We all love America but many here and there are concerned about the impact the country has on the environment. So, with the new leadership of President Obama they are starting to do something about it. Some, as we have seen with the banks and AIG, have not quite got the issues we are facing. Well GM is on the ball - they have designed a hybrid Cadillac Escalade.
Lets not knock it too much. We all have to start somewhere, so why not with a 332-horsepower, 6 liter V8. It includes cylinder deactivation technology - so does my car. My car has a V8 in my imagination, but 4 cylinders are permanently deactivated. Of course the Cadillac comes with lots of Hybrid badges just in case somebody is not convinced. My car in fact has none, but then, it is not a Hybrid. It simply uses a lot less fuel.
The Cadillac does seat 8 people, comes with 16.9 cubic feet of lugage space behind the back row of seats and can tow up to 6,000 pounds. Not sure what that means, but it sounds like a big caravan. Why you would want to tow a caravan if you have a car big enough to house a family of four escapes me, but then again, I was the one with a car with only 4 cylinders.
So what do we get for this additional feature. Well there is the fuel consumption. The standard Escallade gets 12 mpg in town and 19 mpg on the open road. These numbers go to 20 mpg and 21 mpg respectively in the Hybrid version. The biggest BMW X5 I could find got 26 mpg on the open road, but then again it only has 6 cylinders. Sorry, I forgot to look at how many liters it had, but I am sure it has the power to tow that caravan.
I won't go into what my modest Volvo gets and I am glad to see GM is moving into green technology. Well done guys, but don't spend the bonus just yet. The Escallade still costs more than $80,000, which is $30,000 more than the Beemer, so I have a feeling that the environmentally conscious crowd may give it a miss, not to mention those of us who have been credit crunched.
May your fortunes and ours improve.
How many people to screw in a light bulb?
We have all heard this question and then await the usually comical answer. Have you ever considered whether the question is really silly or is it used as a measure of the person or company we ask the question about? Have you ever considered for example how many people are required to screw in a light bulb at your local authority? Probably not and the answer is one. The preparation however is staggering. Allow me to expand.
You need a new light bulb so you need to raise a request on the proper form. The form was developed with the input of consultants, reviewed by the forms department and was approved by a committee. Sadly the form you need is out of stock so you must first complete the forms request form. This was also developed with consultants and approved by a different committees. Both forms are regularly reviewed independently by an audit team supported by independent consultants if necessary.
The request for the light bulb completed it is sent to the purchasing department where it is reviewed. Noting that the date has not been entered correctly it is returned for correction. With the corrected form in hand the purchasing department requests a health and safety review and submits the case to the project management team. With all paperwork now complete it goes to committee. The committee considers consultants, but with the budget restrictions it decides that is not necessary on this occasion. It also considers a full tender, so refers it to legal.
Legal is busy so the request is put on the pile. A month later legal gets to the light bulb project and consults council, who advise that the request falls within the tender limits. With clearance from legal the light bulb goes back to committee, where it is quickly approved.
The project team sweeps into action, appoints a manager and a project plan. The project manager books an appointment with facilities management in 3 weeks time. Facilities management has a crisis, delays the meeting at the last minute but another two weeks later agrees to accept the project.
Vladimir is asked to screw in the light bulb. He notes that no information has been given about the wattage, or type of bulb. Whilst the request goes back through the chain, Vladimir wanders over to the offending light, discovers it is a bayonet type bulb, not the screw type, picks a bulb from his bag and fixes the problem. As he wanders off the various committees regroup to consider what the wattage and type of bulb should be. With some luck all will be in place for the next replacement.
Now with a light bulb this is obviously rather silly, but picture what happens when someone finds out about child abuse. What chance do they have of getting it through this system, a system with too many people and not enough individual responsibility. Time to reduce our bloated government departments and get more Vladimirs? After all, the best decisions are made by a committee of three, of which two are absent.
You need a new light bulb so you need to raise a request on the proper form. The form was developed with the input of consultants, reviewed by the forms department and was approved by a committee. Sadly the form you need is out of stock so you must first complete the forms request form. This was also developed with consultants and approved by a different committees. Both forms are regularly reviewed independently by an audit team supported by independent consultants if necessary.
The request for the light bulb completed it is sent to the purchasing department where it is reviewed. Noting that the date has not been entered correctly it is returned for correction. With the corrected form in hand the purchasing department requests a health and safety review and submits the case to the project management team. With all paperwork now complete it goes to committee. The committee considers consultants, but with the budget restrictions it decides that is not necessary on this occasion. It also considers a full tender, so refers it to legal.
Legal is busy so the request is put on the pile. A month later legal gets to the light bulb project and consults council, who advise that the request falls within the tender limits. With clearance from legal the light bulb goes back to committee, where it is quickly approved.
The project team sweeps into action, appoints a manager and a project plan. The project manager books an appointment with facilities management in 3 weeks time. Facilities management has a crisis, delays the meeting at the last minute but another two weeks later agrees to accept the project.
Vladimir is asked to screw in the light bulb. He notes that no information has been given about the wattage, or type of bulb. Whilst the request goes back through the chain, Vladimir wanders over to the offending light, discovers it is a bayonet type bulb, not the screw type, picks a bulb from his bag and fixes the problem. As he wanders off the various committees regroup to consider what the wattage and type of bulb should be. With some luck all will be in place for the next replacement.
Now with a light bulb this is obviously rather silly, but picture what happens when someone finds out about child abuse. What chance do they have of getting it through this system, a system with too many people and not enough individual responsibility. Time to reduce our bloated government departments and get more Vladimirs? After all, the best decisions are made by a committee of three, of which two are absent.
Saving banks and car manufacturers
Sitting by the seaside I wonder what makes our cousins across the pond decide to pour $14 billion into car manufacturing, after they have poured an even bigger amount into banks. It is not like anyone actually likes either the car companies or the banks. Consumers have voted with their feet buying smaller cars for years. Time Magazine has a depressing series of pictures of closed plants in Detroit resulting from the run from these cars. We have let many industries downsize over the years, why not this one?
What would happen if the car companies were not saved and went into Chapter 11? In the short run they would probably continue operating. Costs would be reduced, parts would be sold off to other manufacturers, other parts would probably go through management buyouts and no doubt some venture capital companies would find interesting parts. Some parts would survive and start building more sensible cars, and many parts would be closed. Many people would lose their jobs and many dealerships will close, many more than have already closed and lawyers and accountants will thrive.
Now what happens if the big three are rescued? Costs will be reduced, parts will be sold off to other manufacturers, managers will buy some and venture capital houses will try to get parts. A fabulous amount of money will go into restructuring and legal costs as the government forces the companies to catch up with decades of development neglect to start building sensible cars and many people will lose their jobs. Many dealerships will close and lawyers and accountants will thrive.
In either case there is no doubt that a lot of people will lose their jobs. I am sure even the CEOs will have to take large salary cuts. Maybe they will even have to survive on a mere $1 million a year. Their benefits will go down. Just think of the hardship of having to fly commercial. How embarrassing! The dealerships will get no support out of this, except possibly financing for their stocks of cars, so most of the suffering ones will not survive anyway. The simple fact is too few people want the cars made by these companies today.
I cannot spot a major difference. The issue at the moment seems to be that the CEOs will no longer be able to travel in corporate jets. Those same CEOs who showed up in Washington having travelled on those corporate jets. I understand Lee Iacocca's motivation when he says now is not the time to change the team. But Lee, these people are on a different planet to the rest of us. We have learned from the banks that they do not have the ability to realize how badly they have managed their organizations or to take responsibility for the problems they have caused. After all, some of the bankers had big celebrations as soon as they had pocketed the government's money, and I have yet to hear a banker apologize for the mess they have caused.
So I look out over the sea and think of the three cars in my drive. Do I feel guilty? Not really. They all get about 40 mpg, they were purchased used and I use public transport whenever I can. Am I worried that I will not be able to replace them if these companies go under? Not for a minute. There is an oversupply of cars in the market and that will remain the case. With some luck we may even get car clubs by the seaside and public transport will get better. Then I can go down to maybe 1 car one day.
Am I concerned about the people losing their jobs? Very! Sadly I am seeing dozens of good and less good companies fail every day and many friends losing their jobs. They do not work for the big three or for a bank and they simply have to bite the bullet. Their support came in the form of a 2.5% cut in VAT. I have some sympathy for saving the banks, though I would have preferred to see a system change. I have less sympathy for the big three.
I wish the Congress wisdom with this decision, but despite reading many blogs and news items and spending a lot of time gazing out over the sea, I am lost when it comes to understanding what benefit that $14 billion will give the US, let alone the world.
What would happen if the car companies were not saved and went into Chapter 11? In the short run they would probably continue operating. Costs would be reduced, parts would be sold off to other manufacturers, other parts would probably go through management buyouts and no doubt some venture capital companies would find interesting parts. Some parts would survive and start building more sensible cars, and many parts would be closed. Many people would lose their jobs and many dealerships will close, many more than have already closed and lawyers and accountants will thrive.
Now what happens if the big three are rescued? Costs will be reduced, parts will be sold off to other manufacturers, managers will buy some and venture capital houses will try to get parts. A fabulous amount of money will go into restructuring and legal costs as the government forces the companies to catch up with decades of development neglect to start building sensible cars and many people will lose their jobs. Many dealerships will close and lawyers and accountants will thrive.
In either case there is no doubt that a lot of people will lose their jobs. I am sure even the CEOs will have to take large salary cuts. Maybe they will even have to survive on a mere $1 million a year. Their benefits will go down. Just think of the hardship of having to fly commercial. How embarrassing! The dealerships will get no support out of this, except possibly financing for their stocks of cars, so most of the suffering ones will not survive anyway. The simple fact is too few people want the cars made by these companies today.
I cannot spot a major difference. The issue at the moment seems to be that the CEOs will no longer be able to travel in corporate jets. Those same CEOs who showed up in Washington having travelled on those corporate jets. I understand Lee Iacocca's motivation when he says now is not the time to change the team. But Lee, these people are on a different planet to the rest of us. We have learned from the banks that they do not have the ability to realize how badly they have managed their organizations or to take responsibility for the problems they have caused. After all, some of the bankers had big celebrations as soon as they had pocketed the government's money, and I have yet to hear a banker apologize for the mess they have caused.
So I look out over the sea and think of the three cars in my drive. Do I feel guilty? Not really. They all get about 40 mpg, they were purchased used and I use public transport whenever I can. Am I worried that I will not be able to replace them if these companies go under? Not for a minute. There is an oversupply of cars in the market and that will remain the case. With some luck we may even get car clubs by the seaside and public transport will get better. Then I can go down to maybe 1 car one day.
Am I concerned about the people losing their jobs? Very! Sadly I am seeing dozens of good and less good companies fail every day and many friends losing their jobs. They do not work for the big three or for a bank and they simply have to bite the bullet. Their support came in the form of a 2.5% cut in VAT. I have some sympathy for saving the banks, though I would have preferred to see a system change. I have less sympathy for the big three.
I wish the Congress wisdom with this decision, but despite reading many blogs and news items and spending a lot of time gazing out over the sea, I am lost when it comes to understanding what benefit that $14 billion will give the US, let alone the world.