CORD                  1929-1937

CROSLEY           1939-1952

DUESENBERG   1913-1926

ESSEX                  1919-1932

HUDSON             1910-1957

KAISER               1945-1956

NASH                   1916-1957

PACKARD           1899-1958

STUDEBAKER   1902-1966

When these fine American cars could no longer compete in the market, they simply went out of business.

Where was their  Uncle Sam when they needed him? No one bailed them out

When the horse and buggy could no longer compete with the automobile, the buggy manufacturers closed their doors also.

The United States did not collapse.

If a company is unable to produce any product competitively then it should fail.

Subsidizing failure seems to be a trend in the US today but it creates the expectation of continuity in enterprises that make incompetent decisions.

There is a connection between conservatism and greed but it is not an absolute “A=B”.

One can be ‘conservative’ (as I am) and not be greedy (as I am not).
Greed stems from conservatism but is not necessarily the end product. Too much conservatism is greed.

In other words, I want to be self-sufficient and in so doing I must accumulate enough of the  ‘implements’ to do so. In primitive times this meant arrowheads, wood,  skins and dried meat.

Today it is money. I feel money is a vehicle (a bartering medium) that will allow me to trade for those things that lead to my survival.
It has never been my goal to accumulate more than I feel is necessary to meet the goal of survival in a modern world– a world of taxes and shelter and fuel (energy) and transportation and food and some left over for pleasure.
Without some pleasure life becomes merely existence.

Those who accumulate simply with that as a goal are indeed greedy and that breeds resentment in those who are truly deficient.
This leads to extreme ‘liberalism’  using the vehicle of guilt to take from the truly greedy….and give to perhaps the less greedy.

How much is ’sufficient’? Who evaluates how much pleasure one is entitled to?
How much money do the apparently  deficient allocate to pleasure that gives them the appearance of insufficient means of survival?

My grandfather’s favorite expression was, “Moderation in all things.”

In short be conservative (self-sufficient) but not greedy.

   The reader I refer to has a site definitely worth visiting: www.blog4brains.com.

   I guess that’s what it takes. We are simply humans and it seems that once we get into a rut we tend stay there. It is the easy way out. Someone needs to poke us with a stick.

   Anyway, the reader mentioned that we have a neglected freedom, the freedom to fail.

  Our present American culture has become very–I won’t call it success oriented–but ‘anti-failure’ oriented.

  I first experienced this in 1968 when I had moved into a new neighborhood and a neighbor invited me to his home for a visit.

   The basement had been made into a very impressive game room and while touring the house his young son challenged me to a game of table tennis.

   The boy was very good but I managed to win a very close game.

   Both the kid and the father significantly cooled and the visit ended fairly quickly.

   When we went outside, the father said angrily, “You were supposed to let him win!”

   Having been a Boy Scout, an Assistant Scoutmaster, an Explorer Advisor and a Cub Scout Committee Chairman I was very surprised by that attitude.

  During my entire life I had been conditioned to survive and one only survives by giving everything in you to every task. The concept of intentional failure was beyond my comprehension.

   Since then we have seen the system of survival replaced by the system of ‘preservation of self-esteem’

  School children are not permitted to fail. No matter how poor their performance they still graduate from high school barely able to read, write a meaningful sentence or give you back the correct change.

  We do have the ‘freedom to fail’. If you manage your personal finances or your business in a manner in which you cannot survive then it is necessary that you fail.

  I am fairly certain that if you cannot compete in business or in the academic fields in China, India or Russia then you have the freedom to fail.

  No one will bail you out if you are a proven loser.

  Why should they?

   If we continue to place a higher value on  self-esteem than on performance, we, as a country, can expect to fail. It is, after all, one of our freedoms.

“I owed the IRS $10,000 but I went to the firm of Joe Cheat and Associates and I only had to pay back $400.”

This, in my opinion, was the start. People tried to weasel out of their obligations in a semi-acceptable manner.

If you owe the IRS taxes it’s because you made the money. It’s as simple as that.

The problem, however, is the honest guy who sees that ad over and over again starts to wonder why he/she doesn’t do the same.

We have some wonderful examples of our ‘Big-League’ politicians who are doing this on a grand scale.

“Hell, why waste time with Joe Cheat and Associates, I’ll just bypass the middleman and simply not pay my taxes?” 

No one wants to voluntarily give away their hard-earned money but that happens to be the system that we live under.

If you want government services you must pay for them. That’s why we have a system of taxation. To do otherwise is to take advantage of the person who is willing to work and play by the rules.

Remember, money doesn’t come cheap. You trade hours of your life for a paycheck.

You have made a decision to swap part of your life for dollars.

How many hours of your life are you willing to give to someone who would rather go fishing or play golf instead of working because he/she figured out a system to coast at your expense?

At a cost of about $700 billion dollars that comes out to about $233,000 to create each new job.

Am I missing something in the math????

I’d like one of those.

Where do you apply???

“Do I need it?”

“Will I use it?”

“Can I afford it?”

That is how I have managed my life’s finances.

There are obviously times during one’s life when we buy things that we don’t really need but those are what makes life fun. These are the frivolous items that we buy or the trips that we take simply for pleasure.

However, before I spend the money I always ask myself, “Can I afford it?”

I answer that question honestly every time and often forego the pleasure out of a sense of fiscal responsibility.

In my previous post, “Black Plastic”, I questioned the necessity of the plastic sheet at construction sites.

To date, one person has agreed with me and one has misunderstood my article.

I did not blame Saudi Arabia for our misguided use of polyethylene.

If readers go back to the beginning of my articles they will find that my entire purpose in writing these articles is to question actions based on emotion rather than reason.

I assume the intended purpose of the plastic is to protect the environment. However, it does not and its use amounts to “Fiscal Irresponsibility”.

In short, we don’t need it and we can’t afford it.

The US has been in a continuously increasing trade deficit and purchasing polyethylene from a foreign country worsens the situation.

Polyethylene is a petroleum-based product. It is my opinion that crude oil, which we are told is a limited resource, is being diverted to the production of a product that we don’t need and can’t afford.

                                                 John W. Malenda

 I’m a bit disillusioned with the process.

I have just read an article that appeared January 22nd, on NEWSMAX HEALTH.

I feel that it is important to spread this information because many home remedies from Latin American countries and India use incredibly high levels of lead in their preparation.
The CDC reported 12 cases of lead poisoning in 2004 from using ayurvedic remedies in Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York and California.

High levels of lead have been found in ayurvedic medicines, which are used in India and in South Asian immigrant communities in New York, Chicago and Houston. These medicines include ghasard, a brown powder given to relieve constipation in babies, and mahayogaraj gugullu, for high blood pressure.

Lead poisoning can cause lethargy, confusion, learning problems and convulsions. Too much lead can cause irreversible brain damage and death.

The article stated:
“Traditional medicines may account for up to 30 percent of all childhood lead poisoning cases in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates 240,000 U.S. children were diagnosed with high blood lead levels in 2004 to 2006.”

“Mexican remedies such as greta, azarcon and rueda – powders that are given to treat constipation in children and contain as much as 90 percent lead. In New York City and Rhode Island, high lead levels in the blood have been tied to litargirio, a powder containing up to 79 percent lead. It is used by Dominican immigrants for such ills as foot fungus and body odor.”

“In Harris County, which includes Houston, traditional medicines are blamed for nearly one-fifth of all cases in which children were found to have high levels of lead. In Arizona, home remedies account for one-fourth of childhood lead poisoning cases.”

How many high lead level cases are not reported if the child doesn’t become ill enough for the parents to become aware that it is their home medication that is causing problems?
If there are minute traces of lead in paint on toys, I wondered when I wrote the previous article, how many toys that have minute traces of lead in their paint must a child eat to cause the levels of lead absorbed and detected?
My point is that before we make drastic and costly decisions we should not make assumptions. The scientific approach of ‘cause and effect’ seems to have been forgotten recently. Opinion and emotion seems to prevail over solid scientific fact.

I have to paraphrase the incident because I wasn’t paying enough attention at the time to record the actual words. We tend not to take notice until we realize that something of interest is taking place.

Anyway, the interviewer was stopping people on the street and asking them if they were for or against repeal of the 1975 (or some date) Bill of Income Adjustment.
He stated that most were for the repeal. What’s interesting is that there was no such bill!

Where I am going with this is that if one were to take a poll as to what the most important task for the new president would be, it would be a very different answer depending on where the poll was taken.
In Arizona, it might be border security. In Detroit it would be jobs. In New England it might be the economy. In San Francisco it might be the legalization of marijuana.
If the pollster takes his poll regarding war at a college he will find a much greater percentage of people against war. Why? These young people would be the ones required to carry the rifle.

How the question is asked also alters the answer.
Certainly the restrictive nature of the question, whether a “yes or no” answer is expected, when there is no clear answer possible to the question.
For instance, “Sir, do you still kick your dog when you get home from work every day?”

Everyone wants to be associated with a winner and unfortunately the polls can create winners.
We are seeing this effect at the present time with funding for some of the Presidential candidates drying up.
If polls are taken in specific regions that favor one candidate over another, people will shift their allegiance to the perceived winner.
This has been going on since primitive cultures formed and will continue forever.

For years my skeptical nature has caused me to ask, “Who’s telling you what and why?”

Beware how the pollster asks his questions and where he asks them for they can significantly influence the outcome of an election.

The pawns pay the price.