Down on Petrol, but from a Different Angle Today

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10252015

I realize that I have been rather prolific lately, and as you saw on yesterday’s post concerning the CAFE Standards and Monday’s on Petrol, I have a big issue with our lack of conservation in policy. Reading the Economist, above I posted the link, they have written about something I was talking about with a Gold Market expert a few months in arrears. Quite simply, we are driving ourselves to starvation. A lack of fuel economy and a thirst for larger automobiles predicated from bad policy in Washington, is consuming all of the commodities in the world at a faster rate.

Seriously, if one were to sample the aggregate for all commodities’ pricing, if I was an Economist I would; they would find a substantive increase in the market price for commodities. Some of the commodities are the likes of Gold, because in a tumultuous world, Gold is a safer bet than currency or bonds for longevity. Of course, with resources being finite, and our population ever-expanding, the commodities like ore are shooting through the roof as well. What’s just as interesting are rights and ownership pertaining to water, which we should watch in the coming elections. Then, of course, there is petroleum.

Quite simply, we have a finite pool of resources in the world, and we have an ever-increasing population with needs for them. The areas to right now invest are the commodities, particularly if one is moving for longevity. Those companies in the business of extracting these things are only going to grow. In the meantime, we need to do a much better job of reducing demand for this pool of supplies, all of which are only growing more limited.

This is not a granola-loving tree-hugging perspective. I can’t get on my high-horse about environmentalism with a clear conscious; I am by no means a model member of the Sierra Club or Greenpeace; however, from an Economic perspective, I don’t like paying more for everything. Not only are peoples’ lives throughout the world affected by this short term greed, but, in the long term, our way of life is in jeopardy. With resources growing more and more limited, we only have more war to look forward to, more likely than not, these wars we will fight over indirect dependency on a region’s commodities.

It is unquestionable as to why we have such a vested interest in the Middle East to date. Quite simply, by limiting our demand for finite resources, we remove ourselves and our society from indentured servitude to our interests elsewhere in the world. In the meantime, as a society, we will continue putting our values and freedom on the block to sustain material needs, which are solely predicated off what the Jones’s have and our lust for what marketers tell us we want.

The Visible White Undershirt – The Male Panty-line

Gentlemen,

This is an appeal, much in the same way women said something to their friends about the use of thongs underneath tighter pants twenty-some years ago. Quite simply, if you are not wearing a tie and buttoning the top button of your shirt, please don’t wear a crew neck t-shirt underneath your shirt. If you would like to wear an undershirt, please don’t hesitate to go with a tank-top, or you can come to the dark-side of the MattyJ-force, throwing on a v-neck-t.

By no means am I advocating one not wearing an under-shirt. If one happens to perspire, or they are too much man for the thin material of their shirt, please wear something. I am simply saying that the crew-neck bordering your neck, underneath your golf-shirt or oxford looks more unkempt; moreover, my guess is that those with hom you are trying to impress will be less so.

I am saying this as a friend. Sure, you may have busted my chops, or given me grief in the past, if you saw me walking around, let’s say Frat-days, in a crusty white v-neck. You were right to do so; however, don’t be scared to throw on that v-neck if you aren’t wearing a tie. Otherwise, you are throwing ground balls…


Ladies,

Please feel free to comment.

In Addendum to My Post on Petroleum

I wanted to post today noting that I have added an addendum to my post from Monday on Petroleum. There has been a lot of news concerning CAFE, and it speaks quite directly to about what I wrote. You can see the link: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10249454&fsrc=nwl following my addendum. We will see Bush veto this, I am quite sure. Bush is more or less a lame duck, and this runs contrary to his positions on Economy, Environmentalism and Petroleum. Alas, there is always next year.

Trading Skyscrapers for Mountains - Aesthetics and Relativity

One month ago, I would stand up in my desk, and peer out over the Chicago River, seeing a mix of high rise buildings of downtown Chicago’s Loop. Right now, I stand up in my desk, peering North of Boise a bit, and I see the foothills North of Boise. There is something to be said for the aesthetic of the West and the “Golden Hours” here in the West. “Golden Hour,” as I understand the expression, is a phrase spawned from cinematography. I know Terrence Malik prefers only to film during “Golden Hour” as the light works best with the cameras. If one were to Wikipedia “Golden Hour” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_%28photography%29), they would find that these hours are the first following dawn and the last prior to dusk.

With work, I have been getting here prior to sunrise, and leaving just following sunset. From my desk, when I stand, I see the “foothills,” I think in the Midwest we would call these “foothills” “small mountains,” diffused of light cascading and undulating around the rises and falls of the land. This is the scene I get from my office these days. I reckon that it has more to do with where one is at with their life. I say that, in that many think the idea of a massive city is about as beautiful as it gets. Chicago, like London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney or Dubai, is known for its skyline and its aesthetic predicated off of its landmarks. I am quite certain that there is a twenty-two-year-old recent graduate from a Big Ten University who awakens in the morning thinking the same thing about the Loop, and how they are so excited to be in the “big city” away from their small farm town in some Midwestern state.

I guess at the net of it, that is one thing we can say about ourselves, aesthetics and their appreciation is something entirely relative. This relativity is predicated from personal experience, education and desensitization. I don’t think I am espousing anything we have all thought before, but methinks it takes a phase of change and transformation to appreciate these things.

Social Stratification and Boise – Moving away from the Plethora of Ghettos

I am absolutely enjoying life here in Boise, and it has me thinking a lot about the broader spectrum of life than the atmosphere of life I was experiencing while living in Chicago. Provided the size of Chicago, there is no question there aren’t more elements or dimensions to life; however, having lived in several cities, in different regions, I can say one thing: “the more medium-sized a city is, the easier it is to find a broader spectrum of life.”

In retrospect, I find I am getting more to life’s dimensions here in Boise than I was in the much larger Chicago. I realize this is fairly abstract, but a great way to ponder is for one take a step back and look at her or his life in college. I say that because, if one were to go back and look at their lifestyle in a big university, and from this context, odds are good they would find the following bits of reality. One, they would find quick social stratification, kids coming from money hanging around others with money. This was especially true in the Greek system, where wealthier young women or men would tend to be drawn to the same sororities or fraternities.

In another way, because these groups of students are arriving at a large state school, coming from various backgrounds, those coming from especially strong High Schools were afforded the opportunity to place higher in classes right on the front-end. I can continue to spell out such examples, but rather than doing that, I will assume my point is made. The net of it is that we are a collegial species. We form groups or clubs, and rise up a barrier of entry, whether we do it consciously or not. If we aren’t consciously working to do so, more often than not, we are doing so subconsciously, or we are simply joining on with others of the same mindset or body of experience.

A classic example of this was how, in going to a large public state institution, we had lots of different ethnicities, but more often than not, kids of the same ethnicity would socialize together. The same applies to cities and life outside of one going to a Division I university; they are analogs.

I say that, because I assume that if one went to a small Liberal Arts College, because of size constraints, more often than not, their classes would place them in a broader mix of socio-economic varieties. With that, in the same way, I feel as though being in Boise is providing me the same broad variety of experience I was more accustomed to in primary and secondary school than I was at the University of Illinois to now. The one exception in that arc, of course, was living and working in Memphis.

In Memphis, because of the composition of economic class and ethnicities, at the office I was more than likely going to see and interact with folks of many different persuasions, pertaining to socio-economic categorization. Upon moving to Chicago, I relegated myself rather continuously to ghettos of young, largely Caucasian, affluent ghettos. By that, while living in Chicago, I lived in the West Loop, River North, Old Town and Lincoln Park. If one were to take a random sampling of the demographics of those neighborhoods, undoubtedly, they would find neighborhoods full of aspiring eighteen-to-thirty-five white folks. That is not to say that is always the case, but by percentage, I am going to argue I am more correct than not. In working for a smaller firm, leaving a more ethnically diverse large company with many people making the spectrum of incomes, I relegated myself further to one more ghetto. That is not to say that there weren’t more working class ethnically diverse folks working at company two, but it was so small there weren’t too many in all directions. In short, if work was where I was finding diversity, then the second employer in Chicago wasn’t the place to find it.

Now, I am in Boise. I cannot say there is a plethora of varying ethnicities here in Boise, as it is a largely Caucasoid population; however, there is more variety in economic status here than there was for me in Chicago. That is the trick, I surmise, by positioning self in a smaller city is more than less likely that they will be confronted with a wider variety of economic stratification. That is not to say we, or I for that matter, still don’t relegate and ghettoize ourselves wherever we go. I would argue we inadvertently do; however, being somewhere smaller allows more heterogeneity in people and experience. It’s something for one to consider, I suppose.

Real Pricing for Petroleum and Our Growing Up

Thinking about the environment and greenhouse gasses, it’s hard not to meditate on large gas-guzzling autos that we drive. I know people all over the world drive automobiles that are environmentally less-than-friendly, but in some places, I feel as though there is more of a justification than what we have here in the States. Quite simply, because of the political-economic infrastructure and our two political parties’ electoral/funding interests we perpetuate bad policies, which are short-sighted and strategically repugnant.

Please let me take a minute to restate my thesis statement. The difference between strategy and tactics is simple: tactics are concerned with the next move, as a reaction to the most recent change; whereas, strategy is composing a long-term goal, and making continuous decisions with that goal’s accomplishment continuously in mind. Why I say our two parties make “strategically repugnant” decisions is that the votes for continued subsidization of oversized vehicles and the subsidization of the fuel to allow for them is a short sighted goal promulgated in favor of their respective constituencies, not thinking of the bigger picture.

Let’s say one is a Democratic politician, they vote for gas subsidization or against taxes that would constrain growth in the gas-guzzling SUV market. I know; I know; Democrats are the more environmentally friendly of the two political parties, right? Why do they take positions contrary to ecological ethics? It’s simpler than one might suspect, it all rests in Big Labor. That’s right, the UAW and the Teamsters have a vested interest in making sure that gas prices stay as controlled as possible, which is why the Democrats continue keeping gas reserves as consistent as possible. Further, because of the UAW, they work to keep Detroit making the SUVs. They have since the late 1990s. Why? The SUVs are beloved by the UAW, because they keep Detroit progressing with success and profitability, which keeps jobs plentiful and keeps unemployment low.

From the contrary, the Republicans vote for gas subsidization and against taxes to appease their constituency, but from an opposite position or at least for different constituency. The GOP, like the Dems, greatly benefits from a robust and strong Detroit. This is true, mostly because happy Detroit keeps Wall Street happy, and it keeps the Economy moving from all areas. From an economic perspective, the GOP and Dems have the same set of interests, but for the GOP it is in that their constituency’s income is either from Big Oil or is predicated from investment in supporting industries and general commodity growth. From a more base and vain perspective the culture of the McMansion, which includes an oversized “keeping-up-with-the-Jones’s SUV” as a birthright, is sitting firmly in the GOP constituency.

Therefore, with both sides of the US political dichotomy taking the same position, what is my problem? Clearly, if two opposites agree, there must be something okay with it? Sure, sure there is nothing wrong with economic growth, I certainly appreciate it, but let’s not grow so artificially. In short, if one were raising a high school kid, and saw their child taking steroids, they would force them to reconsider, and grow healthily. Quite simply, I don’t want to see the economy suffer, but there has to be a better way to continue to grow with a dependency on oil, but do so reducing that dependency.

We all know oil is the root cause of a great deal of turmoil in the Middle East, and it keeps our interests there consistently. In addition, it is not helping our stewardship of the Earth, forcing us down a road of extinction. Why don’t we slowly and surely change our policy, in a gradual way such that our economic interests would not be destroyed? Quite simply, we integrate more efficient platforms and new technologies which reduce our demand for petroleum. In addition, we subsidize conservation rather than massive trucks that look good going from the suburbs to the mall. We do so, letting the markets no very publicly, so there are no surprises. As we reduce demand, our amount of money going to keeping oil prices stable (i.e. the strategic oil reserve) is reduced; moreover, we will spend less money, time and lives fighting wars to preserve our interests in the Middle East. The UAW could get behind this, as their laborers can keep their jobs building more fuel efficient autos, and they can grow into the new areas. It wouldn’t be any easy row to ho, but it would be more long-term than what we are pursuing right now. It is just time we outgrew our bad policies and positions.

An addendum to this post, posted on Monday, the news concerning CAFE. You can read more on this at The Economist, or via any other news source. It's a step in the right direction, but it's just a step. The Economist's link: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10249454&fsrc=nwl

Cheap American Labor

Having worked for a company based out of another country, while working there I thought a lot about what it involves to be an American at work. As I wrote this sentence, I googled "productivity index." If one goes to the bls.gov, they will find the productivity index for the US. Further, if one goes to an economic journal, like The Economist, they can find that information against other countries (OECD). Quite simply, the US is the standard for productivity. To be fair, it should, but is not always, be weighted for hours worked, which means that simply because we work more hours than the French does not necessarily mean we are more productive, per se.

That said, thinking about productivity and the US against other countries, I have some thoughts. First, the US is the global barometer for Productivity; we are 100/100. With that, and thinking about colleagues in other countries, I think about what a US employee of a global firm receives in vacation vs. their colleagues in the EU, or elsewhere. Certainly, there are those in the developing world that have it more difficult than we do, and that work very hard for paltry wages. Yet, when I think of the EU and the US, sometimes I think, do executives in the EU not think the same way of the US that we do of places like Sri Lanka or Malaysia?

As Americans, we are cheaper as employees. In an exempt salaried position, an American will work more hours and have less vacation. Moreover, if one wants to lay off hundreds or thousands, in the US it is not so difficult. Rather than have one's firm suffer a surplus of labor not having demand to fulfill, a US employer can simply lay-off resource to meet the demand. Of course, there are reasons for the US having a more liberal economy, allowing for such corporate prerogative, but we should see benefits, right?

I say that, because one, as I am sure many, take the position that the US without inhibitions on companies has a more thriving economy than more constrained economies. One could say that, and they could show statistics from the past to help support that; however, the US economy, against the EU's or APAC's, is not carrying the standard. Rather than our bearing both the standard for labor productivity and economic success, we are working more hours, having less vacation, and we have less to show for it.

I have nothing to personally complain about on the subject, but looking at folks all over it is hard not to question the state of affairs. Just thinking about what we have compared to what we don't have respective of quality of life (e.g. family, leisure or health), those things make me think that our culture has somewhat missed the boat.