Another Presidential era has come and gone. So, it’s time to update my running list of post-WWII Presidents. Unfortunately, we have a new loser at the bottom of the heap. Hopefully, #44 will be better. Here’s the list:
The Relatively Good Presidents
Ronald Reagan
Good: Cut marginal tax rates by 30%. Helped defeat communism (along with Thatcher, Kohl, and the Pope). Reinvigorated our national spirit after Vietnam and Jimmy Carter. Rebuilt the military after its neglect during the Carter years.
Bad: Failed to do anything about growing government spending and debt.
Harry Truman
Good: Eliminated the war time economy to move us back to a free market, in spite of the advice of his Keynesian advisors to build tanks and bury them in the desert to keep the economy going. (Unfortunately, the Keynesian idiots are feeling their oats again today.) He also desegregated the armed forces and implemented the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe.
Mixed: Dropping of the atomic bomb to win WWII. This was seen as a successes but it is questionable at the same time.
Bad: Korean war
The Mixed Presidents
Bill Clinton
Good: Worked with the Republican Congress to balance the budget for the first time in a long time. Removed welfare from being an entitlement.
Bad: Invaded the Balkins. Failed to cement Russia in the West. Periodically sent cruise missiles to bomb Osama bin Laden, without any real plan on how to eliminate or contain him, which helped lead to 9/11.
John Kennedy
Good: Cut marginal tax rates by 30%. Compromised on missiles in Turkey for missiles in Cuba to avoid war.
Bad: Seeded the Vietnam War. Backed a coup d'etat, which installed the Baath Party (Saddam Hussein’s party) into power in Iraq.
Dwight Eisenhower
Good: Created the interstate highway system. Ended the Korean war.
Bad: Backed a coup d'etat, installing the Shah of Iran. Expanded Social Security and other New Deal programs.
The Irrelevant Presidents
Gerald Ford
Good: Vetoed more bills than most of his predecessors and successors.
Bad: The lame WIN (whip inflation now) campaign.
George Herbert Walker Bush
Bad: First Iraq war (but got out quickly). Generally clueless about the economy.
Good: Only served one term!
The Dreadful Presidents
Lyndon Johnson
Bad: Started the Vietnam War and created the Great Society entitlement programs which set the stage for the inflation of the 1970s and the entitlement mentality and deficits we are living with today.
Good: The Voting Rights Act.
Jimmy Carter
Bad: Couldn’t make a decision in a crisis (according to his own National Security Advisor) leading to American hostages in Iran and a generally failed stint as leader of the free world. Nearly destroyed the military through neglect.
Good: “Deregulated” the airlines and trucking. Appointed Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve, who helped break the inflationary spiral of the 1970s.
Richard Nixon
Bad: Expanded Johnson’s Vietnam War and Great Society programs. Took the U.S. off of the gold standard. Imposed wage and price controls, creating shortages of everything from gasoline to toilet paper. Few remember this, but people were eating horse meat under Nixon because his price controls caused a beef shortage.
Good: Helped China enter the world community.
George Herbert Hoover Bush
Bad: Lied about Iraq’s involvement with 9/11. Iraq war. Corrupted the Constitution to spy on Americans with the Patriot Act and other legislation. Created the first new entitlement program since the Great Society. Created massive deficits and more than doubled the national debt on his watch. Quasi-nationalization of the financial sector. Largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history. Torture in Guantanamo.
Good: Letterman's Great Moments In Presidential Speeches...
Showing posts with label Ford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ford. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2009
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Car 2.0
The recent turmoil among the Detroit auto manufactures has finally surfaced into a “national crises” with the CEOs of GM, Ford, and Chrysler begging for taxpayer dollars so they won’t have to make tough decisions about the companies they run. I’ve blogged here before about the decades long incompetence of the U.S. automobile leadership. There is a lot of history among the U.S. auto executives with regards to not understanding their markets, ignoring quality, producing poor designs, and many other issues. The so-called "leadership" of the UAW is equally culpable for Detroit’s decline for hiding their heads in the sand for three decades while foreign competition decimated their market share and jobs.
Over the last 30 years, the challenge to Detroit from Japanese, Korean and German manufactures has been about incremental improvement within the realm of how the basic automobile business model works – you build cars people want to buy and your dealer network sells them.
Over the same 30 years, the computer industry has faced a lot more disruption than the auto industry. Many of the companies that helped define various stages of the industry are no longer with us. Think about Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) whose CEO couldn’t figure out why anyone would want a computer in their home!
What would happen if Detroit faced the kind of innovation and disruption the computer industry has endured? They may be about ready to find out.
Shai Agassi was a software entrepreneur. One of his companies was acquired by German software giant SAP. He soon became an SAP wunderkind, and was poised to take over as CEO of SAP. The incumbent CEO decided to stay in place, so Shai left the company.
Shai applied his computer industry background to the auto industry and came up with a plan to radically change the auto market. His new company -- Better Place – aims to build a standards-based electrical vehicle network comprised of charging stations and automated battery swapping stations where you work, eat, and shop. If you want to have lunch, charge the battery. If you’re in a hurry, swap it. Of course you can charge the battery at your house overnight.
The business model for a Better Place works a lot like the mobile phone industry. The electrical vehicle network provider will subsidize the cost of your car and you’ll pay for what you use, but instead of paying for minutes, you’ll pay for miles. Forget about the traditional auto industry and think about AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon. Basically, it’s Car 2.0 -- a proven business model applied to a different industry.
Do you think that Detroit could have thought of this with their inbred, hidebound leadership? No way. In fact, GM snubbed Agassi while Nissan and Renault partnered with him.
25 years ago, IBM was run by a lifer – John Akers -- who ran the company into the ground. Lou Gerstner was brought in from outside the computer industry to save IBM. Perhaps, it’s time for someone from outside of the auto industry to come in and help save it.
Over the last 30 years, the challenge to Detroit from Japanese, Korean and German manufactures has been about incremental improvement within the realm of how the basic automobile business model works – you build cars people want to buy and your dealer network sells them.
Over the same 30 years, the computer industry has faced a lot more disruption than the auto industry. Many of the companies that helped define various stages of the industry are no longer with us. Think about Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) whose CEO couldn’t figure out why anyone would want a computer in their home!
What would happen if Detroit faced the kind of innovation and disruption the computer industry has endured? They may be about ready to find out.
Shai Agassi was a software entrepreneur. One of his companies was acquired by German software giant SAP. He soon became an SAP wunderkind, and was poised to take over as CEO of SAP. The incumbent CEO decided to stay in place, so Shai left the company.
Shai applied his computer industry background to the auto industry and came up with a plan to radically change the auto market. His new company -- Better Place – aims to build a standards-based electrical vehicle network comprised of charging stations and automated battery swapping stations where you work, eat, and shop. If you want to have lunch, charge the battery. If you’re in a hurry, swap it. Of course you can charge the battery at your house overnight.
The business model for a Better Place works a lot like the mobile phone industry. The electrical vehicle network provider will subsidize the cost of your car and you’ll pay for what you use, but instead of paying for minutes, you’ll pay for miles. Forget about the traditional auto industry and think about AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon. Basically, it’s Car 2.0 -- a proven business model applied to a different industry.
Do you think that Detroit could have thought of this with their inbred, hidebound leadership? No way. In fact, GM snubbed Agassi while Nissan and Renault partnered with him.
25 years ago, IBM was run by a lifer – John Akers -- who ran the company into the ground. Lou Gerstner was brought in from outside the computer industry to save IBM. Perhaps, it’s time for someone from outside of the auto industry to come in and help save it.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Auto Industry Bailout: JUST SAY NO
Barack Obama is pushing for a $50 billion bailout for the U.S. auto industry. We are essentially being told that without this bailout the world will come to an end because the U.S. auto industry is just “too big to fail”.
Here is the essential question: Why is the U.S. auto industry in such terrible shape and in need of a bailout? High gas prices? Unfair competition? Bad luck? Nope. They are on the verge of collapse because collectively they have suffered from four decades of the most brain dead management on the planet.
The U.S. auto companies took too long to figure out that producing quality cars actually costs less, not more, and results in higher customer satisfaction and stronger brand loyalty. As a result of not understanding this, they lost their mindshare and market share in the U.S. a long, long time ago. The big thing that has propped these companies up for the last two decades were cheap fleet sales that were subsidized by their financing ventures. For example, a couple of years ago, the most profitable division of GM was GMAC, which was even in the mortgage business.
They were also completely clueless on how to compete in international markets. For example, they used to constantly whine about how Japan was unfairly closed to them. When I went to Japan for the first time in 1998, I noticed three things: A.) The Japanese drive on the left side of the road, like the British, B.) there were a lot of German cars on the road, and C.) there were very few American cars. The problem was that the U.S. auto companies took forever to sell cars that were suitable for the Japanese market (i.e., with the steering wheel on the right side). The complete misunderstanding of the market, along with their chronic quality problems doomed GM, Ford, and Chrysler in Japan.
The UAW “leadership” is equally culpable for the industry's long decline for refusing to enable necessary operational changes. For example, guess who has the most advanced and efficient auto manufacturing facility in the world? Ford. It’s in Brazil. The UAW would never allow a plant with that level of flexibility and supplier integration to operate in the U.S., which is a huge part of the problem.
My view is that there is no reason whatsoever why the taxpayers should be stuck subsidizing decades of gross mismanagement. GM, Ford and Chrysler are NOT "too big to fail". Even if they do fail, companies with smarter leadership will put their resources to better use. We'll all be better off.
So, it's time to “JUST SAY NO” to the auto industry bailout.
Here is the essential question: Why is the U.S. auto industry in such terrible shape and in need of a bailout? High gas prices? Unfair competition? Bad luck? Nope. They are on the verge of collapse because collectively they have suffered from four decades of the most brain dead management on the planet.
The U.S. auto companies took too long to figure out that producing quality cars actually costs less, not more, and results in higher customer satisfaction and stronger brand loyalty. As a result of not understanding this, they lost their mindshare and market share in the U.S. a long, long time ago. The big thing that has propped these companies up for the last two decades were cheap fleet sales that were subsidized by their financing ventures. For example, a couple of years ago, the most profitable division of GM was GMAC, which was even in the mortgage business.
They were also completely clueless on how to compete in international markets. For example, they used to constantly whine about how Japan was unfairly closed to them. When I went to Japan for the first time in 1998, I noticed three things: A.) The Japanese drive on the left side of the road, like the British, B.) there were a lot of German cars on the road, and C.) there were very few American cars. The problem was that the U.S. auto companies took forever to sell cars that were suitable for the Japanese market (i.e., with the steering wheel on the right side). The complete misunderstanding of the market, along with their chronic quality problems doomed GM, Ford, and Chrysler in Japan.
The UAW “leadership” is equally culpable for the industry's long decline for refusing to enable necessary operational changes. For example, guess who has the most advanced and efficient auto manufacturing facility in the world? Ford. It’s in Brazil. The UAW would never allow a plant with that level of flexibility and supplier integration to operate in the U.S., which is a huge part of the problem.
My view is that there is no reason whatsoever why the taxpayers should be stuck subsidizing decades of gross mismanagement. GM, Ford and Chrysler are NOT "too big to fail". Even if they do fail, companies with smarter leadership will put their resources to better use. We'll all be better off.
So, it's time to “JUST SAY NO” to the auto industry bailout.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Bob Barr Democrats
It looks like Barack Obama has won the Democratic nomination. Congratulations to him. My guess is that he is going to be the next President. Not because he’s so great. Rather because George Bush has ruined the party that Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Dick Armey, and others tried to build.
Obama has a big challenge ahead, namely that white, blue collar voters in the industrial Midwest don’t seem to be inclined to vote for him. The big question for Bob Barr is how he turns these “Hillary Democrats” into Barr voters.
One thing that Barr should propose is to bring our troops home to save our manufacturing base. The U.S. spends countless billions of dollars every year stationing troops in Japan and South Korea. These countries respond by doing everything they can to put GM, Ford, and Chrysler out of business. They are able to compete effectively because their total tax burden is significantly smaller than ours, in part because we are subsidizing their military defense. We need to end the huge defense subsidy that American taxpayers are shelling out to over to 130 countries around the world and then use the savings to cut taxes to help make us more competitive.
We know why McCain won't propose this – he is admittedly clueless about the economy and he is too vested in his antiquated Cold War view of the world to make any real change. I do find it very odd that Obama won't talk about this either. Perhaps his elitist disposition makes him too tone deaf to the plight of blue collar Americans to care.
This gives Barr an opportunity to win over a lot of folks who voted for Hillary in the primary, while upholding our American libertarian values at the same time.
Obama has a big challenge ahead, namely that white, blue collar voters in the industrial Midwest don’t seem to be inclined to vote for him. The big question for Bob Barr is how he turns these “Hillary Democrats” into Barr voters.
One thing that Barr should propose is to bring our troops home to save our manufacturing base. The U.S. spends countless billions of dollars every year stationing troops in Japan and South Korea. These countries respond by doing everything they can to put GM, Ford, and Chrysler out of business. They are able to compete effectively because their total tax burden is significantly smaller than ours, in part because we are subsidizing their military defense. We need to end the huge defense subsidy that American taxpayers are shelling out to over to 130 countries around the world and then use the savings to cut taxes to help make us more competitive.
We know why McCain won't propose this – he is admittedly clueless about the economy and he is too vested in his antiquated Cold War view of the world to make any real change. I do find it very odd that Obama won't talk about this either. Perhaps his elitist disposition makes him too tone deaf to the plight of blue collar Americans to care.
This gives Barr an opportunity to win over a lot of folks who voted for Hillary in the primary, while upholding our American libertarian values at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
