Manuel Acuna's Wonderful Poem

Here are some lines from Manuel Acuna's "Before a Corpse":

...for out of nothingness we are not born,
and into nothingness we do not die.

Existence is a circle, and we err
when we assign it for measurement
the limits of the cradle and the grave.

The grave holds nothing but a skeleton;
and life within this mortuary vault
continues secretly to find its substance.

Beautiful, isn't it? The entire poem can be found here.

For whatever reason, it reminds me of John Donne's "Death Be Not Proud."

Intel Stock

At these levels, I am a buyer of Intel (INTC) stock. You can pick up shares now for around 13.24/share. I realize Intel is reporting earnings on January 15, 2009, but Intel already warned the street that earnings would be below expectations. Unless things have changed substantially in the last week, it's hard to see any surprises happening tomorrow. No surprises is usually good for a company's stock price. Intel appears to have around 10 billion dollars in net cash, and its 4% dividend may prevent a deep slide in its stock price. On the other hand, options contracts relating to Intel stock expire on January 16, 2009, so expect short-term volatility.

Update: two analysts disagree with me--they have price targets of 11.50 and 10 dollars. Intel closed trading today at 13.08/share.

Disclosure: I own Intel shares and recently bought more Intel shares.

The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.

Public Pensions: Rotting from Within

With all the talk about earnings per share and future profits, it's easy to forget that a country's stock market won't experience a bull market if the country spends more than it collects. This is the basic law of business, and it doesn't change just because government is involved. One area that needs a closer look is public pensions.

Pension Tsunami is a website about public pensions, and it's definitely worth a look. Here is one recent article on San Jose public pensions, focusing on police officers and firefighters. (The San Jose Mercury article contains the chart posted above.)

Most people respect police officers and other public safety workers, but there is no reason for any public worker to receive more benefits and a higher salary than the average private sector worker. When government employees receive higher salaries and benefits than private sector employees, private citizens end up protecting and serving the government--an odd reversal. This is because private sector taxes and IOUs (bonds) are used to finance government expenditures, and those monies come from the private sector. If there is an imbalance, government will have to run up deficits to keep paying itself, creating an imbalance that will devalue the currency (due to the need to print more money to pay for the higher-than-normal benefits) or cause inflation. Thus, whenever the people work to serve the government instead of the other way around, fiscal responsibility will not exist.

There's also the small matter that America was created so private citizens would not have to kowtow to kings or an insulated, domineering government. In short, American government was designed to serve non-government citizens. America's founders would probably disapprove of a political system where people work primarily to serve and pay their government.

Even though the evidence favors treating government workers no better than private workers, it will take a massive paradigm shift to educate the public about the danger of excessive government spending/benefits.

First, television glorifies police officers, D.A.s, and other government workers, while accountants and small businesses don't get any airtime. I still remember my CHiPs costume when I was a kid--but I don't remember seeing any bank teller or taxi driver costumes on Halloween. When the average American watches hours of television, public sector workers have an advantage because they are portrayed as more important than private sector workers--even though it's the private sector workers who are footing the bill.

Second, most of the people teaching our children are government workers. As a result, most students spend eighteen years in a system that has no incentive to educate them about the true costs of excessive government spending and exclusive government benefits. This systemic education failure not only aggrandizes teachers' unions, who have no incentive to reform themselves, but also creates a class divide. Rich people tend to send their children to private schools rather than public schools. In addition, many top government workers, including President-Elect Obama, send their children to private schools. When the children of the middle class and poor spend eighteen years in a different system than the children of the rich, class conflict is virtually guaranteed.

This is why allowing parents to have the option of charter schools is so important. With charter schools, public schools have competition--which usually improves performance--and public schools no longer have a monopoly on education. In general, the public opposes monopolies, knowing they typically produce less innovation and high performance; however, when it comes to charter schools, much of the public is against them. This is surprising, because vouchers are the easiest way the middle-class and poor can escape the monopoly of public schools. When the public views teachers' unions as the Microsofts of education and charter schools as the Googles of education, change will happen.

There are simple ways to resolve the problem of entrenched government. One, require all government workers to have medical and retirement benefits only available to private workers. If a 401(k) is good enough for private sector doctors and lawyers, why do D.A.s and teacher get better retirement benefits in the form of guaranteed pensions? If the average private sector worker doesn't get lifetime medical benefits, why should government workers get such an expensive benefit? (By the way, if we actually equalized medical benefits, all Americans would probably get subsidized healthcare coverage.) When government workers have to use the same services as the public, they have more information about how the average person lives and more of an incentive to fix problems.

Two, institute term limits for all government workers. If we have term limits for the president and other representatives, why allow lifetime jobs for other government workers? A reasonable term limit would be 10 to 15 years. After this time period, a government worker could not go into any other government position and would have to earn his keep in the private sector. The knowledge that a government job is not a lifetime position would incentivize the government worker to improve his/her skills for the inevitable day when s/he applies for a non-taxpayer-subsidized position.

In addition, the turnover would be beneficial to the younger population, who could learn significant job skills through government work and then use those skills in the private sector. It would be like having a government-funded apprenticeship, where future leaders would be trained by experienced government workers to serve the public. Experienced government workers would begin training the new crop of workers from Year 13 to Year 15.

Doing it this way, government would be a non-fossilized place. This moderate turnover (as opposed to almost non-existent turnover) would allow new ideas to flourish in government. It is true we would lose skilled government workers to the private sector, but the key is to train newer workers to ensure a consistent stream of skilled government workers.

In the end, if America wants another bull market, it needs to return to budget surpluses. Demanding that our government not spend more than it collects is one way Americans can help get our country back on track.

More on public pensions here.

2006 Interview with Milton Friedman

I just saw this excellent Imprimis interview with Milton Friedman. It took place in 2006, but the issues Mr. Friedman discusses are relevant today. He talks about reforming the Middle East, reforming medical care (which he calls a "socialist-communist system"), and extending school vouchers. My favorite quote: "Self-interest, rightly understood, works for the benefit of society as a whole."

Here is my book review of Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman's short, seminal book on economics and freedom.

Republicans v. Democrats

I know it's after the election, but this post, from another blogger, neatly summarizes the philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats. As I've written elsewhere, Americans were very fortunate to have two honorable men vying for America's top post.

Chrysler's Promises in December 2000

Automobile companies recently received a bailout from the White House. They promised to restructure, become more efficient, and gave the usual platitudes. These promises aren't new. The only difference seems to be that now, the Big Three are playing with taxpayer money instead of their own. Here are some excerpts from DaimlerChrysler's letter to shareholders, dated December 2000:

Over the last five years, [1995-2000] we have completely restructured and refocused the DaimlerChrysler Group...In the process, we have shed not only a number of loss-making and non-core operations, but we have also considerably improved the cost structure of our automobile operations in Germany... [Great! So things should be fine now...right?]

During the course of the year, we have also taken further important steps to focus our operations on the core automobile business...[But] competitive pressure in the US automobile market increased significantly, as evidenced by the strong rise in sales incentives or discounts which are up by over one third compared with a year ago, and are almost three times what they were in 1997... [Oh, I get it. It's not you--it's your competition. You can't compete on the open market. Got it.]

The management team has a wide-ranging mandate to reposition and restructure the Chrysler business to enable it to regain its strong market position and to become highly profitable again...

In order to restore Chrysler to profitability as soon as possible what is already clear is that we must also restructure the business--this will bring with it a cost. [Sounds like the job of the "car czar" has already been done.] This expenditure however should also ensure DaimlerChyrsler maintains its position at the forefront of the modern automobile industry. [Chrysler was mentioned as the most likely candidate for bankruptcy before the bailout.]

It boggles my mind that our government is using our money to finance companies that can't seem to ever get it together. In a hilarious press release titled, "The $13 Billion Industry Is In No Fear Of Collapse, But Why Take Chances?", Larry Flynt satirized the notion of bailing out troubled industries. Jokes aside, when, if ever, does moral hazard trump "too big to fail"? This question isn't just idle thinking. The bailouts have exposed a core weakness in our political system. Apparently, if you can't compete on the open market, all you need is a bunch of lobbyists to convince your government to give you taxpayer money. Luckily, in this case, the political system actually worked--Congress rejected the auto bailout plan. Even so, the White House, over the objections of the public, provided the bailout money. George W. Bush in bed with the automakers and their unions? Historians will be amused.

Federal Budget Outlays

The Epoch Times had a good chart showing what the federal government projected it would do with our taxes in 2007:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-15/54114.html

Social Security is the largest outlay, with 21% of our taxes going there. Next up is Defense, with 19%. Obama may reduce defense spending to shift more taxes towards infrastructure spending. Doing it this way would allow him not to raise taxes.

Defense hawks may disagree with any decrease in defense spending, arguing that it would cause a decline in domestic security. I do believe terrorists will hit the United States again, but much of the current defense spending is on major projects, like stealth fighters. Meanwhile, port security is inadequate. Consider this simple, low-tech scenario: a terrorist pays two dock workers to put an unmarked package on a ship. The dock workers will be told they are transporting drugs and will be paid a few thousand dollars for their discretion. In reality, the box would contain a major bomb or chemical weapon. The bomb doesn't even have to be inside a box. The terrorists could place a bomb inside an imported car, major appliance, or some other product that has many electrical components, making the bomb harder to detect.

Rather than focus on large-scale projects, such as the next generation of aircraft, which always seem to run over cost, the U.S. should shift more money into intelligence work. More specifically, Obama should hire more workers to 1) supervise America's major ports (e.g., Los Angeles, Miami, etc.); and 2) more effectively monitor the contents of packages before ships on-load and offload them. I realize modern ports have automated systems, but having more hi-tech automation doesn't necessarily lead to higher security.

If you're interested in reading more about Obama and defense spending, here is an interesting article:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/17793/