pay down the debt now.

So you offer a compromise that you buy less supplies and less electricity. Of course, you can only open for an hour a day and sell very few hamburgers, and the business now barely makes a profit and you worry that it may not even be possible to pay off the loan as the business continues to shrink ...

writing about writing

I think I'm writing a book about writing a book. I say "I think" because I've been working on a book, on and off, for many years and recently I was adding and editing the work and I've sketched in my mind a slightly different path than it was on before. I like this new angle; it gives me a good frame to work from. The beginning and end of the book are also the beginning and end of the story.

I mature, my thoughts mature, the story matures, the book matures: the end. Not exactly like that, but having the book be about the making of the book gives it a definite 'wholeness'.

And, of course, I'm thinking I would need a website, and an agent, … And thinking about all that just brings me down...

Boehner's Response - wow!

Sometimes I mistakenly assume that others are as cynical and as informed as myself. Speaker Boehner bases most of his argument on a business analogy, which is entirely incorrect. A sovereign country prints its own money: the money would not exist without the sovereign. By continuing the comparison to a small business Mr. Boehner sacrifices realism for folksiness; facts for fiction.

Perhaps Mr. Boehner does not grasp advanced monetary theory and babbles his words in true belief of their validity. But, on second thought, I begin to suspect that he knows that his little parables are nonsense. He is fairly busy dropping keywords, and accomplishing other feats, so I can appreciate that his act doesn't rely on realism to sell tickets.

But how can any reasonable person have a discussion with this man. Either he doesn't grasp the concepts involved, or he is being deceitful for political reasons. Either way, a rational discussion would be impossible.

Yes, I understand, "politics," and all that …

Nice link giving specifics on why the federal budget is not like a household budget:
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/02/10/the-federal-budget-is-not-like-a-household-budget-heres-why-8230/

Staying abreast

I stopped by Alexa.com, where I checked on "Hot Topics, What people are searching for on the web right now…" (Number 1. was Area 51 photos) and "Hot Products, Products that people are coveting right now…"

Evolution Robotics Mint Automatic Hard Floor Cleaner.

Yes. I had never heard of it before, either.

But, apparently, this is todays must-have product. The product has received good reviews all over, with the features being praised are; it does dry and wet, runs up to three hours, is effective, and is quiet.

I saw prices run from $149 to the list price of $199.

I probably would have bought one myself ten years ago when I lived in a decent place in Boston with hardwood floors. Now I more mull the data as mild humor that reminds me that we haven't progressed very much in 50 years, a vacuum cleaner is still a hot product.

Other items of interest I noticed, though, were the Cricut Create Machine and Clif Kid Zbar. Interesting. How do people hear about these things to even know to go search for them? I guess, predictably, I'm just not in the info loop about new products.