Category Archives: Random Blogging

A Walk on the Beach

The two youngest grandchildren, 8 and 10, are with us at the beach (this time, thankfully, with their parents). Both were eager to begin the week with something that has become a ritual–a half-mile walk down the beach to the Inn and across the lobby to the newspaper dispensers, where we buy the local papers before walking back.

The sun was hitting the ocean, the beach was pristine. Other walkers nodded and smiled. The kids ran in and out of the water’s edge. My grandson remarked that his dad had told him that he and his  2 brothers used to sleep in the room he and his sister were now occupying, and that one of them had to sleep on the floor. (Two beds, three boys.)  I laughed and said “I guess I had too many children,” to which he responded, seriously. “That must have been hard on you.”

There is something about family traditions that span generations. And since I am nerd to the core, I looked at my grandchildren and the beach and the ocean, and wondered if vacations like this one will be possible when they have grandchildren.

Will the climate change deniers–the dolts and the economically-motivated and the “we’re going to be Raptured anyway” believers–stop policymakers from taking the steps necessary to protect the planet from further environmental degradation? Is my generation so selfish that we won’t agree to some relatively minor inconveniences now in order to preserve mountains and beaches for the generations to come?

Corny as it is, I couldn’t help remembering a poem my own mother used to recite to me. The stanza I remember: “Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime, and departing, leave behind us, footprints on the sands of time.”

Footprints, hell. I just hope we leave some sand.

Comments

Observations and Aggravations

We drove for 11 hours yesterday, ending in Charlotte, NC. We got in around dinner, so didn’t get to see much of the downtown area; what we did see looks vibrant and very “happening,” however. After we walk around today, I’ll have more firm impressions to share.

We stopped in Charlotte on our way to the beach, because the city has taxed itself (I know–amazing, isn’t it!) to provide public transit, and we wanted to see that transportation system. (If you’re a regular reader of this blog, the nerd-iness of that won’t surprise you.) More on that, too, tomorrow.

Three brief observations from the road:

The 2012 campaign is in full swing, but I have seen very few bumper stickers this cycle–certainly, far fewer than at this time in 2008. Interestingly, the few I have seen have seen have all been Obama stickers; I have yet to see a single Romney one. My very unscientific conclusion from this is that this is a low-enthusiasm election across the board, but what enthusiasm there is seems to favor Obama.

We hit a construction site on I75, between Jellico and Lake City, Tennessee.  Signs for miles ahead warned that the right lane would be closed. Most drivers (including this one) dutifully migrated into the left lane, but there were plenty of jerks who sped up in the right lane in order to pass the line and then “merge” at the point where that lane was blocked. We’ve all seen this sort of rude behavior, some people’s willingness to make the delay much longer for everyone else in order to gain a few minutes advantage for themselves. As I sat there fuming at them (they all seemed to drive SUVs, too…), it occurred to me that I was seeing a metaphor for humanity: you have the folks who play by the rules and the ones who think the rules (legal and moral alike) are for suckers. (OK, maybe I’m drawing an excessive lesson from a traffic incident, but we sat there for at least 45 minutes…)

Finally, someone on the radio was relaying the results of a poll. The question: does government do too much or too little? I didn’t hear the result, but the poll itself is a great example of Americans’ addiction to useless, idiot polling. The question itself is meaningless, just like our endless debates over “big” government vs. “small” government. The question is: what should government do, not how much. (There’s significant research showing that people who bitch about government doing “too much” are the first to scream bloody murder when services are curtailed. It’s sort of like those pious folks who love humanity but hate all their neighbors.)

If this post sounds grumpy, I did drive 11 hours yesterday….

Comments

Absence of Strategy

Eugene Robinson makes a point that many political junkies are pondering:

Romney has spent the better part of a decade running for president. Did it never occur to him that if he ever won the Republican nomination, surely there would come a time when he was under pressure to release multiple years’ worth of tax returns? Did he think everyone would forget that it was his own father, George Romney, who set the modern standard for financial disclosure? Did he not recall that when he was being considered for the vice presidential nod four years ago, he furnished tax returns spanning more than two decades to the John McCain campaign?

There are two parts to this puzzle. One, of course, is the tantalizing question of what is in those tax returns? The general conclusion at this point is that it must be something really damaging, else why would Romney prefer being criticized for lack of transparency rather than incur whatever criticisms would follow disclosure.

The second part of the puzzle is actually more damaging. As Robinson notes, Romney has been running for President for what seems like forever–surely he and his campaign staff knew he’d be asked to provide tax information that has become a routine and expected part of candidate disclosures. In the decade he’s been running, he surely could have tailored his taxes so as to avoid major issues when they were ultimately made public. This lack of foresight is ultimately more troubling than whatever tax avoidance or other issue might emerge from disclosure of his tax returns.

Among the qualifications for the nation’s highest office, an ability to think strategically–to see the likely long-term consequences of a course of action, and plan accordingly–is vitally important.

If a candidate can’t even think ahead sufficiently to act in his own self-interest, how can we trust him to steer a course for the country?

Comments

I Think We’re Onto Something….

Usually, when I am hot and bothered about something, other people aren’t. (Something about me has always been out of step…) I’m used to people shrugging and yawning–and occasionally suggesting therapy. So this article in yesterday’s Fort Wayne Journal Gazette was a very pleasant surprise.

In the interests of shameless self-promotion, I am yielding todays blog post to the Journal Gazette, and encouraging you to read the whole thing!

On a different note, we’ve been having internet connectivity problems at my house. This periodic lack of access throws me into  panic and depression. I guess addiction isn’t limited to drugs….Anyway, posting will be iffy until it’s fixed, which we hope will be today.

Comments

Ownership

We talk a lot about ownership in America: George W. Bush promoted an “ownership society;” people trying to change institutional systems are urged to help those involved to “own” the changes.

The disconnect comes when we consider corporate ownership–which, increasingly, doesn’t exist in any meaningful way.

Think about the origins of the business corporation. A Henry Ford, an Eli Lilly, a J. Randolph Hearst would begin an enterprise that continued to reflect upon its founder whether or not that founder retained majority ownership (which most did). Other shareholders profited or not, participated in the election of the board or not, attended annual meetings or not, but it was understood that they weren’t owners in the way we understand that word.

A business school colleague once described today’s shareholders and bondholders as two different kinds of lenders. The guy who purchases corporate bonds wants priority and a secure rate of return. They guy who buys shares is gambling, in a sense: he’s willing to risk a greater downside in hopes of a bigger return. Neither of them is really interested in the company or its business, except to the extent necessary to make an investment decision.

Meanwhile, the company is managed by hired guns who rarely have any sort of emotional connection to the corporation, and whose own “ownership” is limited to stock options and other incentives–incentives that tend to reward quarterly rather than long-term performance.

Real ownership is so different.

Last week, the Indianapolis Public Library hosted a small reception for the Lacy family, one of the increasingly rare exceptions to the picture I’ve just painted. The impetus for the reception was the family’s donation of a book–a history of the company–to the Indiana collection. The book traced the company from its origins manufacturing corrugated cardboard boxes to its current incarnation as LDI–Lacy Diversified Industries. During the brief talks, someone made the point that multi-generational family ownership like LDIs currently represents perhaps 3% of American businesses.

If you are thinking, “so what?” think about the contributions made to this community by family-owned companies like LDI or MacAllister Machinery. These are enterprises still run by their founders, or the children and/or grandchildren of their founders. Such businesses are connected to this community in multiple ways that the more impersonal, shareholder-owned companies and their managers are not. They are also far more likely to make business decisions based upon the long-term interests of the enterprise, rather than on the next quarterly or annual report. As a result, they are more likely to be corporate good citizens.

Mitt Romney to the contrary, corporations are not “people, my friend.” But a dwindling number are owned by identifiable people. And that kind of ownership is infinitely preferable to the lottery-ticket shareholder mentality that has largely replaced it.

Comments