Saturday, June 13, 2009

Big Oil Pay Attention


Now that the Federal government has gotten a taste for running two of “The Big Three” auto makers, and is now telling executives with financial institutions how much they can earn, “Big Oil” in the United States should be watching closely and taking notes. Because you can be sure of one certainty. You are next on the government’s takeover list.

Think I am jumping the gun? Being irresponsible in my supposition? Fanning the flames of discontent? Being socialism phobic?

Nope.

As evidence to bolster my theory, let me remind you of just one short year ago. “Big Oil” was subjected to congressional “hearings” over the price increases of gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil. The oil companies were being scrutinized over their reasoning for the price increases, and many Americans were outraged over the huge quarterly profits reported by “Big Oil”.

I recall Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) stating that if the oil companies could not run their companies better, then perhaps they should be “socialized”. She stumbled over her words immediately after using the term “socialized”, but she said it nonetheless. Faux pas perhaps? Wishful thinking? Maybe.

However, with the goings on with Chrysler, General Motors, and the banking corporations don't be shocked if governmental pressure is applied to “Big Oil” that includes “nationalization”. Especially if the price of gas keeps making its way upward as it has over the last few weeks. If gasoline starts getting to or above three bucks a gallon...well... “Big Oil”... consider yourself warned.

By the way, just one more thing. Since the government now owns or controls a portion of General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, and many of the banks...and in addition, since we are told that the government of this country is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”...when will we start seeing our dividend checks?

Don't think I'm going to hold my breath on that one.

© Copyright 2009 Steve Smith. All rights reserved.








Monday, April 06, 2009

The Main Source Of Global Warming

I was on my way to work Sunday morning, and turned on the radio. I happened to come across a talk show, and listened for a bit until I got to work. I do not know whose talk show it was, but the host and his guest were discussing global warming. They were saying how the proponents of global warming would not even begin to debate those who opposed the idea of this theory. They mentioned a certain former Vice-President and former Presidential candidate and global warming fanatic, one Mr. Al Gore… becoming the invisible man when it comes down to debating global warming.


They also brought up the fact that 650 of the world's leading climatologists oppose the theory of global warming. They believe that the climate changes around the globe are more indicative of a coming ice age in the years ahead.


Then the talk show brought up the idea of some politicians and environmentalists wanting to tax farmers who raise cattle. It seems the theory is that a substantial amount of methane gas comes from flatulent cows, and is considered by them as a major factor in global warming. They want to make the farmers and ranchers pay $175.00 a head on cattle they own as a penalty for possessing cattle who will not take Bean-o.


OK, I made the Bean-o part up...but they are serious about a $175.00 fee (“fee” is a nice little word government uses when they don't want to say “tax”) per head on those who make a living raising cattle, and that means both beef and dairy cattle. Well, one does have to keep the windows rolled up, and turn the A/C off when driving through dairy farm country in the summer time, but, geez Louise. Isn't this thing starting to get just a tiny bit extreme?


What I want to know is, why stop with just the cattle? Let's include...oh, I don't know...how about politicians and their cronies who come up with these brainstorms? I mean let's face the facts here. Politicians make a whole lot more than you, me, and the average worker in this country. Therefore, it only stands to reason, that if they make more money than we do, they must be eating richer food than we do. Haven't we all heard about White House chefs in the past that specialized in French cuisine? Have you forgotten the story of a Presidential candidate's wife ordering lobster and Dom Perignon from room service after one of the Presidential debates? Do you really think senators or members of congress visit Wendy's or Denny's on their lunch breaks? Of course not! Hooters maybe, but the other places are just out of the question!


Now, you and I both know what happens when one tends to indulge in rich foods. At the risk of being indelicate, here...let's just say it...one gets gassy, of course. And just what type of gas is it? Well, it sure ain't propane, brother!


The problem is, with all their speeches, promises, conniptions, and rhetoric, the politicians gas is undoubtedly coming from both ends, and more likely than not, probably both ends at the same time. So, to help relieve the world of the dastardly consequences of politico bombastic verbosity and flatulence, here is what I think we should demand.


To solve this callous indifference to global health from politicos across the country, around the world, and up in your courthouse or city hall, we should require that they all be fitted for catalytic converters. For both ends. At the very least, there should be requirements for ventilation systems that remove these dangerously high levels of toxins, and then use a micro-filtering element to neutralize the offending vapors before they can escape into the environment.


Think I am kidding about the political gas...hot air...bull hockey or whatever you want to call it? The next time you are at a gathering where a politician is present and undoubtedly talking about what great strides he or she has made for you, your community, and your world, take a big whiff. Phew! That ain't Chanel No. 5 sister!


Just one more little note here. I find it somewhat amusing that the word flatulent is derived from the Latin word “flatus” meaning “blowing blast”. Very appropriate when it comes to politicians.


Copyright © 2009 Steve Smith. All Rights Reserved.










Friday, March 20, 2009

Buy Here, Pay Here Autos...A Good Idea Gone Bad?






Within the last couple of years, North Carolina's attorney general has eliminated the “pay day” loan operations that were operating within the state, and blocked some “pay day” loan and “pay day advance” companies from doing business online within North Carolina. Now, we can't help but wonder, how long it will be before (if it ever does happen) North Carolina's attorney general, Roy Cooper, takes a long hard look at a segment of the used automobile industry that seems to go unnoticed. That is the wide spread plethora of “buy here, pay here” dealers across the state. These are not just your small business type used car dealers with a corner lot on a well-travelled thoroughfare, either. Now, some of the new car dealers have expanded into this business as well.

Here is how it works. John Brown needs a vehicle, but, John either has no credit history or his credit is so bad he can't get a loan to use a pay toilet. So, John looks through the local ads in the newspaper, or the local classifieds tabloids, and visits individuals, and or various dealers, and just can't get anything, even though he has a down payment of about 500 bucks. So, in desperation, especially since John needs transportation to be able to go to work, to pay his bills, to pay his rent, and to eat, John visits one of the dealers with a “buy here, pay here” program. They have a full-page color ad in the local classifieds tabloid, with photos of three or four (sometimes many more) vehicles that say financing is available for people with “no credit, slow credit, or bad credit...no one will be refused”. The cars shown don't look too bad, and the ads speak of down payments as low as 200 bucks, and weekly or bi-weekly payments of forty to sixty dollars.

So, John goes down to the dealership advertised. When he gets there, he finds that all of the cars advertised have either been sold, or moved to “our other location” a county or two away. So, John goes ahead and fills out the paper work, and the dealer tells him to come back the next day or maybe even later that evening. Upon leaving, John sees some other vehicles that don't look quite as good as those advertised and maybe aren't quite as new. John needs a car badly, and he's willing to take anything that will get him around.

When John returns, the dealer greets John, and gives him the good news, that he will be able to get a car. They show John a 1995 Chevy S-10 pickup. It's a “5 speed, four cylinder gas saver”, with AM-FM cassette, ABS brakes, power steering, and 120,000 miles. They suggest John take a spin around the block, but, first, they ask if he has his down payment. Just let them have it, and they will take it to the cashier and get John a receipt. So, John gives them his cash, and takes the truck for a spin. It runs OK. When John gets back, he goes into the office, and he signs the papers, that tell him he is paying 500 bucks down, for a truck priced at 8,200 bucks. His interest rate is 25% APR. Since John is paid weekly, he will make a weekly payment at the dealership of 78 bucks for three years. The dealer keeps one of the truck keys, so that he has the extra key to “come and get the truck” if John defaults.

A few months down the road, John has some problems from the vehicle. If the dealership repairs them, they either add the repair charges to the “financing” or allow him to “pay extra” on his weekly payments to pay for the repairs. After a year or so, John thinks he may be ready to trade up. He finds that this truck, which now has 145,000 miles on it, is worth about 700 bucks trade-in value. Even worse, after he has been paying for 15 months, he still owes over 7,000 bucks on it, and this has done nothing to improve his credit rating!

Now, if John defaults, and the dealer has to repossess the truck, he doesn't care. Because he sold John a vehicle worth 1500-3000 bucks at best, and he has already made a profit on it. He will just sell the truck again to someone else, and the scenario starts all over. Meanwhile, John has thrown away over 5,000 bucks, and is once again trying to find a vehicle. If John keeps the vehicle, and manages to pay it off, he will have over 12,000 bucks spent on a vehicle worth less than 1,000 bucks, and he still has no help for his credit record, because his good payment record does not go on his credit reports.

The above scenario is not just a rare occurrence. It's the norm for most “buy here, pay here” operations. Vehicles are sold to desperate buyers, at overly inflated prices, and at interest rates that can be as high as state usury laws will allow. If the buyer defaults after making payments for six months or more, the dealer will just resell the vehicle. He's already made a profit on it, and will now make a little more. Some dealers install hidden GPS units in the vehicles so they can be located if the buyer defaults. In some states, dealers install a device that will only allow the vehicle to start when the driver inputs a code he has been given by the dealer after he makes each payment.

I know one woman who missed a weekly payment, and the dealer asked her out. She declined the invitation, and two days later, he repossessed the car. And this was right here, in Buncombe County.

To this writer, this all seems to be another case of people being taken advantage of. No one should be charged a price that is three or four time the worth of a vehicle with high mileage on it. It seems that there should be some type of regulations in place to prevent abuses from occurring. When there is no other alternative available, and people become desperate, should they be taken advantage of? Everyone hits a bump in the road now and then, and sometimes people get into situations that they normally wouldn't if desperation didn't over rule common sense. Should that bump turn into a cliff? How is this not as bad as “pay day loans” or “pay day advance” services?

Any ideas out there?