Mostly God is something or someone that you take on faith, but does that have to be the case? Some 20 years ago now, a non-practicing Jewish friend of mine began me on the quest to prove "God" exists. God, in our various mythologies, is given the power to change things. To see the future. To control everything. Over the course of the next several weeks, we will explore that some more, but first we have to prove that a God actually exists.
Scientists have a hard time with the idea of a God, and yet it is actually science that helps to prove God does in fact exist. Perhaps not the old guy with the beard sitting on a throne in the sky, but spiritual presence beyond physics and science that we all know in our hearts exists.
Life has certain characteristics of inanimate objects. Generally to accomplish tasks it follows the laws of physics. We can only lift a certain weight off the ground if several aspects of physics are in play: we have the right leverage, we use the right balance, and the chemical reactions in our muscles provide us with adequate strength to overcome the desire of the object to remain at rest. Our nerves work using a series of chemical reactions which in turn cause muscles to react, pain the be registered, etc.
That part of the body is the machine. We have heard it many time. We have a soul and we have the machine that is the body. We can repair and replace parts of the body machine like we repair and replace parts of a car. We can rewire it of block the effects of the wiring with things like paralytics and pain relievers. We can put in a new motor. We can even create artificial parts or use parts from animals.
The machine operates entirely on the rules of physics that govern the operation and actions of every inanimate object in the earth, the world, the universe.
Consider another machine. An automobile, for example. It is very complex. It often has a computer brain that does a great many things to make sure the vehicle operates properly. But not being alive, when turned off it cannot do anything.
All inanimate objects are completely predictable. Consider the pool table. Several balls on a felt table with bumpers and pockets. There are many forces at work, all completely predictable. So simply predictable that with a bit of practice most of us can create the right amount of force in the pool cue to cause it to strike the cue ball with the proper force and at the proper angle, taking into account the friction of the felt on the table and the reactions of the bumpers, to cause a colored ball to find its way into a pocket. Great pool players can do this so well that they can set up the other balls on the table to make sure they can make another shot, followed by another until the table is clear.
Bowlers can send a ball down a oiled lane with a hook into the pocket to predictably knock over 10 pins. Great bowlers do this with greater frequency. It is wholey predictable that if the ball is thrown right the pins will fall properly leaving none.
Golf, basketball, baseball, auto-mechanics, hunting, and every other endeavor man has created relies on the complete and total predictability of working with inanimate objects. The best even allow for physical forces difficult to predict, like allowing for the wind. We all know if they knew the precise wind speed and angle throughout the flight of the arrow, for example, the great archer could completely predict where the arrow would land. This is the simple stuff that even you and I can understand and even get right once in awhile.
The laws of physics, however, not only govern physical objects, but also energy, light, sound, dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, and a whole host of weird things that physicists find in nature. They find them, however, because they calculate their existence in advance using math and the laws of physics. Then, once theorized by brilliant minds, they are found in nature just as predicted. Black holes with bits of anti-matter at the edges. Planets circling stars with a slight wobble as the planets rotate around them in eliptical orbits. Dark matter and dark energy, which are much larger than their counterparts in terms of the universe and its contents. Neutrons, electrons, quarks, and particles smaller still. (Note that these smaller particles are very odd and behave according to an as yet generaly not understood set of additional "laws" referred to generally as Quantum Mechanics, but that is too deep for this).
No one has actually seen any of these things. The light we see from the universe is millions of years old at the youngest. Planets are too small to see. Atoms, much less sub-atomic particles, are too small to see. We find them and prove they exist using the predictability of the laws of physics.
The Big Bang Theory is based on predictions. Scientists can see that everything they observe in space is moving. When they use the laws of physics and trace these movements back in time billions of years, everything ends up in one place. Hence the theory that it all was once in one place and then suddenly "bang" it exploded into existence. The cool thing is they can determine what elements were caused first and how the remaining ones were caused over time. It is still a theory, but it is based on the pure predictability of inanimate objects.
But, Houston, we have a problem. Living things, and humans in particular, have the power to violate the predictability of the laws of physics. While living things USE the laws of physics to accomplish tasks, unlike inanimate objects, they are not bound by them.
"What on earth do you mean?" you ask.
If the laws of physics applied, from the moment of the Big Bang forward the actions of every single particle of matter would be completely predictable and would continue to be forever. Out in space, this is true.
Think about that for a moment.
That would mean that I am typing this because the particles in my fingers that began a path at the moment of the big bang caused me to type this.
That would mean that you are reading this because at the moment of the Big Bang every single particle in you was destined to be where you are right now doing what you are doing right now.
That would mean that there is no free will whatsoever.
Lots of things in the universe are predictable from the moment of the Big Bang, which is how they figured it out.
We know both subjectively and objectively that we do have free will. Biologists will confirm that living things decide to move, which causes particles to change directions from the path they were set on when the Big Bang happened, or from last week or seconds ago.
We can decide to move when we desire to move. We cause our body machines to do things, suddenly and without any required action-reaction sequence. Yes we then use physics to our advantage to make the body-machine, automobile-machine, cell phone-machine, etc do things, but we decide how and when to operate them and what they will do. The automobile does not move until we cause our body-machines to get into it, turn the key and make it do things. When we get into that car, we have simply augmented our body machines to allow our body-machines to do things it could not otherwise do, but we are still operating one machine so that it operates the other machine (and sometimes while texting on yet another machine we cause a crash and injury to both of the other machines in the process).
So what is it that gives us the ability to cause our body-machines to move in ways that violate the pure and lovely predictability of the laws of physics.
That, my good friend, is what we refer to as "God." This is a physics-proven fact. The ability of living things to use physics to accomplish things, but to violate the laws of physics to start the process. The difference, the intervention, is life. Life is spiritual, not physical. It is real. It is quantifiable. It is measurable. But, it is free and unpredictable. That spiritual component of life is "God" unless you want to call it something else, which is fine with me. I call it the spiritual internet or the Harmony. It is the Holy Spirit to some. It is the "force" if you are a Star Wars groupee. I just proved its existence, you can choose the name you like best.
More when my particles get around to it again.
Post Script: Interestingly, well at least to me, I read an article by a physicist who notes that on earth, in particular humans, have so changed things that the predictability of pure physics is interfered with. For example, if left to their paths after the Big Bang, that table and chair you are sitting on would likely still be growing or would have fallen in the forest to be eaten by bugs, that steel in your lamp would still be ore and the gas in your car would still be petroleum in the ground. It would have followed the path it was destined for when the Big Bang begun.
So not only do we change things within our own body-machines to make it do things, but we have moved particles from the path of their predictable physics-based destiny to a location of our chosing, using physics, but moving the particles completely in violation of the laws of physics.
The theory of the butterfly effect contemplates that every movement that we make that changes the natural movement of these particles, even the beating of a butterflies wings, changes every particle everywhere in some way. Physicists call it chaos or entropy. Basically stuff that cannot be explained because humans messed with it. That is why physicists stare out into untouched space.
This physicist has noticed, however, that there are things in space that are showing a bit of this. Stars and stuff too far to be effectively altered by anything we have done are exhibiting a touch of this chaos. Since the light we see from space is older that human-kind itself, whatever we are sending out there will not be effecting the light we see coming to us for millions of years.
So that means that something else is causing particles to stop following the rules of physics way out there in the universe, and it started way before any humans existed. Hmmm. Think about the implications of that observation.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Who Cares "Who/What" God is?
Isn't pure faith that there is a God enough? To some, sure. To others, who or what God is becomes the basic blockage to any faith at all. The images of God are so unsettling or obscure, and perhaps this will not change that, but here goes.
If God is an omnipotent king sitting on a throne in some mystical place called "heaven" with pearly gates and all that; a power who can grant you your every wish (if he feels like it), then God becomes distant, petty, vengeful, picky and . . . well, a despot. We cannot truly build a relationship with this God. He rules. We act. We don't act. He smites us.
Even if God is a being of some sort who is also a benevolent dictator, who loves us all as we are, but is still judgmental, spiteful and sometimes downright cruel to those not "chosen" or "faithful" then how can we trust this God? Especially if we are all sinners? Is this really who or what God is? What sort of "being" is this God? Mysterious at best. Scary really.
We have all tried to be good. We have all asked for things we have never received. We have all asked for family members to recover from illness, yet they have died. We have prayed individually. Sumitted group prayers to the pastor. Counted beads, lit candles and all sorts of things these Gods seem to want, and yet we do not receive what we asked for or our family member dies. What is up with that?
We have suffered and received hardships that God could have stopped. Why did he let that happen? Then there are the "miracles." People of faithless relatives and mediocre pasts, at best, survive a disaster or recover from a terminal illness. What is up with that?
Even Jesus, when his faith that God would save him from the pain of the beatings and of the crucifiction was broken and he hung from the cross in severe pain, asked, "Father why have you foresaken me?" Even he felt let down by this omnipotent God-king. How then can we, mere mortals, have a deep and trusting relationship with this sort of God?
If we do not believe in the Zeus-like characterization, but have no other concept of what or who God is, then how can we truly have a relationship with it, whatever it is? So who or what God is, it seems to me, is critical if we are going to have a true relationship.
When we see "God" not as an entity but as a real spiritual internet, the collective spirit that is composed of and connected to every other soul on the planet, then how we think of that relationship changes. We can have a relationship with other people. We do it all the time in person and even etherially in the actual electronic internet, and it works for us.
People can empathize with us, but they cannot completely protect us. We get that.
People can understand us, even if they do not agree with us. We get that.
People can share our joy, love us unconditionally and with conditions, and we get that.
We understand the frailties and strengths of people and inherently understand the power of bonding with others to enhance our own strengths and shore up our own frailties.
When we recognize who we are praying to and their limitations, our prayers become less selfish. We know that our family, friends, congregation, neighbors and team mates cannot grant us our every wish. Knowing this about who and what God is has changed the way I pray.
Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive." We contemplate that what he meant was that if you are faithful and believe in the one God enough he will give you anything you want. If you ask and you don't get it, then you are obviously not faithful enough.
I think what he meant, however, is that the Holy Spirit, the spiritual internet, the Harmony, goes both ways. Ask for guidance, and you will receive it. Ask for truth, and you will receive it. Ask how to stay in harmony with all other living things, and you will know in your heart what is the right thing to do.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is not, Do unto others as I say you should.
He told us to love one another, to love everyone no matter who they are, including our enemies. Be in harmony with all other souls.
According to the Lord's prayer, you are only forgiven to the extent you forgive others, not to some set rule from a despot. Forgive and you will be forgiven back.
Jesus implored us not to judge one another, but to leave that to God later. Be in harmony even with those who are different than you, who disagree with you, who dislike you, who do not understand you, etc.
The message is reciprocal not dictatorial. This flows through the teachings of Jesus and almost every other great philosopher and prophet throughout time. The Harmony is all-inclusive.
What is amazing in my life is that when I connect to the Harmony and do what I know in my heart is the right thing to do, things go well. I am acting in Harmony with all other souls around me. I become connected to people I need to be connected to seemingly out of the blue. I find a place that is right for me. I stay centered, more relaxed and dramatically less concerned over things like money. I know. I have faith, that when I listen to the Holy Spirit, the spiritual internet, the Harmony, my life is in balance, in harmony and connected.
Try it. It is very easy and of course it is rather difficult. NEVER do what you feel you should do if you know in your heart you should not do it, no matter what Grandma says or will think. NEVER do what you want to do WHEN you know in your heart it is not the right thing to do. ALWAYS do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do. When you do, no matter what that action or inaction may be, you will be in Harmony will all other souls and the result will be the right, spiritually harmonious result for you.
That is why who or what "God" is, matters. More to come. Enjoy life!
If God is an omnipotent king sitting on a throne in some mystical place called "heaven" with pearly gates and all that; a power who can grant you your every wish (if he feels like it), then God becomes distant, petty, vengeful, picky and . . . well, a despot. We cannot truly build a relationship with this God. He rules. We act. We don't act. He smites us.
Even if God is a being of some sort who is also a benevolent dictator, who loves us all as we are, but is still judgmental, spiteful and sometimes downright cruel to those not "chosen" or "faithful" then how can we trust this God? Especially if we are all sinners? Is this really who or what God is? What sort of "being" is this God? Mysterious at best. Scary really.
We have all tried to be good. We have all asked for things we have never received. We have all asked for family members to recover from illness, yet they have died. We have prayed individually. Sumitted group prayers to the pastor. Counted beads, lit candles and all sorts of things these Gods seem to want, and yet we do not receive what we asked for or our family member dies. What is up with that?
We have suffered and received hardships that God could have stopped. Why did he let that happen? Then there are the "miracles." People of faithless relatives and mediocre pasts, at best, survive a disaster or recover from a terminal illness. What is up with that?
Even Jesus, when his faith that God would save him from the pain of the beatings and of the crucifiction was broken and he hung from the cross in severe pain, asked, "Father why have you foresaken me?" Even he felt let down by this omnipotent God-king. How then can we, mere mortals, have a deep and trusting relationship with this sort of God?
If we do not believe in the Zeus-like characterization, but have no other concept of what or who God is, then how can we truly have a relationship with it, whatever it is? So who or what God is, it seems to me, is critical if we are going to have a true relationship.
When we see "God" not as an entity but as a real spiritual internet, the collective spirit that is composed of and connected to every other soul on the planet, then how we think of that relationship changes. We can have a relationship with other people. We do it all the time in person and even etherially in the actual electronic internet, and it works for us.
People can empathize with us, but they cannot completely protect us. We get that.
People can understand us, even if they do not agree with us. We get that.
People can share our joy, love us unconditionally and with conditions, and we get that.
We understand the frailties and strengths of people and inherently understand the power of bonding with others to enhance our own strengths and shore up our own frailties.
When we recognize who we are praying to and their limitations, our prayers become less selfish. We know that our family, friends, congregation, neighbors and team mates cannot grant us our every wish. Knowing this about who and what God is has changed the way I pray.
Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive." We contemplate that what he meant was that if you are faithful and believe in the one God enough he will give you anything you want. If you ask and you don't get it, then you are obviously not faithful enough.
I think what he meant, however, is that the Holy Spirit, the spiritual internet, the Harmony, goes both ways. Ask for guidance, and you will receive it. Ask for truth, and you will receive it. Ask how to stay in harmony with all other living things, and you will know in your heart what is the right thing to do.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is not, Do unto others as I say you should.
He told us to love one another, to love everyone no matter who they are, including our enemies. Be in harmony with all other souls.
According to the Lord's prayer, you are only forgiven to the extent you forgive others, not to some set rule from a despot. Forgive and you will be forgiven back.
Jesus implored us not to judge one another, but to leave that to God later. Be in harmony even with those who are different than you, who disagree with you, who dislike you, who do not understand you, etc.
The message is reciprocal not dictatorial. This flows through the teachings of Jesus and almost every other great philosopher and prophet throughout time. The Harmony is all-inclusive.
What is amazing in my life is that when I connect to the Harmony and do what I know in my heart is the right thing to do, things go well. I am acting in Harmony with all other souls around me. I become connected to people I need to be connected to seemingly out of the blue. I find a place that is right for me. I stay centered, more relaxed and dramatically less concerned over things like money. I know. I have faith, that when I listen to the Holy Spirit, the spiritual internet, the Harmony, my life is in balance, in harmony and connected.
Try it. It is very easy and of course it is rather difficult. NEVER do what you feel you should do if you know in your heart you should not do it, no matter what Grandma says or will think. NEVER do what you want to do WHEN you know in your heart it is not the right thing to do. ALWAYS do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do. When you do, no matter what that action or inaction may be, you will be in Harmony will all other souls and the result will be the right, spiritually harmonious result for you.
That is why who or what "God" is, matters. More to come. Enjoy life!
Monday, August 13, 2012
The Spiritual Internet
"God" is the interconnection of the spirits of all livings things to all other living things. Essentially the spiritual internet connecting each of us to everyone else. When we listen to that spirit, everyone else's spirit is guiding us to understand how our actions can create harmony among all living things, among those who make up the spirit, the "holy" spirit if you will.
If you do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do you are connecting to this spirit, the holy spirit, of all living things to one another. If you listen to it and do what you know in YOUR heart is the right thing to do, you will remain in harmony with all living things. When you ignore your heart, your conscience, the spirit, you are creating disharmony no matter how good you think what you are doing may be.
It takes great faith to do this. You often know in your heart what to do, but it is not what society or whoever says you "should" do. in addition, there are often perceived and feared consequences to doing what you know in your heart is right. "What will Grandma say?" "Will my friend still like me?" Will people think I am wierd?" "Will I be hurt emotionally?" "Will I get hurt physically?" Or worse, "is what I know in my heart to be the right thing to do against the law and likely to land me in jail or cost me money?"
All valid concerns when we follow our hearts. Truly follow.
There is also a critical difference between what our physical bodies "want" and what we know in our hearts is the right thing to do. We struggle with the desires of the body, which are not all bad and often right at the right time. When we connect into the spirit that connects all of us, we will know the difference between what we desire physically and what is the right thing to do for us at that moment in time, because it will be in harmony with everyone else. Sometimes, thankfully, they are the same thing.
In the end, being connected into the Harmony, the spirit that connects all of us to each other, or God if you want, will always result in things actually turning out the best way possible.
Some Thoughts on What God is Not: There are thousands of images attributable to God. The most common of course is of an old wise man with a long white beard sitting regally upon a golden throne clothed in robes, with angels and cherubs flitting about and your chosen prophet standing at his right hand. The man/God may carry some sort of staff or sceptor. His hair is long and flowing. His skin is burnished tan and healthy. His hands are large and he is much more muscular and physically powerful than a man of his age should be. See images of Zeus from Greek mythology, the depiction of God in Revelations and more recently, King Neptune in "The Little Mermaid."
Is God a very powerful wise old man sitting on a throne? I think not, and I think that few people still believe in this sort of human-like God. Of course, while the Old Testament proclaims that we are made in the image of God, the New Testament consistently refutes idols and images of God as in any way human-like. See Romans 2:22 for example.
Proof of God: In an earlier post, I "proved" there is a "God." Of course, for those who "believe" one need not prove there is a God. There just is and always has been a God. I suppose I went through the process of proving there is a God for those of us who were not really sure and needed proof. It is rather complicated to sum up, so if you need proving, go read it.
So that begs the next logical question. "What" is God? If God is not an old wise man sitting on a throne on top of Mount Olympus or in the Kingdom of Heaven or at the bottom of the seas, then what is God?
Some Bible Thoughts: If one reads the Bible, and in particular the New Testament, I think that it is clear that God is a spirit, even though there are many passages that envision God as a being of some sort. God is metaphorically a Father and a Son, but by that, I believe that what Jesus and Paul meant is that God is our family. Jesus explained that there was a lot more for people to learn that he did not have time to tell them. He explained that the Spirit of Truth will guide us to the real truth. John 16:12 - 15. He explained that we have a direct relationship with God. God is within us. God connects us. We do not have to go through anyone or anything else to get to God. We are connected directly to God. That was hard for the priests of the day to handle.
He explains that it does not matter if you blaspheme, or curse or disrespect, God. It does not matter if you blashpeme, or curse or disrespect, Jesus. It is only when you blaspheme, or curse or disrespect, the Spirit when you are truly in trouble. Matthew 12:30 - 32, and Mark 3:28-29. Not that you should put all your faith in what the Bible says, but on God there seem to be a lot of people who care what it says on such things.
So what is the point of these statements? If you look into your heart honestly, your conscience will tell you what is the right thing for you to do at any particular moment in time. Your conscience or your metaphorical "heart" knows, because it is connected to the Spirit. In the Bible the Spirit is connected to God. When you lie to yourself, ignore the Spirit, your conscience, and fail to follow your heart, you are ignoring your connection to God, the truth for you, personally. The truth for YOU is not found in books or laws or rules or what Grandma or your priest or mother or whoever says, or anything else for that matter. What is right for you is found in one place - inside you. That is all through the new Testment and there are too many verses to recount.
So again we come to "What" is God. The Spirit is connected to God. The Spirit is within us. The Spirit is what makes us alive and able to drive the machine that is our bodies. So rather than a great and ageless man, God is a spirit.
I thought about this for many years. I have asked the Spirit of Truth for guidance. I have read the Bible, things written by many deep thinkers, many who are not Christian, and listened to atheists, agnostics, muslims, sikhs (my auto repair guy who is great), and just talked things out with people. I began to notice things, perhaps as natural as anything, but they seemed to guide me. I came to believe first that God was a spirit that all of our spirits come from when we are born, and all go back to after we die. I still believe that to be essentially true.
As I mentioned at the beginning, I found something else. Something I call the "Harmony." This was really by accident. Once connected to it and faithful to it, everything in my life just seemed to fit, to work, then get better. Coincidences happened. I met the right people at the right time. People touched my life at the right moment.
I found that whenever I did something for selfish reasons, it did not work out, no matter how well thought through and analyzed and planned for. This was especially true if it involved money. We all know the story of the rich young man who approached Jesus and asked how he could follow Jesus. Jesus told him to sell all of his assets and give them to the poor and then he could join and follow Jesus. The rich man could not do it. Jesus said, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The point of this story is not that rich men will not get into heaven. It is that wealth makes it harder to do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do. Mortgages and Country Club dues are large and have to be paid. Spouses and children have needs that befit your station in life. This man knew what was right for him in his heart, yet he did not have the faith to suffer the consequences of the actions he knew were right for him. Sometimes the right thing is awfully hard and takes a great deal of faith.
I live by a very simple tenet,
As I have lived my life this way, odd coincidences have occurred in my life. Things always work out for the best. I am always happy. I am more calm. What I have also felt is that when connected into the Harmony, I am connected to everyone who is also connected. I have come to believe, therefore, that the Spirit Jesus speaks of, is the connection of the spirits of all people to one another through a common global/universal spirit, if you will. The spiritual internet.
I have felt driven to write this and to share this. I hope it helps you find harmony and peace in your life.
If you do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do you are connecting to this spirit, the holy spirit, of all living things to one another. If you listen to it and do what you know in YOUR heart is the right thing to do, you will remain in harmony with all living things. When you ignore your heart, your conscience, the spirit, you are creating disharmony no matter how good you think what you are doing may be.
It takes great faith to do this. You often know in your heart what to do, but it is not what society or whoever says you "should" do. in addition, there are often perceived and feared consequences to doing what you know in your heart is right. "What will Grandma say?" "Will my friend still like me?" Will people think I am wierd?" "Will I be hurt emotionally?" "Will I get hurt physically?" Or worse, "is what I know in my heart to be the right thing to do against the law and likely to land me in jail or cost me money?"
All valid concerns when we follow our hearts. Truly follow.
There is also a critical difference between what our physical bodies "want" and what we know in our hearts is the right thing to do. We struggle with the desires of the body, which are not all bad and often right at the right time. When we connect into the spirit that connects all of us, we will know the difference between what we desire physically and what is the right thing to do for us at that moment in time, because it will be in harmony with everyone else. Sometimes, thankfully, they are the same thing.
In the end, being connected into the Harmony, the spirit that connects all of us to each other, or God if you want, will always result in things actually turning out the best way possible.
Some Thoughts on What God is Not: There are thousands of images attributable to God. The most common of course is of an old wise man with a long white beard sitting regally upon a golden throne clothed in robes, with angels and cherubs flitting about and your chosen prophet standing at his right hand. The man/God may carry some sort of staff or sceptor. His hair is long and flowing. His skin is burnished tan and healthy. His hands are large and he is much more muscular and physically powerful than a man of his age should be. See images of Zeus from Greek mythology, the depiction of God in Revelations and more recently, King Neptune in "The Little Mermaid."
Is God a very powerful wise old man sitting on a throne? I think not, and I think that few people still believe in this sort of human-like God. Of course, while the Old Testament proclaims that we are made in the image of God, the New Testament consistently refutes idols and images of God as in any way human-like. See Romans 2:22 for example.
Proof of God: In an earlier post, I "proved" there is a "God." Of course, for those who "believe" one need not prove there is a God. There just is and always has been a God. I suppose I went through the process of proving there is a God for those of us who were not really sure and needed proof. It is rather complicated to sum up, so if you need proving, go read it.
So that begs the next logical question. "What" is God? If God is not an old wise man sitting on a throne on top of Mount Olympus or in the Kingdom of Heaven or at the bottom of the seas, then what is God?
Some Bible Thoughts: If one reads the Bible, and in particular the New Testament, I think that it is clear that God is a spirit, even though there are many passages that envision God as a being of some sort. God is metaphorically a Father and a Son, but by that, I believe that what Jesus and Paul meant is that God is our family. Jesus explained that there was a lot more for people to learn that he did not have time to tell them. He explained that the Spirit of Truth will guide us to the real truth. John 16:12 - 15. He explained that we have a direct relationship with God. God is within us. God connects us. We do not have to go through anyone or anything else to get to God. We are connected directly to God. That was hard for the priests of the day to handle.
He explains that it does not matter if you blaspheme, or curse or disrespect, God. It does not matter if you blashpeme, or curse or disrespect, Jesus. It is only when you blaspheme, or curse or disrespect, the Spirit when you are truly in trouble. Matthew 12:30 - 32, and Mark 3:28-29. Not that you should put all your faith in what the Bible says, but on God there seem to be a lot of people who care what it says on such things.
So what is the point of these statements? If you look into your heart honestly, your conscience will tell you what is the right thing for you to do at any particular moment in time. Your conscience or your metaphorical "heart" knows, because it is connected to the Spirit. In the Bible the Spirit is connected to God. When you lie to yourself, ignore the Spirit, your conscience, and fail to follow your heart, you are ignoring your connection to God, the truth for you, personally. The truth for YOU is not found in books or laws or rules or what Grandma or your priest or mother or whoever says, or anything else for that matter. What is right for you is found in one place - inside you. That is all through the new Testment and there are too many verses to recount.
So again we come to "What" is God. The Spirit is connected to God. The Spirit is within us. The Spirit is what makes us alive and able to drive the machine that is our bodies. So rather than a great and ageless man, God is a spirit.
I thought about this for many years. I have asked the Spirit of Truth for guidance. I have read the Bible, things written by many deep thinkers, many who are not Christian, and listened to atheists, agnostics, muslims, sikhs (my auto repair guy who is great), and just talked things out with people. I began to notice things, perhaps as natural as anything, but they seemed to guide me. I came to believe first that God was a spirit that all of our spirits come from when we are born, and all go back to after we die. I still believe that to be essentially true.
As I mentioned at the beginning, I found something else. Something I call the "Harmony." This was really by accident. Once connected to it and faithful to it, everything in my life just seemed to fit, to work, then get better. Coincidences happened. I met the right people at the right time. People touched my life at the right moment.
I found that whenever I did something for selfish reasons, it did not work out, no matter how well thought through and analyzed and planned for. This was especially true if it involved money. We all know the story of the rich young man who approached Jesus and asked how he could follow Jesus. Jesus told him to sell all of his assets and give them to the poor and then he could join and follow Jesus. The rich man could not do it. Jesus said, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The point of this story is not that rich men will not get into heaven. It is that wealth makes it harder to do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do. Mortgages and Country Club dues are large and have to be paid. Spouses and children have needs that befit your station in life. This man knew what was right for him in his heart, yet he did not have the faith to suffer the consequences of the actions he knew were right for him. Sometimes the right thing is awfully hard and takes a great deal of faith.
I live by a very simple tenet,
Do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do and
you will remain in harmony with all living things.
As I have lived my life this way, odd coincidences have occurred in my life. Things always work out for the best. I am always happy. I am more calm. What I have also felt is that when connected into the Harmony, I am connected to everyone who is also connected. I have come to believe, therefore, that the Spirit Jesus speaks of, is the connection of the spirits of all people to one another through a common global/universal spirit, if you will. The spiritual internet.
I have felt driven to write this and to share this. I hope it helps you find harmony and peace in your life.
Monday, June 25, 2012
ObamaFacts: Unemployment
Unemployment is an area where President Obama regularly receives robust criticism. Is it appropriate?
Then and Now: The President was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that month the unemployment rate was 7.8%. As of May 2012, the last publication, it is 8.2% . The next publication will be July 6th for June. Based on that alone, one might conclude that things have not changed much, and they certainly have not improved. But that may not provide the entire picture.
What Should We Expect Unemployment to Be? First, how bad is an unemployment rate of 8.2%? According to Trading Economics, "Historically, from 1948 until 2012, the United States Unemployment Rate averaged 5.7800 Percent." Since 1970, the average unemployment rate has been 6.4%. That means we are off the average by at most 2.4%, and more accurately 1.8%, which seems not all that bad. Still, it is not an improvement.
Average Range: The unemployment rate typically rises and falls naturally over time. Since 1970, highs have tended to be above 7.0%. Three times in that time, highs were above 7.8% under both parties. The unemployment rate exceeded 10% for a period of 10 months in 1982 - 83 during the Reagan administration, though there should be no value judgment as the eras and circumstances are quite different. Lows have tended to be below 5% during that time, though the unemployment rate was not below 5% at all from January 1974 until May of 1997. In the 509 months since 1970, regardless of the party of the President, the US has experienced almost twice as many months with unemployment above 7% (170 or 33%) than it has months where unemployment was below 5% (91 or 18%). The unemployment rate has been above 8% almost as often (79 months or 16%) as it has been below 5%. So query whether 8.2% is really much outside of the range of US average unemployment rates for the last 40 plus years?
Trending: When the President took office, unemployment was on the rise. In May of 2007, unemployment hit a rather typical low of 4.4%. By January, 2009, less than 2 years later, it had risen by 3.4% and it continued to rise until October of 2009 when it hit its recent high of 10.0% for one month. Therefore, in a period of 2 years and 5 months (29 months total), the unemployment rate rose by 5.4%, or more than double. Actually, this rise is historically typical. Twenty of those months (69%) occurred prior to the inauguration of the President and nine after. Similarly, 63% of the rise in unemployment occurred prior to and including January 2009. Once the rate hit 9.5%, however, it took 17 months to fall back below that rate. Unfortunately while the rise to the peak has been fairly rapid, the return to the trough (low and good unemployment) has historically taken longer, as seems to be the case this time around.
What is the President's Number? When we evaluate the President, should we start at 7.8% when he took office, 8.7% in March 2009 when the economy hit bottom, or the high of 10% in October 2009? One could argue that whatever the President did or did not do, it is unlikely his policies would have been able to effect this continued rise in unemployment, certainly through March when all other factors hit bottom. So perhaps 8.7% is the number against which the President should be judged. If so, unemployment is down a modest, 0.5%, but at least that is improvement.
Lagging Indicator: The facts are that historically unemployment lags changes in the economy. In other words, as the economy falls, unemployment tends to stay lower and then rise to its worst point about 2 - 3 quarters after the economy has hit bottom, and vice versa as the ecomony improves. Employers are slow to fire. Belt-tightening plans are laid out, internally costs are squeezed from processes, systems are automated, early-retirement is offered, and finally lay-offs of those who will then actively seek work occur. Some laws prevent rapid lay-offs. Failing small companies hang on as long as possible before closing their doors and sadly letting their family of employees go. Some companies try bankruptcy to hang on. All this takes an employer 2 - 3 quarters after the pain of the recession hits to actually plan, execute and complete.
Since the economy and stock market hit bottom in March of 2009, it would have been predicted that unemployment would continue to fall naturally, at a minimum, until September, 2009, 2 quarters later, and just as likely until December, 2009, 3 quarters later. In this case the peak was in October, 2009, squarely in the predicted range. So perhaps the President's starting point number should be 10%. That means that at least arguably unemployment under the President has fallen by 1.8%, which is progress indeed.
Recovery: Based on my two prior posts, at least arguably the economy is recovering. Perhaps from the standpoint of the markets, perception and output, we have actually recovered and are growing comfortably. Gross Domestic Product has grown consistently over the last few years, though below its historical average of 3.2%.
One would expect, then, that it will be some months before we see a recovery in the unemployment rate back to historical averages of around 5.8% to 6.4%. BUT we are closer to normal than people are led to believe.
Then and Now: The President was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that month the unemployment rate was 7.8%. As of May 2012, the last publication, it is 8.2% . The next publication will be July 6th for June. Based on that alone, one might conclude that things have not changed much, and they certainly have not improved. But that may not provide the entire picture.
What Should We Expect Unemployment to Be? First, how bad is an unemployment rate of 8.2%? According to Trading Economics, "Historically, from 1948 until 2012, the United States Unemployment Rate averaged 5.7800 Percent." Since 1970, the average unemployment rate has been 6.4%. That means we are off the average by at most 2.4%, and more accurately 1.8%, which seems not all that bad. Still, it is not an improvement.
Average Range: The unemployment rate typically rises and falls naturally over time. Since 1970, highs have tended to be above 7.0%. Three times in that time, highs were above 7.8% under both parties. The unemployment rate exceeded 10% for a period of 10 months in 1982 - 83 during the Reagan administration, though there should be no value judgment as the eras and circumstances are quite different. Lows have tended to be below 5% during that time, though the unemployment rate was not below 5% at all from January 1974 until May of 1997. In the 509 months since 1970, regardless of the party of the President, the US has experienced almost twice as many months with unemployment above 7% (170 or 33%) than it has months where unemployment was below 5% (91 or 18%). The unemployment rate has been above 8% almost as often (79 months or 16%) as it has been below 5%. So query whether 8.2% is really much outside of the range of US average unemployment rates for the last 40 plus years?
Trending: When the President took office, unemployment was on the rise. In May of 2007, unemployment hit a rather typical low of 4.4%. By January, 2009, less than 2 years later, it had risen by 3.4% and it continued to rise until October of 2009 when it hit its recent high of 10.0% for one month. Therefore, in a period of 2 years and 5 months (29 months total), the unemployment rate rose by 5.4%, or more than double. Actually, this rise is historically typical. Twenty of those months (69%) occurred prior to the inauguration of the President and nine after. Similarly, 63% of the rise in unemployment occurred prior to and including January 2009. Once the rate hit 9.5%, however, it took 17 months to fall back below that rate. Unfortunately while the rise to the peak has been fairly rapid, the return to the trough (low and good unemployment) has historically taken longer, as seems to be the case this time around.
What is the President's Number? When we evaluate the President, should we start at 7.8% when he took office, 8.7% in March 2009 when the economy hit bottom, or the high of 10% in October 2009? One could argue that whatever the President did or did not do, it is unlikely his policies would have been able to effect this continued rise in unemployment, certainly through March when all other factors hit bottom. So perhaps 8.7% is the number against which the President should be judged. If so, unemployment is down a modest, 0.5%, but at least that is improvement.
Lagging Indicator: The facts are that historically unemployment lags changes in the economy. In other words, as the economy falls, unemployment tends to stay lower and then rise to its worst point about 2 - 3 quarters after the economy has hit bottom, and vice versa as the ecomony improves. Employers are slow to fire. Belt-tightening plans are laid out, internally costs are squeezed from processes, systems are automated, early-retirement is offered, and finally lay-offs of those who will then actively seek work occur. Some laws prevent rapid lay-offs. Failing small companies hang on as long as possible before closing their doors and sadly letting their family of employees go. Some companies try bankruptcy to hang on. All this takes an employer 2 - 3 quarters after the pain of the recession hits to actually plan, execute and complete.
Since the economy and stock market hit bottom in March of 2009, it would have been predicted that unemployment would continue to fall naturally, at a minimum, until September, 2009, 2 quarters later, and just as likely until December, 2009, 3 quarters later. In this case the peak was in October, 2009, squarely in the predicted range. So perhaps the President's starting point number should be 10%. That means that at least arguably unemployment under the President has fallen by 1.8%, which is progress indeed.
Recovery: Based on my two prior posts, at least arguably the economy is recovering. Perhaps from the standpoint of the markets, perception and output, we have actually recovered and are growing comfortably. Gross Domestic Product has grown consistently over the last few years, though below its historical average of 3.2%.
One would expect, then, that it will be some months before we see a recovery in the unemployment rate back to historical averages of around 5.8% to 6.4%. BUT we are closer to normal than people are led to believe.
Monday, June 18, 2012
ObamaFacts: The Economy
Certainly the economy is not as robust as we would like it to be. That being said, it is undeniably better than it was on January 20, 2009 when Barack Obama was inaugurated. Some facts:
US Industrial Production Growing: According to http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ "industrial production measures changes in output for the industrial sector of the economy which includes manufacturing, mining, and utilities. Industrial Production is an important indicator for economic forecasting." Based on the rhetoric one would suggest that this must be down horribly over the last few years. But nothing could be further from the truth.
As of January, 2009, industrial output was falling at a rate of over -9%, and fell to around -12%. It had been negative, in other words industrial output was shrinking, for all of the previous year. Within 6-months of taking office, the trend in US Industrial Production changed. Over the last 2.5 years, US Industrial Production has averaged around a +5% growth rate. It was +4.7% in May, 2012. This means US Industrial production is Growing.
As a comparison, change in:
Euro Area's Industrial Production was negative in January 2009 and is still negative, though not as bad. This means it continues to shrink.
China's Industrial Production was growing at over 18% in January 2009, and is now growing at under 10%.
US Business Confidence Up: According to http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ this index, also referred to as the Purchasing Manager's Index, "is a composite index of five indicators (production level, new orders, supplier deliveries, inventories, employment level), which are extracted through surveys to more than 400 purchasing managers from around the country, chosen for their geographic and industry diversification benefits."
As of January, 2009, US Business Confidence (PMI) was 35.5. It was 60.1 in May, 2012, UP 69%.
Not surprisingly given recent debt crises, Euro Area business confidence was in negative numbers and is still in the negative numbers.
Chinese Business Confidence is up about 25% since January 2009.
US Consumer Confidence Up: "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® (CCI) is a barometer of the health of the U.S. economy from the perspective of the consumer. The index is based on approximately 3,000 completed questionnaires reflecting consumers’ perceptions of current business and employment conditions, as well as their expectations for six months hence regarding business conditions, employment, and income."
As of January, 2009, the CCI was 35. It was 65 in May, 2012, UP 86%.
Euro Area Consumer Confidence has been negative for many years. The US has at least always been positive.
Chinese Consumer Confidence is essentially the same as it was in January 2009.
US Exports Up: Well certainly we are not exporting at all well, with an economy as bad as ours. Ahhh, not really true. In fact, according to http://www.tradingeconomics.com/,
As of Jaunary, 2009, US Exports were well under $130 billion dollars/month.
In May of 2012, US Exports were $183 billion dollars/month. UP 46%.
Euro Area Exports are up from about $110 billion/month to just under $150 billion/month.
China exports were worth 181.1 billion USD in May of 2012.
Perhaps we are moving in the right direction after all.
US Industrial Production Growing: According to http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ "industrial production measures changes in output for the industrial sector of the economy which includes manufacturing, mining, and utilities. Industrial Production is an important indicator for economic forecasting." Based on the rhetoric one would suggest that this must be down horribly over the last few years. But nothing could be further from the truth.
As of January, 2009, industrial output was falling at a rate of over -9%, and fell to around -12%. It had been negative, in other words industrial output was shrinking, for all of the previous year. Within 6-months of taking office, the trend in US Industrial Production changed. Over the last 2.5 years, US Industrial Production has averaged around a +5% growth rate. It was +4.7% in May, 2012. This means US Industrial production is Growing.
As a comparison, change in:
Euro Area's Industrial Production was negative in January 2009 and is still negative, though not as bad. This means it continues to shrink.
China's Industrial Production was growing at over 18% in January 2009, and is now growing at under 10%.
US Business Confidence Up: According to http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ this index, also referred to as the Purchasing Manager's Index, "is a composite index of five indicators (production level, new orders, supplier deliveries, inventories, employment level), which are extracted through surveys to more than 400 purchasing managers from around the country, chosen for their geographic and industry diversification benefits."
As of January, 2009, US Business Confidence (PMI) was 35.5. It was 60.1 in May, 2012, UP 69%.
Not surprisingly given recent debt crises, Euro Area business confidence was in negative numbers and is still in the negative numbers.
Chinese Business Confidence is up about 25% since January 2009.
US Consumer Confidence Up: "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® (CCI) is a barometer of the health of the U.S. economy from the perspective of the consumer. The index is based on approximately 3,000 completed questionnaires reflecting consumers’ perceptions of current business and employment conditions, as well as their expectations for six months hence regarding business conditions, employment, and income."
As of January, 2009, the CCI was 35. It was 65 in May, 2012, UP 86%.
Euro Area Consumer Confidence has been negative for many years. The US has at least always been positive.
Chinese Consumer Confidence is essentially the same as it was in January 2009.
US Exports Up: Well certainly we are not exporting at all well, with an economy as bad as ours. Ahhh, not really true. In fact, according to http://www.tradingeconomics.com/,
"US [exports] reached an all time high of 184.44 Billion USD in March of 2012."
That is more than China!
As of Jaunary, 2009, US Exports were well under $130 billion dollars/month.
In May of 2012, US Exports were $183 billion dollars/month. UP 46%.
Euro Area Exports are up from about $110 billion/month to just under $150 billion/month.
China exports were worth 181.1 billion USD in May of 2012.
Perhaps we are moving in the right direction after all.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
ObamaFact: The Stock Market
Investors in the stock market buy shares of stock when they believe that the price of that stock will increase. Since January 20, 2009, the date Barrack Obama was inaugurated, they have been right. The market hit bottom just 48 days later. We can only evaluate the President based on what has happened since he became President, regardless of who or what created the situation he inherited. The percent change is based on March 9.
1/20/09 3/9/09 6/15/12 % Change
Dow Jones IA $7,949 $6,547 $12,767 UP 95%
S&P 500 $805 $660 $1,343 UP 97%
NASDAQ $1,441 $1,268 $2,873 UP 127%
Certainly some rebound is inevitable, but if the economy and the future of the United States were as grim as predicted by some, it seems to me that the world would not be investing so heavily into US capital markets.
By the way, if you check, the European and Asian markets have not rebounded quite so well.
3/9/09 6/15/12 % Change
Nikei (Japan) $7,086 $8,569 UP 21%
Hang Seng Index (HK) $11,694 $19,234 UP 64%
EURO STOXX 50 (EU) $1,919 $2,181 UP 14%
FTSE 100 Index (UKX) $3,531 $5,479 UP 55%
More fun ObamaFacts to come.
1/20/09 3/9/09 6/15/12 % Change
Dow Jones IA $7,949 $6,547 $12,767 UP 95%
S&P 500 $805 $660 $1,343 UP 97%
NASDAQ $1,441 $1,268 $2,873 UP 127%
Certainly some rebound is inevitable, but if the economy and the future of the United States were as grim as predicted by some, it seems to me that the world would not be investing so heavily into US capital markets.
By the way, if you check, the European and Asian markets have not rebounded quite so well.
3/9/09 6/15/12 % Change
Nikei (Japan) $7,086 $8,569 UP 21%
Hang Seng Index (HK) $11,694 $19,234 UP 64%
EURO STOXX 50 (EU) $1,919 $2,181 UP 14%
FTSE 100 Index (UKX) $3,531 $5,479 UP 55%
More fun ObamaFacts to come.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Proof of God
Proof of God
Mostly God is something or someone that you take on faith, but does that have to be the case? Some 20 years ago now, a non-practicing Jewish friend of mine began me on the quest to prove "God" exists. God, in our various mythologies, is given the power to change things. To see the future. To control everything. Over the course of the next several weeks, we will explore that some more, but first we have to prove that a God actually exists.
Scientists have a hard time with the idea of a God, and yet it is actually science that helps to prove God does in fact exist. Perhaps not the old guy with the beard sitting on a throne in the sky, but spiritual presence beyond physics and science that we all know in our hearts exists.
Life has certain characteristics of inanimate objects. Generally to accomplish tasks it follows the laws of physics. We can only lift a certain weight off the ground if several aspects of physics are in play: we have the right leverage, we use the right balance, and the chemical reactions in our muscles provide us with adequate strength to overcome the desire of the object to remain at rest. Our nerves work using a series of chemical reactions which in turn cause muscles to react, pain the be registered, etc.
That part of the body is the machine. We have heard it many time. We have a soul and we have the machine that is the body. We can repair and replace parts of the body machine like we repair and replace parts of a car. We can rewire it of block the effects of the wiring with things like paralytics and pain relievers. We can put in a new motor. We can even create artificial parts or use parts from animals.
The machine operates entirely on the rules of physics that govern the operation and actions of every inanimate object in the earth, the world, the universe.
Consider another machine. An automobile, for example. It is very complex. It often has a computer brain that does a great many things to make sure the vehicle operates properly. But not being alive, when turned off it cannot do anything.
All inanimate objects are completely predictable. Consider the pool table. Several balls on a felt table with bumpers and pockets. There are many forces at work, all completely predictable. So simply predictable that with a bit of practice most of us can create the right amount of force in the pool cue to cause it to strike the cue ball with the proper force and at the proper angle, taking into account the friction of the felt on the table and the reactions of the bumpers, to cause a colored ball to find its way into a pocket. Great pool players can do this so well that they can set up the other balls on the table to make sure they can make another shot, followed by another until the table is clear.
Bowlers can send a ball down a oiled lane with a hook into the pocket to predictably knock over 10 pins. Great bowlers do this with greater frequency. It is wholey predictable that if the ball is thrown right the pins will fall properly leaving none.
Golf, basketball, baseball, auto-mechanics, hunting, and every other endeavor man has created relies on the complete and total predictability of working with inanimate objects. The best even allow for physical forces difficult to predict, like allowing for the wind. We all know if they knew the precise wind speed and angle throughout the flight of the arrow, for example, the great archer could completely predict where the arrow would land. This is the simple stuff that even you and I can understand and even get right once in awhile.
The laws of physics, however, not only govern physical objects, but also energy, light, sound, dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, and a whole host of weird things that physicists find in nature. They find them, however, because they calculate their existence in advance using math and the laws of physics. Then, once theorized by brilliant minds, they are found in nature just as predicted. Black holes with bits of anti-matter at the edges. Planets circling stars with a slight wobble as the planets rotate around them in eliptical orbits. Dark matter and dark energy, which are much larger than their counterparts in terms of the universe and its contents. Neutrons, electrons, quarks, and particles smaller still.
No one has actually seen any of these things. The light we see from the universe is millions of years old at the youngest. Planets are too small to see. Atoms, much less sub-atomic particles, are too small to see. We find them and prove they exist using the predictability of the laws of physics.
The Big Bang Theory is based on predictions. Scientists can see that everything they observe in space is moving. When they use the laws of physics and trace these movements back in time tens of billions of years, everything ends up in one place. Hence the theory that it all was once in one place and then suddenly "bang" it exploded into existence. The cool thing is they can determine what elements were caused first and how the remaining ones were caused over time. It is still a theory, but it is based on the pure predictability of inanimate objects.
But, Houston, we have a problem. Living things, and humans in particular, have the power to violate the predictability of the laws of physics. While living things USE the laws of physics to accomplish tasks, unlike inanimate objects, they are not bound by them.
"What on earth do you mean?" you ask.
If the laws of physics applied, from the moment of the Big Bang forward the actions of every single particle of matter would be completely predictable and would continue to be forever. Out in space, this is true.
Think about that for a moment.
That would mean that I am typing this because the particles in my fingers that began a path at the moment of the big bang caused me to type this.
That would mean that you are reading this because at the moment of the Big Bang every single particle in your was destined to be where you are right now doing what you are doing right now.
That would mean that there is no free will whatsoever.
Lots of things in the universe are predictable from the moment of the Big Bang, which is how they figured it out.
We know both subjectively and objectively that we do have free will. Biologists will confirm that living things decide to move, which causes particles to change directions from the path they were set on when the Big Bang happened, or from last week or seconds ago.
We can decide to move when we desire to move. We cause our body machines to do things, suddenly and without any required action-reaction sequence. Yes we then use physics to our advantage to make the body-machine, automobile-machine, cell phone-machine, etc do things, but we decide how and when to operate them and what they will do. The automobile does not move until we cause our body-machines to get into it, turn the key and make it do things. When we get into that car, we have simply augmented our body machines to allow our body-machines to do things it could not otherwise do, but we are still operating one machine so that it operates the other machine (and sometimes while texting on yet another machine we cause a crash and injury to both of the other machines in the process).
So what is it that gives us the ability to cause our body-machines to move in ways that violate the pure and lovely predictability of the laws of physics.
That, my good friend, is what we refer to as "God." This is a physics-proven fact. The ability of living things to use physics to accomplish things, but to violate the laws of physics to start the process. The difference, the intervention, is life. Life is spiritual, not physical. It is real. It is quantifiable. It is measurable. But, it is free and unpredictable. That spiritual component of life it "God" unless you want to call it something else, which is fine with me. I just proved its existence, not the name.
More when my particles get around to it again.
Post Script: Interestingly, well at least to me, I read an article by a physicist who notes that on earth, in particular humans, have so changed things that the predictability of pure physics is interfered with. For example, if left to their paths after the Big Bang, that table and chair you are sitting on would likely still be growing or would have fallen in the forest to be eaten by bugs, that steel in your lamp would still be ore and the gas in your car would still be petroleum in the ground. It would have followed the path it was destined for when the Big Bang begun.
So not only do we change things within our own body-machines to make it do things, but we have moved particles from the path of their predictable physics-based destiny to a location of our chosing, using physics, but moving the particles completely in violation of the laws of physics.
The theory of the butterfly effect contemplates that every movement that we make that changes the natural movement of these particles, even the beating of a butterflies wings, changes every particle everywhere in some way. Physicists call it chaos or entropy. Basically stuff that cannot be explained because humans messed with it. That is why physicists stare out into untouched space.
This physicist has noticed, however, that there are things in space that are showing a bit of this. Stars and stuff too far to be effectively altered by anything we have done are exhibiting a touch of this chaos. Since the light we see from space is older that human-kind itself, whatever we are sending out there will not be effecting the light we see coming to us for millions of years.
So that means that something else is causing particles to stop following the rules of physics way out there in the universe, and it started way before any humans existed. Hmmm. Think about the implications of that observation.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Economic of Albert Pujols Applies to Us All!
The Cardinals are considering whether to re-sign Albert Pujols. The deadline is nearing and at this writing I do not know which way that will go. I have heard and read all sorts of arguments why the Cards should and should not sign Mr. Pujols, and none of them have addressed the real issue - economics.
It is NOT about whether he is the best player, his comparisons to a replacement, how many games the Cardinals would or would not win without him or what other comparable players make. It is about whether the Cardinals will make more money off Albert than they spend on him over the contract. The Cardinals are considering the following with and without Mr. Pujols:
Marginal difference in attendance revenue - tickets, food, etc.
Marginal difference in profits from post-season play.
The money to be made as Mr. Pujols breaks Stan Musial's Cardinal records, catches the game's great in various categories, and finally breaks all-time records.
Ticket sales, media coverage, ad revenues, promotions, merchandise sales, etc, all drive the profitability of Albert Pujols. His productivity is only relevant to the extent it generates those profits.
What does all that add up to, best case scenario, and then what are the probabilities that he will achieve each of those profitable milestones. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Why does this apply to everyone?
Every employer evaluates whether or not the company can make more money than each employee costs the company - a net profit. This also applies to every piece of equipment, facility and other investment the company makes. This is measured in all the ways the company makes or saves money.
Just as it is for Albert Pujols, each of us must evaluate how much our contribution to the bottom line in the company exceeds our cost to the company. the more we bring to the bottom line, the more we will be paid to do that. We create real economic value to the company.
Sure, we can skate by and keep our jobs, but in the end we will be passed by, left behind and eventually let go because we are no longer a profit center within the company.
Albert Pujols is a profit center for the Cardinals. Over the first ten years of his career, the Cardinals have made a killing off Mr. Pujols. They will only sign him if the new Albert Pujols will make them a profit, and so it is for everyone in an economic society.
Let's all learn from this moment and make ourselves stronger in the eyes of those we serve.
It is NOT about whether he is the best player, his comparisons to a replacement, how many games the Cardinals would or would not win without him or what other comparable players make. It is about whether the Cardinals will make more money off Albert than they spend on him over the contract. The Cardinals are considering the following with and without Mr. Pujols:
Marginal difference in attendance revenue - tickets, food, etc.
Marginal difference in profits from post-season play.
The money to be made as Mr. Pujols breaks Stan Musial's Cardinal records, catches the game's great in various categories, and finally breaks all-time records.
Ticket sales, media coverage, ad revenues, promotions, merchandise sales, etc, all drive the profitability of Albert Pujols. His productivity is only relevant to the extent it generates those profits.
What does all that add up to, best case scenario, and then what are the probabilities that he will achieve each of those profitable milestones. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Why does this apply to everyone?
Every employer evaluates whether or not the company can make more money than each employee costs the company - a net profit. This also applies to every piece of equipment, facility and other investment the company makes. This is measured in all the ways the company makes or saves money.
Just as it is for Albert Pujols, each of us must evaluate how much our contribution to the bottom line in the company exceeds our cost to the company. the more we bring to the bottom line, the more we will be paid to do that. We create real economic value to the company.
Sure, we can skate by and keep our jobs, but in the end we will be passed by, left behind and eventually let go because we are no longer a profit center within the company.
Albert Pujols is a profit center for the Cardinals. Over the first ten years of his career, the Cardinals have made a killing off Mr. Pujols. They will only sign him if the new Albert Pujols will make them a profit, and so it is for everyone in an economic society.
Let's all learn from this moment and make ourselves stronger in the eyes of those we serve.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
CEO Salaries - You Would Not Want Them
We all know that cash is merely a means of facilitating barter. It was invented tens of thousands of years ago to bridge the gap between the stuff I need now and the time when I can provide something back of value. The objective is to effectively value the services provided by the various participants in the economy. Is it perfect? In the huge picture it is pretty darn close.
Every participants in the system makes elections. "Work-life balance" is today's catch word for some of those elections. Those elections effect economics both globally, locally and personaly.
CEOs of Fortune 500 companies make certain elections that cause them to be extremely rare commodities, which in turn makes them very valuable. They often obtain advanced degrees but uinversally they train for years. They fight their way up the corporate ladder winning the difficult political battles, creating loyalties and building a reputation. They give up a great deal of if not all of their family lives. They seldom see their children's games or spend quality time with their spouses. They work ungodly hours, travel relentlesly and bear the wrath of nearly everyone - shareholders, workers, lower management, the Board of Directors, the media, politicians and certainly their often many spouses.
Not surprisingly, they get paid handsomely for it. Certainly most are very bright, but there are lots of very bright people who make a completely different set of elections and would never elect to become a CEO. Some are born into the right family, but there are many people born well who elect not to become the CEO even of the family company. There are plenty of savvy but not genius CEOs who have led major corportions very well who were born into extremely humble settings. None of those things drives the result.
Only those who are deeply passionate about doing what CEOs do can make it. You and I would not take the job if offered and we would never work hard enough to get it. Those elections are not worth it for us. So we are not paid millions, but that was OUR election.
People often find themselves doing jobs they do not like, much less have a passion for. When people find their true passions, dig into their passions and become experts, they can learn how to create value in the economy based on their level of passionate expertise. When they find that nexus, they never work another day in their lives and their elections drive the maximum amount of cash to them for those services. They are happy. We can all be happy.
Services are always valued from the perspective of the buyer. But services provided with deep passionate expertise are always valued more highly than services merely performed. We must stop criticizing those who made different economic elections than we have made and start looking at how we can make the best economic elections for ourselves based on our own passions.
Follow your heart is more true now than ever.
Every participants in the system makes elections. "Work-life balance" is today's catch word for some of those elections. Those elections effect economics both globally, locally and personaly.
CEOs of Fortune 500 companies make certain elections that cause them to be extremely rare commodities, which in turn makes them very valuable. They often obtain advanced degrees but uinversally they train for years. They fight their way up the corporate ladder winning the difficult political battles, creating loyalties and building a reputation. They give up a great deal of if not all of their family lives. They seldom see their children's games or spend quality time with their spouses. They work ungodly hours, travel relentlesly and bear the wrath of nearly everyone - shareholders, workers, lower management, the Board of Directors, the media, politicians and certainly their often many spouses.
Not surprisingly, they get paid handsomely for it. Certainly most are very bright, but there are lots of very bright people who make a completely different set of elections and would never elect to become a CEO. Some are born into the right family, but there are many people born well who elect not to become the CEO even of the family company. There are plenty of savvy but not genius CEOs who have led major corportions very well who were born into extremely humble settings. None of those things drives the result.
Only those who are deeply passionate about doing what CEOs do can make it. You and I would not take the job if offered and we would never work hard enough to get it. Those elections are not worth it for us. So we are not paid millions, but that was OUR election.
People often find themselves doing jobs they do not like, much less have a passion for. When people find their true passions, dig into their passions and become experts, they can learn how to create value in the economy based on their level of passionate expertise. When they find that nexus, they never work another day in their lives and their elections drive the maximum amount of cash to them for those services. They are happy. We can all be happy.
Services are always valued from the perspective of the buyer. But services provided with deep passionate expertise are always valued more highly than services merely performed. We must stop criticizing those who made different economic elections than we have made and start looking at how we can make the best economic elections for ourselves based on our own passions.
Follow your heart is more true now than ever.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Back to the Healthcare Drawing Board
There have been many efforts throughout time to make major changes in the laws of this country and the culture of its people in a short amount of time. I have found none that succeeded. Laws relating to civil rights, labor and workplace safety, environmental, and income taxes all took decades to come to fruition. They were all step by step processes.
Even the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression were not enough to cause immediate passage of securities laws. It took ten years for all of the laws that are the foundation of today’s markets to be put in place. Ten years is extraordinarily fast for our government to make such sweeping changes.
Little victories laid the foundation (see the NEPA in 1969). An obvious and easy fix came next (see the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the early 1970s). The idea that cleaning the environment was important and that the government must lead the way became the norm rather than the other way around. RCRA, FIFRA, NRC, CERCLA, LUST and many others were passed, re-authorized and strengthened under both Republican and Democratic presidencies over the next 20 years until the framework of today’s environmental laws and culture were firmly in place. The last major environmental law was passed in the late 1980s.
Today the government is dealing with carbon emissions. The question is no longer whether this is the realm of the government. The questions surround whether carbon is really an environmental problem and if so, what are the ramifications.
So looking at history and reality, this government needs to look at healthcare as a long term incremental process.
Step one has got to be the establishment of the federal government as the source of healthcare regulation. Pass a first law that simply states that national healthcare and health insurance will be regulated across state boundaries by the US Department of Health and Human Services and that the States are now preempted from regulating healthcare, unless the insurance company or provider has absolutely no inter-state or federal involvement (no patients from out of state, no Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, etc.).
Republicans favor this as it opens competition across the entire country, allows smaller creative carriers to get into the game, and eliminates the costly state-by-state compliance. Democrats should favor this because it gets the federal government in the game. This is critical if a government run plan is ever going to fly.
Step two will be to mirror the idea of the government option, by allowing associations to buy group priced insurance across the country for their members, whether they are companies, union workers or covered by the United Way. In the process, allow people to buy into the US government workers group plan if they want. This also spurs competition, which Republicans should like, allows commercial creativity and gets the federal government into the healthcare providing game.
Combine Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, US employee and military benefits under one umbrella and provide these as one. Take this out of the hands of the States and make it uniform across the country. Gain experience, eliminate red-tape, increase efficiencies, lower costs, compete and show that the federal government can do this extremely well.
If it makes sense, it is then a fairly easy next set of steps over time to add regulation and coverages provided by the government for catastrophic cases that go over a certain limit, cases that require experimental treatments, cases where the patient is permanently disabled, and high risk cases where malpractice is a big concern for practitioners. Take the step that begs for attention.
Finally, twenty years from now, universal government provided healthcare, IF it is still required to provide adequate coverage for Americans who want it.
There is an old saying, those who fail to heed the experiences of history are bound to repeat them. In this case, we should repeat what history shows us is the right way to make major sweeping changes.
Even the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression were not enough to cause immediate passage of securities laws. It took ten years for all of the laws that are the foundation of today’s markets to be put in place. Ten years is extraordinarily fast for our government to make such sweeping changes.
Little victories laid the foundation (see the NEPA in 1969). An obvious and easy fix came next (see the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the early 1970s). The idea that cleaning the environment was important and that the government must lead the way became the norm rather than the other way around. RCRA, FIFRA, NRC, CERCLA, LUST and many others were passed, re-authorized and strengthened under both Republican and Democratic presidencies over the next 20 years until the framework of today’s environmental laws and culture were firmly in place. The last major environmental law was passed in the late 1980s.
Today the government is dealing with carbon emissions. The question is no longer whether this is the realm of the government. The questions surround whether carbon is really an environmental problem and if so, what are the ramifications.
So looking at history and reality, this government needs to look at healthcare as a long term incremental process.
Step one has got to be the establishment of the federal government as the source of healthcare regulation. Pass a first law that simply states that national healthcare and health insurance will be regulated across state boundaries by the US Department of Health and Human Services and that the States are now preempted from regulating healthcare, unless the insurance company or provider has absolutely no inter-state or federal involvement (no patients from out of state, no Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, etc.).
Republicans favor this as it opens competition across the entire country, allows smaller creative carriers to get into the game, and eliminates the costly state-by-state compliance. Democrats should favor this because it gets the federal government in the game. This is critical if a government run plan is ever going to fly.
Step two will be to mirror the idea of the government option, by allowing associations to buy group priced insurance across the country for their members, whether they are companies, union workers or covered by the United Way. In the process, allow people to buy into the US government workers group plan if they want. This also spurs competition, which Republicans should like, allows commercial creativity and gets the federal government into the healthcare providing game.
Combine Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, US employee and military benefits under one umbrella and provide these as one. Take this out of the hands of the States and make it uniform across the country. Gain experience, eliminate red-tape, increase efficiencies, lower costs, compete and show that the federal government can do this extremely well.
If it makes sense, it is then a fairly easy next set of steps over time to add regulation and coverages provided by the government for catastrophic cases that go over a certain limit, cases that require experimental treatments, cases where the patient is permanently disabled, and high risk cases where malpractice is a big concern for practitioners. Take the step that begs for attention.
Finally, twenty years from now, universal government provided healthcare, IF it is still required to provide adequate coverage for Americans who want it.
There is an old saying, those who fail to heed the experiences of history are bound to repeat them. In this case, we should repeat what history shows us is the right way to make major sweeping changes.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
New Home Buyer Discount – Missing the Mark
The $8000 tax incentive for new home buyers is designed to help spur on the homebuilding and home sales markets. Unfortunately it misses the mark in several respects.
The biggest plug in the system are those who have homes, need to move for a new job opportunity, change in job status that could threaten their ability to pay the mortgage, want to move to a new school district or would like to upsize or downsize. A great many people have homes whose values in today’s markets are less than the amount of their mortgage. As a result they cannot afford to sell their current homes until home values increase.
I am certain that this is not a new idea, but if we really want to spur home sales, increase mobility for purposes of supporting job growth and opportunity, reduce mortgage defaults and foreclosures, and free up the system to get back in balance, the government should provide a tax credit to old home owners who:
1. Want or need to move;
2. Can show that the value of their home currently is less than the amount of their mortgage.
The government can “bail-out” regular people by providing cash to the banks for the difference between the home value and mortgage balance, up to $8000 or some other number. The purchaser’s of that home will finance it properly and will be able to sell it when they are ready. This stream of purchasers does not exist now, because they cannot afford to sell their current home.
If one wants to open the floodgates to a normal flow of home sales again, it is this stopper that must be unplugged.
The biggest plug in the system are those who have homes, need to move for a new job opportunity, change in job status that could threaten their ability to pay the mortgage, want to move to a new school district or would like to upsize or downsize. A great many people have homes whose values in today’s markets are less than the amount of their mortgage. As a result they cannot afford to sell their current homes until home values increase.
I am certain that this is not a new idea, but if we really want to spur home sales, increase mobility for purposes of supporting job growth and opportunity, reduce mortgage defaults and foreclosures, and free up the system to get back in balance, the government should provide a tax credit to old home owners who:
1. Want or need to move;
2. Can show that the value of their home currently is less than the amount of their mortgage.
The government can “bail-out” regular people by providing cash to the banks for the difference between the home value and mortgage balance, up to $8000 or some other number. The purchaser’s of that home will finance it properly and will be able to sell it when they are ready. This stream of purchasers does not exist now, because they cannot afford to sell their current home.
If one wants to open the floodgates to a normal flow of home sales again, it is this stopper that must be unplugged.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Time to Stop Deciding Who “Won”
The one thing that is clear from the most recent elections and those that occurred a year ago is that the people of this country want our elected officials to stop playing the political game, to stop worrying about whether the Democrats or Republicans “won” or “lost” and start to solve the critical problems that they care about.
I for one abhor the constant discussion on TV, radio, blogs and in print about which side is winning on this or that issue, election or policy debate. The issues, I suppose, are too complex for the mainstream media to understand.
Mostly, though, I think it is just a lot more fun for the political reporters to pretend for a time that they are ESPN sports junkies reporting in SportCenter wittiness on wins, losses and the performances of the participants. Top plays. Web gems. Hilarious miscues, errors and bloopers.
Alas, whether or not the future of our country and the world depends on intelligent action in Washington, the discussion continues to center around whether each event was a win or a loss for Barrack Obama.
Sure we have an unwieldy federal deficit, millions of uninsured Americans, drug battles with Mexican kingpins, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an impending energy crisis, and the possibility of Global Warming creating tremendous human chaos, not to mention the economy and unemployment, but clearly the critical point is how each politician rates in terms of wins and losses.
And, of course, wins are not measured by whether we solve any of these problems. No, they are measured by rhetoric in the House, battles over details in the Senate, local elections, speeches, interviews, and whatever the pundits decide merit placement on the scorecard. And somehow, pushing these important policy issues forward seldom seems to make it on the list.
I wonder who really is causing the gridlock in Washington. I blame it all on ESPN.
I for one abhor the constant discussion on TV, radio, blogs and in print about which side is winning on this or that issue, election or policy debate. The issues, I suppose, are too complex for the mainstream media to understand.
Mostly, though, I think it is just a lot more fun for the political reporters to pretend for a time that they are ESPN sports junkies reporting in SportCenter wittiness on wins, losses and the performances of the participants. Top plays. Web gems. Hilarious miscues, errors and bloopers.
Alas, whether or not the future of our country and the world depends on intelligent action in Washington, the discussion continues to center around whether each event was a win or a loss for Barrack Obama.
Sure we have an unwieldy federal deficit, millions of uninsured Americans, drug battles with Mexican kingpins, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an impending energy crisis, and the possibility of Global Warming creating tremendous human chaos, not to mention the economy and unemployment, but clearly the critical point is how each politician rates in terms of wins and losses.
And, of course, wins are not measured by whether we solve any of these problems. No, they are measured by rhetoric in the House, battles over details in the Senate, local elections, speeches, interviews, and whatever the pundits decide merit placement on the scorecard. And somehow, pushing these important policy issues forward seldom seems to make it on the list.
I wonder who really is causing the gridlock in Washington. I blame it all on ESPN.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The American Tribe – Unite
I wrote yesterday about tribes and how I believe President Obama is getting us back to respect and need of the whole tribe. I got to thinking about the American Tribe, which I tend to do. What makes the American Tribe unique is that we are a tribe composed of people who were kicked out of, or in rare circumstances voluntarily left, virtually every other tribe on earth. The American Tribe represents the rejects of the world, AND, those willing to escape rather than stay and be persecuted.
22,000 years ago Native Americans left there comfortable worlds, trudged north into the frozen Ice Age lands of what is now Siberia across the Bering Straits, then iced over, into what is now Alaska and eventually into both Americas. Later Pacific Islanders braved the vast oceans to land in South America and migrate north mixing with those who came before. Do we believe they made these treacherous journeys with women, children and their elderly because their tribes in Asia, where the temperatures were moderate, wanted them to stay? Of course not. They were kicked out of their tribes. Their tribes thought they would die. They did not. They became Americans.
The Pilgrims were forced out of England. Georgia was populated by criminals from English jails. German Catholics came here in droves in the 1800s to escape Lutheran persecution. Sicilians and Irish left their homelands for a “better” life, which means their old tribe was not working out for them. Chinese and Japanese fled their countries for our West Coasts. Africans were kicked out of their countries like the rest of us, sold as slaves. We are all refugees from other tribes who could no longer stand to have us around. Everyone sent us off across oceans and thought, or hoped, we would die. We did not. Against all odds, we became Americans.
We, the American Tribe, are the rejects of the rest of the world. We welcome all who are kicked out of their tribes. So says our greatest monument – The Statue of Liberty. What made us a problem to the staid traditions of our former tribes made us stronger as a people. It made us Americans.
Over time we have assimilated everyone. The English first disliked the Dutch (Dutch rub, Dutch treat, which is no treat at all, etc.), but got used to them. The Irish, Scotts, Italians, Germans, Greeks, Jews, Catholics and many others came, were subject of discrimination and ultimately assimilated into the culture. While it took longer, Africans, Asians, Native Americans and Hispanics have all been embraced by the American Tribe and have served the US proudly in leadership, diplomatic, civil servant and military positions.
The Baby-Boomer and especially the post-Boom generations are unifying and erasing all past distinctions. We are increasingly a land of mutts. Mixed breeds with uncommon heritage with descendants from many different tribes around the world. Our President is not black. He is an American, all mixed up like the rest of us.
We are all one-eighth this and one-sixteenth that. A pinch of Irish, a pinch of Cherokee, a bit of German, some Korean in there somewhere, and a little something else. Whites are of course not white. Blacks are of course not black. We are all shades and tints of brown. We are all the same basic color.
The term “Diversity” has come to focus us on our irrelevant differences, though it should not. It was a concept important to get where we are today. It, however, is a term of division. A term of the past.
We are now the American Tribe. A tribe of outcasts. A tribe of mutts with varied heritage. A tribe descended from those brave enough to challenge the old tribe and be kicked out for it. A tribe of people our old tribes hoped would die at sea, but we did not.
Instead, against all odds and over many years and through trials and tribulations of great magnitude, we, the misfits of the world, have finally become united as one, the American Tribe.
Unlike most other places on earth, we are a tribe of people with eyes, skin and hair of many colors none of which impact who we are as people. Individually we practice many religions or none at all, speak and write as we see fit, work hard or not, love man or woman or both, and live as we deem appropriate, for that is what the American Tribe is all about. We are unique and powerful individuals within the great American Tribe.
It is time we stop celebrating our differences and begin to celebrate our similarities. Mr. President, make this year’s Independence Day be a celebration of our independence from past discrimination based on our diverse and irrelevant characteristics.
Make it a celebration of the unified American Tribe.
22,000 years ago Native Americans left there comfortable worlds, trudged north into the frozen Ice Age lands of what is now Siberia across the Bering Straits, then iced over, into what is now Alaska and eventually into both Americas. Later Pacific Islanders braved the vast oceans to land in South America and migrate north mixing with those who came before. Do we believe they made these treacherous journeys with women, children and their elderly because their tribes in Asia, where the temperatures were moderate, wanted them to stay? Of course not. They were kicked out of their tribes. Their tribes thought they would die. They did not. They became Americans.
The Pilgrims were forced out of England. Georgia was populated by criminals from English jails. German Catholics came here in droves in the 1800s to escape Lutheran persecution. Sicilians and Irish left their homelands for a “better” life, which means their old tribe was not working out for them. Chinese and Japanese fled their countries for our West Coasts. Africans were kicked out of their countries like the rest of us, sold as slaves. We are all refugees from other tribes who could no longer stand to have us around. Everyone sent us off across oceans and thought, or hoped, we would die. We did not. Against all odds, we became Americans.
We, the American Tribe, are the rejects of the rest of the world. We welcome all who are kicked out of their tribes. So says our greatest monument – The Statue of Liberty. What made us a problem to the staid traditions of our former tribes made us stronger as a people. It made us Americans.
Over time we have assimilated everyone. The English first disliked the Dutch (Dutch rub, Dutch treat, which is no treat at all, etc.), but got used to them. The Irish, Scotts, Italians, Germans, Greeks, Jews, Catholics and many others came, were subject of discrimination and ultimately assimilated into the culture. While it took longer, Africans, Asians, Native Americans and Hispanics have all been embraced by the American Tribe and have served the US proudly in leadership, diplomatic, civil servant and military positions.
The Baby-Boomer and especially the post-Boom generations are unifying and erasing all past distinctions. We are increasingly a land of mutts. Mixed breeds with uncommon heritage with descendants from many different tribes around the world. Our President is not black. He is an American, all mixed up like the rest of us.
We are all one-eighth this and one-sixteenth that. A pinch of Irish, a pinch of Cherokee, a bit of German, some Korean in there somewhere, and a little something else. Whites are of course not white. Blacks are of course not black. We are all shades and tints of brown. We are all the same basic color.
The term “Diversity” has come to focus us on our irrelevant differences, though it should not. It was a concept important to get where we are today. It, however, is a term of division. A term of the past.
We are now the American Tribe. A tribe of outcasts. A tribe of mutts with varied heritage. A tribe descended from those brave enough to challenge the old tribe and be kicked out for it. A tribe of people our old tribes hoped would die at sea, but we did not.
Instead, against all odds and over many years and through trials and tribulations of great magnitude, we, the misfits of the world, have finally become united as one, the American Tribe.
Unlike most other places on earth, we are a tribe of people with eyes, skin and hair of many colors none of which impact who we are as people. Individually we practice many religions or none at all, speak and write as we see fit, work hard or not, love man or woman or both, and live as we deem appropriate, for that is what the American Tribe is all about. We are unique and powerful individuals within the great American Tribe.
It is time we stop celebrating our differences and begin to celebrate our similarities. Mr. President, make this year’s Independence Day be a celebration of our independence from past discrimination based on our diverse and irrelevant characteristics.
Make it a celebration of the unified American Tribe.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The American Tribe – Reborn
Everyone knows that humans cannot survive in the wild as individuals. Throughout time humans have survived by banding together in tribes for the common good. Successful leaders ruled for the benefit of all and his tribe expanded often without the need of warfare. Great leaders know that their position and power depend on those within the tribe. Even he cannot survive in the wild alone for long. They also knew that the more inclusive ones policy the greater the tribe became.
Tribes were, and are, required to protect the young who will be the tribe’s strength in the future, the elderly who hold the wisdom and traditions of the tribe, the weak and sick who will recover to be contributors to the tribe, and historically the women who nurture and care for all members of the tribe and make the tribe strong and powerful. When protection of the tribe was about size and might, it was the job of the men to lead and protect. It has long been known, however, that behind every great man was a great woman, and of course women have also and will ably lead many a tribe. The leader is NEVER alone.
Leaders who rule by force or exclusion often rise for a period of time, only to be trampled and destroyed often by their own people. Force may be necessary to grow an empire, but holding it together requires the subjects to believe that it is in their best interests to remain within the tribe. Kings have been beheaded and great empires reduced to City States because the leaders forgot the tribe.
Until around the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the industrial revolution, the tribe was important and the great leaders recognized this importance. Countries were generally small and even great empires permitted tribes, whether local historic groups or represented by nobility and their lands, to govern themselves so long as they paid appropriate tribute.
Companies were small. The leader knew each employee personally and recognized that his position was dependant on the success of the members of his small tribe of workers. They were part of the community. They realized the tribe reached beyond the borders of the company’s property. The leader of the tribe not only knew his workers personally, but he knew his suppliers and customers personally. They too were part of his tribe and he relied upon them and they upon him. And so humans became the most dominant species on earth.
In the last 120 years or so the reliance on the tribe has changed. Somewhere along the line the idea of the tribe has fallen away in favor of individuality. These concepts are referred to in the positive as “entrepreneurialism” and in the more negative as the “Captains of Industry” or “capitalists.”
Companies grew to the point where the members of the tribe became mere numbers on a ledger to the CEO at the top. The tribal leader began to believe, and perhaps has been encouraged to believe, that he no longer needed the tribe to survive. While this has been disproven over and over again throughout history, we somehow feel that America became great because of individual effort of a few great individuals.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our tribe fought back the British tribe for independence. A whole host of men signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It took 11 years, until 1787, for many bright men to craft the US Constitution. We moved West gradually as a tribe, supporting one another all along the way. Individuals did not create or settle this great country. WE, the tribe of Americans, did that.
It took many years and many people to bring non-landowners, workers, women, Jews, those of other faiths, blacks, and our many immigrants into the tribe of Americans. We stand now as one of the most inclusive tribes in the history of our planet. We should be proud of that.
Barrack Obama is restoring the American Tribe. We are all dependant on one another. We are responsible to care for the young, the sick and the elderly. Corporations must recognize that failure is largely due to misunderstanding the strength of the tribe. Great leaders, Level 5 leaders as described in the wonderful book, Good to Great, understand the importance of the tribe and they are the ones who are thriving in today’s economy.
I hope that the President is able to continue to build upon what he has done to date. We must decide we are part of the American Tribe. CEOs must understand the importance of the tribe. Humans survive because they are part of a strong tribe. We cannot stand alone and succeed. Not for long. No one ever has.
Tribes were, and are, required to protect the young who will be the tribe’s strength in the future, the elderly who hold the wisdom and traditions of the tribe, the weak and sick who will recover to be contributors to the tribe, and historically the women who nurture and care for all members of the tribe and make the tribe strong and powerful. When protection of the tribe was about size and might, it was the job of the men to lead and protect. It has long been known, however, that behind every great man was a great woman, and of course women have also and will ably lead many a tribe. The leader is NEVER alone.
Leaders who rule by force or exclusion often rise for a period of time, only to be trampled and destroyed often by their own people. Force may be necessary to grow an empire, but holding it together requires the subjects to believe that it is in their best interests to remain within the tribe. Kings have been beheaded and great empires reduced to City States because the leaders forgot the tribe.
Until around the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the industrial revolution, the tribe was important and the great leaders recognized this importance. Countries were generally small and even great empires permitted tribes, whether local historic groups or represented by nobility and their lands, to govern themselves so long as they paid appropriate tribute.
Companies were small. The leader knew each employee personally and recognized that his position was dependant on the success of the members of his small tribe of workers. They were part of the community. They realized the tribe reached beyond the borders of the company’s property. The leader of the tribe not only knew his workers personally, but he knew his suppliers and customers personally. They too were part of his tribe and he relied upon them and they upon him. And so humans became the most dominant species on earth.
In the last 120 years or so the reliance on the tribe has changed. Somewhere along the line the idea of the tribe has fallen away in favor of individuality. These concepts are referred to in the positive as “entrepreneurialism” and in the more negative as the “Captains of Industry” or “capitalists.”
Companies grew to the point where the members of the tribe became mere numbers on a ledger to the CEO at the top. The tribal leader began to believe, and perhaps has been encouraged to believe, that he no longer needed the tribe to survive. While this has been disproven over and over again throughout history, we somehow feel that America became great because of individual effort of a few great individuals.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our tribe fought back the British tribe for independence. A whole host of men signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It took 11 years, until 1787, for many bright men to craft the US Constitution. We moved West gradually as a tribe, supporting one another all along the way. Individuals did not create or settle this great country. WE, the tribe of Americans, did that.
It took many years and many people to bring non-landowners, workers, women, Jews, those of other faiths, blacks, and our many immigrants into the tribe of Americans. We stand now as one of the most inclusive tribes in the history of our planet. We should be proud of that.
Barrack Obama is restoring the American Tribe. We are all dependant on one another. We are responsible to care for the young, the sick and the elderly. Corporations must recognize that failure is largely due to misunderstanding the strength of the tribe. Great leaders, Level 5 leaders as described in the wonderful book, Good to Great, understand the importance of the tribe and they are the ones who are thriving in today’s economy.
I hope that the President is able to continue to build upon what he has done to date. We must decide we are part of the American Tribe. CEOs must understand the importance of the tribe. Humans survive because they are part of a strong tribe. We cannot stand alone and succeed. Not for long. No one ever has.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Immigration and Health Care
One (and only one) of the most significant knocks against “illegal” immigration is its impact on our healthcare system. They are such a burden, but does this assertion really hold water?
Illegal Immigrants: Some percentage, probably fairly small, of the estimated eight to ten million illegal aliens in the US use our hospital emergency rooms because they have no health insurance. Illegal immigrants are predominantly hard working males in excellent physical shape doing hourly physical labor, like landscaping, housekeeping and meat packing. They are not brought in for sedentary clerical positions. They make no money if they are ill and unable to work.
They were brave enough to leave their homelands in search of a better life. Most have obligations to feed families back in Mexico. While certainly some families have immigrated as well, the children, wives and parents of most illegal immigrants are not in the US. Being ill is not an option.
So of those in the US, how many really abuse the healthcare system? It simply cannot be a very high percentage of those here.
Uninsured Americans: On the other hand, we know that there are approximately 50 million Americans who have no health insurance. These individuals tend to be lower income citizens. Many have sedentary jobs while others are often out of work. All of their families are in the US, including all of their children and grandparents. Being ill or injured entitles them to paid days off, worker’s compensation, and disability. Like most Americans, they are fat, eat fast food, do not exercise and have resulting health complications. As unemployment rises, the number of American citizens without health insurance rises. There are absolutely exceptions to these generalizations, but ask social workers and they will provide you with this profile.
Are Illegal Immigrants Really the Burden? Which of these groups causes the greatest real burden to our health insurance system?
The impact of a few million illegal immigrants; or
The impact of fifty plus million uninsured Americans?
The problem is not immigrants. The problem is uninsured Americans.
A Solution: Certainly this situation begs for a solution. There are many ideas on how we can solve the “healthcare crisis.” Over the last few weeks I have laid out a gradual plan for healthcare reform. The stages are laid out in prior posts below.
Nationalize health insurance regulations and remove the burdens and restrictions of 50 different State level regulatory systems.
Allow ANY group of people to band together in groups to collectively purchase health insurance, or to create a self-insured plan. Illegals could join any or particular groups.
Create a national catastrophic coverage plan
The issue with illegal immigrants and uninsured Americans is basic care provided at emergency rooms rather than at less expensive clinics or doctor’s offices. Under this scenario, anyone, other than those who qualify for Medicaid currently, should be able to afford basic care, including illegal immigrants, at a physician’s office or clinic, thus eliminating the core problem. Under this scenario, anyone without coverage could be legally turned away without repercussions.
Illegal Immigrants: Some percentage, probably fairly small, of the estimated eight to ten million illegal aliens in the US use our hospital emergency rooms because they have no health insurance. Illegal immigrants are predominantly hard working males in excellent physical shape doing hourly physical labor, like landscaping, housekeeping and meat packing. They are not brought in for sedentary clerical positions. They make no money if they are ill and unable to work.
They were brave enough to leave their homelands in search of a better life. Most have obligations to feed families back in Mexico. While certainly some families have immigrated as well, the children, wives and parents of most illegal immigrants are not in the US. Being ill is not an option.
So of those in the US, how many really abuse the healthcare system? It simply cannot be a very high percentage of those here.
Uninsured Americans: On the other hand, we know that there are approximately 50 million Americans who have no health insurance. These individuals tend to be lower income citizens. Many have sedentary jobs while others are often out of work. All of their families are in the US, including all of their children and grandparents. Being ill or injured entitles them to paid days off, worker’s compensation, and disability. Like most Americans, they are fat, eat fast food, do not exercise and have resulting health complications. As unemployment rises, the number of American citizens without health insurance rises. There are absolutely exceptions to these generalizations, but ask social workers and they will provide you with this profile.
Are Illegal Immigrants Really the Burden? Which of these groups causes the greatest real burden to our health insurance system?
The impact of a few million illegal immigrants; or
The impact of fifty plus million uninsured Americans?
The problem is not immigrants. The problem is uninsured Americans.
A Solution: Certainly this situation begs for a solution. There are many ideas on how we can solve the “healthcare crisis.” Over the last few weeks I have laid out a gradual plan for healthcare reform. The stages are laid out in prior posts below.
Nationalize health insurance regulations and remove the burdens and restrictions of 50 different State level regulatory systems.
Allow ANY group of people to band together in groups to collectively purchase health insurance, or to create a self-insured plan. Illegals could join any or particular groups.
Create a national catastrophic coverage plan
The issue with illegal immigrants and uninsured Americans is basic care provided at emergency rooms rather than at less expensive clinics or doctor’s offices. Under this scenario, anyone, other than those who qualify for Medicaid currently, should be able to afford basic care, including illegal immigrants, at a physician’s office or clinic, thus eliminating the core problem. Under this scenario, anyone without coverage could be legally turned away without repercussions.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Making Cars – A New Lease on Life
Well the US is officially an automaker. What I hope is that GM is able to convert from a stodgy old “this is the way we have always done it” company to an innovative leader in cutting edge technology. When one receives a new lease on life, one usually makes the rather easy decision to live it to its fullest. The realization that death is always mere moments away has the effect of freeing us from the burdens associated with the daily drudgery of ordinary life.
Were I the GM leadership I would announce that every car produced in 2011 will be an electric hybrid flexible fuel vehicle with an enzymatic fuel cell. Maybe 2012. Maybe some other innovative standard. Make is audacious – a Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG). Like going to the moon in the 1960s. Drive a stake in the ground and focus the entire company on reaching that goal and do whatever it takes to get there. Set it so that when GM gets there, they have passed everyone else in the race.
The GM leadership (and by that I suppose I mean President Obama at least in part) should buy or license innovative technologies that will make GM world renowned as THE leader in green vehicles. Unleash the creative juices of the engineers, the workforce, the M&A guys, the managers and even the public relations department toward one illustrious goal.
People love to be part of the team who desires with all their heart and throughout the organization to win the World Series and then makes every effort to do what it takes to get there. Only one team will be baseball’s champion, but only those teams who legitimately set that as their goal will have a chance.
Electric cars have much higher horse power than piston engine cars. They are ideal for high performance cars like the Corvette. Sure they have a relatively short range, 40 – 60 miles on a charge, but who drives their Corvette more than that? Power. Speed. Wind in the hair. Hums like a kitten.
While ethanol is somewhat less efficient per gallon, it is much higher in octane than gasoline. This gives it greater power and makes it ideal for trucks and machinery. A flexible fuel vehicle allows the use of any mixture, including nearly 100% ethanol. It can also use regular old gasoline.
Develop cars whose engines prefer to use ethanol and can use gasoline, rather than the other way around. Create complimentary electric hybrid engines that prefer ethanol. Hybrid technology simply allows the use of electricity or a liquid fuel as circumstances dictate. Improve this computer technology. Expand the demand, and let the scientists and energy entrepreneurs create the supply.
Enzymatic fuel cells are one of the most environmentally beneficial waves of the battery future. Mining, handling and manufacturing Lithium, Nickel and other battery metals is nasty stuff. Enzymatic fuel cells are essentially batteries that use encapsulated enzymes rather than metals to remove the energy from a fuel. They are exponentially more efficient than any existing battery.
Akermin, Inc. in St. Louis is just one company that has developed such a fuel cell. While Akermin is focused on developing these batteries for electronics, their technology could be adapted for vehicles. GM could accelerate the commercialization of this technology and leap ahead of everyone else.
There are many technologies out there. Set a deadline; the 2011 line of vehicles. Focus the company top to bottom. Invent the car. Convert the plants. Be aggressive and set the new path to the future. Use the Stimulus funds to help make it happen (the President might have some clout in that area).
As GM exits the construction zone, I hope they step hard on the accelerator. I want my investment to pay off some day. Just for perspective, $30,000,000,000 is an investment of $100 for every single human being living in the United States.
Were I the GM leadership I would announce that every car produced in 2011 will be an electric hybrid flexible fuel vehicle with an enzymatic fuel cell. Maybe 2012. Maybe some other innovative standard. Make is audacious – a Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG). Like going to the moon in the 1960s. Drive a stake in the ground and focus the entire company on reaching that goal and do whatever it takes to get there. Set it so that when GM gets there, they have passed everyone else in the race.
The GM leadership (and by that I suppose I mean President Obama at least in part) should buy or license innovative technologies that will make GM world renowned as THE leader in green vehicles. Unleash the creative juices of the engineers, the workforce, the M&A guys, the managers and even the public relations department toward one illustrious goal.
People love to be part of the team who desires with all their heart and throughout the organization to win the World Series and then makes every effort to do what it takes to get there. Only one team will be baseball’s champion, but only those teams who legitimately set that as their goal will have a chance.
Electric cars have much higher horse power than piston engine cars. They are ideal for high performance cars like the Corvette. Sure they have a relatively short range, 40 – 60 miles on a charge, but who drives their Corvette more than that? Power. Speed. Wind in the hair. Hums like a kitten.
While ethanol is somewhat less efficient per gallon, it is much higher in octane than gasoline. This gives it greater power and makes it ideal for trucks and machinery. A flexible fuel vehicle allows the use of any mixture, including nearly 100% ethanol. It can also use regular old gasoline.
Develop cars whose engines prefer to use ethanol and can use gasoline, rather than the other way around. Create complimentary electric hybrid engines that prefer ethanol. Hybrid technology simply allows the use of electricity or a liquid fuel as circumstances dictate. Improve this computer technology. Expand the demand, and let the scientists and energy entrepreneurs create the supply.
Enzymatic fuel cells are one of the most environmentally beneficial waves of the battery future. Mining, handling and manufacturing Lithium, Nickel and other battery metals is nasty stuff. Enzymatic fuel cells are essentially batteries that use encapsulated enzymes rather than metals to remove the energy from a fuel. They are exponentially more efficient than any existing battery.
Akermin, Inc. in St. Louis is just one company that has developed such a fuel cell. While Akermin is focused on developing these batteries for electronics, their technology could be adapted for vehicles. GM could accelerate the commercialization of this technology and leap ahead of everyone else.
There are many technologies out there. Set a deadline; the 2011 line of vehicles. Focus the company top to bottom. Invent the car. Convert the plants. Be aggressive and set the new path to the future. Use the Stimulus funds to help make it happen (the President might have some clout in that area).
As GM exits the construction zone, I hope they step hard on the accelerator. I want my investment to pay off some day. Just for perspective, $30,000,000,000 is an investment of $100 for every single human being living in the United States.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Healthcare: Paying for It
While my brilliant 5-step plan laid out below is certainly the only possible way to go (he said with a wink), there will apparently be some form of significant government sponsored healthcare reform or coverage passed in the relatively near future. No matter what plan is chosen, it will be expensive.
Those who choose an unhealthy lifestyle should pay for this. Rather than taking away choices, we should tax those things that are voluntary and universally recognized as unhealthy for everyone. If my picture does not give it away, I am not a health nut. I am 50 pounds overwieght and adicted to high calorie foods, so I hate this idea. It is nonetheless the right way to go.
The tax should begin relatively small and should be set to automatically rise gradually, but increasingly, over 10 years to a point where the tax causes the bad stuff to be nearly prohibitively expensive. This should be made very clear so that all Americans have 10 years to develop a healthy diet or go broke. By gradually increasing the tax over time people will change their behavior at about the same rate. As a result, the tax should remain about the same as the stubborn pay for their unhealthy lifestyles to the bitter end, and fund the system.
If the government is going to pay for healthcare, then we should do our part. The problem is that we, and by "we" I mean "I," want our double cheeseburgers with Super-sized fries and a chocolate shake. This plan will not eliminate these options. Over ten years it will just make a “Value-Meal” cost $50 instead of $5. McDonald's will adjust.
So what are those things that everyone knows are bad for you?
Tobacco
Calories
That’s it. No one can argue that fewer of these two things will make us healthier and thus reduce health care costs.
Taxing “Calories” allows us to cover all the bad stuff you would otherwise target on its own: Alcohol, sugar, white flour, red meat. Over ten years the producers of these products will develop lower calorie versions that taste great.
- Beer will all be “light” and we will all be used to it.
- Hard liquor will become lower proof (80 to 60 to 40) with better ingredients to retain the taste. Fewer drunks would also reduce healthcare costs.
- Bison will gradually replace some cattle and beef will be leaner.
- We will eat more chicken and fish and maybe Ostrich.
- We already have many versions of substitute 0 calorie sweeteners.
- All soda will become “diet” soda and there will be no such thing as “regular” soda. Zero calorie soda will have no tax.
- Restaurants will serve smaller and healthier portions. Fettuccini Alfredo will either leave menus or be made with lighter milk because the restaurant will be hard pressed to afford the tax on heavy cream.
The key is that it will take ten years. We will adjust gradually. We are innovators. We, the poor, middle class and eventually even the wealthy, will all learn to eat better, providers will sell smaller portions, and food producers will learn to make healthier food. We will adapt and innovate and be able to afford healthcare.
Tobacco: This is easy. Tax it at every stage of production. Seeds to cigarettes. Start with the significant taxes we impose now and gradually raise them over 10 years until a pack of cigarettes is $50 in today’s money. Each year 10% of smokers will quit or not start due to cost alone. In ten years, there will be no remaining tobacco products to purchase. Rehab will be the cheaper alternative.
Calories: This at least seems more difficult, but it really is’nt.
The tax would occur at the point where the US distributor sells to the US retailer, whether the retailer is a restaurant or a grocery store or a farmer’s market. The US distributor may grow the products or purchase the products domestically or overseas. Where they get them is not relevant.
Establishing the tax is also not difficult.
We already rate meat based on how lean it is. The distributor can reduce his tax by trimming it closely. There is probably a simple way to do this that scientists understand.
Produce is pretty easy. Broccoli has a pretty standard number of calories per ounce.
Anything in a box has the calorie count right on the side panel.
Sugary cereals, candy, ice cream, etc will go the Splenda route or become very expensive. Pure perfect ice cream will still exist for really special occasions.
In the beginning the tax will be relatively low. Twice each year it will go up a few percentage points for ten years. It should accelerate as the ten years nears its end. At the end of ten years it will level off at a rate that will seriously dissuade Americans from eating too many calories.
The only exception would be baby food for those under three years old. Babies need calories. Adults do not like baby food, so I doubt this will create a calorie abuse problem.
Combine this with cultural changes we are already working on. Eat less. Exercise. But every medical practitioner will tell you that you lose weight by eating fewer calories, not by exercise alone, though it helps.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Healthcare Crisis: Step 5 – If Needed
Years and years of tradition and entrenched industries will bog down sweeping reforms to the healthcare system. In this series I have suggested that a step by step approach would work, perhaps without getting too far past step 2. You can find steps 1 through 4 below.
Step 1: Remove State regulation. Create one level national set of regulations. Everyone but the States will favor this and it will lower costs and increase options.
Step 2: Allow any group to band together to buy health insurance or set up self-insured plans, inside or outside corporations. Every union, charity, trade association and Chamber of Commerce will favor this one.
Steps 1 and 2 increase supply and lower demand, which will lower prices. They will also reduce costs, allowing for profits at lower prices. There is a good chance that just doing this will significantly decreases costs and prices, increase options and insure nearly everyone who wants insurance. Most important, there is no reason these should not be relatively easily passed AT LOW to NO COST to the government.
Steps 3 and 4 might correct themselves if the above are accomplished. These involve eliminating volume bonuses paid to brokers to sell more of one company’s products. Step 4 is a limitation on malpractice if someone dies or becomes disabled because “extra” tests were not run to save everyone on medical costs.
If, and only if, Steps 1 and 2 (perhaps with 3 and 4) do not solve the problem sufficiently, then we should consider the following:
Government Funded Universal Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage
Any expenses over some significant number, like $200,000, in a year or for one illness or injury (cancer, Alzheimer’s for life), would be covered by the government. This will lower the risks to insurers and will thus lower premiums. Self-funded groups always purchase catastrophic coverage. This would eliminate that expense and lower self-funded costs.
To reduce costs, there would be no malpractice claims permissible against doctors performing work for the government.
There may be only specific doctors who are approved to do this work. A doctor could opt-in and take want the government paid or opt-out and look for private pay clients or cease work on cases above normal insurance levels. As with Medicare now, most will opt-in.
Anyone could opt-out if they want to use another doctor, but that would be a privately paid or insured risk.
Healthcare will remain privately provided. Competition, creativity, self-funded health coverage and professional negotiation by experts hired by the groups will drive insurance prices down. Groups with interests in helping certain people currently uninsured (Charities, Unions, Trade Groups, Hispanic Chamber, NAACP, Urban League, Churches, etc), would drive broader coverage. No State regulations, lower risks in groups, wellness programs in self-funded groups, some protection from lawsuits and ultimately a cap on liability will lower costs.
Just some thought from the peanut gallery. Good luck up there on Capitol Hill. You will need it.
Step 1: Remove State regulation. Create one level national set of regulations. Everyone but the States will favor this and it will lower costs and increase options.
Step 2: Allow any group to band together to buy health insurance or set up self-insured plans, inside or outside corporations. Every union, charity, trade association and Chamber of Commerce will favor this one.
Steps 1 and 2 increase supply and lower demand, which will lower prices. They will also reduce costs, allowing for profits at lower prices. There is a good chance that just doing this will significantly decreases costs and prices, increase options and insure nearly everyone who wants insurance. Most important, there is no reason these should not be relatively easily passed AT LOW to NO COST to the government.
Steps 3 and 4 might correct themselves if the above are accomplished. These involve eliminating volume bonuses paid to brokers to sell more of one company’s products. Step 4 is a limitation on malpractice if someone dies or becomes disabled because “extra” tests were not run to save everyone on medical costs.
If, and only if, Steps 1 and 2 (perhaps with 3 and 4) do not solve the problem sufficiently, then we should consider the following:
Government Funded Universal Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage
Any expenses over some significant number, like $200,000, in a year or for one illness or injury (cancer, Alzheimer’s for life), would be covered by the government. This will lower the risks to insurers and will thus lower premiums. Self-funded groups always purchase catastrophic coverage. This would eliminate that expense and lower self-funded costs.
To reduce costs, there would be no malpractice claims permissible against doctors performing work for the government.
There may be only specific doctors who are approved to do this work. A doctor could opt-in and take want the government paid or opt-out and look for private pay clients or cease work on cases above normal insurance levels. As with Medicare now, most will opt-in.
Anyone could opt-out if they want to use another doctor, but that would be a privately paid or insured risk.
Healthcare will remain privately provided. Competition, creativity, self-funded health coverage and professional negotiation by experts hired by the groups will drive insurance prices down. Groups with interests in helping certain people currently uninsured (Charities, Unions, Trade Groups, Hispanic Chamber, NAACP, Urban League, Churches, etc), would drive broader coverage. No State regulations, lower risks in groups, wellness programs in self-funded groups, some protection from lawsuits and ultimately a cap on liability will lower costs.
Just some thought from the peanut gallery. Good luck up there on Capitol Hill. You will need it.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Healthcare Crisis: Step 4 Malpractice
As we consider how to change healthcare, we might want to try to do this slowly. You can find Steps 1 - 3 below in this blog.
Price is a function of supply and demand. This is true of healthcare and health insurance. Every participant, even the government, must make a profit or at least break even for the system to work. That means that as we increase supply and options in health insurance and work to lower demand, or slow its growth through wellness, we must reduce costs so that providers can make a profit charging lower prices.
Step 1: Remove State regulation. Federal preemptive national regulations will level the playing field. Eliminate oligopolies by large insurers who can afford these regulations, allow innovative players into the market, both of which increases supply.
Step 2: If groups of people can band together to purchase insurance or self insure, using professionals to negotiate and set up the plans, insurance and care will become more efficient and wellness will be encouraged, thus lowering demand.
Step 1 and Step 2 increase supply and lower demand, which will lower prices. They will also reduce costs, allowing for profits at lower prices.
Step 3, commissions and volume bonuses paid to brokers may self-correct once Steps 1 and 2 are undertaken. Larger groups will negotiate better rates using professional insurance consultants, making brokers obsolete. In the short term, commissions and especially volume bonuses create conflicts of interest and impact the rising costs of healthcare.
Step 4: President Obama received promises from health care providers that they will reduce the costs of health care by, in part, lowering the number of extra tests and procedures.
This will only happen if there are no negative ramifications for doing so. If tests are reduced and a person dies or becomes permanently disabled, the plaintiff’s attorney will argue that a simple $2000 test covered by insurance would have uncovered the illness and saved the child. When the plaintiff and the weeping mother win that case for millions, doctors and hospitals will be forced to perform that and any other possibly relevant test again. The costs of the test are far outweighed by the potential costs of litigation. The insurance companies will pay for the tests and costs will skyrocket.
I think that trial attorneys provide a valuable check on incompetence and negligence. That being said, there will have to be some very clear guidelines set that establish what tests are warranted in what circumstances. Those laws and regulations MUST protect healthcare providers against liability if they follow those guidelines. These guidelines can be adjusted over time, but not retroactively.
In a cheaper system, people die or become disabled from unusual diseases that present as normal diseases and require special expensive tests to identify. If we are not going to do these tests routinely, providers cannot be punished when that is not enough.
Governments of the people have a hard time sacrificing a few to reduce the costs of the many, even if it is so that the many can receive a basic level of care they cannot get now, without which even more children die or become disabled. This will be a tough, but necessary decision.
Unfortunately, even if passed the law will last until the first parent goes on national television holding their dead or profoundly disabled child who did not receive that $2000 test that could have saved her. The law will be changed. Healthcare providers will be forced to provide all the extra tests again. Costs will rise.
Price is a function of supply and demand. This is true of healthcare and health insurance. Every participant, even the government, must make a profit or at least break even for the system to work. That means that as we increase supply and options in health insurance and work to lower demand, or slow its growth through wellness, we must reduce costs so that providers can make a profit charging lower prices.
Step 1: Remove State regulation. Federal preemptive national regulations will level the playing field. Eliminate oligopolies by large insurers who can afford these regulations, allow innovative players into the market, both of which increases supply.
Step 2: If groups of people can band together to purchase insurance or self insure, using professionals to negotiate and set up the plans, insurance and care will become more efficient and wellness will be encouraged, thus lowering demand.
Step 1 and Step 2 increase supply and lower demand, which will lower prices. They will also reduce costs, allowing for profits at lower prices.
Step 3, commissions and volume bonuses paid to brokers may self-correct once Steps 1 and 2 are undertaken. Larger groups will negotiate better rates using professional insurance consultants, making brokers obsolete. In the short term, commissions and especially volume bonuses create conflicts of interest and impact the rising costs of healthcare.
Step 4: President Obama received promises from health care providers that they will reduce the costs of health care by, in part, lowering the number of extra tests and procedures.
This will only happen if there are no negative ramifications for doing so. If tests are reduced and a person dies or becomes permanently disabled, the plaintiff’s attorney will argue that a simple $2000 test covered by insurance would have uncovered the illness and saved the child. When the plaintiff and the weeping mother win that case for millions, doctors and hospitals will be forced to perform that and any other possibly relevant test again. The costs of the test are far outweighed by the potential costs of litigation. The insurance companies will pay for the tests and costs will skyrocket.
I think that trial attorneys provide a valuable check on incompetence and negligence. That being said, there will have to be some very clear guidelines set that establish what tests are warranted in what circumstances. Those laws and regulations MUST protect healthcare providers against liability if they follow those guidelines. These guidelines can be adjusted over time, but not retroactively.
In a cheaper system, people die or become disabled from unusual diseases that present as normal diseases and require special expensive tests to identify. If we are not going to do these tests routinely, providers cannot be punished when that is not enough.
Governments of the people have a hard time sacrificing a few to reduce the costs of the many, even if it is so that the many can receive a basic level of care they cannot get now, without which even more children die or become disabled. This will be a tough, but necessary decision.
Unfortunately, even if passed the law will last until the first parent goes on national television holding their dead or profoundly disabled child who did not receive that $2000 test that could have saved her. The law will be changed. Healthcare providers will be forced to provide all the extra tests again. Costs will rise.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Healthcare Crisis: Step 3 Insurance Brokers
This week the country is beginning to create a new health care policy. A broad sweeping change is something that may be desired, but is nearly impossible to either accomplish or do well. I am proposing a multi-baby-step process to resolve the healthcare crisis. You can find steps 1 and 2 below.
The over-arching goal of these thoughts is to create a national, highly competitive market for health insurance where there are many sellers with many options creating growing supply and sophisticated buyers making wise healthcare and insurance decisions, all of which will drive health care costs down more than any government plan.
Step 1 (Tuesday): Remove State regulation. Eliminate oligopolies by the large insurers who can afford these regulations. Allow innovative players in. Create more options and lower costs. There should be one, unified federal set of regulations that applies to all insurers and plans. One layer. One level playing field.
Step 2 (Wednesday): Allow groups of people to band together, local or national, employees, companies, unions, associations, charities, or new groups set up precisely to negotiate, purchase or develop health insurance plans, including self-funded plans which are optimal.
Step 1 and Step 2 alone will dramatically reduce healthcare costs within the federal government’s universal regulatory regime.
Step 3 has to do with how insurance brokers are compensated. Currently the insurance companies pay brokers a commission to sell their policies. This encourages brokers to encourage the highest cost option. The broker has a clear conflict of interest.
Far more troubling is the bonus practice. At the end of each year, insurance companies pay substantial bonuses to insurance brokerage firms for selling large volumes in their products. This encourages brokers to guide customers toward the firm that will pay the largest bonus, rather than to the one that may be best for the buyer.
I personally witnessed a proposal by a prominent brokerage firm presenting four options. United Healthcare was the preferred provider of this firm. If they focused on driving their clients in that direction they make the largest possible bonus at year’s end. Of course United Healthcare’s quote for the coverage was lowest.
We independently ascertained the real quotes from the other three providers. One was higher than United, but both of the others were actually lower for the same coverage. The broker intentionally marked up the quotes to make sure United Healthcare was the lowest option.
Theoretically the market should correct for this. The victims in this case were relatively small firms with limited resources trying to do the right thing by providing coverage for their employees. The broker was a friend of the head of HR who secured the quotes. These bonuses, at a minimum, should be outlawed.
These issues may correct themselves once Steps 1 and 2 are undertaken. Larger groups will negotiate better rates using professional insurance consultants and making brokers obsolete. Nonetheless, the bonuses are a factor in the rising costs of healthcare.
The over-arching goal of these thoughts is to create a national, highly competitive market for health insurance where there are many sellers with many options creating growing supply and sophisticated buyers making wise healthcare and insurance decisions, all of which will drive health care costs down more than any government plan.
Step 1 (Tuesday): Remove State regulation. Eliminate oligopolies by the large insurers who can afford these regulations. Allow innovative players in. Create more options and lower costs. There should be one, unified federal set of regulations that applies to all insurers and plans. One layer. One level playing field.
Step 2 (Wednesday): Allow groups of people to band together, local or national, employees, companies, unions, associations, charities, or new groups set up precisely to negotiate, purchase or develop health insurance plans, including self-funded plans which are optimal.
Step 1 and Step 2 alone will dramatically reduce healthcare costs within the federal government’s universal regulatory regime.
Step 3 has to do with how insurance brokers are compensated. Currently the insurance companies pay brokers a commission to sell their policies. This encourages brokers to encourage the highest cost option. The broker has a clear conflict of interest.
Far more troubling is the bonus practice. At the end of each year, insurance companies pay substantial bonuses to insurance brokerage firms for selling large volumes in their products. This encourages brokers to guide customers toward the firm that will pay the largest bonus, rather than to the one that may be best for the buyer.
I personally witnessed a proposal by a prominent brokerage firm presenting four options. United Healthcare was the preferred provider of this firm. If they focused on driving their clients in that direction they make the largest possible bonus at year’s end. Of course United Healthcare’s quote for the coverage was lowest.
We independently ascertained the real quotes from the other three providers. One was higher than United, but both of the others were actually lower for the same coverage. The broker intentionally marked up the quotes to make sure United Healthcare was the lowest option.
Theoretically the market should correct for this. The victims in this case were relatively small firms with limited resources trying to do the right thing by providing coverage for their employees. The broker was a friend of the head of HR who secured the quotes. These bonuses, at a minimum, should be outlawed.
These issues may correct themselves once Steps 1 and 2 are undertaken. Larger groups will negotiate better rates using professional insurance consultants and making brokers obsolete. Nonetheless, the bonuses are a factor in the rising costs of healthcare.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Healthcare Crisis: Step 2 Let People Unite
Yesterday I proposed a multi-baby-step process to resolve the healthcare crisis.
Step 1, in yesterday’s post, is to get the State governments out of the mix thus reducing layers of regulation, oligopolies by the large insurers who can afford these regulations and thus allowing smaller innovative players to get into the mix and create both options and lower costs.
Step 2 would be to allow any group of people to band together as an insured group. Let the people work this out. Any groups would be allowed and encouraged, whether employees in a corporation or several corporations, members of a union or association of any kind (e.g., AARP), those helped by a charity, trade associations, industry groups, etc. The group could be set up precisely to purchase health insurance.
Groups could be local or national. Since Step 1 is completed, this is not an overly burdensome proposition.
The groups would be able to hire a professional health insurance negotiator. This person would help the organization decide how to create the best possible insurance solution given the nature of the group. Perhaps self-insurance with a Third party Administrator and catastrophic coverage above a significant cap. Self-insurance drives wellness because the group saves money if claims are lower than anticipated. Self-insurance allows for greater consumer-driven healthcare because again, lower healthcare costs benefits the group.
In other scenarios the group might be better off buying insurance from an existing provider, or perhaps a combination of providers. The group will decide what is provided and at what deductibles and co-payments. Chiropractic care? Psychiatric or psychological treatment?
Almost everyone will have a choice. There will be an affordable option for everyone. People will get creative. People will find their best personal solution. Groups will grow and change as demand changes. If there are holes in the system at this point, the government can look at next steps.
Most important, increased competition will drive costs down. Increased professionalism in developing and negotiating healthcare coverage will drive costs down and options up.
Step 1 and Step 2 alone will dramatically reduce healthcare costs within the federal government’s universal regulatory regime.
Step 1, in yesterday’s post, is to get the State governments out of the mix thus reducing layers of regulation, oligopolies by the large insurers who can afford these regulations and thus allowing smaller innovative players to get into the mix and create both options and lower costs.
Step 2 would be to allow any group of people to band together as an insured group. Let the people work this out. Any groups would be allowed and encouraged, whether employees in a corporation or several corporations, members of a union or association of any kind (e.g., AARP), those helped by a charity, trade associations, industry groups, etc. The group could be set up precisely to purchase health insurance.
Groups could be local or national. Since Step 1 is completed, this is not an overly burdensome proposition.
The groups would be able to hire a professional health insurance negotiator. This person would help the organization decide how to create the best possible insurance solution given the nature of the group. Perhaps self-insurance with a Third party Administrator and catastrophic coverage above a significant cap. Self-insurance drives wellness because the group saves money if claims are lower than anticipated. Self-insurance allows for greater consumer-driven healthcare because again, lower healthcare costs benefits the group.
In other scenarios the group might be better off buying insurance from an existing provider, or perhaps a combination of providers. The group will decide what is provided and at what deductibles and co-payments. Chiropractic care? Psychiatric or psychological treatment?
Almost everyone will have a choice. There will be an affordable option for everyone. People will get creative. People will find their best personal solution. Groups will grow and change as demand changes. If there are holes in the system at this point, the government can look at next steps.
Most important, increased competition will drive costs down. Increased professionalism in developing and negotiating healthcare coverage will drive costs down and options up.
Step 1 and Step 2 alone will dramatically reduce healthcare costs within the federal government’s universal regulatory regime.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Healthcare Crisis: Step 1 Get the States Out
The government is beginning again on its long and to date ill-fated trek into the world of healthcare. We have all heard the cries about rising costs, the aging population and millions of uninsured. The task is daunting and I like the consensus building that President Obama is beginning prior to crafting an ultimate strategy.
Competition has a bad name these days, but it is what drives efficiencies and costs reductions more aggressively than any other factor. Right now, State by State regulation of health insurers prevents open competition in many parts of our country.
These regulations require separate corporate entities in each state, differing reuired coverages, and layers of fees, costs, rules and regulations. Each State adds layers of costs to every insurer. Most important, however, State regulations help prevent smaller players with innovative ideas from getting started. The State-by-State regulatory gauntlet is too great a barrier to entry into the markets.
Unlike the past, nearly all companies are multi-state. Most, even the smallest producers and service providers, are national or international in scope. State control is no longer relevant.
If we want to really make headway in crafting a strategy, we should take baby steps.
Step One should be to nationalize regulation of the health insurance industry, pre-empting the separate regulations of the States. This would open competition, reduce costs and expand options for everyone.
Competition has a bad name these days, but it is what drives efficiencies and costs reductions more aggressively than any other factor. Right now, State by State regulation of health insurers prevents open competition in many parts of our country.
These regulations require separate corporate entities in each state, differing reuired coverages, and layers of fees, costs, rules and regulations. Each State adds layers of costs to every insurer. Most important, however, State regulations help prevent smaller players with innovative ideas from getting started. The State-by-State regulatory gauntlet is too great a barrier to entry into the markets.
Unlike the past, nearly all companies are multi-state. Most, even the smallest producers and service providers, are national or international in scope. State control is no longer relevant.
If we want to really make headway in crafting a strategy, we should take baby steps.
Step One should be to nationalize regulation of the health insurance industry, pre-empting the separate regulations of the States. This would open competition, reduce costs and expand options for everyone.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Obama: Making Things Hard on Moderate Bloggers
There are some who believe that the very concept of “moderate blogger” is some sort of oxymoron, or that anyone who would categorize themselves in that manner must just be morons. Bloggers are supposed to be hard core ideologues. How can a fence walking moderate blog? What do we stand for? Well we find the correct answers amidst the rhetoric and we take a “good for the country” stand.
For the hard right wing conservative bloggers, Obama is gold. Lots of spending and tax increases, or at least the ability to make those claims.
For the left wing liberal socialist bloggers, Obama is tricky, but there are plenty of compromises being made to the hard left agenda for these folks to write for hours. Tax cuts, delays in raising taxes on the wealthy, taking longer to get out of Iraq, adding troops to Afghanistan, etc.
Bloggers do not make any money doing this, no matter how wonderful we may be. So to sit down and write, we have to find a passionate reaction to the message or actions of those claiming power.
As I look at Obama from the view of a moderate, I see a leader of the people who understands the importance of US business. He is being hard core and making both change their ways. From the standpoint of a historically Republican leaning moderate, he seems pretty balanced. I find it makes sense to wait and see how this all works itself out.
Sure the Stimulus Package was huge and only three Republicans voted for it. Here is what I think happened. The House passed a plan. The Senate argued and postured and then passed a plan. All the while Obama and Emanuel were crafting the final plan with Democrat and Republican leaders and moderates. Notice that the two plans were sent to committee and the settlement plan came out in about five minutes and did not look anything like either plan. Rahm Emanuel brought the real plan to the committee and said, “This is the settlement plan. The Republicans have agreed to give us the three votes we need if we send this plan out there.” Pelosi balked and Rahm stared her down. The Republicans nodded knowing they were not the three chosen to vote yes. The bill, a truly bi-partisan heavily negotiated bill passed. Obama got his bill and Republican leadership and Rush Limbaugh got their deniability. Everyone wins. How can we argue with that?
It is clear to me that he is going to do anything possible not to give away the rest of the TARP or auto-bailout money. Reduce executives’ pay, pass the stress test, show me more lending, develop a detailed business plan, build more green cars, jump through this hoop and that one and only then will we consider giving you more cash. If you make it, it is a good investment and perhaps private capital will become available. If not, oh well we tried. As a moderate, how can we argue with that?
Internationally, he has set the tone on the wars. We will get out of combat in Iraq, but we will not abandon them as prior US presidents have done to countries around the world, including Afghanistan. We will, however, get out of their politics and let them run their own country.
We are going to establish a clear mission in Afghanistan. As that is being determined by military, diplomatic and economic geniuses, he is stabilizing and supporting our current troops with new ones so that they are safer in a dangerous place. What President Obama is doing sure makes a lot of sense.
I support his overtures to begin diplomatic talks with all nations, including Iran, Syria and even Cuba. Nothing cures hostilities like mutual commercial reliance, a capitalist Republican philosophy. That said, he has been strong in the face of missile testing by the North Koreans. The “Axis of Evil” was flatly stupid and while it rallied a certain base for a struggling President Bush, it was not good global politics. The world already seems to like us more. That cannot be all bad.
There are many issues, but what I see is a true leader who articulates clearly and concisely in ways we can all understand and who is not afraid to stand up tall and talk to anyone about any plan. He has gathered great minds around him. He does not ask them to dream something up. He listens carefully to all sides, then, as a leader should, he makes an executive decision and tells the experts to figure out how to accomplish a result by a deadline in a bi-partisan manner. He does not act rashly without all the facts. His decisions are based on logical reasoning. But he is not lost in the facts. He steps up to the plate and makes the hard decisions that leaders must.
It is not really fair to the moderate blogger or the comedians for that matter. We are all struggling out here trying to find an edge. I am proud of our President and unlike some pundits want him to succeed, but he sure is not making my avocation very easy.
For the hard right wing conservative bloggers, Obama is gold. Lots of spending and tax increases, or at least the ability to make those claims.
For the left wing liberal socialist bloggers, Obama is tricky, but there are plenty of compromises being made to the hard left agenda for these folks to write for hours. Tax cuts, delays in raising taxes on the wealthy, taking longer to get out of Iraq, adding troops to Afghanistan, etc.
Bloggers do not make any money doing this, no matter how wonderful we may be. So to sit down and write, we have to find a passionate reaction to the message or actions of those claiming power.
As I look at Obama from the view of a moderate, I see a leader of the people who understands the importance of US business. He is being hard core and making both change their ways. From the standpoint of a historically Republican leaning moderate, he seems pretty balanced. I find it makes sense to wait and see how this all works itself out.
Sure the Stimulus Package was huge and only three Republicans voted for it. Here is what I think happened. The House passed a plan. The Senate argued and postured and then passed a plan. All the while Obama and Emanuel were crafting the final plan with Democrat and Republican leaders and moderates. Notice that the two plans were sent to committee and the settlement plan came out in about five minutes and did not look anything like either plan. Rahm Emanuel brought the real plan to the committee and said, “This is the settlement plan. The Republicans have agreed to give us the three votes we need if we send this plan out there.” Pelosi balked and Rahm stared her down. The Republicans nodded knowing they were not the three chosen to vote yes. The bill, a truly bi-partisan heavily negotiated bill passed. Obama got his bill and Republican leadership and Rush Limbaugh got their deniability. Everyone wins. How can we argue with that?
It is clear to me that he is going to do anything possible not to give away the rest of the TARP or auto-bailout money. Reduce executives’ pay, pass the stress test, show me more lending, develop a detailed business plan, build more green cars, jump through this hoop and that one and only then will we consider giving you more cash. If you make it, it is a good investment and perhaps private capital will become available. If not, oh well we tried. As a moderate, how can we argue with that?
Internationally, he has set the tone on the wars. We will get out of combat in Iraq, but we will not abandon them as prior US presidents have done to countries around the world, including Afghanistan. We will, however, get out of their politics and let them run their own country.
We are going to establish a clear mission in Afghanistan. As that is being determined by military, diplomatic and economic geniuses, he is stabilizing and supporting our current troops with new ones so that they are safer in a dangerous place. What President Obama is doing sure makes a lot of sense.
I support his overtures to begin diplomatic talks with all nations, including Iran, Syria and even Cuba. Nothing cures hostilities like mutual commercial reliance, a capitalist Republican philosophy. That said, he has been strong in the face of missile testing by the North Koreans. The “Axis of Evil” was flatly stupid and while it rallied a certain base for a struggling President Bush, it was not good global politics. The world already seems to like us more. That cannot be all bad.
There are many issues, but what I see is a true leader who articulates clearly and concisely in ways we can all understand and who is not afraid to stand up tall and talk to anyone about any plan. He has gathered great minds around him. He does not ask them to dream something up. He listens carefully to all sides, then, as a leader should, he makes an executive decision and tells the experts to figure out how to accomplish a result by a deadline in a bi-partisan manner. He does not act rashly without all the facts. His decisions are based on logical reasoning. But he is not lost in the facts. He steps up to the plate and makes the hard decisions that leaders must.
It is not really fair to the moderate blogger or the comedians for that matter. We are all struggling out here trying to find an edge. I am proud of our President and unlike some pundits want him to succeed, but he sure is not making my avocation very easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)