Overhauling the Dow Jones

I read today about a debate that’s been going on about whether or not the Dow Jones Industrial average should be overhauled to show a more “accurate” picture of the nation’s economy. As far as I can tell, the argument is that since the long established names like GE, GM and Alcoa are all having such a miserable time, the analysts feel as though they may no longer be good indicators of the market as a whole. This may in fact be the case or it may not be, but either way it leads me to think. Is this a “slippery slope”?

One of the reasons that we establish indexes in the first place is so that we have a free-standing measure to gauge things by. The companies that are a part of the DOW are companies that, when you really think about it, represent a broad sector of the greater economy. For instance, in addition to the aforementioned three which are in the electronics, automotive and Aluminum fields, there are banks like B-of-A and Citigroup, the oil and gas companies Chevron and Exxon, technology companies like Microsoft and Intel and miscellaneous food, entertainment and retail companies like Kraft, Disney and Wal-Mart. (You can find the entire listing here). So you can see it pretty much covers all the big components of our economic picture. So here’s the 10 million dollar question (Read: 800 billion dollar question.) Is the Dow outdated, or are we really just that bad off right now?

I submit that I think it's no more logical to “overhaul”, “revamp” or “update” the Dow Jones Industrial average than it is for one of my kids teachers decide to re-define course requirements because too many of the students are failing. (This is something I’ve seen as a matter of fact and thought to be incredibly shortsighted.) The poor performance, whether it is students or economic entities, is not due to the measure being used it is due to some systemic problem that has revealed itself by way of that measure. The grades and the stock ticker numbers are only indices. They don’t make the problem, they only report it. To take away or change the method that the index is pulled from immediately weakens the entire process. How are we supposed to have confidence that the market is really getting better in the future if we know that when it got really bad the powers that be decided to “tweak” the numbers. Who’s to say that in another ten years Google (which is one of the companies being tossed around as a new member of the index) won’t be defunct and irrelevant?

Now I’m no great economic thinker mind you; in fact I’m novice at best. The thing that gets me so spun up about this stuff is that we seem to be continually moving in this direction and with so many things. I don’t know where it can lead us but to ruin. The facts as I see them are irrefutable and constant. We can’t have a gain without a loss like we can’t have light without dark; the higher the gain, the greater the equivalent loss. If you look at the history of our money with respect to the Dow Jones you’ll see something interesting. For the 39 yr period from Jan. 1930 thru Jan. 1969 the Dow rose from 286 to 935, a gain of over 300%. Great right? Now look at the period from Jan. 1969 to Jan. 2007. In that period the Dow soared from that 935 number to 12,354, a gain of over 1300%! How? Did we suddenly have more money? Did we enter a golden age of phenomenal wealth building? Well yeah, kind of, we changed the way we counted our money in 1971 when we completely pulled it off the gold standard. Once that pesky physical limitation was lifted we were only dealing with numbers. Credit use soared, personal savings dwindled and the market went through the roof.

Unfortunately for us, I think we're in the hangover phase right now. The Dow has dropped something like 49% from October 2007. That's 3% per month. So should we change the way we measure it? No, I don't think so. What I do think may be good for us is to really take a hard look at the decisions we make, how we save our money and how we spend it. The Dow is just one of our indicators. It doesn't need to be changed with breezes it just needs to be seen for what it is. Our economy is not healthy right now and there's no reason to change things just to make us feel better, or worse yet to make us complacent enough so that we go out and spend again.

That's about all I have to say on the matter before I start rambling so I'll check out now. Hope you all have a great day tomorrow.
Namaste
P~

Quote of the day...& maybe a little hope.

Our imagination is the only limit to what we can hope to have in the future.
Charles F. Kettering (1876 - 1958)

It's been so long since I last posted a quote of the day, when I found this I had to put it up. It's a pretty simple thing isn't it? If you can imagine it, you can make it so. The only limit is what we can imagine. So what's the big deal about it?

I've found myself thinking a lot lately about the state of things around me and in our world. I mean of course I have right, the economy is tanking, politics has become little more than a dog and pony show and we face things like peak oil, GMO foods etc. etc. Of course I've been thinking about it; I know you have too. So think about what you imagine for the future. Think about the first thoughts that come to your mind. What is it? Do you picture a world of peace and prosperity? Healthy cities with a renewed connection to community and the land? New economies spurred to growth through the joining of necessity, creativity and common sense oversight? Maybe you do, I try to. However, more often than not lately, I find myself imagining a world with more wars over energy or to prop up a staggering economy, unhealthy cities where everyone looks out for themselves and worries about the neighbor cheating them, and a slowly fizzling economy struggling to hold onto it's once top place on the world stage like a too-old prom queen who refuses to grow up.

My point is if we can only imagine the worst, then that is in effect the limit of our hope for the future. How do you get somewhere you can't even imagine exists? But what if we imagine the former? Peace, community, prosperity; couldn't we make them real things? I'm tired of imagining the worst. I want more for my family, I want more for my city and I want more for myself. I want to see these things come to fruition. I will imagine the best for the world and I'll do my part when I can to nudge it on it's way. I hope you'll look at your imaginations of the future and see how you've allowed yourself to dream of the days to come. Picture the change you want to see. Believe that the change will come and expect it any day.

We owe it to ourselves.
Namaste
P~

I'm so sick and tired of this...

Really, I swear I am going to scream and begin to pull out my ha…. well, I don’t have much hair, but if I did I’d pull it out I swear! Ok, Ok, so what am I losing it about? This whole debate we just had over the $700 billion “bailout” or “rescue” or “economic life raft” that just passed. It’s not the fact that they debated it that’s bugged me, it’s HOW they debated it!

When I hear a politician interviewed from one side or the other, I don’t hear about the pro’s or con’s of the package; the merits versus the liabilities. What I kept hearing was this partisan crap about how “This was the result of poor regulation by the Republican administration”, or “In January 2005 the Republicans and John McCain warned about the need for more oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie and the Democrats killed it. It’s their fault.” I’m tired of it! What do I think caused this problem? To a great degree I agree that inaction and wrong decisions on both side of the isle allowed us to get to the point we are, but I don’t believe it caused it. That, I believe, came primarily from greed and complacency. And now we have a $700 billion, pork laden mess to reckon with and for our kids to pay off. Thanks guys... but is it all their fault?

We live in a society that for the large part espouses more and more, faster and faster and looks poorly on you if you can’t keep up. It’s true whether we like it or not. It’s no different from the root of many of the problems that face us today, I don’t think. Basically, greed and desire got the better of us as a nation. I mean who can blame us, we’re bombarded at nearly every corner by something that we need to have, and if we do manage to resist, our kids come home with all the stuff they need to have to "complete them". (At least in their eyes and the eyes of their peers.) So of course when companies start offering loans with all kinds of “perks” like no money down, no need for verifiable income, interest only ARM’s etc. a lot of us that are not economists and tend to trust the establishment at large are going to take advantage of it. Or better yet we can take the “equity” that we have in our now artificially inflated home prices and use that to get the new toy du jour that we need to have. Now we can have our cake, eat it, and pay for it over the next thirty (and sometimes even 50!) years with simple small installments. Oh yeah, but wait, wasn’t that kind of what happened just before the Great Depression? Paper money income, that is not to say actual FIAT currency but rather “investment” income from the stock market was so high that wall street and even the public at large felt it had reached a permanent plateau. Banks even began lending money to people to buy stocks at a rate of nearly two thirds the price of the stock. It was considered a totally safe practice. Sound familiar? So here we are, facing an economy that has basically forced the government to come to us with hat in hand, strike that…BAT in hand to scare us into approving this massive bail out that will possibly fix the problem in the very short term but opens a can of worms that could cause much more serious ones in the future.

So back to the crux of this problem. Who caused it? Who’ll save us from it? Well, I think that's going to rest pretty squarely on the shoulders of the same people that I just blamed for a majority cause in the problem... we the people. Oh sure, I totally agree that some serious regulatory oversight needs to be put in place, but I also think that we need to rethink a few of the things that have been driving us for the last 20 or so years. For many of us, a good majority of our adult lives. On the up-side, I think we're starting to get there. I hear more and more about people choosing to "live more simply", or making choices about what they consume, rather than just running on autopilot. It's a good thing. The more dialogue we can get started about this stuff, the more acceptable it will become and the more people will start paying attention.

As for the politics of the issue, well I'm sorry to say I've become a pretty big pessimist in the last couple of years. As of right now, I'm not voting for either of the candidates. I've seen no specific economic plans, short of more hand outs, from either of them, no energy plan other that to say they'll drill more and expand alternatives (A nice soundbite, but HOW? That's what I want to know.). Basically it just seems that both the candidates are leaving me with the old lesser of two evils choice, and I'm so sick and tired of that too! I am, my family is, my readers are, our nation is more important that the lesser of two evils.

Just my opinion...Care to share yours?
P~

Democracy Works!!! (or does it?)

Well, to a point I think it does, but you know that old saying "All politics is local"? It held true tonight as I witnessed first hand the inequities of the political process.

First off, let me start on a positive note. THE GIRLS ARE LEGAL!!! That's right, the outlaw birds in my back yard are LEGAL. I started working toward getting the restrictive ordinance pertaining to chickens, and in particular egg laying hens, changed back in February. Can you believe it's been that long? I should of course for the record point out that I personally did not initiate the ordinance change. Our city planning commission was actually in the middle of revising the ordinance when I showed up on the scene, but I made it just in time to have input into the revision, and was able to get to know the commission chair Robert Whiteley that actually sponsored the change that dealt with the chickens. A very good guy! The process was very time consuming, and took a lot of emails and some public speaking, but we've gotten it finished and tonight it passed the city council by unanimous consent. So you see, don't just let your fear of the process keep you from your goals. In fact this turned out even better than hoped for. Tonight before the vote, the council proposed to up the number of legal birds to 6 rather than the proposed 5. I think this was a great move for the city, and now I'm thinking, hmmm...how about a class in (sub)urban hennery? (sorry Laura, had to steal your term.)


So now you're wondering about the (or does it?) aren't you. I you remember yesterday, I asked for you to wish me luck. That wasn't for the chicken law to pass, it was for me. I went before the city council and a nearly packed auditorium tonight, to enter my name as a candidate for a seat on the Syracuse (UT) City Council that had been prematurely vacated by one of our elected members. The laws of our city show that when a vacancy becomes available mid term, that the existing city council will hold public hearings to review potential replacement and then vote on the candidates to get a replacement. I put my hat in the ring, and didn't get it, and you know what, it's really not a big deal to me. I hoped for it, buy didn't expect it. What I didn't expect however, was that the process was rigged.


Seriously, this is not a sour grapes issue. The gentleman that got the position, I felt, was far more qualified than me or many of the other candidates so not a big deal there. The problem arose when the council was making their vote and councilman Doug Peterson, after making his vote, Made a declaration that rocked the room. He stated that when he originally ran for council he lost. Then, the same type of thing happened and he applied to the council for the position. He didn't get it, and felt that since he had been the first runner up in the election that the position should have been his. Tonight he went clearly in the face of the established process and declared that that was the reason he voted for the winner; because he was in fact the first runner up in the last election. Another councilman, Doug Hammond, agreed and went on to state that the voters had spoken and had voted for the winner in the last election. (But not in enough number for him to win.)


On the face of it, it sounds logical right? But myself and the other 20 candidates walked into a council meeting tonight, expecting to be heard and to have a fair chance at being considered for the position. That was, in point of fact, no the case. If two of the remaining 4 chairman came to the meeting already having in mind who they were going to vote for and why, (and yes, I do know that that is the case in at least one person, but cannot get into how for a couple of reasons.)
then what was the purpose of me spending my first night alone with my boys, cooped up in a stuffy city hall for no reason. Oh, I was mad!


After the election, you could here the vocal murmurings of the audience, and then the utterly ridiculous. The city council completed the city managers report and called for a motion to adjourn, with was seconded and agreed on. Only one problem, the first order of business for the night was to approve the agenda, an agenda that allowed for a period of public comment before the adjournment. Two councilman had already gotten up and started to leave and I just popped up. Not a lot of thinking, just popped up and yelled over the room "Mr. Mayor!" (ask my kids, I'm loud when I need to be.) When I got his attention, myself and the other gentleman pointed out that they cannot adjourn legally, they are breaking the agreed upon agenda. We got them back in there seats and they spent the next 20 minutes hearing from me and the other guy about how they had just committed a farce of a political proceeding and should be ashamed. It was pointed out that at the last election half the previous city council was removed for similar actions. Both myself and the other man received many handshakes and thank you's afterward for calling them on this. I guess it may be time for the other half to go too.


Let me finish this off on a positive note just so I don't come off too PO'd. I think that the process does work by in large. Look at my chooks after all, their free to roam now. The key however, as in national politics, is to be involved. Make your voice heard. We are a democratic republic and inasmuch we are required by duty to be a part of our governments process. I encourage you to participate, to debate and to be activist in the things you believe in. I ask though that we keep a level of civility, look for commonalities and work for the type of change that will benefit us all.
Be well...
P~

You're a LIAR and a FOOL ... now, let's change the world.

Not really the best way to go about things is it? Supposing you and I were both after the same job; and say you and I argue for, let’s say a year and a half. We call each other liars, talk about how bad the other person would make things, explain why we are right and people ought to listen to OUR point of view and go to great lengths to point out to the world every stupid thing the other has ever said or done. The longer it goes on, the more our friends and allies start to polarize against each other because, now they think to themselves, “Geez, I thought that person was so smart, but they want THAT person to lead the way?” and quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, they start to bicker about things too. Then one day… *POOF*… argument settled! It’s been decided that one of us is the one that is going to lead the way and make the big decisions. Now let’s all come together and sing coombayah, and make the world a better place. What? You’re not still angry about all that “…you lied and you’ll ruin the world..” stuff are you? Come on, we have serious work to do here.
Well, that’s pretty much politics as usual and I’m sorry (not really), but I’m just not going to be a part of it. As I’ve spent a little of my precious time over the last couple of weeks watching and listening to the presidential convention speeches, I’ve thought a couple of times about making a post about one thing or another; I’ve heard things from both candidates that I’ve agreed with to a great extent. My issue with the whole process and particularly how it relates to my blog, is this. I have a pseudo mission statement for this blog that's been pretty plainly laid out in a few of the posts throughout it’s time online and is very succinctly stated in the title itself. “Possibility to Reality”. I spent a good number of years arguing about policies and politics and guess what? It really didn't change the country, and most certainly DID change me. The more I concentrated on what my position was on things, and even more so on why the people that had the opposing position were wrong, the more and more unhappier I became. Have you ever noticed that, regardless of what a candidate actually does once their elected, voters tend to be more apt to get out and vote FOR something, rather than AGAINST something. In other words, no matter how much one candidate tends to point out how bad the other person is, if they don't actually stand for something specific themselves, they generally lose. Why? Because I think people naturally want to think positively of things. They want to be a part of the future and a part of something greater than themselves.

My concern is this. If we buy into the partisanship that's peddled to us through all of the standard media outlets. If we just re wrap articles from the Times or Tribunes of the world filtered by our particular biases (whatever they are we can substantiate them, trust me!) and further perpetuate the divisions of our country, then we do a disservice, not only to ourselves and our readers, but an even greater disservice to our country and our future as a whole.

We, I believe, stand at a crossroads. We are at a time when not only are we facing economic woes or the possibility of peak oil and climate change, we have wars and power plays taking place in many places at once. We have a bankruptcy of not only capitol but of morality and self control and a culture of self gratification that demands more for less at a moments notice. These are things that are changing. Things that MUST change. Things that our government, regardless of who's elected, will not be able to change on it's own. They more than likely will not even consider that many of the problems need changing. So we need to come together and lead. To show our elected officials that they need to come together to make the big changes as well. How are they to do that, how are we to do that, if we have been trained to point at how wrong the other side is and vote solely on "party lines". In that case, we are too busy looking at the splinter in our neighbors eye than at the log in our own.

I've read a few other blogs this last week that I feel got a bit mired in this kind of partisanship. Some are ones that I read regularly, others are ones I visit only occasionally. I don't think less of any of them, I understand their passion for these things and for the changes that they hope for. I just hope that we in this "new media", with our overwhelming freedom to offer suggestions and solutions and our ability to lead the way to these changes through our own example, will look not to furthering the divisions in our greatest nation, but to healing them. I ask you to find the possible. Find it, embrace it, share it and make it the reality. We can do it!

Namaste...

P~

Positive outlook.

I was told by an old friend of mine recently with reference to politics that he wants "ANYONE but Bush!" in '08. This got me thinking that besides the obvious fact that it will be by default anyone but Bush, based solely on term limits (which is a topic for a whole other conversation), but that this was an incredibly pessimistic way of looking at our future. Let me get to the root of this phrase as I see it.
To me, saying "Anyone but Bush" is making far too simple a requirement of anyone hopeing to be the Commander and Chief of our great country. Our country was founded and rooted in hope, and possibilities. Our forefathers knew what was possible if men were left to be free to decide, and if they had hope for a better future for themselves and their families. To not look for a candidate, regardless one's political leaning, that offers hope and can outline the possibilities as they see them; to only look for someone that is the antithesis of the current administration, can only lead to disappointment. How hard is it to imagine a polititian that knows people are only looking for "Anyone but..." to tell you exactly what you are telling him you want to hear. They wouldn't be required to be a thinker, or to have any plan for the future, only to aspouse a disagreement with the current. If the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, do you just keep jumping the fence, or do you take a little time to find a good gardener to green up the side your on? Or better yet, get your hands dirty and work to green it up yourself!
I have made a decision to try my hardest to focus on the positive in this life. I get frustrated by things, and at times just plain hate the status quo. But I think one is always better served by looking for a positive solution than by complaining about the problem.
That's my opinion for what it's worth.
P~