Interesting News at Fox Business Channel

For those of us tired about the bad news continuously being propagated by most of the cable networks, I am very excited about the advent of the new Fox Business Channel. Bad news is pervasive everywhere in cable (and news in general), and the business news arena is among the worst at getting the message straight. Friends of the free market need a break and we hope we are going to get one from the new channel.

First of all, Neil Cavuto, who is the Senior Vice President of the new cable network, is one of my favorite news persons. He has continued to deliver the news with a refreshing objectivity that resembles false optimism in the media world, but healthy reality in the world we live in. I knew his appointment meant good news for business and news.

The good news continues, in my opinion, with his recent appointment of Alexis Glick as News Director. Alexis is a bright and passionate friend of free enterprise. Recently she did an interview (above) on the Fox News' Cashin' In program on which she boldly addressed the Social Security system and said it had to go and be replaced by a private alternative. This type of innovative thinking will only further make the new Fox Business Channel a major cable news source. I'm delighted that October 15th is just around the corner, the day in which the new network will launch and create a better way for business news to be delivered.

Houston Loses a Friend of Consumers

Marvin Zindler (August 10, 1921 - July 29, 2007), the one time founder of Harris County's Consumer Fraud Division in the Sheriff's Department, went on to become one of the most influential consumer advocates and journalists in Houston's history when he went on to work for KTRK. Recently it was reported that Zindler was combating pancreatic cancer.

For some reason, this tough and determined man in his 80s was not the person one wanted to bet against. He survived prostrate cancer in 1994 and heart bypass in 1996. I simply believed that he would overcome this as well. The situation was only announced a few weeks ago and he passed away over the weekend. Pancreatic cancer is one tough disease. It took the life of my aunt, so I was aware of its horrors. But there was something about Zindler that made me think he would overcome.

During his decades of work, Zindler used embarrassment and exposure to turn business behavior around overnight, that government agencies often couldn't seem to do with huge amounts of money and bureaucracy. No restaurant wanted to be found with "slime in the ice machine" and roaches in the kitchen. Businesses didn't want to be caught by Marvin for failing to honor a warranty. Zindler did a great service to protect consumers without taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, he took every opportunity he had to get the surgery a child needed or even fought for a person's second chance. Marvin was a good guy, good for Houston, and good for consumers. He will be missed.

Who is That on the Cover of My Wired?

I am a regular reader of Wired Magazine and often find myself devouring it cover to cover. This month's issue had, of all things, Martha Stewart on the cover making a Wii Cake. I felt a little weezy about this, for some reason. On the cover of Reformed Prisoners Anonymous, maybe, but Wired? Even with an edible video game seemed strange.

I will say that she "graces" the cover of one of my favorite theme issues -- "How To." And although I have yet to dive in, I'm very interested in many of the topics:

"Land a Fat Raise"

"Rule the Blogosphere" (of particular interest)

"Take Killer Digpics" (what are those?)

"Outsmart a Mechanic"

"Snag a Cell Phone Deal"

"Weasel Free Drinks"

"Keep Batteries Charged"

"Email Like a Pro"

"Get Fired Properly"

And, of course, "Bake a Wii Cake"

I'm sure I will enjoy it and find useful, but Martha Stewart of Wired Magazine. Weird.

Netflix Fights Back

In the battle between Netflix and Blockbuster, Blockbuster had been winning lately in my opinion. Netflix showed a little competition by making it possible for people to get their DVDs online in the comfort of one's home without late fees. This must have been working, because Blockbuster answered back by allowing people to turn in movies at the store so they didn't have to wait for days for a new one. I recently noticed that Netflix has answered back.

No, they are not opening Netflix stores all over the country. However,what they are doing, is making it possible for people to download movies instantly on their personal computer. On that device, a person can watch their movie any where. I'm sure the download is dated and at some point will expire, but you can largely watch it any time one wants. But the upside of such an approach doesn't end there in my opinion.

* It is a big blow on the war of immediate gratification. Blockbuster was proud of the fact that you could run to the store to replace your video. This new approach allows people to download the program "in minutes." That's pretty quick!

* It has to mean better viewing quality. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of spraying DVDs with Windex in the hope they will some how work better. Furthermore, you have to wonder what type of impact these often worn and dirty discs are having on my DVD player.

So, with Netflix's serious challenge to Blockbuster, that was one point. With Blockbusters counter, that was one for them. Now, with the downloading, the score is 2 to 1 for Netflix. The battle continues, I will keep you posted.

When Ads are Too Subtle

For quite some time I have been seeing an ad campaign on television about why businesses should move to Michigan. I like Michigan, I was born just outside of Detroit and have fond memories of growing up there. Like many, my parents had to leave in the 1970s because of a deteriorating economy. The joke then was "will the last person to leave Michigan please turn off the lights." So, I was glad to see an effort to lure business back.

I've seen the ads many times and took close note of the testimonies of individuals whose lives or businesses have changed since moving into that state. Each advertisement ended with "Michigan has the upper hand" and a nifty little drawing showing the state. Upper hand, hmmm. I saw the ad on TV so often, I can't even tell you, but I was thumbing through a magazine and saw it again with special emphasis on the picture (see above).

Ahh, upper hand. It's a glove. One of the first things you learn about Michigan when growing up in the schools there is that it is shaped like a glove. Furthermore, it is one of the country's most northern states (just south of Canada, unless you are in Detroit, which is just north of Windsor, check it out on a map).

I grew up in Michigan and it took forever for this message to finally click with me. This ad is intended to reach people outside of Texas (thus they didn't likely go to Michigan public schools) and they are expecting it to resonate with the vast majority of its viewers? I doubt it. If Michigan is going to attract new businesses, it is going to have to be a little clearer in reaching its audience. As an aside, it would help if they created an economic environment that will attract business. But that will be another post.

Observations on the CNN/YouTube Debates

I wish I were an artist. I can barely draw flies with honey all over my face. But if I were an artist, I would draw a picture reflecting my assessment of the recent CNN/YouTube debate and it would have the Democratic candidates all lined up and a Giant Pink Elephant (or would it be a donkey?) with a podium of his own.

The elephant would be labeled "terrorism" and, some how, it was ignored through out the entire debate. Sure, "we need to pull out of Iraq," but there was no discussion about the forces that got us there nor the series of attacks that the UK has faced in recent weeks and the unusual "home grown" activities we have seen in the US. The more they ignore this issue, the bigger the problem will become in my opinion. This will eventually haunt the Democrats in the not too distant future.

I did not like the way questions were posed to the candidates. Screeners would find a question they would like on YouTube and had individuals posing questions that were some times longer than the period of time candidates were allowed to answer.

Worse still, the questioners clearly had an axe to grind. Candidates have a hard enough time drawing the moral courage to answer honestly when questions are posed with some semblance of neutrality. The questions these candidates heard were full of agendas and the candidates clearly framed the message in a way that accommodated that bias.

YouTube is "young," "hip," and "open minded." I guess that also translates to Democratic, from the way this event was framed. They chose to be on the most liberal cable network and chose to pose questions to the most liberal party. It will be interesting to see how they conduct the Republican debate. So far, they have shown their true ideological colors, in my opinion.

Whatever happenend to Barnes and Noble?

This weekend I did something I haven't done in a long time. I spent a couple of hours just hanging out at my local Barnes and Noble book store. I use to go often on weekends and use it as a time for catching up on my reading and just to relax in one of their big, comfy chairs.

I thought I stop going because of the Internet. After all, the obsolescence of virtually everything seems to be linked to the World Wide Web. But I was reminded this reason about the actual reason. The chair (see picture).

Back in the old days, a visit to Barnes and Noble meant some time in a big comfy chair while reading the latest books or magazines. Today when I went there were around 60 people in the store and around 4 big comfy chairs. It had all the markings of a very aggressive game of musical chairs. I circled the chairs a couple of times to try to size up when people were sitting and you could tell they were nervous. After all, I wasn't the only one eyeing these seats.

They were buckled down and the ladies pulled their purses a little closer in case some of these people had different intentions. I wasn't going to stand there forever, so I started wandering the rows and rows of books until I found a chair. One that looks like the one above. I was going to actually take a picture of the chair I sat in with my cell phone, but I couldn't even stand up straight after spending over an hour in it.

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed my visit until I got up. But the chair is a definite factor as to why I don't spend much time there. With around 60 there, I may have been the only one who felt that way. But I miss the good old days when it comes to Barnes and Noble.

Clever Marketing: Legal Zoom Commercial

Robert Shapiro, is a noted attorney who is most famous for being a part of a team defending OJ Simpson in his murder trial in the 1990s. That successful defense and his role in representing others famous (and infamous) characters such as Linda Lovelace, Daryl Strawberry, Johnny Carson, and others has made him one of the country's most famous attorneys. Shapiro has been accused of illegally removing assets from a client's apartment (who was accused of being a drug dealer), and in spite of these legal troubles, Shapiro is still well known for his legal prowess.

Recently I noticed that Shapiro has become a co-founder of LegalZoom.com, which is a website that makes it easy and affordable to get the legal documents they need for business and life (everything from wills to copyrights). I say affordable, but you can get many of the same documents at places like Office Depot for a fraction of what LegalZoom charges, but it is still less than an attorney charges.

That's the point. Because these documents are "backed up" by a "great legal mind" like Shapiro, they can ask for more. I don't understand why more professional celebrities don't leverage their fame into business deals such as this. Imagine "Dr. Phil" counselors around the country. Individuals who underwent a thorough due diligence process to be able to wear that name. Sure, it would have to be done in a sophisticated manner (e.g., preferred therapists), but he would make a fortune and it is far more credible than his involvement with Match.com, in my opinion.

Don't be surprised in this business culture of strategic alliances and synergy in business that we see more relationships like Shapiro and LegalZoom.

Beckhamania: You Have to Be Kidding

I just got home and turned on my computer and went to my favorite background noise, the TV. I glanced at the guide and found out that the program I was watching on NBC was "Victoria Beckham: Coming to America." The program was described as "Reality. (2007) From London to Los Angeles. CC, Special, Repeat." Beckham (photo) is attractive, but the fuss is really unnecessary.

There was nothing "real" about the show and I hope the London to Los Angeles includes a round trip. A few observations from the program:

* I think there may actually be too many channels. I mean, I expect stuff like this on the Reality TV Network, E, or even Bravo, but NBC? The garbage has gotten so excessive that it has now flowed over on "legitimate" TV networks.

* Recently I have noticed multi-hour car chases on all news networks. Some followed with even more scrutiny because of the low speeds they are driving, "isn't it interesting he/she is going so slow?" No, it isn't. It eventually has me looking for sharp objects.

* Television is in a desperate state, in my opinion. I am beginning to find myself longing for the era of rabbit ears and only a handful of channels. Only a few channels put a mandate on quality in the good old days, at least compared to modern standards.

* No wonder people are turning to the web for their video entertainment. True, they only add to the many options that are available, but people can essentially customize the type of video or whatever content they are seeking.

Any way, I'm depressed. I'm going to go watch one of my Movers and Shakers interviews found at HoustonBusinessShow.com. At least there I like the host!

What I Read: Mediabistro

One of my favorite e-zines and websites is Mediabistro. It has extremely useful information and is one item that comes in my email that I find very difficult to delete.

* Just this week I found out who some of the personnel are going to be at the new Fox Business Network.

* I learned that over 3/4th of all Internet users used streaming video in May (important to me because Houston Business Media Group is moving in that direction).

* In spite of the surge in video, they have had no effect on the number of people who watch TV and how much that watch it (good, since we are looking at that media as well).

* That Mediabistro was sold for $23 million. This is certainly a little proof of its worthiness.

I suggest if you are at all interested in media trends and if you want to know what is going to happen before the morning newspapers (often the case with Mediabistro), I suggest you become a member. It doesn't cost a penny (just a little time to fill out a form) and the information you get is entertaining, interesting, and often valuable. There are premium services for a price, but I found plenty of great information that is free. No, I'm not getting paid to write this recommendation. I'm doing it, because I think it could make a difference to anyone interested in the business of media.

Is Harry Potter in Trouble?

It is times such as this that I'm glad that my kids largely ignore my work. My daughter and three of my sons are big time Harry Potter (photo) fans and if they knew what I was writing today, they would be upset.

The July 2nd issue of Business Week has an article entitled "The Twisted Economics of Harry Potter" and in it, the writer seems to be saying that the Potter books may have lost the magic touch. It makes this claim by looking at a few of its allies and partners:

* Scholastic -- stock for the educational book company is at a low we haven't seen in five years and the Pottermania is about to end. This doesn't bode well for the kid book distributor.

* Bloomsbury -- the worldwide publisher of Harry's book has taken a 74% plunge over the last year. It is down about 40% over the past year.

* Big booksellers -- Amazon.com and Wal-Mart have cut the price of the popular book in half trading in profits for more store visitors.

* Independents -- behind the parties in Harry's name there are big concerns that they won't sell many books if the major sellers are charging less than the actual publishers.

* Warner Brothers -- profits and sales are down both last year and the first quarter, but is expecting to bounce back nicely with the release of a new movie.

* Universal Orlando -- the park is in a position to invest $500 million on a theme park attraction based on Harry Potter. Let's just hope they choose a character that survives the last book.

The article implies that these facts may be indicative of a weakening interest in Harry Potter. I don't think so. True, Potter's story dragged on for years and the end is somewhat anti-climatic, no matter who dies. But I think the major indicators of "decline" mentioned by Business Week are tied to Potter in a most ironic way. It isn't because people are no longer interested in Potter, but that there is a genuine concern of a serious hang over for such companies when there is no longer a new book in the works.

US and Allies Pays to Free Hostages

I read in Reuters this morning that:

"U.N. nuclear inspectors verified the shut down of North Korea's reactor, confirming the most significant move to curb the North's atomic ambitions in years, but more remains to be done, the head of the IAEA said on Monday.

North Korea said over the weekend it had shut its Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear reactor, which provides the secretive state with material for arms-grade plutonium, around the time it received the first shipment of 6,200 tonnes of oil provided by Seoul as part of an aid-for-disarmament deal (emphasis added).

"The reactor has been shut down," International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters in Bangkok. "We have verified the shutdown of the reactor."
The next step will be to verify that North Korea has shut other key facilities at Yongbyon, located about 100 km north of Pyongyang -- which include a plant to make plutonium.
"It's a very important step that we are taking this week, but it's a long way to go," ElBaradei told reporters in Bangkok.

He has said it will take IAEA personnel, who arrived in North Korea on Saturday, about a month to install seals and monitoring equipment to make sure Pyongyang keeps the reactor closed.

South Korea sent a second batch of 7,500 tonnes of oil to energy-starved North Korea on Monday, a Unification Ministry official said (emphasis added).

A provision of 50,000 tonnes of oil from the South is part of a Feb. 13 deal reached among the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and China on first suspending the operation of the North's nuclear facilities and then disabling them (emphasis added).

The impoverished North will receive an additional 950,000 tonnes of oil, security assurances and be better able to conduct international trade if it completely scraps its nuclear arms programme -- considered one of Asia's biggest security threats.

"With complete denuclearisation, everything is going to be possible," said Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. envoy to the nuclear talks (emphasis added).

Hill, in Seoul prior to heading to Beijing, called on the North to disable Yongbyon and provide a complete inventory of its atomic arms programme.

"I certainly have to anticipate that there will be problems in the future because I never thought it would take until July to get this first step done," Hill told reporters.

The six-way talks are set to resume on Wednesday in Beijing to map out the next phase of ending the nuclear programme.

In 1994, North Korea froze the Yongbyon reactor in exchange for energy aid. In late 2002, the United States accused Pyongyang of violating that deal by having a secret programme to enrich uranium for weapons.

In December 2002, North Korea said it was restarting the Yongbyon reactor. It disabled IAEA surveillance devices and expelled their inspectors."

This article says it all. The US and North Korea's neighbors are paying North Korea in exchange for the "release" of hostages (individuals in reach of North Korea's missile program or anyone who is vulnerable to terrorist who would buy the necessary materials and deliver such by more primitive means, in other words, virtually everyone).

This approach is extremely short sighted in my opinion. In addition to negotiating with kidnappers and terrorists (which the US is opposed to as an official policy), this new policy is built on world safety being based on North Korea's good word. I think anyone can see the foolishness of such a proposition, considering the millions who have died under this evil regime. Yes, there will be international organizations monitoring the progress, but we have seen how effective such groups are by looking at Iraq under the old regime.

This foolish policy will, in my opinion, come back to haunt the US and our allies. It will embolden Korea in its clearly dangerous and hostile intentions. I only hope we come to our senses before it is too late.

Perceptions About the Economy: What are People Thinking?

This weekend I watched my favorite groups of business news programs on Fox News on Saturday. During the program I was astonished to hear that a recent poll showed that six out of ten Americans believe we are worse off now economically than we were five years ago.

Five years ago? Are we talking about the summer of 2002? Give me a break. At that time:

* We were still recovering from the effects of September 11th as people were emotionally and economically devastated.

* The Federal Reserve were still cutting interest rates in order to spur confidence in the economy.

* Headlines in publications said things like "Terrorist Attacks, Interest-Rate Cuts, Recession Set Stage for Interesting 2007."

* Unemployment rates were roughly an entire percent point higher than it is today (4.8 percent today versus 5.7 in 2002, approximately 16 percent higher than today).

So why does such a negative view of the economy exists? Because the media makes a living off of bad news, which is a phenomenon I have discussed here, here, and else where. With all of the criticisms people can have for George Bush, a weak economy isn't one of them. But that won't matter when the elections come in 2008, because voters won't be told about the real economy that exists.

I Hate to See People Get Sued, But...

I noticed the following story in the news this morning:

"Nine people filed a $1.3 million lawsuit Thursday against the globe-trotting tuberculosis patient for possibly exposing them to the disease on a commercial flight from Prague to Montreal.

(Andrew) Speaker (photo), a 31-year-old Atlanta personal injuries attorney, was in Europe when he learned tests showed he had an extremely drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis known as XDR-TB.

Health officials now say Speaker‘s strain of TB is not the extremely drug resistant kind but a more treatable, multi-drug-resistant form of the disease. They say tests so far indicate his risk of spreading the infection are low."

Rumor had it that this was going to happen since this story broke quite some time ago and normally I really hate to see people get sued. But this story seems very different.

First of all, Speaker's behavior was highly calculated and deliberate. He flew around the world knowing he had this terrible disease without regard to the lives and safety of others.

He's an attorney who worked for years in personal injury law. It would be interesting to know how quick the US Naval Academy and University of Georgia educated attorney would be to recommend a law suit to someone else involved in similar circumstances.

His father in law, Dr. Robert Cooksey, is one of the nation's leading experts on TB at the Center for Disease Control. It appears that Speaker even got advise on this terrible condition. I can't believe Cooksey told him "it was no big deal." If he did, sue Cooksey too.

I'm not a big believer in law suits and consider frivolous ones a major cause to many of the economic and other problems our nation faces today, but some times it makes sense. This may be one of the times.

For Being "Public," PBS Is Very Commercial

I love baseball, it is my favorite sport. Recently a good friend of mine and I were discussing a great series on the game I saw several years ago that was produced by PBS called "Baseball." The ten part series is one of my favorite documentaries on one of my favorite subjects. Sure enough, a few days later, this friend bought me the complete set. I have been very excited indeed.

It took a while to find the time to watch it, but I finally sat down and started going through the series and they certainly do not disappoint. However, before the broadcast of each episode there are several commercials (sorry PBS, I don't know what else to call them) that are displayed in anticipation of the program. Some are for foundations, I notice one by GM, and tell you, in a commercial, that we are watching the show commercial free, thanks to these commercials. Yes, I know, a little confusing.

PBS, also known as the Public Broadcast Service, has figured out how to have its cake and eat it too. In addition to typically having a liberal political agenda in many of its programs, it enjoys government subsidies to underwrite its programming, is tax deductible and recieves donations, and has all the blessings of being a non-profit. In addition to that, it has commercials. Yes, only a few and only at the beginning, but come on!

My old friend former Congressman Steve Stockman made PBS one of his issues. He couldn't understand in an era that had History Channels, National Geographic Channels, Discovery Channels, etc. that there was still a need for government subsidized television (since they provide very "PBS" style programs). The idea behind such subsidized programming is to provide educational shows that wouldn't get on by any other means because the market may not support such. That may have been true in an era of a few national networks and a handful of independent stations in local markets, but in today's economy, it is very difficult to make the case for public programming, especially when one considers it has a political axe to grind.

I love the Baseball series and recomment people buy it (through my bookstore in particular). There are other shows, like Commanding Heights (which makes an excellent case for the market economy), but I believe that the market can provide all the programming we need without the spending of a single taxpayer dollar.

Movies are Very Big Business

For a while we heard that the future of movies were in question, but I believe their future is very bright. I think of my own personal circumstances. For a while I simply never got movies or went to them, often for the same reasons I didn't watch network news, it was inconvenient and there were too many other easy sources for news (Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.) and movies (USA, AMC, TCM, etc.) on cable to go out of my way to rent movies or even go to them.

However, with the rise of the Redbox, where I can rent movies all over town for a $1 and leave them at any one of their locations, I find that my family is renting many more movies. Recently, I went by and noticed that the number I have personally seen was huge. I have also noticed a rising interest in independent films. Probably roughly half of the movies I watch falls in that category. These films are relatively cheap to make (sometimes only 6 digits) and through the numerous distribution networks available (theaters that cater to such films, rental machines, online services, etc.) the possibility of high returns is very good.

Now, it seems everywhere I go, I come across another aspiring movie maker. In fact, I have at least five friends who either have made or in the process of making a movie. Those who have made them have figured out how to make a little profit. New technology is exploding on the scene to make the production of movies more affordable and far easier to do. I'm hoping that the rise of independent films, particularly those of the pro-family variety, will give Hollywood and its culture a run for the money.

Donald Trump Changes His Mind

Donald Trump, who announced a few months ago that he was "quitting" the Apprentice program he has had on NBC, seems poised to change his mind. True, the show has only around 1/3 of its original viewing audience from 2004. Also, it appears true that NBC had actually canceled the program a few months ago and simply hadn't formally announced it. In other words, Trump "left" before he was fired.

This being the case, would anyone be surprised that Trump would "change his mind" with the rumored interest on the part of NBC to bring the show back and the millions he will make in both salary and free exposure for his brand? That is the world of "the Donald." He's not fired, he quit; NBC didn't change its mind, Trump did.

With the program likely to come back, I have a few suggestions:

* As the show worked to become more like a circus and less like an interview, it lost audience. Instead of becoming more interesting, it instead became more ridiculous. I think it needs to go back to its roots.

* Cultivate an interest in what the apprentices are working towards. They have several seasons behind them; they should spend more time showing the world of the past winners to give the audience a taste of what people are trying to obtain through the show.

* Make the expectations more in line for a person who is suppose to become the President of one of Trump's companies. I don't think most people could care about the ability of the aspiring apprentice in promoting a car wash, but would like to know how he or she would create a new brand.

Regardless of what you think of Trump, you have to be impressed to a certain extent of his ability to always figure out how to land on top and make his down turns look like part of a "larger strategy."

Regulations: A Billion Dollars Here and There Adds Up

This morning I received an email about a new book being released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute on the high cost of regulations on the economy, entitled The Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State by Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr.

The following are some of the interesting and expensive facts from the Report:

* Given that 2006 government spending reached $2.654 trillion, the hidden tax of regulation now approaches half the level of federal spending itself.

* Regulatory costs are more than quadruple the $248 billion budget deficit.

* The number of new regulations declined but is still well into quadruple digits. In 2006, agencies issued 3,718 final rules, a 6 percent decline from 2005.

* New regulations by federal agencies outpace actual laws passed by Congress, indicating that considerable lawmaking power is delegated to unelected agencies. While regulatory agencies issued 3,718 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law 321 bills in 2006.

* Regulatory costs exceed the amount of wealth already extracted from Americans in the form of income taxes. Regulatory costs exceed the estimated 2006 individual income taxes of $998 billion and dwarf corporate income taxes of $277 billion.

* Regulatory costs exceed 2004 corporate pretax profits of $1.059 trillion.

Regulations are, in the economic realm, another form of taxation because business must pay to be in compliance. If you are interested in some bed time reading -- and are not prone to nightmares -- you might want to read the report available online.

Move Over Bill Gates

I read in the Wall Street Journal this week that:

Bill Gates has always said that he hates bearing the title of “world’s richest man” — and the accompanying burden. Now, he may finally get some relief.

According to this article by Geri Smith in Business Week and this AP story by Lisa Adams, the world’s richest man may now be Carlos Slim Helu (picture), the Mexican telecom tycoon. (Both articles build on the work of financial journalist Eduardo Garcia, founder and director of Sentido Comun, a Mexico-based financial-news Web site.)

Granted, determining people’s net worths is always just educated guesswork, so I wouldn’t say the finding is definitive. Yet the articles say that Slim, as he’s known, was worth $67.8 billion, or nearly 8% of Mexico’s entire GDP. In its latest global billionaires list, Forbes listed Bill Gates’s wealth at $56 billion.

It is at times such as this that I begin to feel very ethnocentric. Imagine, someone other than an US citizen, being the richest person in the world. It isn't the first time, but it strikes me as odd. To add further irony, Mr. Slim is Mexican. In a time when everyone seems to be leaving his country in order to find opportunity in the US, he has capitalized on opportunities that has made him the world's richest person.

Well, Gates can give a sigh of relief. The burden of being at the pinnacle of wealth has been transferred to another person. Being rich can be so challenging. My heart bleeds for both of them.

Donald Trump and Firing Employees: Creative Cover or Deceptive Marketing

When I go work out at the YMCA I like to read magazines while on the treadmill. In the magazine rack on the wall there is a huge selection. Golf, inspiration, various news, various business magazines, etc, etc., etc. Because of this wide selection, I often make my decision based on a picture. This past week the photo I saw was of Donald Trump on the cover of the April 23, 2007 Business Week Magazine.

As soon as I got moving on the treadmill I found out quickly that the article had nothing to do with Donald Trump, other than using his popular TV Show, The Apprentice, as a backdrop. On that show he fires people every week and that is a central part of the program. In this article (Fear of Firing), Business Week argues that such an approach isn't so easy to use in the real world.

The article was actually quite substantive and useful. If you are thinking of casually firing someone, do so with caution. I will likely make it a topic on an upcoming Houston Business Show. In fact, I'm sure it was far more practical and informative than any puff piece on "the Donald." But it wasn't about the Donald. So was this a creative cover or deceptive marketing? I'm calling it a creative cover. I've been guilty of a similar practice. Last November I did a post on blogging that included a photo of the beautiful Maria Sharapova. It was a little cheap, I know, but it would make a visitor look.

I'm doing a similar thing here. There is a huge number of people who are interested in stories on Trump online. So here I am writing a story that is really about labor law, and the title and photo are about Trump. In a world with so many forces competing for eyeballs, you really have to be creative in my opinion.

For This Fourth of July Remember the Roots of Our Revolution

Throughout human history, taxes have been one of the foremost ways that governments intrude on the rights of citizens. In fact, as we all learned in school, our democratic American Revolution began with a tax revolt. Our forefathers knew that if you bind up a man's economic life with taxes, tariffs, and regulations, you deprive him of some of his most basic civil rights. They have a wonderful phrase describing economic liberty in the Declaration of Independence. They call it "the pursuit of happiness." Well, with tax reform, we're going to make that pursuit a lot easier for all Americans." - President Ronald Reagan’s Radio Address to the Nation on Independence Day and the Centennial of the Statue of Liberty, July 5, 1986.

The American Revolution was predicated on some very radical ideas. The founders wanted a country in which the people ruled the government and not the government over the people. They wanted government to serve as a protector of individuals, but not as a provider of the public's desires. They saw government as an institution with limited scope and designed to protect private property and free enterprise. It would be nice if we had that type of government today.

The above quote by Ronald Reagan is one of my favorites and he is one of the last Presidents who ranked economic freedom as a civil liberty that needed to be protected. I'm sure others might have believed such, but he is one of the only ones who articulated such a view. In the above radio address given during the Independence Day holiday season of 1986, Reagan reminds us where the Revolutionary War found its roots -- it was a major tax revolt. Ronald Reagan made such revolts very popular again and he changed the way the nation debates tax policies.

Before Reagan, paying high taxes was considered patriotic and to propose such was fiscally responsible. Since Reagan, legally keeping every cent is patriotic because we now believe individuals can do better with their money than government and it is good for the treasury because tax cuts have a history of stimulating economic activity that results in higher revenues. This was the case for the Calvin Coolidge tax cuts of the 1920s, the John F. Kennedy cuts of the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s and the Bush cuts in recent years. Tax cuts increase employment, economic growth, and revenues.

It is time for us to remember the power of tax cuts in moving voters and the economy. I, for one, will require any candidate I consider to understand these important ideas before I hand him or her my vote. That is my way of keeping the spirit of the American Revolution alive on the fourth of July and the other 364 days of the year.

A New Look for Terrorism?

Gordon Brown (photo), the brand new Prime Minister, has had a difficult week to say the least. Recent incidents in the UK, may they be by Al Qaeda or "wannabes" could increase significantly through out the West from now until our 08 elections. This sounds contradictory from an earlier post I wrote on the subject in which I said that the reason we haven't had a major 9/11 type incident is because of the the Iraq War, but this isn't the case.

* Most incidents should be relatively low key and highly specific when it relates to Al Qaeda. This would be the kind of activity we have seen since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This is the kind of activity designed to remind Americans that life is so much more difficult for all of us "because" of this war. However, Al Qaeda does not, in my opinion, want to do the type of event to attract US resolve (like 9/11 did).

* However, there are several confederate groups that claims Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda doesn't always claim them. These groups have their own agendas, are not particularly competent (every one of the attempts that have been on a large scale as of late seem linked to independent groups that lack efficiency and they usually fail), and could either care less if it makes the US more hostile or might even desire such for their own confused reasons.

Al Qaeda has to maintain a balancing act, enough terror to make the West angst, but not enough for it to rise to the occasion. Instead of creating grounds for us leaving Iraq, such should have the opposite effect, because our departure would only heighten their resolve that they are winning and they would be empowered to wage a bigger war in our own back yards.