Looking for a Party

No I didn’t teabag, but like many other Americans, I share frustration with the current state of affairs and concern for the future of a great nation. So I’m looking for a party that shares, not defines, my principles. I don’t care about the name, I don’t care about who is endorsing, I don’t care if it’s COOL, or if it’s new. I care about results. The following 15 points describes the type of leadership I will support in order of priority:

1. National Defense –The number one privilege is to live life in safety and liberty. Any governments’ #1 priority is to keep its member safe both at home and abroad. Being the Nice guy has NEVER stopped or prevented aggression on the contrary, it encourages it (ever deal with a bully problem at school?). Fear of not being liked in my opinion is not a good policy for defense or leadership. Preventive is always best, but we need to be in a position to do so. Was it a coincidence that renegade leaders in Libya and mad nuclear sceintiests fell in line shortly after the attack on Iraq?

2. Freedom – we are who we are because of our rights. The constitution is timeless and the Rights differentiate us from the rest of the world. If you’ve spent any time in Russia, especially outside the tourist areas, you’ll notice the reality between real freedom and suppression.

3. Law Enforcement – Freedom without Rules is chaos. Try playing a game without rules, without parameters, without disciplined skill. Not very fun and not very safe. There may be the freedom to play, but what you can actually do is limited to your abilities and knowledge of the game. Although we have freedoms, there are limits, and there are consequence when we test and go beyond those limits, regardless of intentions. There is a way society works, and law enforcement is there to make sure of that. Again, prevention is best, but when not, enforcement should be swift and with resolve in a way that supports prevention.

4. Opportunity – I’m a second generation immigrant. My parents with little but their education, and my father learning a new culture and language, they were able to build a very successful life and impart those values in their children. America should return to a performance based culture, which gives EVERYONE opportunity, not handouts, regardless of status, culture, religion and any of the other ways people segregate. Like any good game, the value is offered, the qualifications set, and rules enforced. The results belong to those who choose to participate. The only real failure goes to those who choose not to. Government should only participate if it plays by the same rules. Inefficiency should never lead.

5. Government – the constitution is clear, the government is divided into 3 branches with 3 separate powers for balance. The legislative legislates, the executive – executes, and the judicial JUDGES. Problems arise when they extend or ignore their roles. Judges should NOT legislate or execute. Legislature or Executive should not be judging. And none of them should be running companies, unless they play by the same rules as everyone else.

6. Society - the US is by the people for the people not by the government/power/corp for the government/power/corp. We project and protect the liberty of the people. We’ve lost that. A high percentage of the social programs that are supported by the government, and not equally so by the people are…wait for it…corrupt! Why are the people paying for in taxes these organizations that don’t represent the values of the American people? Let the markets decide who succeeds in the market and likewise the people decide what affects our society. Why does this work? The American people are #1 in the world for giving and charities both home and abroad.

7. Responsibility – how can the government of the largest and one of the best economies in the world be SO inefficient and irresponsible with performance? It makes no sense. The only one remotely close that was serious about it was Ross Perot, that would’ve been interesting. Is it really so hard?

8. Education – there’s no reason for a country with the best universities in the world producing such poor education k-12. No reason. And there’s no reason that getting there demands more tax payer money to do so. In the world’s most competitive society of bigger, faster, stronger, our education is top-heavy, limping, and weak.

9. Legal – the US is the joke of the world in terms of legal compensation. Of course there needs to be law, and civil law creates societal balance but it’s out of control and ruining our economy. It adversely affects the costs of Healthcare, Education, and Production. The Legal system in the US currently runs as extortion, and it needs to be reined in.

10. Healthcare – only after frivolous civil lawsuits are under control can we begin to tackle healthcare. But tackle it we must. However the solutions must be fiscally responsible. There are many great proposals. Throwing money we don’t have into a system we can’t afford is NOT a solution. Simply copying another country is sophomoric, since we have some of the best and most creative minds in the world.

11. Taxes – another huge waste. Let’s have a policy that makes sense, that encourages growth, and competition both home and internationally. The best minds in the world are NOT in government, they are competing in the markets. We should be using living organizational principles to take advantage of that, not tax it. This is part of Efficiency (#7) Step 1: reduce government, Step 2: institute a responsible fiscal policy: a flat tax or fair tax. Step 3: reduce spending.

12. Corruption – corruption exists when there is a lack of regulation enforcement, a lack of transparency, and an arbitrary distribution of value/wealth. We need leaders who are not afraid to step up.

13. Accountability – in light of #12, strong leadership regulates itself firmly, not waiting for it to hit the press, or wait for a crisis event, but knows what it is doing and takes care of it. I would expect nothing less from the companies I invest in, why would I expect less from my government?

14. Moral Issues - I’m not a fan of government dictating moral stances, rather give it up to popular votes and state management.

15. Candidates - I don't think it's too much to ask to have the best most qualified candidates to choose from, not just the ones that have legacy, fill quotas, or are simply the "next-in-line."

Any suggestions?

The problem with Capitalism is Government

Much of society today blames the current economic crisis on capitalism. But really digging into the reasons of the crisis and comparing it to history show that the problem with capitalism isn’t its inherent greed, the problem is Government.

To start, there are a lot of misconceptions about what capitalism is. Most attribute capitalism to consumerism and propagation of planned obsolescence, this is not true. Consumerism is only one approach to capitalism. However, capitalism isn't a philosophy, it is a system of human behaviour. It is not about money, but about value and how that value is obtained.

All living beings are self-serving, and will do what they believe to be in their best self interests. When what is valued is limited, competition then determines who gets what. It is the natural order of things to seek greater gains to cover loss.

Capitalism is simple
1. Identify and establish value: money, position, victory, acceptance, relationship
2. Understand qualifications to obtain that value
3. Compete within set parameters or rule

Built into the system are natural checks and balances such as competition and risk which keeps the system going. Prices and products are market controlled meaning income must be greater than cost on the low end, and competition keeps prices in check on the high end.

Also inherent in the system is ambition, motivation, loss and reward. It is a system that seeks efficiency, progress, development, and relationship. It is what gets people up in the morning and what drives them to be better.

When entities enter without these basic principles, it throws the market out of whack. Take away competition, i.e. monopolies, and prices become arbitrary and most likely above market value. Take away risk or the need to make a profit then prices are unrealistically below market value and again, destroy the market. Take away reward, and people get lazy in their personal lives and in their relationships.

But who can afford to do that? What entities can enter the markets and not care about losing their investment? What entities don’t’ care if their customers are unhappy with service or product? Government.

Think of it this way, markets are like the flow of a river. They are driven by self-interest and flow within natural boundaries. Drop a wall in the middle of the river, and the river still runs. Only it starts to break the boundaries, flows outside its banks and start to flood the land.

This is exactly what happened with the crisis. The Government introduced loans that normally banks would NEVER do because of the risk. The Government told them to do it anyway. The banks and creditors were stuck with a product that was sure to create loss. So what happened? The river still flows, so the market did what the market does, and sought ways to turn a loss into a gain. So new instruments were made that the markets would take, it entered the flow and started to be sold.
Whose fault was it? Those who created and sold a less than desirable product or the Government who broke market rules and forced that product into the market to begin with?

Throughout history, every time non-market entities got involved without following the natural rules, it was an utter failure. Also every time the rules were not enforced, disaster ensued.

Since the Government is NOT capitalistic, meaning it is not normally driven by profit or increasing value, it should NEVER get involved in the markets. Politics running companies, is there any ONE government program that was successful and sustainable? Not one.

Now to be fair, I do believe the Government could enter the markets, but only if it plays by the same rules and takes the same risks.

Otherwise, the Government’s role is regulation, that’s it. And in terms of the sub-prime loans, its own product, it couldn’t even do that right.

Capitalism works even in crisis, when the Government stops playing with it.

Electoral College: Electing a President through the States

The election of the President of the United States is unique not only because is the most influential elected office in the world, but because it is the only elected office chosen not by public majority but through state representatives, known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College gets a bad rap these days but when properly understood, is a good system for the presidential election of a union.

The Electoral College system allocates Electors (voters) from each state which in turn vote for the president. The number of electors (538) is tied directly to the number of elected officials in the Senate (100) and House of Representatives (435) plus 3 added for the District of Columbia.

Each state in the union has 2 senators and their representatives in the house are based on population. Thus the election of the president is a mixture of both. The state of Michigan, for example, has 2 senators and 15 members of the house and therefore has 17 electoral votes.

In the Electoral College, each state holds elections for their candidate. The winner of the state election then receives the votes of its electors.

The Electoral College is consistent with the US principal that it supports the sovereignty of the individual states. While most think of the US as a country much like France, Germany or Japan, it is actually a union of separate economies (states), more like the European Union…except we get along. The Federal Government’s role is to support the local economies in light of the larger association. This is why Governors, rather than congressmen, are more preferred for the office of the presidency (Regan, Bush, Clinton); it is the next logical step. In the presidential elections, states determine their own candidates through a popular vote.

While most states allocate all of their electoral votes to the majority candidate, states can choose how they appropriate electors. Of the 50 states, 48 allocate all of their electoral votes to the state winner. The two defectors, Maine and Nebraska, share similar methods which is a combination of state-wide (2 electors) and district (1 for each) popular votes. Colorado recently tried to pass a referendum allocating electoral votes to the percentage of the state-wide popular vote, which highly I support.

What is interesting this year’s election is that some of the key fighting states getting a lot of attention aren’t huge markets like California, Texas or New York, but smaller populations like Nevada Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia. What the Electoral College brings is the opportunity for those in important but less popular areas to play important roles in the electoral process. In a popular vote, more focus, time and energy would go to populous areas such as Chicago, New York, Miami, and therefore a bulk of the election would be determined on the big-city mind-sets ignoring more traditional conservative values in smaller towns and rural areas.

Changing the electoral system would mean changing the constitution of the US, a slippery slope that very few would be willing to approach. Even more, it would diminish the role of the state in US affairs, a consequence that affects its competitiveness and marketability in the US economy. The Electoral College is an issue that Europe should take that to heart as it continues to build and establish its own union.