Remembering the Real Meaning of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving has become my favorite holiday. As an adult with many children, Christmas has lost some of its charm and there are few things more enjoyable than getting fat and watching holiday specials. However, one of the things I do not enjoy is the propaganda my kids share with me about the meaning of Thanksgiving. They often tell me about how the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to grow food and that, in spite of a rough beginning, these early Americans enjoyed an abundant harvest. Essentially the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians for their generosity.

In reality, the colony's governor, William Bradford noted that "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." People didn't want to work, because they were not individually rewarded for their efforts. Bradford knew there had to be a better.

The governor stated that "All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." It is interesting that the problems of welfarism was as great in the beginning of our country as it is today. A little incentive goes a long way.

As a result of those changes, the Pilgrims went from hunger and famine in 1621 and 1622 to widespread abundance. The only difference was a simple change in policy that increased incentives to work and not be slothful. When Washington and Obama discusses such today, they need this important reminder from history.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

If a Policy is Bad in a Good Economy...

On my radio show today I interviewed one of my favorite economists, Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal. He was on to discuss his latest book, The End of Prosperity, and it is must reading. In a very simple and straight forward manner, Moore and co-authors Arthur B. Laffer and Peter Tanous explain what works and doesn't work in our economic system.

One of the areas Moore and I discussed was the fact that government entertains things they would do when the economy is healthy, but would never do when it is weak. If there is a time that such a policy is harmful at all, isn't it safe to conclude that the policy is not in the economy's best interest ever?

On today's show we discussed the fact that Barack Obama is discussing reversing his position on raising taxes on the top five percent because that could make our weakening economy worse. Obama is finally conceding that jobs are made by that top 5 percent and the country simply can't afford more loses. Yet what jobs have we already lost with an economy that has the top one percent paying 27 percent of the revenue? What is more the top twenty percent pays 67 percent. Obama seems to be admitting that adding any more pressure on this group is harmful, but what of the damage already done? It would be interesting if Obama's tax cut discussion was spread to the job creating highest income group. Am I advocating the end of taxes for the rich? Absolutely not, just a fair tax or flat tax that encourages everyone to want to become richer.

Congress is also talking about slowing down the move towards increasing CAFE standards, which are designed to lower fuel consumption. Because of the dire straights of the Big Three automakers, policy makers are reconsidering because of the potential of further damage. Instead of trying incentives to move towards better fuel standards, they seem to be able to use their complete lack of imagination for either increasing regulations to the automakers demise or do nothing at all. They are considering the latter at this point.

Then there is the minimum wage increase which went up just a few months ago (July 24). Since that time we have seen a dramatic jump in unemployment -- the largest increase in 16 years. Minimum wage increases are not even included in the current economic discussion, but there is no doubt among economists that this artificial increase in wages is weakening job creation. Although there is no discussion about reversing this increase, there may be a growing debate about postponing the massive jump scheduled for July of 2009. Again, if the policy is harmful in a weak economy, why is the policy ever beneficial? Furthermore, if such increases cause no harm (as Democrats often argue), why nickle and dime with a dollar here or fifty cents there? Everyone knows that a twenty dollar an hour minimum wage would put a fork in this economy, so how does one justify a minimum wage at all?

Many cities in the US -- Camden, NJ; East St. Louis, MO; and Detroit, MI are in perennial recessions. How can the federal government determine what is best for these cities when it comes to wages? I have long argued that if we must have a minimum wage (a standard practice today), it should be done by cities and states, not by the federal government.

But the larger principle remains. If these policies do harm in bad economies, how are they beneficial at all? Steve Moore summed it up best, "that is a debate that the left doesn't want to have."

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Developing Countries Need Free Trade and So Do We

I am tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the pleas by bleeding heart liberals about the need to send aid to developing countries on the one hand, but have vehement opposition to providing free trade, which is by far the most effective means of creating worldwide prosperity. The great thing about free trade, is that it also benefits our consumers too.

International aid often cripples developing countries by providing cheap agriculture products that makes it impossible for poorer countries to develop agriculture of their own. Often such aid never gets past the hands of corrupt governments who oversee the distribution of goods. The bottom line, traditional aid in its best implementation and intention always fosters long term dependence.

Free trade, on the other hand, fosters interdependence. The United States, which is the most prosperous country on the face of the earth, desires affordable goods. We want every economic group to be able to afford items that in the past was only afforded the most wealthy. This is achieved through "cheap labor." Meanwhile, poor countries want to improve their economic situation and see the jobs Americans won't do as a means towards that end.

Fundamentally, everything comes back to supply and demand. Developing countries have the supply of people, we have a demand for goods. Our disdain for "exporting jobs" to these developing companies goes back decades. I recall the song by Paul Revere and the Raiders, Cherokee Nation, which states:

"They took away our native tongue
And taught their English to our young
And all the beads we made by hand
Are nowadays made in Japan"

Cheap goods made in Japan? Not anymore and it is no longer a developing country, but one of the richest in the world that has to export jobs to Malaysia in order to satisfy Japan's consumer demand. We pulled Japan out of Post World War II poverty and devastation voluntarily while enjoying an improvement in our own quality of life. It is difficult to find the down side.

The jobs we are discussing as "exported" through cheap labor are largely mythical. I guess if we lived in a pure free market and applied the "quick as hell" employment theory (if we got rid of every government program, people would get a job....I think you get it), these jobs would be filled by fellow Americans. That is certainly a noble goal and one I could support, but don't see happening. So in the interim, Americans are able to enjoy a higher quality of life at a lower cost and foreign countries are becoming more prosperous, advanced, and free without a single taxpayer dollar. In essence, we can have our cake and eat it too.

The myth of trade deficits being damaging continues to persist in the context of this discussion. We are told that the silver lining to our declining economy is the fact the trade deficit is shrinking. That is because the US can't afford to buy as many goods as it did in the past. Where is the upside to that? Free trade benefits everyone by making rich countries richer and poor countries richer too.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Jackson is Furious and Limbaugh is Confused by Obama's Choices

Barack Obama is about to announce the make up of his economic team as Wall Street, Main Street, and the media pundits hold their collective breath. His choices appear to be very surprising. This is not because they are very radical, but surprisingly conventional. They are the type of choices that will likely relieve Wall Street and infuriate the radical base that brought him to power. Furthermore, all of those who wished Clinton had gotten elected, don't worry, your favorite members of that team are showing up for an encore. What is most surprising of all is that Obama seems to be drawing on the more pragmatic and technocratic wing of the Democratic Party. Limbaugh and Hannity might go crazy over how boring these choices are.

Don't get me wrong, this team is liberal. But it is not the rampant ideologues that had many on the Right worried. On the other hand, they could also be the ultimate collective Trojan Horse, creating a sense of complacency that may make it possible for Obama to pursue the far reaching agenda he campaigned on.

The following is a breakdown of two of his most prominent team members:

• Timothy Geithner will be nominated as the new Secretary of Treasury. Geithner has worked in government almost his entire adult life with positions that have included Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy (1995-1996), Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1996-1997), and Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1997–1998). In 2003 he was appointed the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He has been a foot soldier of Bush's recovery efforts on Wall Street and was there when the disaster happened, which should raise questions as to why he would be a good Secretary of Treasury. However, I think he is a safe bet, since Democrats will want to make Obama look as strong as possible and Republicans will be pleased by such a "moderate" choice.


• Lawrence Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, will be appointed to head the National Economic Council. Summers is the poster child of technocrats. Under Obama, Summers will actually be the architect of the new administration's economic policies. Considering Summers' faux paux while President of Harvard in which he claimed that women were not as capable as men in performing the hard sciences, I was surprised to see him in politics again so soon. Not only did it leave to his quick departure as Ivy League administrator, I thought it would see him exit the political scene entirely. However, it appears Democrats can say things that are politically incorrect without consequence. Summers will be perceived moderate by the political powers that be and should enjoy confirmation without incidence.

In the end, what we learn, is that Obama is actually was quite impressed by the accomplishments of Bill Clinton, as we see the former President's influence in virtually every area of policy in the new President's appointments. It is safe to assume that the radicals that drove Obama to the White House are going to feel like they are in the out house, if the new President continues to make such safe appointments. They have to be patient for a while, but I am sure Jesse Jackson is already sharpening his verbal sword. Finally, conservative pundits must be at a lost trying to figure out what kind of President Obama will in fact be. I don't have any doubt what Obama would like to do. His radical up bringing and the course he took to power makes that obvious. However, he may be shrewed enough to know that his agenda will have to be pursued with caution and such is reflected in his team.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Republicans are Soul Searching

With the elections over, the Democrats are celebrating and the Republicans begin the long recovery process. The Republicans haven't been in such a minority status since the 1970s. You remember how wonderful those days were. Recently I heard interviews with several Republican congressional leaders and you can hear the pain in their voices as they begin some serious soul searching.

The Democrats and mainstream media are full of advice for Republicans. They are arguing that the party failed because it isn't like the Democrats enough. It has failed to fully embrace big government, isn't socially tolerant enough, and hasn't made enough concessions to foreign adversaries. The reality is, John McCain advocated border "reform" that undermines our sovereignty, campaign finance reform that weakens the First Amendment, and simply didn't understand the role of tax cuts in generating revenue and prosperity (no, not Obamas welfare plan in the form of tax cuts, but actual wealth generating fiscal policy). I have a contrarian view from the media and Democrats, I believe the GOP didn't act Republican enough. There is no question the Republicans need to make some changes. Here are a few suggestions:

• Restore the three legged stool. Ronald Reagan was the most successful Republican in modern history and his message was powerful but simple. He promoted traditional family values, economic freedom (less taxes and government), and a strong national defense. These themes -- often seen as "polarizing" by the mainstream media -- made the Republican Party the majority party through the 1980s and led to the restoration of its prominence in 1994 with the Contract with America led by Newt Gingrich. The GOP needs to restore these principles in its message.


• Appeal to the rank and file. Although my main passion today is economics, I got interested in the Republican party while in high school for different reasons. I became a Christian at the age of 16 and believed that my faith should play a role in every aspect of my life. The Republicans were strongly pro-life and that was clearly the Christian worldview, in my opinion. The stronger the GOP was in that arena, the more involved I wanted to be. The softer those positions, the weaker my interest. It is the same with other positions. Strong defense, free markets, and limited government. The more passionate the GOP is, the more passionate that base will be.


• The GOP needs to clean House (and Senate). Just this week the House elected new leadership and in a surprising move they kept John Boehner as Majority Leader. Until the final months of '08 Boehner had been the king of the "get along" gang and he went to extraordinary lengths to be accommodative with the liberal majority rather than represent the interest of Republicans. There was some good news at the House Republican Conference with conservative Mike Pence taking over that position. In his acceptance speech he indicated that he was going to do what he could to move the party back to its roots. Also, conservative Eric Cantor of Virginia becomes the new Minority Whip.


• Republicans should build on its strengths. The one silver lining in this electoral disaster is that the vast majority of the Republicans who lost were moderates. I would rather have a smaller group of conservative Republicans in the Congress than a larger one dominated by moderates. These moderates who lost should send a firm message to other members of what doesn't work for Republicans. If the voters have a choice between Democrats and Republicans who act like Democrats, they will always choose the former. We need real Republicans and need to promote a conservative agenda in Congress.


• The new GOP chairman needs to be a true conservative. There is a great deal of discussion about Michael Steele (former Lt. Governor of Maryland) running for the party's top post. Steele is treated as a serious conservative by the mainstream media. The reality is that Steele is eloquent and smart and very conservative by Maryland standards (I know, I lived there before). We need someone who is conservative by every standard. I love having someone like Steele on our side, but I would like to see a chairman who believes recruiting conservatives to run for office is a top priority. I am concerned that Steele won't share that objective.


• Efforts should be made towards ending open primaries that allow independents vote for candidates in the winter and spring whom they will vote against in November. If you had to be a Republican to vote in the New Hampshire primary, it is highly unlikely that McCain would have been the Republican nominee. We would have had a true conservative which would have improved our odds.

This list is just a beginning. The GOP needs to do an inventory of what works and what does not work and I am sure the latter would be quite long. The single most important thing it should do is be highly selective of where it gets its advice and should simply choose to ignore the opinions of the mainstream media and the Democrats, which both want the Republican party to stay the minority.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

I've Heard of Cheap Deals, but this is Ridiculous

In spite of how pathetic Michigan's economy has become, it still raised my eyebrow when I heard that a house was being sold for $1. I honestly thought I had seen it all in the world of transactions until I opened up my Mediabistro ezine today.

Bistro reports: "Yesterday, after hearing about OpenGate Capital's purchase of TV Guide we wondered why the company would buy the struggling pub, writing, 'Honestly, it's a little hard to understand what OpenGate sees in the magazine, even if the purchase was for an absolutely rock bottom price.'"

"Well, it turns out that was 100 percent the case. Advertising Age's Nat Ives found out that the investment company bought the mag for a grand total of $1. Furthermore, Macrovision — which owned TV Guide — will give OpenGate a $9.5 million loan at three percent interest, a great deal in these uncertain times."

"But still, the magazine lost $20.3 million in 2007. What is OpenGate thinking? Its managing partner Andrew Nikou told Ives his company's thought process: 'The reason we acquired this business is simple. It needed additional investment. We're investing in this company to take it to the next stage.' Good luck with that, guys"

Essentially, TV Guide has devolved into a venture capital deal. It is clearly more than an idea, since it has decades of history behind it. But it has such a terrible track record to stand on and is back to square one in making a case for its continued existence. TV Guide has all the elements of a free rag, but they are still trying to "sell it" as a viable subscription publication. Thanks to the large number of cable and satellite services, it is very difficult for a print publication to provide thorough information on specific programming. That leaves the Internet. Meanwhile, all of the companies that provide programming (like cable companies) gladly tell you what is on their systems. Better than a magazine or a website, they do it through the remotes they provide. It is simply too simple to use any other means.

I don't see how there is a market for a TV Guide and don't think there has been a need for such in years. But old business models die hard. Just ask the US automobile industry.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Link Between Poverty and Politics

Several years ago I served on a panel in a televised debate in which three conservatives faced off against three liberals on how to solve poverty problems. The only person I remember on the other side was Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Over the years I have participated in a huge number of debates and other forums, but this was one of my favorites. I got to call one of the most liberal Members of Congress that she was a "poverty pimp" to her face. I doubt I will ever forget the look on her face.

Sheila Jackson Lee is one of many liberal politicians who survive off of poverty. If her constituents some how became affluent -- in spite of her best efforts to fight such -- they would throw her out of office at their earliest opportunity. This is because her high tax and big government worldview is opposed to the idea of wealth creation.

Lee is not the only one. The United States Census Bureau creates an annual list of the poorest cities in the country. It is pretty easy to notice the link between the cities economies and their politics. The following list is in their proper order and includes the percentage who are in poverty:

1. Detroit, 32.5. Detroit has consistently been one of the most Democratic cities in the country for almost four decades and during that time, one of the most poor.

2. Buffalo, 29.9. This city has not elected a Republican mayor since the 1950s.

3. Cincinnati, 27.8. This poor city actually had Jerry Springer as a mayor and has not had a Republican mayor since the early 80s.


4. Cleveland, 27.0. This city has not had a Republican mayor since 1989,'

5. Miami, 26.9. This city has never had a Republican mayor.


6. St. Louis, 26.8. This gateway to the west hasn't had a GOP mayor since the 1940s.

7. El Paso, 26.4. This town has never had a Republican mayor.

8. Milwaukee, 26.2. You have to go to the turn of the last century to find a time this city has elected a Republican mayor.

9. Philadelphia, 25.1. Not since the 1970s has this town been able to produce a Republican mayor.

10. Newark, 24.2. Like Milwaukee, you have to go back to the beginning of the last century to find a GOP chief executive for this city.

Democrats consistently promote policies that are hostile to business, gives incentives for people to be poor, and punishes success. They simply don't understand that the behaviors that people promote on the micro level -- rewarding good behavior, discouraging sloth, and encouraging achievement -- work equally well on the macro level.

This may be why so many businesses are concerned by the rise of a Barack Obama. He grew up as a "community organizer" (which is a politically correct euphemism for "poverty pimp") and made his money helping people be comfortable in their economic condition rather than encouraging them to get out of such. This unique background and his stated economic policies may be the exact reason why we are seeing the massive layoffs today. Yes Mr. Obama, business gets the message and so are millions of other Americans facing poverty.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

US Businesses Vote with Their Pink Slips

Before President-elect Barack Obama had a chance to resign from the US Senate there was an out pouring of pink slips through out US industry. Some may argue that they would have happened regardless of who won, but I found it interesting that these businesses held on to these many employees until after the election either to boost Republican hopes for reelection or to make a protest statement if things didn't turn out favorable for business.

We already knew that the job creators -- businesses of all sizes -- were supporting McCain and it wasn't even close. According to CEO Magazine's survey, over 80 percent of CEOs favored McCain over Obama. McCain's support or the fear of Obama was overwhelming.

However, a majority of Americans didn't seem to care. They desired a "tax cut" over a job (although we are now told that being employed will be a requirement for such a cut). It appears that many of them will enjoy neither.

Barron's notes that "A week ago, we got word that the number of unemployed Americans in October shot up by 603,000, the second largest increase in 28 years! Today, the Labor Department tells us the deterioration actually accelerated in the first days of November. The number of people seeking unemployment benefits surged by 516,000 in the week ended Nov. 8. This is the largest weekly increase since immediately after Sept. 11 and the second biggest in 16 years. At this point, more Americans are collecting unemployment insurance than at any time in a quarter century, with some 3.9 million on the dole as of Nov. 1, a 51% increase from a year ago."

The timing of these layoffs and the elections are more than coincidental to me. They are directly connected. I have been told by business owners for months that if Obama was elected, jobs would have to go. We don't know if the new President will keep his promises, but business owners certainly have. Businesses through out the country are having a second election and it is costing Americans their jobs. I don't blame American enterprise, however, but the new Administration that has a predatory view of it.

The current scenario reminds me of a mild version of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. In the Objectivist philosopher's book, she describes a scenario where the "men of the mind" go on strike and stop contributing to commerce, art, culture, inventions, etc. In that book the people that drive the economy grow tired of being mistreated by the excesses of government and they simply stop working. No, we are not quite there yet, but give us time.

Who knows, Obama might be the pragmatist he claims he wants to as he has stated in a recent interview. The media, however, isn't buying it and in light of his rhetoric and record, I cannot blame them.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Could Democrats Reverse Capital Gains Increase?

Although the Stock Market closed today with a dramatic high in single day totals, the market itself is in a continued state of decline. This decline can be attributed to several factors, I'm sure, but one that has been largely neglected in the business banter of today is the looming capital gains tax that will go from zero to 20 percent in January 2009. Ask people on Wall Street and they will be the first to point this out to you. That increase provides enormous downward pressure on the Dow.

We are less than three months away from a significant cut in profits, thanks to the capital gains increase. In the mind of investors, the value of stock is declining on virtually a daily basis. As each day goes by people are reminded that the stock they own is going to see a twenty percent drop overnight. This increase is one of the single biggest jumps in history. It is happening because the capital gains portion of the Bush tax cuts that contributed to historic prosperity will come to a screeching halt on New Year's 2009 and the level will retroactively return to those earlier highs.

Candidate Obama and his Democrat cohorts could easily argue against the horrors of Wall Street and make their case against wealth creation when they were in the opposition, but now they are about to control the White House and both Houses of Congress. Their commitment to wealth distribution and opposition to capitalism will now under go a serious test.

Don't be surprised if Obama and company blinks. I could see him quietly ask the Congress to suspend the capital gains tax increase or (at least) reduce the increase even before he takes power. I wouldn't be surprised if Congress complies and Bush passes it into law. It would make sense for it to happen now, under Bush and the timing of some level of improvement could be linked to Obama's Inauguration (the media would certainly help maintain the Messiah persona through such an association). Meanwhile, if Obama waits until he becomes President and pushes a suspension of the capital gains taxes, he would be exposed as a very serious hypocrite. Bottom line, Obama's philosophy is facing a very serious dose of reality. He might very well find it useful to test the power of free markets and the use of incentives in tax policies.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Price of Business and the "Syndication Effect"

One of my objectives is to get the media that my company is developing in front of as many ears and eyes as possible. That is, after all, the purpose of media. The Price of Business Show is the longest running program on CNN 650, which is in the Houston market. Lately, I have been getting calls and emails from all over the country. Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania are just a few of the states that have been taking a part in the program (you will get an example by clicking the image above). Thanks to the Internet, the show may already be "syndicated." I like to call this phenomenon the "syndication effect." We are nationwide, even thought the program is broadcasted locally.

CNN 650 is a partner with AOL radio and as a result, many of my listeners are listening to my show in their car, on the bus, and at the restaurant on their Ipods. Furthermore, with the ease of finding our media through Google searches (with over 150,000 unique visitors each month) and our growing business media platform (including USBusinessDaily.com, ChicagoBusinessDaily.com, etc.), our reach is only expected to expand.

The syndication effect doesn't end with AOL radio. Rarely does a day go by that I don't see an article of mine from BizPlusBlog.com in Reuters.com, USAToday.com, ChicagoSunTimes.com, or other major media. Blog syndication services, such as Blogburst, is continually changing the way people get seen and heard.

A very popular concept these days is the effort to become "almost famous." With some solid and consistent content and strong efforts to get your information seen, it is easier than ever. Furthermore, with websites like ours enjoying visitors measured in the hundreds of thousands monthly, it is very feasible to be a player in media today.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Domestic Drilling, Barack Obama, and Executive Orders

Executive Orders are a favorite tool of Presidents to promote their political agenda. Some times they actually alter policy because they address issues that have no specific legislative limitations. In other cases, they are a form of protest or persuasion, because they go against the current law of the land. An example of this was President Bush's Executive Order to lift some of the restrictions on domestic drilling. Congress had prohibited the areas the order covered, but Bush wanted to make it clear that the Executive Branch supported such. That protest and the outcry of millions of Americans finally led to Congressional action in which they reversed the ban.

During the Presidential campaign and gasoline prices were pushing $4 a gallon, Barack Obama said he was open to any energy option to drive gas prices down. He was for nuclear energy (as long as it was always safe), coal (as long as he could tax it into bankruptcy), and domestic drilling (as long as you can guarantee there would be no environmental damage). This view was against all of Obama's historic policy statements and voting record.

Obama and Congressional Democrats have been philosophically for higher gas prices. The higher the prices, the better. He supports high gas prices as a way of conserving energy, to drive people to mass transit, and to force the development of energy alternatives. That has long been the primary position of Democrats for years, who describe our need for energy as "addictive" and that there is something fundamentally wrong with Americans because they demand more energy than other country in the world. I don't apologize for our quality of life or the technology necessary to maintain it, I expect our government to create the environment to get those needs met through free enterprise. Furthermore, many of his Congressional allies are singing a similar tune.

So why did Obama and company say they would support these traditional forms of energy? Because they needed the votes. In fact, for the last 60 days of the campaign, Obama ran as a moderate and even attempted more conservative positions than McCain (rightly describing the Arizona Senator's home bailout plan as "irresponsible").

The election is over, the real Obama is standing up and doing so tall with this bold announcement. I think it is being done immediately because he hopes that the adverse effects it will have on oil futures (projecting future demand effects gas prices today) will be seen as a remnant of the Bush Administration and he wants to get the liberals' bizarre conservation program of high prices back on track. Every day we are enjoying prices around $2.00 a gallon, we are wasting energy and destroying our environment according to the Democrats. Obama believes this must stop.

This is just the beginning. Many of the things you worried about Obama earlier in the race when he ran as a liberal, but saw fade away in his rhetoric as he worried about his electoral success, will come back in full force. Will the real Barack Obama please stand up? I hope not.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

AIG Is Begging for More

I have long contended that the $800 billion bailout of financial institutions would not be enough. By the time the process was finished, it would be closer to $1.5 trillion. There is more evidence of that contention in light of the fact that AIG is about to enjoy a "do over." You remember "do overs," where you got a bad roll of the dice when playing a board game and you beg your friends to let you go again. AIG has done the exact same thing, but there is much more than monopoly money at stake.

CNN Money notes that "troubled insurer American International Group got a reworked $152.5 billion deal from the federal government Monday, as the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department made significant changes to the terms of the company's original bailout."

"The Fed announced that it will reduce AIG's original $85 billion bridge loan to $60 billion, cut the interest rate by 5.5 percentage points and extend the borrowing period to five years from two years."

"In addition, the Treasury will use its special authority under last month's $700 billion bailout law - the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program - to purchase $40 billion in preferred stock."

So the burden on the federal government is to make sure its new investment -- banking and insurance-- succeeds. This slaps "moral hazard" in the face because the government, which is suppose to be an impartial referee, now has a vested interest in this and the many other insurance and financial institutions in which it has invested our tax dollars.

The reality is, some of these businesses simply need to go under. The government should allow such with almost cruel fanfare. Get the business to the point where it appears it is about to get a check and pull the rug right from underneath it and declare "no more." It should declare that if the business is worthy of an influx of revenue, people would provide such in their stock purchases. If it isn't, it would let the market speak and send a loud message to all businesses that are beginning to see the government as a safety net.

If businesses can't fail, they have every incentive to reach ever newer levels of mediocrity. Failure is as important a function of free enterprise as is success. Failure teaches businesses and individuals how to do things better, it maintains competitiveness, and drives economic and technological progress. Bailouts undermine this important factors in business and economic success. It is time to hold these businesses accountable, close the pig troughs, and restore capitalism to our economy.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

What's "Down" with the Stock Market?

Wall Street is facing the biggest post election sell-off in US history. The big question, of course, is "why"? Clearly, there is no simple "cut and dry" answer to this question. It can't be attributed to any one thing, I'm sure. But one contributing factor that I think is being largely ignored by the mainstream media, is the election of Barack Obama.

Of course, we have always recognized the impact of a new President-elect on the market. Is the new President pro-business? Is he in the pocket of special interest? What about his relationship with labor? The positions the candidate had during the campaign, show up in the stock market's reaction shortly after elections.

With Obama, we have a new President that is hostile to wealth creation, saying in his nomination acceptance speech that he supports tax policies that helps work, but not wealth. In this country, the two have always been linked. Wall Street knows that, but it appears that Obama does not. Because the current Democratic controlled Congress did not renew the next year of the Bush tax cuts, Wall Street (and those of us on Main Street that own stock) know that we will currently make 100 percent of our stock sales if we do them by the end of the year, but only make 80 percent when the capital gains tax goes into effect.

Daily, our stock reduces in value because of that looming capital gains tax. Sellers know that reluctance is growing on a daily basis as we get to January 1, 2009 and the tax increase. As that reluctance grows daily, expect the market to grow south with it.

This, of course, is only one area of concern. Hours after Obama was declared President, Iran's radical leader called for the dropping of sanctions against that regime. Wall Street is concerned of how safe the world will be with Obama. Capital gains tax is only the beginning. Obama plans on dramatically raising the taxes of the most affluent. Obama has declared that he is going to try and regulate or tax some businesses into bankruptcy (e.g., coal). This too plays heavily on the minds of Wall Street. The point is, business has plenty to worry about and those jitters are showing up each day in the Dow Jones Industrial Averages.

The test for Obama is simple. Can you have policies that benefit Main Street, but are harmful to Wall Street, yet maintain a healthy economy? I have my doubts.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

For Barack Obama, Now the Hard Part

The party is over and governing begins. Barack Obama has enjoyed the position of US Senator and candidate for President. These roles are all about criticism, not about governing. With a solid vote giving him a win, expectations are very high for him when he enters office in January.

One of my favorite quotes is from Teddy Roosevelt, who sait "it is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Being a "critic" is virtually the only job of a US Senator. Sure, they propose legislation, but they spend more time either dismissing the proposals of Presidents or trying to make the bills better, than actually making laws a reality. This may be why we haven't elected a sitting US Senator to the White House since 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected. Since then, we elected a Vice President thrown into the Oval Office due to an assassination, than we elected a former Vice President. The next several Presidents included three former governors and a sitting Vice President. The US Senate had become a rather weak position to run for President. People were looking for leaders, not cheerleaders.

No matter who won this race -- Obama or McCain -- we would have a Senator moving into the White House. The Kennedy Administration, in spite of all the romanticism that surrounds it, was one of the least productive in US history. I think the weakness that mark that Administration played a role in our view of Senators. It will be interesting to see if Barack Obama raises the profile of that office as a springboard for the presidency.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

2008 Elections: Confessions of Small Business Owners

With the time left in this campaign reflected better in hours than days, it will be interesting to see the total reach of an Obama presidency and Democrat control of both Houses of Congress. Every day, when I go on the air or view my email, small business owners are horrified by what this country will be like under a new administration. A fellow host of another radio show at my station told me that they have already identified who they will layoff if Obama wins. They will likely give them the walking papers before the week is over.

Each month, I give several speeches and people quietly whisper to me that "there is no way my business can survive Obama, I am thinking of selling before the election." Time has run out for many of these individuals, but there appears to be a great deal of doom and gloom in the works if Obama and company wins the day.

Recently, Barack Obama has gotten extremely specific about what he would do if elected. In a new TV commercial, the Illinois Senator said he intends to both "penalize" companies that export jobs over sea and provide a tax increase for the top 5 percent. So much for the old saying that "you can't help America's poor by making America poor." Obama seems more than willing to try such a policy. When Herbert Hoover raised taxes in the early days of the recession of 1929, we slipped into a depression. Obama intends to use the Hoover approach as a road map.

Meanwhile, instead of asking the question as to why jobs are being exported to other parts of the world, Obama prefers to penalize business owners who are looking out for their natural self interest. US Businesses are in the business of making money. Obama's plan will force those companies that are still corporately located here to simply move entirely overseas. That will help America's poor?

I go back to my mantra. Business don't pay taxes, they are tax collectors. If the cost of taxes on corporations are too high for them to collect and still stay competitive, they will move from the United States. We don't want to compete with developing countries by making labor cheap, but we can compete by cutting taxes. Business taxes are used by cowards in politics who are afraid to tax voters directly. Meanwhile, those taxes harm business and jobs. We need to cut taxes on job creators.

Businesses are telling me they are not "like sheep." They are ready to take care of their families and businesses. They will take the necessary actions to fend off the policies supported by Obama. Unfortunately, the middle class and working poor will be the ones who will suffer most from those actions. But don't blame the businesses, blame the policy makers who forced such choices.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Obama Concerned About Surprises

According to the vast majority of the polls, this election is over and in spite of my own personal preferences, if I was forced to bet money, I would have to place my money on Mr. Obama. However, many (including the Obama campaign) are not yet ready to call this election in the bag and for several good reasons:

• The poll that was by far the most accurate in the 2004 election was by Investors Business Daily. In this election, they have McCain and Obama within two percentage points, well within the margin of error.


• The huge number of undecided, (most surveys have it at 8 percent) is a great concern to Obama. This late in the game, there should be virtually no undecided. When there are, they tend to vote against a candidate rather than for one. In light of the numerous issues being raised about Obama these last few days, most pundits (including Democrats) are projecting the majority of undecided to favor McCain.


• The way polling is done favors Democrat candidates. This includes many media polls that resemble "push questions" that candidates use (where they favor one candidate over another) and the fact polls tend to favor registered Democrats in their surveys. Furthermore, every poll is done on land lines only, when many of the most affluent don't even have such phones.


• Many have said that, with this being the largest turn out in history, the odds are in favor of Obama. They said the same about John Kerry in '04 when that campaign broke record numbers, and Bush won.

The Democrats clearly see this race must be contended. Historically, true front runners have spent the last two days doing photo ops. Barack Obama still sounds like an under dog on the stump and is doing serious campaigning through election day. This proves one very important fact -- the only poll that really matters is the vote people actually cast.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Lessons from the Slightly Famous

The pursuit of one’s “fifteen minutes of fame” is easier now than any time in history. No longer do the masses have to live in the shadow of the famous because they have the tools to cheaply make a name for themselves.

YouTube has been a significant driver in this effort. People are battling it out with mattresses in a college dorm, a kid jumps from a second story window on a trampoline (bad idea), a person cries out in defense of an actress taking a pounding from the media. These people become the talk of the web for a least a day or so. There are those who seeking fame for reasons other than ego and entertainment purposes and they are a growing breed of entrepreneurs.

In the old days the media drove information. Occasionally a person got his letter to the editor in the newspaper, he or she would get on the radio as the “person on the street.” Besides such scenarios, there was a huge chasm between the media and the average person. The Internet is changing all of that.

In the book, Get Slightly Famous, author Steven Van Yoder writes about the forces available online for the average person to leave his mark and to get noticed. They do so in order to set themselves apart as the expert and to get the notoriety and recognition of such. This becomes a way to attract new customers.

In the early days of the Internet people simply had a website. These domains were little more than 24 hour brochures. Now there are far more tools available.

Blogging. People create their own web platforms where they tell people their unique opinion on politics, finance, marketing, movies, and more. Whatever their passion, vocation, obsession, or all of the above. Recently an article I wrote had close to 120,000 impressions on one day on Reuters.com. An article I wrote on Neil Cavuto of Fox News and Business led to his office contacting me and wanting to find out if I would be interested in having him on my show. The reach of blogging is breath taking.

Podcasting. This includes video and audio. Audio is cheap to start, in some cases it is even free. Video costs more, but could leave a bigger impression. The web is about the convergence of media – bringing several types of media to one place. Essentially, individuals can create a media network of their own.

Social networking. Twitter, Plaxo, and LinkedIn are just a few of the tools that business leaders are using to tell others about their influence.

But the Internet is not the only vehicle available:

People are writing books like never before. With Print on demand technology, people can self-publish at a fraction of what it use to cost and not fill their garage with books that may or may not get sold. Such books are not typically being written in order to become rich, but to be semi-famous.

People are buying air time on the radio and TV. They are not buying commercials where they can be lost among the many who merely sell, buy are buying programs that demonstrate their expertise as a way to attract customers.

People are giving speeches. Most towns have numerous organizations that are looking for speakers. Chambers of commerce, Rotary Clubs, and networking groups to name a few. When you give a speech to such groups you further differentiate yourself as the expert and find it very easy to find the clients that create more business.

The only downside to such activities is that it is difficult to make your website the place to be found without traffic or to be identified as the person to give speeches. Furthermore, there is an opportunity cost to pursuing such activities. You are trading the thing you do for a living to pursue the opportunity to get more business.

There is a company I am working with that is making this transition easier for entrepreneurs called USBusinessDaily.com. They have a free white paper that is available for the asking at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com. I strongly encourage you to request it today.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.