In My Not So Humble Opinion

Archive for September, 2008

By now, everyone in the US has received the bailout chain letter email that says the government, instead of bailing out AIG, should give every American over the age of 18 $425,000. Each person then pays tax at a tax rate of 30%, which leaves $297,500 in their pocket. They claim this will boost the economy more than bailing out AIG. People would pay off their houses, buy new cars, put something aside for college, and life would be one big block party.

As if.

It sounds wonderful. Everyone would benefit from a boost in lifestyle, the recession would end, and the US would be strong.

No, not really. Let me explain.

It’s not just that their math is wrong, which it is. The logic is what is flawed the most. I’m not going to cover everything, but let’s look at a simple view. The effects will fan out from there.

1. If AIG is not bailed out, millions of people would immediately become uninsured. The money that they get from the bailout alternative would need to be set aside to cover medical costs, to self-insure their property and casualty risk, and cover investments and retirement benefits that they have lost.

2. Those who invested with AIG, and were receiving retirement payouts would lose their benefits. The bailout alternative payment would not cover their living expenses and medical costs for the rest of their lives, and these people would then increase the rolls of welfare recipients. They lose their quality of life, and everything they worked for.

3. Many businesses who depend on AIG for their liability coverage, workers comp, employee benefits and lines of credit will fail. Their employees will lose their jobs. The money these employees would get from the bailout alternative would need to sustain them while they try to find employment, while competing with the drastically increased numbers of unemployed. These people would be at a huge disadvantage to everyone else who didn’t lose their jobs, and got this bonus.

Step back from AIG now, and look at what this payout would do to the economy.

1. Raising minimum wage has been proven many times to have no positive impact on the economy. It just raises the dollar value of the poverty level to keep it in line with inflation. The poor stay just as poor as they were the day before.

2. More money doesn’t equal greater wealth. Flooding the market with more dollars has the opposite effect. If everyone got a big check as suggested, the dollar value of the poverty level would be raised once again. As we learned in Economics 101, prices will go up. More people will become impoverished. The rich stay rich; the poor stay poor, with more dollars in their pocket. That dollar is now worth less.

None of this takes into account all the money AIG owes others, the money the US owes foreign governments, the money foreign governments owe us, and all the complicated bookkeeping that goes into running a country as large and wealthy as the United States. Our leaders are making the best of a very difficult situation in order to protect everything we hold dear. It’s more than a simple financial decision.

I spoke with an acquaintance the other day who regaled me with stories of her recent trip to Las Vegas with friends. One highlight she shared, that she thought was really amusing, started with, “Did you hear about our Dine & Dash?” She gave me the whole story, how they were unsatisfied with their meal, sneaked out, and then did a mad dash around the hotel to avoid getting caught. Oh, how delightful. And high school.

When she finished her story, I said, “Oh, that’s too bad. I’ll bet the waitress had to cover your check.” (Having been a waitress, I know this is true of a lot of places. Keeps the help from giving away the food.) She justified their actions by saying, “I know. We weren’t thinking. I guess you shouldn’t get wasted and then go out to eat.”

Okay. So stealing is fine, if you’ve had enough to drink. Or is it just acceptable when you’re unhappy with your order? That’s much better than sending the food back, or talking to the manager, right?

I shouldn’t have been surprised. One of her cohorts told me a story a couple of years ago about how they tricked the door man into thinking they had already paid a cover charge, when they had not, and got in to see a lounge act for “free.”

Neither of these people are poor. They could easily afford the things they stole. So, why do it, and why is it so funny? This is a real crime, albeit a petty one, but how funny do they think it would be if they got caught and arrested?

They don’t necessarily just stick strangers with the bill. A couple of years ago, they were invited along with a group of us to a New Year’s Eve party at a local club. They showed up drunk, loud, and obnoxious, and it only got progressively worse as the minutes ticked by. When they were strongly encouraged to leave, they stuck us with their tab. Now, an honest, decent person would ask later, “Hey, did you get our tab?” or something like that. They never did. I’m guessing they either thought they were running out on their tab and the club would “eat” it, or didn’t care who paid, as long as it wasn’t them.

These small things point to a bigger issue. Can you trust someone who thinks stealing is a lark? How honest are they? If we didn’t know each other, would they steal from me?

And another thing, while I’m on a roll: Why do so many people think that drinking excuses bad behavior? If you’re going to act badly while drinking, Don’t Drink! I don’t believe that drinking changes who you are, and what values you hold dear. It just makes you less inhibited, so you feel free to do things that you would like to do while sober, but often don’t have the “courage.” So, if you steal while drunk, you are a thief when sober. And I can’t trust you to be a real friend.

The buzz today is all about Google’s patent application to move their data center offshore. Their application states: “Computing centres are located on a ship or ships, anchored in a water body from which energy from natural motion of the water may be captured, and turned into electricity and/or pumping power for cooling pumps to carry heat away.”

This plan to “go green” is more about saving green than it is about helping the environment. By moving offshore, (7 miles, in fact) to international waters, Google will save tons of money in property taxes, and its energy will be free. Sounds like a great idea.

Is it?

An “anchored” ship doesn’t always stay where it is supposed to. Ask the folks in New Orleans about that. Then there’s the weather. If another Ike or Ivan blows through, will the data center hold up? Yesterday’s editorial cartoon by Wayne Stayskal may be more prophetic than funny: http://www.gocomics.com/waynestayskal/2008/09/15/

Then there’s the issue of building a big enough data pipe to the rest of the internet world, and keeping it secure. Of course, if you’re not paying taxes and your energy is free, that leaves a ton of money for infrastructure.

I find it hard to believe that this will not have an impact on the aquatic life around them. The fishes may not appreciate the hot bath as their home waters are constantly circulated through the data center. Not to mention all those little creatures who will be cooked as they move through the cooling pipes.

I’m guessing that this effort to “go green” will not sit well with the environmentalists. Building outside the reach of any court who may wish to control their impact on the environment is a pretty smart move.

Honestly? Their negative impact on the environment may push their market share over to another search engine. This could be the kick in the butt Yahoo needs to get back on top.

I don’t think you can teach a cat how to play Red Light, Green Light. I think it’s part of the hunting instinct.

My daugher thinks my cat isn’t smart enough to play this game. I disagree.

I hate it when I call a US phone number for tech support from a US company, and my call gets routed outside the US to someone who barely speaks the language. What’s worse is when they think they are fluent and talk at about 300wpm, so I can’t understand a single syllable of what they are saying. The call ends up taking 10 times as long as it should, and leaves me frustrated, not entirely certain that we’ve reached a meeting of the minds, or that they even understood the problem. What does this do? It gives me a good reason to change to a different vendor.

I’m not alone. In fact, JD “Illiad” Frazer says it much better than I can, in ONI: LEARN TO COMMUNICATE CLEARLY YOU BLEEPING BLEEPITY BLEEP

I agree with JD: In my experience, most customer service screw-ups come from broken communications between the customer and the CSR.

Big Business, don’t you get it? Good Customer Service is what keeps your customers loyal. If you fail at this, you fail. Period.