Are We Having Fun Yet?

“Nineteen fifty-six,” the bearded twenty-something clerk told me as the digital display from the cash register confirmed the $19.56 that I owed for my rather meager purchase. I was a regular at this convenience store, one of a chain that my dad had started with two other partners in the late-60’s. Back then C-stores were small neighborhood grocery stores, with a deli counter and a little bit of every kind of grocery item, including fresh produce. Now they’re gas stations with attached stores that mainly sell snacks, beer, wine, sodas, and a very limited amount of groceries. I had already exchanged “hello’s” with the kid (as I thought of him). We weren’t really friends, but we had talked some and had a cordial albeit time limited relationship. I had surprised him a few days ago when I came back in the store after I figured out that he had undercharged me $2.00 for some lottery tickets that I bought and handed him two singles, explaining his mistake. I try to be honest, and was secretly hoping for a little good karma to spill over on my lottery tickets. It hasn’t helped (so far).

“Ha,” I laughed without any real joy, “nineteen fifty-six was the year I was born.”

“Really,” the kid answered. Then to my surprise he added, “I wish I was born in 1956.”

“No you don’t,” I assured him, thinking of my increasingly sore muscles along with various other aches and pains that resulted from an hour or so of furniture moving and cleaning that I had just completed. Getting old is not really any fun at all.

“Oh yeah,” he contradicted. “You guys had a lot more fun back then.”

A smile spurred by unsought memories spread across my face. “That’s true,” I confirmed, “we did have lots of fun…a whole lot.” I was almost laughing as I left the store and walked to my car as the happy memories flooded my mind.

When I was younger, the old-timers who would endlessly prattle on about the “good old days” always annoyed me. I promised myself that I would never do the same. Live for the moment was my creed. Focus on the here and now, forget the past, and embrace the future. I’ve tried my best to keep current with new technologies, enjoying the benefits of the computer age. But technology has outpaced me, I’m sad to say (although I do know that it wasn’t really a “cash register” but rather a fully integrated “point of sale system” that indicated my year of birth on its digital display).

As I drove away, memories of many of the fun things that I experienced flowed easily through my head. Maybe the kid was right, although some of those things resulted in the pains that I was feeling from my recent exertions. The twinge in my right leg was a constant reminder of pulling my hamstring one evening after work when I tried slalom skiing without stretching first. But I’ve got to say that living in a house fifty feet from a lake had a host of other benefits and contributed greatly to having fun. The ache in my shoulder is a constant reminder of the broken clavicle I received from a high-speed bicycle run down a grass covered hill that was a bit more steep than it appeared from the top (I arrived at the bottom before my bike). However, I don’t really associate pain with fun; that’s just crazy. Although it is funny how something seems like such a cool idea right before it slips sideways into something else entirely.

I’m not really sure what the young man was referring to as “fun” although I am sure that I’ve experienced it. Did he mean that we had better recreational substances to abuse (he looks like he could dabble)? We probably did, although my best memories of fun don’t involve those things with which I had considerable exposure. Perhaps a cold beer, or a good bottle of wine or champagne was present at times, or even a pina colada or two (or four, or five) were involved, but my best memories of fun are relatively unclouded by chemical enhancements.

It could be that he meant that going places and doing things was so much less expensive back in the day. I don’t mean it was relatively less expensive as a percentage of income, but it seems that many things were cheaper even when inflation is figured into the equation. I went to concerts in Canton to see big-name stars for only a few bucks, like the Elton John concert that I took my girlfriend to when I was fifteen. Just try getting into one of Sir Elton’s Las Vegas shows with a date for under $10 today. Nowadays, the big shows don’t even come to Canton, and the tickets cost more than a week’s wages for most kids (if they can even find a place that hires people under age eighteen). Dining out has experienced similar hyperinflation. I’ve eaten at some really nice restaurants and had a great time with friends or family in the past doing just that. Today, the cost of such feasts means indefinitely postponing retirement.

But having “fun” at dinner isn’t really directly correlated to how much money you spend. Eating Maine lobsters at Testa’s Restaurant in Bar Harbor was a cool experience, but I had more fun eating Maine lobsters on my deck in Ohio with a few friends (they didn’t allow us to hose down ourselves and our dining area at Testa’s when we were done). I’ve eaten at some really nice places throughout the country, but we had more fun outside on a patio in Key West with a basket of peel-and-eat shrimp and some cold beers. It was an all-you-can-eat deal, and I think Mike had three, or maybe four, baskets of steamed rock shrimp. Probably not a big profit maker for the owners, but the waitresses seemed pretty amused after a little while.

Many things have changed since I was a kid, and perhaps the entire concept of fun is one of them. Most of the people I grew up with had part-time jobs after school, but it’s much harder for youngsters to find employment these days, since many places require them to be at least eighteen. We had our own cars and usually paid for them ourselves, along with our gas and insurance. The workplace was a different experience as well. I can remember leaving work at noon on a Saturday and heading out to a diner for a sit-down lunch with a group of guys from the store. We had an hour for lunch, and time to talk and joke and laugh. You don’t find that at most retail environments these days. You’re lucky to get thirty minutes, and they don’t really want you to leave the building. It is also likely that you have to take your break alone. It is much harder to have fun without the fellowship of others.

Today, technological advances allow for super-realistic video games, and most kids seem to have them. Video games didn’t really exist until I was older, and they were pretty simplistic when they first appeared. Although it isn’t really clear to me that such modern systems really produce a significant amount of “fun.” Certainly there is a sense of accomplishment in having your personal video avatar wipe out whatever group of terrorists, mutants, or zombies are invading your digital world, but the games are so gruesome that I’m not sure they really provide enjoyment. They may, in fact, provide unwanted twists to easily manipulated young psyches. We did spend many hours playing pinball at the bowling alley or an arcade, but it was usually with a friend or two. Again, the fellowship added to the fun (but I’d still like to have a vintage Bally “Fireball” in the garage, right Bob?).

Like video games, there are many other things that are better these days than when I was a youngster. Modern cars handle better, are safer, and faster than the ones we grew up with, and the roads we travel are generally safer. However, rattling around in an old convertible on a warm summer night was lots of fun, as were those bench seats that allowed your girlfriend to slide right over next to you in the driver’s seat. Not that it was really safe of course, but no one who has grown up with bucket seats can comprehend the profound bliss that this simple act could bring to a teenage boy.

Roadside restaurants were a mixed bag back then, but occasionally you found a real gem. Today’s eating choices are the same set of identical outlets of fast foods and chain restaurants across the country with consistent quality (or lack thereof) but no surprises. Airliners are better, but air travel isn’t really any fun these days. When I first flew, almost every male on the plane wore a jacket and necktie, and ladies wore dresses. Everyone checked his or her luggage. It was a more elegant and refined experience than cramming all of your belongings into the overhead compartment and squeezing past the unwashed masses. Boats, from little runabouts to cruise ships, are better these days, but again, at a much higher cost.

Sound systems are better these days, but digitized music tends to lack warmth and depth. If new musicians have superior talent, they tend to hide it. Why are so many new songs remakes of a classic rock songs from our youth? Maybe because they really are destined to be classics. Amusement park rides are way better these days, but again, the cost of going to the park makes it a once a year experience at best. Smaller parks are mostly gone these days, places where you would go and ride some rides, then have a picnic with your family. They were victims of the need for bigger thrills as well as the high cost of liability insurance. Big parks would much prefer that you sampled their refreshment stands and restaurants than indulging in a picnic with your family. Disney has such a large group of restaurants and entertainment venues in Florida, that it is a park unto itself.

Some of the things I’ve tried in order to have fun, didn’t really turn out to be fun. Learning to fly an airplane started out to be a blast, until I realized just how serious and focused I had to be to survive the experience. When the door of the aircraft pops opens by itself during a steep-banked turn, and you are looking straight down to the earth’s surface a few thousand feet below you, it’s exhilarating, but not really fun. Softball or volleyball games with family and friends were fun, but the organized sports that I participated in were not that much fun. I suppose there was too much emphasis on winning, but winning is fun.

So was the kid right? Did my generation really have more fun than his generation experienced? The real problem, as I see it, is that it takes time to recognize that we had fun. Constant texting, tweeting and posting our experiences as they happen may be cool, but it tends to take you out of the experience as it happens. Perhaps we don’t understand that we’re really having fun until long after the event has occurred. Perhaps we had more fun because our parents didn’t have the technology to phone us at anytime, no matter where we were. Cell phones are a true blessing, but not always, if you are young. I hold out hope for the young clerk. Some fun things have become horrendously expensive, but money cannot by itself purchase enjoyment. The passing of time may yet reveal to him just how much fun he’s had. Maybe it will turn out that he had more fun than I had (but I doubt it). My advice: seek out the small things that make you smile, and whenever you can, treat yourself to a good laugh.

    

 

Gaming the System and Our Dysfunctional Democracy

When I was studying business methods in college there was an old joke that circulated in the halls outside the accounting classrooms. It seems that there were three experienced accountants applying for the job of controller for a major industrial conglomerate. At the end of their interviews, the director of Human Resources gave each of the three all of the raw financial data for one of the company’s subsidiaries with the instructions to prepare income statements, balance sheets and tax returns based on the data. The results were collected several hours later. The first candidate turned in a well-documented set of figures, strictly adhering to all relevant laws as well as all Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The director acknowledged the candidate’s knowledge and thoroughness. The second candidate produced a set of documents that pushed deductions to their extremes, playing fast and loose with the data, and producing a higher bottom-line return for the company. The HR director smiled at the second candidate’s resourcefulness and willingness to take a certain amount of risk. The third candidate turned in a set of blank pages.

The Human Resources director stared at them for a moment and then stated the obvious: “You haven’t written anything.”

The candidate gave him a clever smile then explained, “You haven’t yet told me what you want them to say.” Guess which candidate got the job?

There are some lessons that stick with you long after the mechanics taught in classrooms are forgotten or pushed aside by more relevant current procedures, and the above story is likely one of those things, based on what we observe in our society today. It is important to understand concepts like laws, or the principles of your chosen profession. However, there is one thing that trumps everything else. In order to succeed, to reach the very top, you must become adept at gaming the system.

The case of HSBC bank is a glaring example of how corporations have become adept at arraying things to go their way. Among the many sins uncovered in this worldwide banking conglomerate (and this probably wasn’t even close to being their worst), it was found that the bank’s Mexican subsidiary was laundering money for drug cartels. The U.S. government fined the bank a record $1.92 billion, but decided against prosecuting the bank based on the fear that it would harm worldwide financial markets. The bank is considered too big to fail. The fine is about equal to what the U.S. government has sent to the Mexican government since 2007 in the ongoing effort to eradicate the illegal drug trade. It also equals about four weeks of earnings for HSBC. They will likely weather this storm with ease.

The U.S. Justice Department also decided against prosecuting any of the individuals involved in the money laundering scandal, apparently reasoning that this too would undermine the global financial system. The officers of the bank are too important to prosecute. This is a dangerous precedent that goes against every concept of right and wrong that has ever been formulated, whether in religious doctrine, ethical teachings, or just plain common sense. I can understand it from the financial point of view, but it is very troubling from an ethical perspective.

Across the globe, our society is full of individuals who are both clever and resilient. Clearly some, their numbers apparently dwindling, are more kind-hearted than others. We say that we reserve our greatest rewards for our best and brightest, but the fact is that these rewards go most often to our most devious individuals, the ones who have learned how to best twist the system to their benefit.

The recently renewed debate on the issue of gun control is another example of how the system gets gamed. President Obama proposed a series of laws the other day aimed at reducing the chances of yet another tragedy like the recent Newtown school shootings or Aurora theater massacre taking place. No one, from the President on down, thinks these laws will completely prevent a future incident, but it is possible that the probability of occurrence could be reduced. One life saved would make the effort worthwhile, the President said. In addition, President Obama signed a series of executive orders, many dealing with mental health issues, which could also help reduce the chance.

 As Obama predicted, the opposition was both immediate and vicious, with concerned citizens crying out that the President was trying to take away all of their guns. Of course, our right to own guns (which are statistically more likely to cause harm to ourselves or loved ones than phantom bad guys) was not only not mentioned, but it was explicitly stated that it was not the case. Our constitutionally protected rights to own firearms would remain in place under any version of legislation passed in this regard, however unlikely, despite widespread support by a majority of voters.

Let the gaming begin. Members of congress and NRA spokesmen cried out that there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books, and more effort should be made to enforce those laws. But those laws have already been gamed. The majority of the laws lost their teeth in an obscure amendment made to an unrelated spending bill several years ago. The amendment was proposed by a former Congressman who later received an award (what other reward was included is not available) from the NRA for his services. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has not had a director for over six years, because the job requires Senate approval, which continues to be withheld. Background check information must be destroyed within a day, preventing any chance to discern a pattern of purchases that may point to a future tragedy. Leaders of both parties in both houses of our legislature came out and said they doubt if the support could be found to pass anything like the proposed assault weapons ban. This is despite polls that indicate a majority of Americans favor such action.

There was a young man in the audience at the President’s announcement the other day. He was a survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 that left 32 dead victims (excluding the suicide of the mentally unstable perpetrator). The young man was shot four times and still carries three of the bullets in his body. He was present, as quoted by the President, not because of what happened to him, but because what happened to him continues to happen to others. It is a noble sentiment. He’s probably way too nice to make it to the top in a big bank.

To all of my friends and family members who have already loudly voiced their opposition to any type of gun control, I offer my apologies, because I think a ban on assault weapons is a good idea. It’s not perfect, but it just might help. President Reagan supported a ban on assault weapons and Supreme Court Justice Scalia said that it was constitutional. These guys aren’t exactly left-wing extremists.  Expanding background checks to all gun buyers is also definitely a good idea. I personally don’t think either idea will infringe on our rights to own guns. My coworker, who is an avid hunter, agrees. No one uses assault weapons to hunt deer. Few people even consider that type of weapon to be the one of choice for home protection since it would be way too easy to cause collateral damage with one, such as injuring the family that you are trying to protect.

The sale of bulletproof backpacks and child-sized bulletproof vests has skyrocketed in recent weeks. The gun lobby has proposed arming teachers and other school officials, and putting armed police in every school. Is this the kind of traumatic future that we wish to bestow on our children? Who really thinks that a janitor with a pistol is the best person to protect our youngsters? Isn’t there a great deal of inherent danger in having loaded guns in our classrooms, even if they are in the hands of teachers who have been instructed in their use? Remember the law of unintended consequences. Whatever could possibly go wrong in that situation probably will go wrong.  

Our founding fathers established our Second Amendment rights under the guise of allowing for a well-regulated militia, which was deemed necessary for the security of a free state. There was no significant standing army at the time. Protection of our country rested in the hands of an armed population that were prepared to go to war to protect our country. It will never be clear that the founders’ intent was for anyone to own a gun since at any time any individual could be called on to protect our rights. That issue will not be called into question here, although I think the founders might recoil at what passes for a militia these days (aside from our fine National Guard). We have the right to own firearms. No one is trying to change that. But many people are trying to game the system and make you think that you are in imminent danger of losing this sacred right. That is not the case.

Our democratic process is far too easily influenced by special interests that are based on personal greed rather than what is truly good for our people. Laws are passed and amendments are made to unrelated bills that have far reaching consequences that are given little thought at the time. The mere threat of filibusters can indefinitely postpone votes on people appointed to fulfill important executive positions in government agencies. It's the little things we need to focus on before we can address any important issue. Unfortunately, even those who would like to benefit their country are going to have to learn how to game the system.

In order to protect our troubled financial system, which was plunged into the Great Depression after the stock market crash of 1929, President Roosevelt nominated former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., to head the newly created Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). Kennedy was one of our nation’s wealthiest citizens with a fortune based in large part on his ability to manipulate the stock market. Observers at the time called it a case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but FDR reasoned correctly that he had to put someone in charge that knew what he was doing, someone who was an expert in gaming the system. Kennedy was considered mainly successful at his appointed job (he redirected many of his own investments into the real estate market after the financial markets became regulated). Only recently, as banking regulations have again become more relaxed, have we experienced problems in our financial markets, with significant risks in banks and other financial institutions deemed too massive to allow to fail.

It is time we face some hard truths about our government. It has become dysfunctional. We have let the little things, procedures, policies and influence peddlers, prevent us from achieving the goals we desire for our nation as a whole. Why not make our government less likely to be derailed by gamesmanship, and more responsive to the needs of everyone? Let’s do away with influence peddling. Let’s make it a requirement to have immediate votes on presidential appointments. We need to be a little less willing to succumb to the greed of a few individuals in control of way too much power, and prevent tragedy for many. Above all else, we need to protect our children.
             

Adult Education

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility  provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Do you recognize these words? I added the bold print and I’ll get to that in a minute. It is the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America. It’s a pretty important document. When our founding fathers came up with it, they didn’t think it was the perfect solution, but they needed something better than what they had, because our new country was in pretty bad shape under the Articles of Confederation. So they came up with the Constitution; in order to form a more perfect system of governance than what they had. Not the perfect system, just one that was better. There really isn’t a perfect system. They did a pretty decent job. Not perfect, but better than it was.

I consider myself to be fairly well-educated, and I like to think I’m also pretty well-informed. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not tooting my own horn here. I also know that the world is full of people who are smarter than I am, including people who are way, way smarter. I’m also positive that there exist people who are not so bright. I was mostly educated in a public school district, although I spent a couple of years in a private school. My public school district was well regarded academically when I attended, and it is still highly ranked today. But there is a problem that I see in my early education, both public and private: we never studied economics to any major extent. It wasn’t until I started studying business in college that I had any real exposure to economics.

I remember walking out of an Economics class in graduate school, where we had just discussed how the federal budget was derived. It’s an ugly process by the way. A friend of mine, Steve, was so upset that he vowed to devote his life to becoming President of the United States in order to change the system. It was a noble thought. I think I would have considered voting for Steve, but I’ve not seen his name come up in political circles. I told him that the problem as I saw it was that by the time he had risen through the ranks of government that he would be swayed by the status quo, and wouldn’t be able accomplish his ultimate goal. We were surprised to find our professor walking behind us and apparently eavesdropping. He was grinning and nodding his head. “That’s right,” he told Steve, “by the time you reach a position of power in the system, the system will have co-opted you.” I don’t know why he was smiling about it. It seems to be a pretty sad indictment of our political system.

Now we as a nation have just been through some difficult times from an economic perspective. We continue to suffer through a major recession (by the way, do you understand the difference between a ‘business cycle recession’ and a ‘financial market recession’? *), and have been brought to the brink of a “fiscal cliff” by lawmakers eager to force their personal beliefs on everyone. By now it should be obvious that what everyone really needs in this country is a clearer understanding of economics.

The place we should start with this economic education is with our elected leaders. I had to look up the part of my state that is represented by the current Speaker of the House of Representatives. I don’t really know what the public school system is like in his district, but if it’s anything like the one here, they aren’t teaching enough Economics. The Speaker attended a private high school, and studied business in college, so he should know a little about what is considered to be the most important issue of the day, but his recent actions might suggest otherwise. Over and over again during the debate we heard the standard rhetoric spewed out that we must maintain adequate income for the “job creators” (that’s political shorthand for “the really rich dudes that pull our strings”) and not raise taxes on the wealthy. Unfortunately, this is flawed logic. The Congressional Research Service conducted one of their fact-filled scholarly reports that showed no relationship between the size of the top tax rate and job creation (by the way, the CRS works for Congress. You would think that the employers would listen to their hired experts). In fact, history tells us that more jobs were created when top tax rates were higher. Respected billionaire investor Warren Buffett laughed out loud at the notion that investors would stop investing if they had to pay a few extra cents on each dollar earned. He went on to say that he and other wealthy people should be paying more taxes, not less.

What I think we should do is to require by law that every Representative, Senator, Federal Judge and senior member of the Executive Branch take a comprehensive course in Economics. There should also be a test, with grades posted so that we can see just how bright (or dim) our elected representatives are. Maybe they might make some better decisions for our country. Perhaps we might make some better decisions about those people we choose to represent us too.

Now I know that some of you might be quoting Ronald Reagan at this point and saying that the government isn’t the solution to our problem, the government is the problem. Yes, I know the government has screwed things up before, but maybe they just lacked a certain base level of knowledge. I recently read Bill Clinton’s book, Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy. You may not agree with the former President politically, or philosophically, but he makes some very strong arguments for the things that can be accomplished by a smart government. Throw in the fact that he is the only guy that has held the job in many years that had three years of budget surpluses. Not even the Gipper can say that. Do yourself a favor and read the book. Your library probably has a copy. Whatever you do, don’t throw up your hands and say it can’t be changed, because it has happened before.

So how do we get a smart government? Let’s start with that required course in Economics for our elected officials. Maybe if Representatives and Senators have to share notes or form a study group, they’ll be able to do something useful, like cooperate enough to make decisions to get our country back on track. Too much time is spent in Congress raising money for reelection, and too little time is spent in formulating ideas to raise the standard of living for the people being represented. That’s not just dumb government, that is a recipe for corrupt government. While we’re at it, let’s beef up the teaching of Economics in our school system. We’re never too old to learn, or too young to start. Educate yourself (Note: watching the news on TV will not make you better educated) and try to interest others in educating themselves.      

*Answer: Read the book, it’s in there. Please note that financial market recessions, such as our current economic situation, as well as that period in our history known as The Great Depression, require a much longer recovery period than the more typical business cycle recessions that are more familiar to us. Just in case you were wondering what the heck was taking so long.