Black Sunday has passed and it appears that a majority of our elected representatives have decided they do not care what we, the American People want. They have forgotten who their bosses are and instead think they are some sort of deity or royalty. Our next move is to exercise our authority as their employers and fire them.
We are a representative republic and as such elect representatives to represent us. Our Founding Fathers intended that these representatives would represent the desires of the constituents in their districts. The Founding Fathers intended that the constituents in their districts would be able to contact or lobby their representatives, making their desires known.
The current group of “representatives” does not answer phone calls and ignore emails from their constituents. When these constituents spend their hard-earned money to travel to Washington DC to lobby them, they turn a deaf ear. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended. If they were alive today, they would join us in letting them know the errors in their ways.
Now that the massive healthcare bill, or fiasco, has passed and only awaits a signature from the President, we are left with only one choice. We must meet at the polls in November.
It is time to begin searching for candidates for office who will represent the people and not issue mandates on them. It is time for us the American People to speak loudly, letting them know how we feel about their deafness with regard to our intentions. I encourage everyone to find good candidates and get involved in helping elect them. If you have the money donate to their campaigns. If you lack the funds, volunteer your time knocking on doors, making calls, stuffing envelopes or anything else you can do.
We have never been more unified with a common purpose of taking our country back. I know we are tired from the recent health care battle but there are men and women fighting overseas right now to keep us save. I know they are tired too but we need to fight to insure that the government they are fighting to protect is a government that is by the people and for the people.
I urge you to join me in this fight.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Finding the Ideal Leader (Part 4)
In our previous posting, we discovered that contingency theorists needed something other than IQ to test a persons potential for leadership. They began testing for emotional intelligence (EI) in order to determine an individual’s emotional quotient (EQ). There interest in measuring EQ stemmed from its measurement of the social and interpersonal aspects of intelligence, something contingency theorists judge as important in selecting someone for a leadership position.
Another measurement important in selecting the ideal leader is the individual’s personality type. In the late 1960’s research began focusing on the concept of Type A behavior. The purpose of their research was as a risk factor for coronary disease. Psychologists and management researchers also became interested in studying Type A behavior (Nahavandi, 2006). Their goal was to match the characteristics of Type A individuals with situations where these characteristics would be beneficial. Researchers isolated four characteristics.
First, researchers determined that Type A individuals exhibit the characteristic of time urgency. These individuals are constantly in a hurry. They are impatient and do not tolerate delays well. This characteristic would cause them to be prompt and obsessed with meeting deadlines (Nahavandi, 2006).
The second characteristic of Type A’s is competitiveness. This competitiveness not only exhibits itself in their careers but also in their social lives and sports situations. They measure themselves against others and track their individual performance because they are concerned with winning (Nahavandi, 2006).
The third characteristic involves polyphasic behaviors or doing several things at once. Everyone has to take on several tasks at the same time on occasion but Type A’s will multi-task even when it is not necessary. It is not uncommon for a Type A to even make a list to plan activities while on vacation (Nahavandi, 2006).
The forth characteristic is hostility. Type A’s are focused on controlling their environment and when something occurs e.g. a delay, they can become agitated and even hostile. This characteristic is the only one researchers found that contributed to a higher risk of coronary disease (Nahavandi, 2006). Now we need to determine what situations these characteristics would be valuable as a leadership quality.
According to Walter (2010) Type A individuals experience high work stress. The study broke Type A behavior into four dimensions leadership, aggression, being “hard driven and eagerness-energy. Of these behaviors, only leadership resulted in lower work stress (Walter, 2010). This fact would lead us to believe that Type A’s are natural born leaders but are they ideal in every potential situation?
The Type A person may indeed experience lower work stress when in a leadership position. This is because they are in control of their environment but followers who function better with a more hands-off style of leader may not accept their highly competitive and hurried nature. Once again, we find that selection of the ideal leader is dependent upon the situation and the culture the leader must function in. This does not mean that evaluation of a person’s personality characteristic is not important but that it is not the only metric one must use to measure potential for leadership.
A Type A leadership personality will function best in a situation requiring a hands-on leader to turn around a negative situation. In these types of situations, the acceptability of the leader by followers is not as important as the ability of the leader to turn the negative situation around. A type A’s highly competitive nature and sense of time urgency will result in things being done on time and with positive results. High Type A’s would also be respected in cultures where the hierarchy is respected due to their ability to take control of the situation.
A type A leadership personality will not function well in a situation where maintaining the status quo is needed. Placing a high Type A individual into a properly functioning organization would result in followers becoming demotivated, resulting in lowered productivity and lowered morale. In highly individualistic cultures, followers may view a high Type A individual as a threat to their individuality.
In conclusion, type A’s make good leaders when placed in a situation requiring a turnaround manager or transformational leader because the organization is under performing or on the verge of failure. However, they will have trouble when placed in a situation where the organization is already performing at an acceptable level and enjoying a level of success. If an organization is performing at an acceptable level but wishes to increase its performance the negatives of a high Type A individual may outweigh their positives and result in declining performance. In this type of situation, a leader exhibiting some Type A characteristics may be desirable as long as the individual has a high EQ and knows when to temper their Type A characteristics so as not to cause a decline in morale resulting in a decline in organizational performance.
In the next posting, we will look at the Type B personality and determine situations where this personality type is desirable.
References
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The science and art of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ:
Pearson Education Inc.
Walter, L. (2010, January). Leadership: The type A characteristic that lowers work stress. EHS
Today, , . Retrieved Retrieved March 24,2010, ABI/INFORM complete (document ID:
1952095791
Another measurement important in selecting the ideal leader is the individual’s personality type. In the late 1960’s research began focusing on the concept of Type A behavior. The purpose of their research was as a risk factor for coronary disease. Psychologists and management researchers also became interested in studying Type A behavior (Nahavandi, 2006). Their goal was to match the characteristics of Type A individuals with situations where these characteristics would be beneficial. Researchers isolated four characteristics.
First, researchers determined that Type A individuals exhibit the characteristic of time urgency. These individuals are constantly in a hurry. They are impatient and do not tolerate delays well. This characteristic would cause them to be prompt and obsessed with meeting deadlines (Nahavandi, 2006).
The second characteristic of Type A’s is competitiveness. This competitiveness not only exhibits itself in their careers but also in their social lives and sports situations. They measure themselves against others and track their individual performance because they are concerned with winning (Nahavandi, 2006).
The third characteristic involves polyphasic behaviors or doing several things at once. Everyone has to take on several tasks at the same time on occasion but Type A’s will multi-task even when it is not necessary. It is not uncommon for a Type A to even make a list to plan activities while on vacation (Nahavandi, 2006).
The forth characteristic is hostility. Type A’s are focused on controlling their environment and when something occurs e.g. a delay, they can become agitated and even hostile. This characteristic is the only one researchers found that contributed to a higher risk of coronary disease (Nahavandi, 2006). Now we need to determine what situations these characteristics would be valuable as a leadership quality.
According to Walter (2010) Type A individuals experience high work stress. The study broke Type A behavior into four dimensions leadership, aggression, being “hard driven and eagerness-energy. Of these behaviors, only leadership resulted in lower work stress (Walter, 2010). This fact would lead us to believe that Type A’s are natural born leaders but are they ideal in every potential situation?
The Type A person may indeed experience lower work stress when in a leadership position. This is because they are in control of their environment but followers who function better with a more hands-off style of leader may not accept their highly competitive and hurried nature. Once again, we find that selection of the ideal leader is dependent upon the situation and the culture the leader must function in. This does not mean that evaluation of a person’s personality characteristic is not important but that it is not the only metric one must use to measure potential for leadership.
A Type A leadership personality will function best in a situation requiring a hands-on leader to turn around a negative situation. In these types of situations, the acceptability of the leader by followers is not as important as the ability of the leader to turn the negative situation around. A type A’s highly competitive nature and sense of time urgency will result in things being done on time and with positive results. High Type A’s would also be respected in cultures where the hierarchy is respected due to their ability to take control of the situation.
A type A leadership personality will not function well in a situation where maintaining the status quo is needed. Placing a high Type A individual into a properly functioning organization would result in followers becoming demotivated, resulting in lowered productivity and lowered morale. In highly individualistic cultures, followers may view a high Type A individual as a threat to their individuality.
In conclusion, type A’s make good leaders when placed in a situation requiring a turnaround manager or transformational leader because the organization is under performing or on the verge of failure. However, they will have trouble when placed in a situation where the organization is already performing at an acceptable level and enjoying a level of success. If an organization is performing at an acceptable level but wishes to increase its performance the negatives of a high Type A individual may outweigh their positives and result in declining performance. In this type of situation, a leader exhibiting some Type A characteristics may be desirable as long as the individual has a high EQ and knows when to temper their Type A characteristics so as not to cause a decline in morale resulting in a decline in organizational performance.
In the next posting, we will look at the Type B personality and determine situations where this personality type is desirable.
References
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The science and art of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ:
Pearson Education Inc.
Walter, L. (2010, January). Leadership: The type A characteristic that lowers work stress. EHS
Today, , . Retrieved Retrieved March 24,2010, ABI/INFORM complete (document ID:
1952095791
History of U.S. Taxation
It has been said that two things are certain in life, death and taxes. Since governmental entities do not produce goods or services that they can sell for a profit, they depend on some form of taxation to finance their operations. The amount of taxation a governmental entity must assess depends upon the level of service they are required to provide the public they serve.
In the United States (U.S.), the authority to asses taxes is given to the House of Representatives in article 1 section 8 (Archiving Early America, 1996-2010). The people of their districts elect the representatives of the House of Representatives so through these elected representatives, the people determine the levels of service provided by the government and thus the level of taxation the government will collect.
Presently the tax bite in the United States is about one-third of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country. At the turn of the 20th century, the tax bite was only about 10 percent of GDP but this was high when compared to the level of taxation for the colonists who first settled in the American Colonies. This is because they only paid taxes to provide security against internal and external enemies, a system of courts and justice, prisons, roads, schools, public buildings, poor relief, and even churches in some colonies (Rabushka, 2002). The increase in the percentage of taxation is due to an increase in the public’s reliance on the government to provide more and more services.
The early colonists paid little in taxation to their local governments and it was not until the 1640’s that public officials received any compensation. According to Richard T. Ely a prominent nineteenth-century historian “One of the things against which our forefathers in England and in the American colonies contended was not against oppressive taxation, but against the payment of any taxes at all” (Rabushka, 2002). The feeling of those who braved the hardship of travel across the Atlantic and tamed a wilderness on their own was that since the crown had not helped them in their endeavors, why should they be obligated to pay taxes to them.
With this attitude in mind, the authors of the U.S. Constitution deliberated at great length over the taxing provisions in the Constitution. The belief that taxes assessed upon the Colonies by the crown were excessive led to the mantra “no taxation with out representation” (The Congressional Digest, 1963) . Not wanting the young nation to experience another revolt, the framers of the constitution took the taxation provisions very seriously.
However, the young nation was $60 million in debt from the revolutionary war, a substantial sum for the day. Therefore, it was imperative that the young nation develop an acceptable method of revenue collection to prevent the young nation from financially collapsing before it even began. It was decided by the framers that direct taxes, taxes levied on the citizens of the country, be uniform throughout all the states and to insure implementation of this policy, gave taxing authority to the House of Representatives because it was closer in representation to the people (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
With passage of the Revenue Act of March 3, 1791 a broad tax program of levies on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, snuff, and snuffmills, property sold at auction, bonds, and slaves was introduced. In addition, the act imposed a progressive tax on houses and lots. However, the revenue collected was slight; approximately $208,000 in 1792, which was one-tenth of the amount, collected during the same year from customs duties.
After the war of 1812, there was an increase in the collection of customs resulting in the abolishment of all direct-taxation. However, the Civil War erupted in 1861 and led to the formation of the foundation of the present U.S. internal revenue system in July 1862. This new law provided for a progressive tax on incomes and for tax withholding, the first federal income tax. This income tax continued after the war because of the need to pay off debt incurred to finance the war. In 1872, this first federal income tax was abolished (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
In 1880, the Supreme Court was called upon to rule on the constitutionality of the Federal Income Tax in a claim filed by a private citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that the tax was constitutional citing that it was “in the character of an excise of duty” and not an income tax. However, 15 years later in 1895 the same Supreme Court ruled that a two-percent income tax provision appended to the Tariff Act of 1894 was ruled unconstitutional. The court’s reasoning in this instance was that the tax was not apportioned according to representation as required by Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
After the turn of the century, agitation for a Federal income tax arose from the southern and western states. In his State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt discussed the introduction of a graduated income tax. However, debate ensued on the need to pass a constitutional amendment due to the courts ruling in 1895. In 1909 Congress passed legislation authorizing the levying of a one-percent corporate income tax and an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the levying of a tax on income. Congress quickly passed the legislation and sent the amendment to the states for ratification (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
Many believed there was little chance of ratification by the states but to their surprise, the amendment achieved ratification by the required 36 states in February 1913. On October 3, 1913, President Wilson signed legislation enacting a new income tax that would now be constitutional due to ratification of the 16th amendment (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
In our next posting, we will look at how this income tax has grown through the years. We will see how politicians in order to gain political favors and votes now use the income tax and how they use it to engineer social behavior. We will also see how the progressive income tax is used as a vehicle to transfer wealth from the affluent of society to the poor using refundable tax credits.
References
Archiving Early America (1996-2010). The constitution of the United States. Retrieved
March 26, 2010,
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.heml
Rabushka, A. (2002, Aug/Sept). The colonial roots of American taxation, 1607 through
1700. Policy Review, 114, pp. 61-80. Retrieved March 24, 2010, the ebscohost database
The Congressional Digest (1963, April). The evolution of the federal tax system.
Congressional Digest, 42, pp. 100-101. Retrieved March 24, 2010, Te Ebscohost
Database
In the United States (U.S.), the authority to asses taxes is given to the House of Representatives in article 1 section 8 (Archiving Early America, 1996-2010). The people of their districts elect the representatives of the House of Representatives so through these elected representatives, the people determine the levels of service provided by the government and thus the level of taxation the government will collect.
Presently the tax bite in the United States is about one-third of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country. At the turn of the 20th century, the tax bite was only about 10 percent of GDP but this was high when compared to the level of taxation for the colonists who first settled in the American Colonies. This is because they only paid taxes to provide security against internal and external enemies, a system of courts and justice, prisons, roads, schools, public buildings, poor relief, and even churches in some colonies (Rabushka, 2002). The increase in the percentage of taxation is due to an increase in the public’s reliance on the government to provide more and more services.
The early colonists paid little in taxation to their local governments and it was not until the 1640’s that public officials received any compensation. According to Richard T. Ely a prominent nineteenth-century historian “One of the things against which our forefathers in England and in the American colonies contended was not against oppressive taxation, but against the payment of any taxes at all” (Rabushka, 2002). The feeling of those who braved the hardship of travel across the Atlantic and tamed a wilderness on their own was that since the crown had not helped them in their endeavors, why should they be obligated to pay taxes to them.
With this attitude in mind, the authors of the U.S. Constitution deliberated at great length over the taxing provisions in the Constitution. The belief that taxes assessed upon the Colonies by the crown were excessive led to the mantra “no taxation with out representation” (The Congressional Digest, 1963) . Not wanting the young nation to experience another revolt, the framers of the constitution took the taxation provisions very seriously.
However, the young nation was $60 million in debt from the revolutionary war, a substantial sum for the day. Therefore, it was imperative that the young nation develop an acceptable method of revenue collection to prevent the young nation from financially collapsing before it even began. It was decided by the framers that direct taxes, taxes levied on the citizens of the country, be uniform throughout all the states and to insure implementation of this policy, gave taxing authority to the House of Representatives because it was closer in representation to the people (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
With passage of the Revenue Act of March 3, 1791 a broad tax program of levies on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, snuff, and snuffmills, property sold at auction, bonds, and slaves was introduced. In addition, the act imposed a progressive tax on houses and lots. However, the revenue collected was slight; approximately $208,000 in 1792, which was one-tenth of the amount, collected during the same year from customs duties.
After the war of 1812, there was an increase in the collection of customs resulting in the abolishment of all direct-taxation. However, the Civil War erupted in 1861 and led to the formation of the foundation of the present U.S. internal revenue system in July 1862. This new law provided for a progressive tax on incomes and for tax withholding, the first federal income tax. This income tax continued after the war because of the need to pay off debt incurred to finance the war. In 1872, this first federal income tax was abolished (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
In 1880, the Supreme Court was called upon to rule on the constitutionality of the Federal Income Tax in a claim filed by a private citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that the tax was constitutional citing that it was “in the character of an excise of duty” and not an income tax. However, 15 years later in 1895 the same Supreme Court ruled that a two-percent income tax provision appended to the Tariff Act of 1894 was ruled unconstitutional. The court’s reasoning in this instance was that the tax was not apportioned according to representation as required by Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
After the turn of the century, agitation for a Federal income tax arose from the southern and western states. In his State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt discussed the introduction of a graduated income tax. However, debate ensued on the need to pass a constitutional amendment due to the courts ruling in 1895. In 1909 Congress passed legislation authorizing the levying of a one-percent corporate income tax and an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the levying of a tax on income. Congress quickly passed the legislation and sent the amendment to the states for ratification (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
Many believed there was little chance of ratification by the states but to their surprise, the amendment achieved ratification by the required 36 states in February 1913. On October 3, 1913, President Wilson signed legislation enacting a new income tax that would now be constitutional due to ratification of the 16th amendment (The Congressional Digest, 1963).
In our next posting, we will look at how this income tax has grown through the years. We will see how politicians in order to gain political favors and votes now use the income tax and how they use it to engineer social behavior. We will also see how the progressive income tax is used as a vehicle to transfer wealth from the affluent of society to the poor using refundable tax credits.
References
Archiving Early America (1996-2010). The constitution of the United States. Retrieved
March 26, 2010,
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.heml
Rabushka, A. (2002, Aug/Sept). The colonial roots of American taxation, 1607 through
1700. Policy Review, 114, pp. 61-80. Retrieved March 24, 2010, the ebscohost database
The Congressional Digest (1963, April). The evolution of the federal tax system.
Congressional Digest, 42, pp. 100-101. Retrieved March 24, 2010, Te Ebscohost
Database
Taking a National U-Turn
The current state of our nation is not good. When listening to the media, there seems to be no lack of opinions about what to do. In this posting, I want to discuss how many of our nation’s problems are a result of the spiritual decline of the nation. The solution for our nation is for it to take a national u-turn and turn back to God.
As a Christian, I believe the current political and economic crisis our nation faces is a result of the spiritual and moral decline of the nation. In Deuteronomy 11 God instructs the nation of Israel that if they follow Gods laws they will be blessed but if they disobey, they will be cursed.
We no longer live under the old covenant as the Israelites did in the time of Moses but we live under the new covenant of grace. However, this is not an excuse for us to live in sin or immorality for participation in these activities always has undesired consequences. That is why Paul in Romans 6:1-14 exhorts us to live a sin free life for Jesus broke the power of sin over us by his death on the cross so why would we want to live in sin anymore.
However, our nation has not heeded Paul’s advice and instead has made a gradual slide into immorality. It began in 1962 when the Supreme Court banned prayer and Bible reading in our public schools. With this lack of moral foundation individuals, who for the most part have no moral foundation, now lead our nation. This has led to the legalization of abortion and the acceptance of gay marriage both of which are an abomination to God.
Most importantly however, many in our nation no longer depend upon God to meet their needs and instead turn to government to provide for them. This has led to massive entitlement programs, high deficits, and out of control national debt. Our nation who once lent money to other nations of the world now has to borrow from foreign countries such as China to fund these entitlement programs.
On Friday March 26, 2010, we received the news that a South Korean naval vessel was sinking in the Yellow Sea. One news report said that for some unknown reason the ship got a hole in its side and sunk. The most likely cause of this hole is a torpedo attack, most likely from South Koreas archenemy, North Korea.
With North Korea strongly allied with China, we must ask ourselves an important question. If this was indeed a torpedo attack from North Korea, will our government support our ally South Korea or will we remain silent out of fear of angering our creditor, China.
This situation demonstrates how our nations decision to turn its back on God and instead depend on government has placed us in a situation that threatens one or our allies and our own national security.
In the Bible, David gives us a blueprint for turning back to God.
Psalm 51
1 Have mercy on me, O God,because of your unfailing love.Because of your great compassion,blot out the stain of my sins. 2 Wash me clean from my guilt.Purify me from my sin.
3 For I recognize my shameful deeds — they haunt me day and night. 4 Against you, and you alone, have I sinned;I have done what is evil in your sight.You will be proved right in what you say,and your judgment against me is just.
5 For I was born a sinner — yes, from the moment my mother conceived me. 6 But you desire honesty from the heart,so you can teach me to be wise in my inmost being.
7 Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean;wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. 8 Oh, give me back my joy again;you have broken me — now let me rejoice. 9 Don't keep looking at my sins.Remove the stain of my guilt. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God.Renew a right spirit within me. 11 Do not banish me from your presence,and don't take your Holy Spirit from me. 12 Restore to me again the joy of your salvation,and make me willing to obey you. 13 Then I will teach your ways to sinners,and they will return to you. 14 Forgive me for shedding blood, O God who saves;then I will joyfully sing of your forgiveness. 15 Unseal my lips, O Lord,that I may praise you.
16 You would not be pleased with sacrifices,or I would bring them.If I brought you a burnt offering,you would not accept it. 17 The sacrifice you want is a broken spirit.A broken and repentant heart, O God,you will not despise.
18 Look with favor on Zion and help her;rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 19 Then you will be pleased with worthy sacrifices and with our whole burnt offerings;and bulls will again be sacrificed on your altar.
NLT
David wrote this Psalm after his sin with Bathsheba was discovered in 2 Samuel 11, 12. Revival for our nation begins with God’s people rendering their hearts and turning to God as David did by:
1) Taking ownership of our sin
2) Acknowledging that our sin is against God.
3) Acknowledge God is right and we are wrong.
4) Asking God to blot out our sin. He already has with the blood of Christ but he is waiting for us to ask
Now we as God’s people need to repeat this process for our nation. Our nation needs to take a spiritual u-turn from dependence on government and begin dependence on God. This will reduce our entitlement programs, deficits, and allow us to pay back our debts thus protecting our national security.
As a Christian, I believe the current political and economic crisis our nation faces is a result of the spiritual and moral decline of the nation. In Deuteronomy 11 God instructs the nation of Israel that if they follow Gods laws they will be blessed but if they disobey, they will be cursed.
We no longer live under the old covenant as the Israelites did in the time of Moses but we live under the new covenant of grace. However, this is not an excuse for us to live in sin or immorality for participation in these activities always has undesired consequences. That is why Paul in Romans 6:1-14 exhorts us to live a sin free life for Jesus broke the power of sin over us by his death on the cross so why would we want to live in sin anymore.
However, our nation has not heeded Paul’s advice and instead has made a gradual slide into immorality. It began in 1962 when the Supreme Court banned prayer and Bible reading in our public schools. With this lack of moral foundation individuals, who for the most part have no moral foundation, now lead our nation. This has led to the legalization of abortion and the acceptance of gay marriage both of which are an abomination to God.
Most importantly however, many in our nation no longer depend upon God to meet their needs and instead turn to government to provide for them. This has led to massive entitlement programs, high deficits, and out of control national debt. Our nation who once lent money to other nations of the world now has to borrow from foreign countries such as China to fund these entitlement programs.
On Friday March 26, 2010, we received the news that a South Korean naval vessel was sinking in the Yellow Sea. One news report said that for some unknown reason the ship got a hole in its side and sunk. The most likely cause of this hole is a torpedo attack, most likely from South Koreas archenemy, North Korea.
With North Korea strongly allied with China, we must ask ourselves an important question. If this was indeed a torpedo attack from North Korea, will our government support our ally South Korea or will we remain silent out of fear of angering our creditor, China.
This situation demonstrates how our nations decision to turn its back on God and instead depend on government has placed us in a situation that threatens one or our allies and our own national security.
In the Bible, David gives us a blueprint for turning back to God.
Psalm 51
1 Have mercy on me, O God,because of your unfailing love.Because of your great compassion,blot out the stain of my sins. 2 Wash me clean from my guilt.Purify me from my sin.
3 For I recognize my shameful deeds — they haunt me day and night. 4 Against you, and you alone, have I sinned;I have done what is evil in your sight.You will be proved right in what you say,and your judgment against me is just.
5 For I was born a sinner — yes, from the moment my mother conceived me. 6 But you desire honesty from the heart,so you can teach me to be wise in my inmost being.
7 Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean;wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. 8 Oh, give me back my joy again;you have broken me — now let me rejoice. 9 Don't keep looking at my sins.Remove the stain of my guilt. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God.Renew a right spirit within me. 11 Do not banish me from your presence,and don't take your Holy Spirit from me. 12 Restore to me again the joy of your salvation,and make me willing to obey you. 13 Then I will teach your ways to sinners,and they will return to you. 14 Forgive me for shedding blood, O God who saves;then I will joyfully sing of your forgiveness. 15 Unseal my lips, O Lord,that I may praise you.
16 You would not be pleased with sacrifices,or I would bring them.If I brought you a burnt offering,you would not accept it. 17 The sacrifice you want is a broken spirit.A broken and repentant heart, O God,you will not despise.
18 Look with favor on Zion and help her;rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 19 Then you will be pleased with worthy sacrifices and with our whole burnt offerings;and bulls will again be sacrificed on your altar.
NLT
David wrote this Psalm after his sin with Bathsheba was discovered in 2 Samuel 11, 12. Revival for our nation begins with God’s people rendering their hearts and turning to God as David did by:
1) Taking ownership of our sin
2) Acknowledging that our sin is against God.
3) Acknowledge God is right and we are wrong.
4) Asking God to blot out our sin. He already has with the blood of Christ but he is waiting for us to ask
Now we as God’s people need to repeat this process for our nation. Our nation needs to take a spiritual u-turn from dependence on government and begin dependence on God. This will reduce our entitlement programs, deficits, and allow us to pay back our debts thus protecting our national security.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Shredding the Constitution
Comedians have made numerous jokes about how government employees routinely shred documents. Usually the shredding occurs when these officials want to cover illegal or unethical activities. However, this week Congress proposed perhaps the greatest act of shredding ever attempted by the government, the shredding of the Constitution and the very foundation of our republic.
For many weeks now, for some of us it seems like years, Congress has been debating reform of the nation’s healthcare system. Since healthcare reform was the crown jewel of President Obama’s campaign for President, the Executive Branch has been putting pressure on the Congress to pass a bill but the proposed changes are extremely unpopular with the electorate. Fearing they will not be re-elected, members of Congress are hesitant to vote for the proposal and debate lingers on.
The Constitution clearly spells out the legislative process.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
(U.S. Constitution Online)
According to Mark Tapscott at The Examiner, Louise Slaughter, Chairperson of the House Roles Committee is proposing a rule change that would actually ramrod the Senate version of the healthcare bill to the President’s desk for signature without an actual recorded vote in the House (Tapscott, 2010). Her rule claims that a House vote on changes to the Senate bill constitutes an essential vote on the entire bill. This is a blatant violation of the constitutional legislative process and not only shreds the constitution, but also threatens the very foundation of our representative republic.
I urge all who read this to contact their congressperson and remind them of the clearly spelled out constitutional legislative process. Remind them that should they persist in this process, they will definitely be removed from office in the next election and replaced with individuals committed to following the legislative process. The House needs to have a vote on the Senate bill and end this fiasco once and for all.
On the right side of this webpage is a link to finding your congressperson. I urge you to find your congresspersons email or fax and send them Article 1 Section 7 of the constitution to remind them of the legislative process they swore to abide by when they were sworn in. You can cut and past it from this text and send it in your email. It is time for us the American People to stand up and remind our elected officials that we know the rules, that they are breaking them, and that we will not tolerate rule breakers in our Congress.
References
Tapscott, M. (2010, March 12). House Democrats looking at "Slaughter Solution" to pass Obamacare without a vote on the Senate bill. The Examiner, , . Retrieved March 12, 2010, http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=House+Democrats+looking+at+"slaughter+Solution"+to+pass+Obamacare+without+vote+on+Senate+bill.html
U.S. Constitution Online (). U.S. Constitution article 1 section 7. Retrieved March 12, 2010, http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html
For many weeks now, for some of us it seems like years, Congress has been debating reform of the nation’s healthcare system. Since healthcare reform was the crown jewel of President Obama’s campaign for President, the Executive Branch has been putting pressure on the Congress to pass a bill but the proposed changes are extremely unpopular with the electorate. Fearing they will not be re-elected, members of Congress are hesitant to vote for the proposal and debate lingers on.
The Constitution clearly spells out the legislative process.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
(U.S. Constitution Online)
According to Mark Tapscott at The Examiner, Louise Slaughter, Chairperson of the House Roles Committee is proposing a rule change that would actually ramrod the Senate version of the healthcare bill to the President’s desk for signature without an actual recorded vote in the House (Tapscott, 2010). Her rule claims that a House vote on changes to the Senate bill constitutes an essential vote on the entire bill. This is a blatant violation of the constitutional legislative process and not only shreds the constitution, but also threatens the very foundation of our representative republic.
I urge all who read this to contact their congressperson and remind them of the clearly spelled out constitutional legislative process. Remind them that should they persist in this process, they will definitely be removed from office in the next election and replaced with individuals committed to following the legislative process. The House needs to have a vote on the Senate bill and end this fiasco once and for all.
On the right side of this webpage is a link to finding your congressperson. I urge you to find your congresspersons email or fax and send them Article 1 Section 7 of the constitution to remind them of the legislative process they swore to abide by when they were sworn in. You can cut and past it from this text and send it in your email. It is time for us the American People to stand up and remind our elected officials that we know the rules, that they are breaking them, and that we will not tolerate rule breakers in our Congress.
References
Tapscott, M. (2010, March 12). House Democrats looking at "Slaughter Solution" to pass Obamacare without a vote on the Senate bill. The Examiner, , . Retrieved March 12, 2010, http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=House+Democrats+looking+at+"slaughter+Solution"+to+pass+Obamacare+without+vote+on+Senate+bill.html
U.S. Constitution Online (). U.S. Constitution article 1 section 7. Retrieved March 12, 2010, http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html
Free Markets (Part 6)
Previously we looked at what occurs when there is governmental intervention that restricts supply for a product. Using crude oil as an example we saw how governmental restriction in the supply of domestic crude oil due to environmental regulations causes demand to exceed supply. When this occurs, prices must increase or shortages will occur. We had an opportunity to see the theory of supply and demand in action in this instance. We observed that when President Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling of domestic crude oil, the futures price dropped. Subsequently, we observed that when President Obama reinstated the ban, the price began to increase.
In this lesson, we are going to study what occurs when governmental intervention artificially inflates demand. In this lesson, we will look at how governmental intervention led to a housing bubble that initiated the current economic downturn. We will then look at how the free market can correct this crisis.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 started with good intentions, as does most legislation. However, legislation such as the CRA usually have unintended circumstances that do not surface until later. The initial purpose of the CRA was to help banking institutions meet the credit needs of local communities (Kimball, 2000). Its focus was to insure financing of low and middle-income housing and business loans.
Executives in charge of compliance with CRA say that they meet with considerable challenges and cost to remain compliant. According to Alan Urie, a vice president at First Security Bank “It is one thing to be a good corporate citizen to low and moderate income customers in your service area; all reputable financial institutions should do that as a matter of course”. Mr. Urie goes on to say, “It is another thing to meet Community Relations Act requirements and yet another to prove you are doing it” (Kimball, 2000).
When private organizations face this type of regulatory requirement, they usually insure they more than comply with regulatory standards. Financial institutions seeking to comply with CRA standards would make sure to issue a high percentage of home and business loans to low income individuals in order to insure compliance. In other words, financial institutions had an incentive to make risky loans to low income individuals in order to avoid penalties.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE). GSE’s are private corporations operating under charters drawn up by Congress. As such, investors in these companies feel their investments are secure, believing the Government will not let them go bankrupt (McLean, 2005).
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do business in the secondary mortgage market. This market purchases existing mortgages from the originating banks thus relieving them of the risk. Fannie and Freddie then either hold on to the mortgages or bundle them with other securities and sell them on the market (McLean, 2005).
Financial institutions working to comply with CRA saw the opportunity to unload risky mortgages issued to low income individuals on Fannie and Freddie. This reduction of perceived risk by financial institutions led to the creation of adjustable rate mortgages offering a low introductory sub prime rate and interest only loans. These creative loan products offered low-income homebuyers an opportunity to secure a mortgage on a home with a low payment. The payment may increase after a certain number of years but homebuyers were told that their home values would increase and that they would be able to sell or refinance their home at a profit and pay off the mortgage before the increase. They would then be able to take the profit from the sale of their home and use it as a down payment on another home with a conventional fixed mortgage.
However, what the experts failed to consider is that the creation of Fannie and Freddie created an artificial gain in demand for housing because individuals who would normally be unable to afford a mortgage on a home could now secure a mortgage and buy a home. This caused demand to accelerate past supply, leading to inflated home prices or a housing bubble. As long as home values continued to increase, the house of cards would stay up, but what if home values declined?
As normally occurs with supply and demand, the market finds its equilibrium, and prices stabilize. Normally this is a positive thing for the market but since many homes were bought with ARM’s or interest only loans that debtors planed to unload at a profit prior to their monthly payments increasing. This leveling of prices meant they would not be able to unload their mortgages. When their payments increased to a point where they could not afford them, they defaulted and went into foreclosure. This increase in foreclosures caused home prices to begin declining, thus exacerbating the problem even further.
Once again, we see that government intervention, even if it has good intentions, results in market distortion of the natural law of supply and demand. This example also shows us that no matter what the government does, the market finds its equilibrium but with much collateral damage.
If there were no Community Reinvestment Act requiring banks to make risky loans and no Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to secure these risky loans, lenders would not have made these risky loans. There would have been a normal rise in the demand for houses due to economic growth improving the financial condition of everyone. Home prices would have realistically risen at a steady rate, there would have been few foreclosures, and there would have been no need for the government to bailout the banks. Next, how taxes effect the market.
References
Kimball, T. (2000, September 11). Community Reinvestment Act prompts banks to make small business loans, low-income mortgages.. Enterprise/Salt Lake City, 30, p. 6. Retrieved March 8, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=11&hid=11&sid=7f506710-667a-4bd6-9f4e-eb986d57458%40sessionmgr11
McLean, B. (2005, January 24,). Te fall of Fannie Mae. Fortune, 151, pp. 122-140. Retrieved March 8, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=11&sid=b948e972-5b3e-4404-ae9a-08dc099ebb1f%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZQ%3d%3d#db=f5h&AN=15626097#db=f5h&AN=15626097
In this lesson, we are going to study what occurs when governmental intervention artificially inflates demand. In this lesson, we will look at how governmental intervention led to a housing bubble that initiated the current economic downturn. We will then look at how the free market can correct this crisis.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 started with good intentions, as does most legislation. However, legislation such as the CRA usually have unintended circumstances that do not surface until later. The initial purpose of the CRA was to help banking institutions meet the credit needs of local communities (Kimball, 2000). Its focus was to insure financing of low and middle-income housing and business loans.
Executives in charge of compliance with CRA say that they meet with considerable challenges and cost to remain compliant. According to Alan Urie, a vice president at First Security Bank “It is one thing to be a good corporate citizen to low and moderate income customers in your service area; all reputable financial institutions should do that as a matter of course”. Mr. Urie goes on to say, “It is another thing to meet Community Relations Act requirements and yet another to prove you are doing it” (Kimball, 2000).
When private organizations face this type of regulatory requirement, they usually insure they more than comply with regulatory standards. Financial institutions seeking to comply with CRA standards would make sure to issue a high percentage of home and business loans to low income individuals in order to insure compliance. In other words, financial institutions had an incentive to make risky loans to low income individuals in order to avoid penalties.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE). GSE’s are private corporations operating under charters drawn up by Congress. As such, investors in these companies feel their investments are secure, believing the Government will not let them go bankrupt (McLean, 2005).
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do business in the secondary mortgage market. This market purchases existing mortgages from the originating banks thus relieving them of the risk. Fannie and Freddie then either hold on to the mortgages or bundle them with other securities and sell them on the market (McLean, 2005).
Financial institutions working to comply with CRA saw the opportunity to unload risky mortgages issued to low income individuals on Fannie and Freddie. This reduction of perceived risk by financial institutions led to the creation of adjustable rate mortgages offering a low introductory sub prime rate and interest only loans. These creative loan products offered low-income homebuyers an opportunity to secure a mortgage on a home with a low payment. The payment may increase after a certain number of years but homebuyers were told that their home values would increase and that they would be able to sell or refinance their home at a profit and pay off the mortgage before the increase. They would then be able to take the profit from the sale of their home and use it as a down payment on another home with a conventional fixed mortgage.
However, what the experts failed to consider is that the creation of Fannie and Freddie created an artificial gain in demand for housing because individuals who would normally be unable to afford a mortgage on a home could now secure a mortgage and buy a home. This caused demand to accelerate past supply, leading to inflated home prices or a housing bubble. As long as home values continued to increase, the house of cards would stay up, but what if home values declined?
As normally occurs with supply and demand, the market finds its equilibrium, and prices stabilize. Normally this is a positive thing for the market but since many homes were bought with ARM’s or interest only loans that debtors planed to unload at a profit prior to their monthly payments increasing. This leveling of prices meant they would not be able to unload their mortgages. When their payments increased to a point where they could not afford them, they defaulted and went into foreclosure. This increase in foreclosures caused home prices to begin declining, thus exacerbating the problem even further.
Once again, we see that government intervention, even if it has good intentions, results in market distortion of the natural law of supply and demand. This example also shows us that no matter what the government does, the market finds its equilibrium but with much collateral damage.
If there were no Community Reinvestment Act requiring banks to make risky loans and no Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to secure these risky loans, lenders would not have made these risky loans. There would have been a normal rise in the demand for houses due to economic growth improving the financial condition of everyone. Home prices would have realistically risen at a steady rate, there would have been few foreclosures, and there would have been no need for the government to bailout the banks. Next, how taxes effect the market.
References
Kimball, T. (2000, September 11). Community Reinvestment Act prompts banks to make small business loans, low-income mortgages.. Enterprise/Salt Lake City, 30, p. 6. Retrieved March 8, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=11&hid=11&sid=7f506710-667a-4bd6-9f4e-eb986d57458%40sessionmgr11
McLean, B. (2005, January 24,). Te fall of Fannie Mae. Fortune, 151, pp. 122-140. Retrieved March 8, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=11&sid=b948e972-5b3e-4404-ae9a-08dc099ebb1f%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZQ%3d%3d#db=f5h&AN=15626097#db=f5h&AN=15626097
Finding the Ideal Leader (Part 3)
Previously we studied the history of the study of leadership theory. Researchers began their studies in the late 1800’s under the trait theory. Under this theory researchers assumed that leaders were born and not made. Research studied the heredity of leaders of the past looking for common traits that organizations could use to select future leaders but after years of research, no common traits were found (Nahavandi, 2006).
Researchers then changed their focus to studying behaviors of leaders. Similar to research conducted during the trait era, researchers were searching for common behaviors in leaders. Their hope was that isolating common behaviors would not only help select potential leaders but also give them behaviors that could teach (Nahavandi, 2006).
At present, leadership theory is working under the contingency theory. Researchers working under this theory consider situational factors such as the task and type of work group. The goal is to provide guidelines useful in selecting effective leaders for the situation in which the organization finds itself (Nahavandi, 2006).
During the trait era researchers began using IQ testing, believing that individuals exhibiting a high IQ had the traits of a leader but under the contingency theory in which researchers now operate, another form of measurement was necessary. Researchers began looking for a way to measure how an individual will work under pressure. One such measurement is the emotional quotient (EQ).
EQ is a method of measuring emotional intelligence (EI). It measures the social and interpersonal aspect of intelligence. Whereas IQ measured only the mental aspect of intelligence, EQ considers social intelligence as well. Contingency theorists use it as a measurement to assess how a leader will act under pressure (Nahavandi, 2006). In fact, Goleman (1995) believed that the EQ indicates the potential for personal success in life endeavors. Goleman may have been on to something because later studies were able to find a correlation between leadership effectiveness and EI (Boyatzis, 1999, Cherniss, 2001).
Additionally, studies have found that leaders possessing a high EI engage in transformational leadership behaviors that contribute positively to organization success (Butler, 2006). As we discovered in our studies on transformational leadership, transformational leaders often fail because of difficulty in implementation of changes. Leaders with high EI possess skills that will help them convince their followers to buy into their vision for change.
The use of EQ can also be beneficial in treating CEO disease. CEO disease is a when the CEO becomes detached from negative feedback. Since subordinates are often fearful of sharing negative aspects of a CEO’s behavior out of fear of losing their job, they hesitate to share their observations of their leader’s weaknesses and instead reiterate the leader’s strengths. This creates a vacuum around the leader absent of the candid feedback necessary for organizational effectiveness (Abrahams, 2007).
To combat this vacuum, leaders can be tested to measure their EI. This testing will reveal the leaders strengths and weaknesses. This will enable the leader to confront and deal with their personal weaknesses. The result, increased organizational effectiveness without subordinates having to feel threatened.
In conclusion, we have seen that contingency era researchers needed something in addition to IQ testing to assess a potential leader’s effectiveness. Measurement of a potential leader's EI is seen as an effective way to measure how a potential leader may react under pressure. We have also seen that this testing can be used to prevent CEO disease by revealing a leaders weaknesses without relying on subordinate input.
Next, a look at the type A and type B leader.
References
Abrahams, D. S. (2007, Mar/Apr). Emotional intelligence and army leadership: give it to me straight!. Military Review, 87, pp. 86-93. Retrieved March 8, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=11&sid=476598be-7a6c-4b18-a350-232b08318d79%40sessionmgr13
Boyatzis, R. (1999). Self-directed change and learning as a necessary meta-bompetency for success and effectiveness in the 21st century. Keys to Employee Success in the Coming Decades, , .
Butler, C. J. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership behavior in construction executives. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22, pp. 119-125. Retrieved March 8, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=11&sid=476598be-7a6c-4b18-a350-232b08318d79%40sessionmgr13
Cherniss, C. (2001). the business case for emotional intelligence. Concortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, , . Retrieved March 10, 2010, www.eiconsortium.org
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The science and art of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education Inc..
Researchers then changed their focus to studying behaviors of leaders. Similar to research conducted during the trait era, researchers were searching for common behaviors in leaders. Their hope was that isolating common behaviors would not only help select potential leaders but also give them behaviors that could teach (Nahavandi, 2006).
At present, leadership theory is working under the contingency theory. Researchers working under this theory consider situational factors such as the task and type of work group. The goal is to provide guidelines useful in selecting effective leaders for the situation in which the organization finds itself (Nahavandi, 2006).
During the trait era researchers began using IQ testing, believing that individuals exhibiting a high IQ had the traits of a leader but under the contingency theory in which researchers now operate, another form of measurement was necessary. Researchers began looking for a way to measure how an individual will work under pressure. One such measurement is the emotional quotient (EQ).
EQ is a method of measuring emotional intelligence (EI). It measures the social and interpersonal aspect of intelligence. Whereas IQ measured only the mental aspect of intelligence, EQ considers social intelligence as well. Contingency theorists use it as a measurement to assess how a leader will act under pressure (Nahavandi, 2006). In fact, Goleman (1995) believed that the EQ indicates the potential for personal success in life endeavors. Goleman may have been on to something because later studies were able to find a correlation between leadership effectiveness and EI (Boyatzis, 1999, Cherniss, 2001).
Additionally, studies have found that leaders possessing a high EI engage in transformational leadership behaviors that contribute positively to organization success (Butler, 2006). As we discovered in our studies on transformational leadership, transformational leaders often fail because of difficulty in implementation of changes. Leaders with high EI possess skills that will help them convince their followers to buy into their vision for change.
The use of EQ can also be beneficial in treating CEO disease. CEO disease is a when the CEO becomes detached from negative feedback. Since subordinates are often fearful of sharing negative aspects of a CEO’s behavior out of fear of losing their job, they hesitate to share their observations of their leader’s weaknesses and instead reiterate the leader’s strengths. This creates a vacuum around the leader absent of the candid feedback necessary for organizational effectiveness (Abrahams, 2007).
To combat this vacuum, leaders can be tested to measure their EI. This testing will reveal the leaders strengths and weaknesses. This will enable the leader to confront and deal with their personal weaknesses. The result, increased organizational effectiveness without subordinates having to feel threatened.
In conclusion, we have seen that contingency era researchers needed something in addition to IQ testing to assess a potential leader’s effectiveness. Measurement of a potential leader's EI is seen as an effective way to measure how a potential leader may react under pressure. We have also seen that this testing can be used to prevent CEO disease by revealing a leaders weaknesses without relying on subordinate input.
Next, a look at the type A and type B leader.
References
Abrahams, D. S. (2007, Mar/Apr). Emotional intelligence and army leadership: give it to me straight!. Military Review, 87, pp. 86-93. Retrieved March 8, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=11&sid=476598be-7a6c-4b18-a350-232b08318d79%40sessionmgr13
Boyatzis, R. (1999). Self-directed change and learning as a necessary meta-bompetency for success and effectiveness in the 21st century. Keys to Employee Success in the Coming Decades, , .
Butler, C. J. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership behavior in construction executives. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22, pp. 119-125. Retrieved March 8, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=11&sid=476598be-7a6c-4b18-a350-232b08318d79%40sessionmgr13
Cherniss, C. (2001). the business case for emotional intelligence. Concortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, , . Retrieved March 10, 2010, www.eiconsortium.org
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The science and art of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education Inc..
Seeing God’s Glory
There are times in our lives when everything seems to be going great. We are doing well financially. We feel good physically. God is doing great things in our lives and it seems like it could not get any better and then the bottom drops out. What we do in this situation is extremely important. Moses experienced a time like this and the result was he saw God’s glory and it changed him forever.
Moses had just spent 40 days on Mount Sinai with the Lord. He had been fasting and had direct fellowship with the Lord as no man had had since Adam. I am sure he felt that heaven could not be much better than this. However, when he came down from the mountain he found that the people had rebelled against the Lord. They had made an idol and began to worship it even though they all promised to worship only the Lord (Exodus 32:1-29).
Moses could have just run away from this seemingly hopeless situation, leaving the entire nation of Israel to die in the desert but instead he began to intercede for the people (Exodus 32:30-35). He turned to God instead of running away.
Moses must have felt all alone for in Exodus 33:12 he asks God who will be going with him. The Lord answers by reminding Moses that he would go with him (Exodus 33:14). Perhaps emboldened by the Lords response, Moses then states that unless the Lord goes with all of them he will not go (Exodus 33:15-16) and once again, the Lord promises to go with all of them because Moses has found favor in the Lord’s eyes.
Emboldened even more, Moses now boldly asks to see Gods glory. God knew that if he revealed all of his glory to Moses, he would not survive so he devises a way protect Moses from all of Gods glory and only reveal part of his glory to Moses. He instructs Moses to hide in the cleft of a rock while God passed by. God would hide the fullness of his glory as he went by and then remove his hand so Moses could see only his back.
When the bottom seems to have dropped out and we have come down from the mountaintop into a stormy turbulent situation, we need to follow the example of Moses. We need to pray and intercede. We need to ask God to go with us through the storm. Then we need to boldly ask God to reveal his glory to us. However, will we be able to survive the fullness of God’s glory? The answer is yes.
We have something Moses did not have; we have the protection of the Blood of Jesus. Just like Moses was kept save in the cleft of the rock, we are save under the covering of the blood of Jesus. We also have assurance that God is always with us (Hebrews 13:5). However, this truth only applies to those who have invited Jesus into their heart. If you have not done so, take a moment now to invite him into your life. Do not fear, he loves you and sent his son to die for you (John 3:16). All you need to do is follow the instructions found in Rom 10:9-10
9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.
NLT
God is now with you wherever you go. Now ask him to reveal himself to you, without fear for you are now protected by the blood of Jesus but how does God reveal himself to us? The answer to that question is the Bible. The Bible is Gods instruction manual for us. He wrote it so we could find out more about him but we must open it and start reading. We also need to find a Church home that teaches the Bible so we can gain a better understanding of what God is trying to tell us.
Next, the power of a rendered heart.
Moses had just spent 40 days on Mount Sinai with the Lord. He had been fasting and had direct fellowship with the Lord as no man had had since Adam. I am sure he felt that heaven could not be much better than this. However, when he came down from the mountain he found that the people had rebelled against the Lord. They had made an idol and began to worship it even though they all promised to worship only the Lord (Exodus 32:1-29).
Moses could have just run away from this seemingly hopeless situation, leaving the entire nation of Israel to die in the desert but instead he began to intercede for the people (Exodus 32:30-35). He turned to God instead of running away.
Moses must have felt all alone for in Exodus 33:12 he asks God who will be going with him. The Lord answers by reminding Moses that he would go with him (Exodus 33:14). Perhaps emboldened by the Lords response, Moses then states that unless the Lord goes with all of them he will not go (Exodus 33:15-16) and once again, the Lord promises to go with all of them because Moses has found favor in the Lord’s eyes.
Emboldened even more, Moses now boldly asks to see Gods glory. God knew that if he revealed all of his glory to Moses, he would not survive so he devises a way protect Moses from all of Gods glory and only reveal part of his glory to Moses. He instructs Moses to hide in the cleft of a rock while God passed by. God would hide the fullness of his glory as he went by and then remove his hand so Moses could see only his back.
When the bottom seems to have dropped out and we have come down from the mountaintop into a stormy turbulent situation, we need to follow the example of Moses. We need to pray and intercede. We need to ask God to go with us through the storm. Then we need to boldly ask God to reveal his glory to us. However, will we be able to survive the fullness of God’s glory? The answer is yes.
We have something Moses did not have; we have the protection of the Blood of Jesus. Just like Moses was kept save in the cleft of the rock, we are save under the covering of the blood of Jesus. We also have assurance that God is always with us (Hebrews 13:5). However, this truth only applies to those who have invited Jesus into their heart. If you have not done so, take a moment now to invite him into your life. Do not fear, he loves you and sent his son to die for you (John 3:16). All you need to do is follow the instructions found in Rom 10:9-10
9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.
NLT
God is now with you wherever you go. Now ask him to reveal himself to you, without fear for you are now protected by the blood of Jesus but how does God reveal himself to us? The answer to that question is the Bible. The Bible is Gods instruction manual for us. He wrote it so we could find out more about him but we must open it and start reading. We also need to find a Church home that teaches the Bible so we can gain a better understanding of what God is trying to tell us.
Next, the power of a rendered heart.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Finding Treasure in the Storm
Our nation has experienced many stormy events recently. 9/11 woke us all up. I recall that fateful day. My wife was scheduled for surgery and we had not been watching TV or listening to the radio. When we arrived at the hospital, I remember looking up at the TV and asking someone what movie they were watching. They told me that it was not a movie but it was real. I remember watching the TV in the waiting room and watching in horror as both of the towers fell knowing that thousands of people had just been killed.
Then, there was hurricane Katrina. I remember the visions of people waiting on their roofs for the helicopters to rescue them and the visions of people wading for miles in the mucky water. The devastation cost many people everything they had, everything they had worked for all of their lives.
Now, we face an economic storm. Many people were saving for their retirements through their 401K plans and were counting on the value of their home to appreciate so they could sell it in their golden years and have a nest egg to live out these golden years. These individuals now face the reality that their retirement nest egg has all but disappeared and their home value has drastically declined.
These national storms have affected most of us to one extent of another but we also face personal storms in our lives. It may be the sudden loss of a job, loss of a home, or the loss of savings we were counting on for retirement or a college education for our children. However, no matter how devastating the storm may seem, if we look deep into the storm we may find something good to hang onto.
Ezekiel faced a devastating storm the account of which is recorded in Ezekiel 1. Ezekiel had trained to be a priest but instead of serving God as a priest in the temple in Jerusalem, he found himself living in exile in a garbage dump in Babylon. After five years in exile, a devastating storm comes. This storm was unlike any Ezekiel had seen before. When Ezekiel looked up, he saw four angelic beings who had come to give him a message from the Lord. The message he received was that he was not to be a priest serving God in the Temple but a prophet to the rebellious nation of Israel.
When facing our own personal storms we can learn much from how Ezekiel reacted. First, he looked up right into the eye of the storm. We then need to determine what type of personal storm in which we find ourselves. Is it a storm of correction designed to cause us to turn back to God when we have strayed from his will? Jonah faced such a storm in his life. He refused to follow God’s will by going to Nineveh and after spending three days in the belly of the fish, decided to change direction and obeyed God’s calling on is life by going to Nineveh (Jonah 1-3).
There are also storms of exhibition where God wants to demonstrate his glory and power through us. Peter and the disciples experienced such a storm on the Sea of Galilee. However, Jesus demonstrated his power in the midst of the storm by enabling Peter to walk on the water with him (Matthew 14:22-33). As we face our personal storm, others are watching. Perhaps God is using our storm to demonstrate his power to preserve and rescue us in the midst of the storm.
Finally, there are storms of obstruction. Paul faced many such storms but one in particular occurred as he was sailing to Rome. The ship he was on became shipwrecked in a violent storm. Satan, the enemy did not want Paul to reach Rome for he knew that Paul would preach the Gospel when he arrived (Acts 27). However, The Lord delivered Paul and he reached Rome and began to preach the Gospel to Caesar. Perhaps our personal storm is an attempt by the enemy to prevent us from doing what God has called us to do.
When facing personal storms we must determine what type of storm we are in so we can understand the message God is trying to convey. If it is a storm of correction, we must ask what God wants us to change in our lives. If it is a storm of exhibition, we must remain focused on Jesus and take his hand remembering that when Peter took his eyes off Jesus, he began to sink. Those that are watching us need to see us holding on to Jesus and walking on the water of our storm. If our storm is a storm of obstruction, we must focus on Jesus for he will not give us something to do without providing a way for us to go through the obstacles Satan places in our way.
Whatever storm we face, knowing the type of storm allows us to react in the way God desires. Whatever type of storm we face, the most important thing to do is maintain our focus on the Lord and His Word. Next, seeing God’s glory and how it changes us.
Then, there was hurricane Katrina. I remember the visions of people waiting on their roofs for the helicopters to rescue them and the visions of people wading for miles in the mucky water. The devastation cost many people everything they had, everything they had worked for all of their lives.
Now, we face an economic storm. Many people were saving for their retirements through their 401K plans and were counting on the value of their home to appreciate so they could sell it in their golden years and have a nest egg to live out these golden years. These individuals now face the reality that their retirement nest egg has all but disappeared and their home value has drastically declined.
These national storms have affected most of us to one extent of another but we also face personal storms in our lives. It may be the sudden loss of a job, loss of a home, or the loss of savings we were counting on for retirement or a college education for our children. However, no matter how devastating the storm may seem, if we look deep into the storm we may find something good to hang onto.
Ezekiel faced a devastating storm the account of which is recorded in Ezekiel 1. Ezekiel had trained to be a priest but instead of serving God as a priest in the temple in Jerusalem, he found himself living in exile in a garbage dump in Babylon. After five years in exile, a devastating storm comes. This storm was unlike any Ezekiel had seen before. When Ezekiel looked up, he saw four angelic beings who had come to give him a message from the Lord. The message he received was that he was not to be a priest serving God in the Temple but a prophet to the rebellious nation of Israel.
When facing our own personal storms we can learn much from how Ezekiel reacted. First, he looked up right into the eye of the storm. We then need to determine what type of personal storm in which we find ourselves. Is it a storm of correction designed to cause us to turn back to God when we have strayed from his will? Jonah faced such a storm in his life. He refused to follow God’s will by going to Nineveh and after spending three days in the belly of the fish, decided to change direction and obeyed God’s calling on is life by going to Nineveh (Jonah 1-3).
There are also storms of exhibition where God wants to demonstrate his glory and power through us. Peter and the disciples experienced such a storm on the Sea of Galilee. However, Jesus demonstrated his power in the midst of the storm by enabling Peter to walk on the water with him (Matthew 14:22-33). As we face our personal storm, others are watching. Perhaps God is using our storm to demonstrate his power to preserve and rescue us in the midst of the storm.
Finally, there are storms of obstruction. Paul faced many such storms but one in particular occurred as he was sailing to Rome. The ship he was on became shipwrecked in a violent storm. Satan, the enemy did not want Paul to reach Rome for he knew that Paul would preach the Gospel when he arrived (Acts 27). However, The Lord delivered Paul and he reached Rome and began to preach the Gospel to Caesar. Perhaps our personal storm is an attempt by the enemy to prevent us from doing what God has called us to do.
When facing personal storms we must determine what type of storm we are in so we can understand the message God is trying to convey. If it is a storm of correction, we must ask what God wants us to change in our lives. If it is a storm of exhibition, we must remain focused on Jesus and take his hand remembering that when Peter took his eyes off Jesus, he began to sink. Those that are watching us need to see us holding on to Jesus and walking on the water of our storm. If our storm is a storm of obstruction, we must focus on Jesus for he will not give us something to do without providing a way for us to go through the obstacles Satan places in our way.
Whatever storm we face, knowing the type of storm allows us to react in the way God desires. Whatever type of storm we face, the most important thing to do is maintain our focus on the Lord and His Word. Next, seeing God’s glory and how it changes us.
Finding the Ideal Leader (Part 2)
According to Nahavandi (2006), leaders serve as channels guiding others down a desired course. Determining weather a leader is effective depends on many variables. Some judge effectiveness on group performance while others judge it upon follower satisfaction while others who focus on transformational and visionary leadership judge effectiveness on successful implementation of large-scale change in an organization.
Leaders also need to be aware of the culture in which they operate. In cultures, such as what exists in the United States, stressing individualism, leaders are most effective when they work with individuals to remove obstacles, empower their followers, and focuses on individual growth. While this style may work well in the United States, it fails in cultures that value hierarchy and task orientation, such as Japan (Nahavandi, 2006). In this lesson, we will look at the history of leadership theory.
Research on leadership became more rigorous during the industrial revolution. Prior to this organizations relied on intuition and descriptions of common practices. During the industrial revolution, organizations realized the need for leadership in their organizations. The needed to find a way of determining which individuals were best suited to leadership positions within the organizations (Nahavandi, 2006).
From the late 1800’s through mid-1940, we had the trait era. The belief during this time was that leaders were born and not made. Researchers studied great leaders in history and their heredity in an effort to find common traits. They believed that this would enable them to find future leaders based upon whether these prospective leaders’ heredity exibited these traits (Nahavandi, 2006).
It was during this era that personality and individual characteristics testing (i.e. IQ testing) began. Researchers believed that the results of these tests would help them identify individuals who had traits they had observed in great leaders of the past. However, after more than 40 years of research, researchers were unable to identify specific traits that were common in great leaders of the past. This failure to identify common traits failed to prove the validity of the prevailing theory that leaders are born and not made. This lead to the next phase in leadership science, the behavior-era (Nahavandi, 2006).
During the behavior era (mid-1940’s to early 1970’s), researchers changed their focus from inborn traits of individuals to their behaviors. The driving force for this new approach was the need to identify leaders for World War II. The advantages of this new approach were three-fold. First, it is easier to observe behaviors than it is to observe traits. Second, measurement of behaviors is more accurate and precise than the measurement of traits. Finally, as opposed to traits, which are either innate or develop early in life, behaviors can be taught (Nahavandi, 2006).
The focus of researchers was to determine which style of leadership was most effective. The three styles studied were the democratic style, the autocratic style, and the laissez-faire style. The behavioral traits of democratic leaders are to consult their followers and use their input in making decisions. The behaviors of autocratic leaders are to act alone in the decision making process while the behavior of laissez-faire leaders is to provide no direction and to not become involved with their followers (Nahavandi, 2006). The goal of researchers was to determine which set of behaviors was most effective and select individuals for leadership who either already exhibited the ideal behavior or who could learn it.
The work of researchers did identify several central leadership behaviors, leading to the development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) test, which is still in use today. However, researchers were unable to clearly establish a link between these behaviors and leader effectiveness (Nahavandi, 2006).
The contingency era (early 1960’s to present) began even before the failure of the behavior era to determine a link between behavioral traits and leader effectiveness. Researchers in this era began recommending that situational factors such as the task and type of work group receive consideration in any leadership situation (Nahavandi, 2006). The theory here is that even though one leadership behavior may be effective in one situation, it may be ineffective in an entirely different situation.
Contingency era researchers conducted their research with the following basic assumptions.
• There is no one best way to lead. Different leadership traits, styles, or behaviors
can be effective.
• The situation and the various relevant contextual factors determine which style or
behavior is most effective.
• People can learn to become good leaders. Few of us will become a Joan of Arc,
Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., but we can improve and become
better leaders in many areas.
• Leadership makes a difference in the effectiveness of groups and organizations.
A number of factors affect the course an organization takes and the decisions
that are made. Many such factors are as important, if not more important, than a
leader. However, the leader of an organization can have a positive or negative
impact on the process or outcome in the organization.
• Personal and situational characteristics affect leadership effectiveness. Neither
the leader’s traits nor the demands of the situation in and of themselves determine
leadership effectiveness.Therefore, we need to understand the leader as
well as the leadership situation.
(Nahavandi, 2006)
The research continues in the contingency leadership theory and even though researchers agree about the basic assumptions, there is still disagreement on what constitutes effectiveness (Nahavandi, 2006). Perhaps the best approach in leadership theory is to borrow from research done during all three eras. Certain individuals may be predisposed to leadership not due to their birth but due to the atmosphere in which they were raised. During their raising these individuals may have developed certain behaviors that are valuable in a leadership situation. When selecting the ideal leader for any given situation, it is the job of the individual or individuals selecting the leader to determine if these particular behaviors would be beneficial in their organization.
In our next lesson, we will begin looking at the role of the emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) in leadership.
Reference
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Leaders also need to be aware of the culture in which they operate. In cultures, such as what exists in the United States, stressing individualism, leaders are most effective when they work with individuals to remove obstacles, empower their followers, and focuses on individual growth. While this style may work well in the United States, it fails in cultures that value hierarchy and task orientation, such as Japan (Nahavandi, 2006). In this lesson, we will look at the history of leadership theory.
Research on leadership became more rigorous during the industrial revolution. Prior to this organizations relied on intuition and descriptions of common practices. During the industrial revolution, organizations realized the need for leadership in their organizations. The needed to find a way of determining which individuals were best suited to leadership positions within the organizations (Nahavandi, 2006).
From the late 1800’s through mid-1940, we had the trait era. The belief during this time was that leaders were born and not made. Researchers studied great leaders in history and their heredity in an effort to find common traits. They believed that this would enable them to find future leaders based upon whether these prospective leaders’ heredity exibited these traits (Nahavandi, 2006).
It was during this era that personality and individual characteristics testing (i.e. IQ testing) began. Researchers believed that the results of these tests would help them identify individuals who had traits they had observed in great leaders of the past. However, after more than 40 years of research, researchers were unable to identify specific traits that were common in great leaders of the past. This failure to identify common traits failed to prove the validity of the prevailing theory that leaders are born and not made. This lead to the next phase in leadership science, the behavior-era (Nahavandi, 2006).
During the behavior era (mid-1940’s to early 1970’s), researchers changed their focus from inborn traits of individuals to their behaviors. The driving force for this new approach was the need to identify leaders for World War II. The advantages of this new approach were three-fold. First, it is easier to observe behaviors than it is to observe traits. Second, measurement of behaviors is more accurate and precise than the measurement of traits. Finally, as opposed to traits, which are either innate or develop early in life, behaviors can be taught (Nahavandi, 2006).
The focus of researchers was to determine which style of leadership was most effective. The three styles studied were the democratic style, the autocratic style, and the laissez-faire style. The behavioral traits of democratic leaders are to consult their followers and use their input in making decisions. The behaviors of autocratic leaders are to act alone in the decision making process while the behavior of laissez-faire leaders is to provide no direction and to not become involved with their followers (Nahavandi, 2006). The goal of researchers was to determine which set of behaviors was most effective and select individuals for leadership who either already exhibited the ideal behavior or who could learn it.
The work of researchers did identify several central leadership behaviors, leading to the development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) test, which is still in use today. However, researchers were unable to clearly establish a link between these behaviors and leader effectiveness (Nahavandi, 2006).
The contingency era (early 1960’s to present) began even before the failure of the behavior era to determine a link between behavioral traits and leader effectiveness. Researchers in this era began recommending that situational factors such as the task and type of work group receive consideration in any leadership situation (Nahavandi, 2006). The theory here is that even though one leadership behavior may be effective in one situation, it may be ineffective in an entirely different situation.
Contingency era researchers conducted their research with the following basic assumptions.
• There is no one best way to lead. Different leadership traits, styles, or behaviors
can be effective.
• The situation and the various relevant contextual factors determine which style or
behavior is most effective.
• People can learn to become good leaders. Few of us will become a Joan of Arc,
Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., but we can improve and become
better leaders in many areas.
• Leadership makes a difference in the effectiveness of groups and organizations.
A number of factors affect the course an organization takes and the decisions
that are made. Many such factors are as important, if not more important, than a
leader. However, the leader of an organization can have a positive or negative
impact on the process or outcome in the organization.
• Personal and situational characteristics affect leadership effectiveness. Neither
the leader’s traits nor the demands of the situation in and of themselves determine
leadership effectiveness.Therefore, we need to understand the leader as
well as the leadership situation.
(Nahavandi, 2006)
The research continues in the contingency leadership theory and even though researchers agree about the basic assumptions, there is still disagreement on what constitutes effectiveness (Nahavandi, 2006). Perhaps the best approach in leadership theory is to borrow from research done during all three eras. Certain individuals may be predisposed to leadership not due to their birth but due to the atmosphere in which they were raised. During their raising these individuals may have developed certain behaviors that are valuable in a leadership situation. When selecting the ideal leader for any given situation, it is the job of the individual or individuals selecting the leader to determine if these particular behaviors would be beneficial in their organization.
In our next lesson, we will begin looking at the role of the emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) in leadership.
Reference
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Free Markets (Part 5)
In part four of our study on free markets, we looked at how governmental intervention in the supply of a good or service affects the price of that good or service. Using crude oil as an example, we observed how just the announcement of a lift in the ban on offshore drilling in the United States caused a reduction in the commodities price of crude oil. We also observed that the reinstatement of the ban has caused an increase in the commodities price.
This led to the question, why would the government want to restrict the supply of a commodity such as crude oil if it would result in an increase in price to the consumer. To answer this question we must look at how environmentalism has affected decisions on drilling for crude oil in the United States.
The government agency responsible for environmental regulations is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency began operations on December 2, 1970. With the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in the same year, public awareness of humankind’s environmental responsibility increased leading to the formation of the EPA (Lewis, 2009). Its mission was to insure clean air and water but as time has went on; the EPA has grown into a large bureaucratic organization that has lost sight of its original mission.
Initially the EPA's mission was to insure clean air and water. As it accomplished these goals, the bureaucracy began regulating economic activities it saw as damaging to the environment using the clean air and clean water acts (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). This has led to restrictions in drilling and exploring for crude oil. Oil companies wanting to explore and drill for crude oil know they will need to spend millions in seemingly endless litigation in the hope they may gain permission to drill in an area they believe contains crude oil. Is it any wander these oil companies opt to drill for oil in other countries that have fewer restrictions on exploring and drilling for crude oil.
On April 2, 2007 in the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant, giving agencies such as the EPA legal standing to regulate anything emitting CO2. Since all animals and people, as well as machines people operate (e.g. automobiles and coal-burning power plants) emit CO2, the EPA can now regulate virtually everything people do, even what they exhale.
This is a dangerous decision that could actually lead to additional environmental damage. Since plants inhale CO2 and need it to live, a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions due to regulation could result in a reduction in plant life. Since plants exhale oxygen, this could lead to a reduction in oxygen in our atmosphere thus endangering all life on the planet. Perhaps we need to rethink the whole idea of CO2 as a pollutant.
These increased regulations put our economy at risk. Since high litigation costs make it unprofitable to drill for domestic oil, Oil Company’s purchase and extract oil from foreign sources. Many of these sources are in the turbulent Middle East meaning that when tensions rise in the area, we are at risk of a disruption in supply like what occurred during the oil embargo of the 70’s. Since the goods we purchase need to be delivered to their destination using vehicles (e.g. planes, trains, trucks) increases in the price of crude oil raise the price of everything we buy.
To solve this problem, we need to remove politics from the environment. I do not know of any sane person who wants to harm the environment we all have to live in. If, however, a company exists that purposely harms the environment, the free market needs to cease buying their products, putting them out of business. If their harm to the environment is not intentional, we can give them time to clean up their mess. If they fail to do so, the free market can quit buying their products, putting them out of business.
There needs to be a reduction in the role of the EPA to that of an agency informing the public of potential harms to the environment. Armed with this knowledge, an educated public who wants to live in a clean environment can decide what activities to curtail, what products not to buy, and demand products that are friendlier to the environment.
Due to its finite supply, the use of crude oil to produce energy will need to be replaced with an alternative source at some point. As oil reserves diminish, the price will automatically rise due to diminishing supplies. At some point, the market will demand a cheaper alternative, and some entrepreneur will develop it as they do with any product or service the market demands. This leads to the topic of our next lesson, what happens when the government artificially manipulates demand.
References
Environmental Protection Agency (2010, March 4, 2010). Laws and Regulations. Retrieved March 4, 2010, http"//www.epa.gov/lawsregs/
Lewis, J. (2009, September 10, 2009). The birth of the EPA. Retrieved March 4, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/history/topic/15c.htm
This led to the question, why would the government want to restrict the supply of a commodity such as crude oil if it would result in an increase in price to the consumer. To answer this question we must look at how environmentalism has affected decisions on drilling for crude oil in the United States.
The government agency responsible for environmental regulations is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency began operations on December 2, 1970. With the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in the same year, public awareness of humankind’s environmental responsibility increased leading to the formation of the EPA (Lewis, 2009). Its mission was to insure clean air and water but as time has went on; the EPA has grown into a large bureaucratic organization that has lost sight of its original mission.
Initially the EPA's mission was to insure clean air and water. As it accomplished these goals, the bureaucracy began regulating economic activities it saw as damaging to the environment using the clean air and clean water acts (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). This has led to restrictions in drilling and exploring for crude oil. Oil companies wanting to explore and drill for crude oil know they will need to spend millions in seemingly endless litigation in the hope they may gain permission to drill in an area they believe contains crude oil. Is it any wander these oil companies opt to drill for oil in other countries that have fewer restrictions on exploring and drilling for crude oil.
On April 2, 2007 in the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant, giving agencies such as the EPA legal standing to regulate anything emitting CO2. Since all animals and people, as well as machines people operate (e.g. automobiles and coal-burning power plants) emit CO2, the EPA can now regulate virtually everything people do, even what they exhale.
This is a dangerous decision that could actually lead to additional environmental damage. Since plants inhale CO2 and need it to live, a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions due to regulation could result in a reduction in plant life. Since plants exhale oxygen, this could lead to a reduction in oxygen in our atmosphere thus endangering all life on the planet. Perhaps we need to rethink the whole idea of CO2 as a pollutant.
These increased regulations put our economy at risk. Since high litigation costs make it unprofitable to drill for domestic oil, Oil Company’s purchase and extract oil from foreign sources. Many of these sources are in the turbulent Middle East meaning that when tensions rise in the area, we are at risk of a disruption in supply like what occurred during the oil embargo of the 70’s. Since the goods we purchase need to be delivered to their destination using vehicles (e.g. planes, trains, trucks) increases in the price of crude oil raise the price of everything we buy.
To solve this problem, we need to remove politics from the environment. I do not know of any sane person who wants to harm the environment we all have to live in. If, however, a company exists that purposely harms the environment, the free market needs to cease buying their products, putting them out of business. If their harm to the environment is not intentional, we can give them time to clean up their mess. If they fail to do so, the free market can quit buying their products, putting them out of business.
There needs to be a reduction in the role of the EPA to that of an agency informing the public of potential harms to the environment. Armed with this knowledge, an educated public who wants to live in a clean environment can decide what activities to curtail, what products not to buy, and demand products that are friendlier to the environment.
Due to its finite supply, the use of crude oil to produce energy will need to be replaced with an alternative source at some point. As oil reserves diminish, the price will automatically rise due to diminishing supplies. At some point, the market will demand a cheaper alternative, and some entrepreneur will develop it as they do with any product or service the market demands. This leads to the topic of our next lesson, what happens when the government artificially manipulates demand.
References
Environmental Protection Agency (2010, March 4, 2010). Laws and Regulations. Retrieved March 4, 2010, http"//www.epa.gov/lawsregs/
Lewis, J. (2009, September 10, 2009). The birth of the EPA. Retrieved March 4, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/history/topic/15c.htm
Fuzzy Math
As someone who works with numbers on a daily basis, I often hear statistics in the news that make absolutely no sense. For example, how can more jobs be lost and yet the unemployment number goes down. Commonsense tells us that if more people are losing their jobs the unemployment number should go up. I suspect economists are using some fuzzy math.
Part of the fuzzy math involves how economists determine who is unemployed. As someone who works regularly with numbers, these economists should conduct scientific sampling of people of working age and from this sampling extrapolate a number of unemployed and what percentage this is of the possible workforce much like pollsters do with political polls. However, this is not how economists come up with the unemployment number.
Instead, economists base unemployment figures on the number of people who file unemployment claims. There are numerous problems with this method. First, not all individuals who are out of work will necessarily file for unemployment. Some individuals want to continue working and may take a job that pays less. These individuals may not be out of work but they are underemployed and should be partially considered in the statistics.
Another problem with this method is that unemployment compensation does not last forever. If an individual is unemployed for a period longer than the duration of unemployment compensation, they are no longer considered unemployed under this statistical method. Perhaps this explains the fuzzy math. Unemployment for individuals who became unemployed at the beginning of the current recession has expired. The unemployment number would fall if more individuals are dropping off due to the expiration of their benefits exceed the number of new claims being filed. However, these individuals are still out of work. In fact, these chronically unemployed individuals are the ones most likely to file bankruptcy and have their homes go into foreclosure.
Jobs are still being lost and the individuals losing their jobs face financial disaster unless the economy turns around and they can find work. However, the current method of measuring unemployment is flawed and provides politicians an opportunity to tout that the job market is improving even when more individuals are losing their jobs. A method of statistical sampling as pollsters do in elections would provide a more accurate picture of the job market. With this truer picture of the job market to rely on, pressure will be placed on politicians and policy makers to make policy that actually puts people back to work instead of touting economic recovery even when jobs are still being lost.
Part of the fuzzy math involves how economists determine who is unemployed. As someone who works regularly with numbers, these economists should conduct scientific sampling of people of working age and from this sampling extrapolate a number of unemployed and what percentage this is of the possible workforce much like pollsters do with political polls. However, this is not how economists come up with the unemployment number.
Instead, economists base unemployment figures on the number of people who file unemployment claims. There are numerous problems with this method. First, not all individuals who are out of work will necessarily file for unemployment. Some individuals want to continue working and may take a job that pays less. These individuals may not be out of work but they are underemployed and should be partially considered in the statistics.
Another problem with this method is that unemployment compensation does not last forever. If an individual is unemployed for a period longer than the duration of unemployment compensation, they are no longer considered unemployed under this statistical method. Perhaps this explains the fuzzy math. Unemployment for individuals who became unemployed at the beginning of the current recession has expired. The unemployment number would fall if more individuals are dropping off due to the expiration of their benefits exceed the number of new claims being filed. However, these individuals are still out of work. In fact, these chronically unemployed individuals are the ones most likely to file bankruptcy and have their homes go into foreclosure.
Jobs are still being lost and the individuals losing their jobs face financial disaster unless the economy turns around and they can find work. However, the current method of measuring unemployment is flawed and provides politicians an opportunity to tout that the job market is improving even when more individuals are losing their jobs. A method of statistical sampling as pollsters do in elections would provide a more accurate picture of the job market. With this truer picture of the job market to rely on, pressure will be placed on politicians and policy makers to make policy that actually puts people back to work instead of touting economic recovery even when jobs are still being lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)