A Little Story on Karma

So there I was driving around with a weak key chain for my car key. It was an old loop that had probably been around about as long as the car had which is about 20 years. The only problem is that key chains back then weren’t built as well as the cars and extended periods in pockets and other cramped spaces had altered the integrity of the barely overlapped single looped ring. 

Over the past few weeks I had been unusually upset in parking lots quite frequently noticing that generally people don’t really know how to park a car and that they don’t care about the extent that their parking job might be affecting someone else. So on this particular evening while parking my car in a hotel parking while I was traveling for work, I happened upon another careless park job. Someone in a regular sized car had parked significantly over the edge of their space rendering the one to the right unusable by anything larger than a sideways smart car or a motorcycle, of which I was driving neither. Inconsiderate parking is such a pet peeve!

So I devised a plan. Actually it was really more of a reaction to the thought, “Screw this guy.” Since it was at a hotel in a white collar working city on a weekday, the odds were that this was a male between the age of 27 and 50 who was staying alone. And the man was wealthy enough to afford such a great car, or rent one, so he probably cared little about his effect on the more trivial people in life, e.g. those parking next to him. With these facts considered I used my skills as a former car dealership lot-boy to make this guy’s day a little more inconvenient.  Knowing he would have to enter from the left side of his car, I drastically over-parked in the empty space to the left running into his space and leaving about four inches between our doors. Since I was alone, I didn’t have to worry about using the passenger door of my car. If he was an inconsiderate fat man, this would frustrate him greatly, whereas I had enough space to dance the Virginia reel out the driver’s side of my car.  

Goodwill Is Great, But It’s Not An Asset

          There are a couple definitions of goodwill. The first is “friendly disposition; benevolence; kindness (dictionary.com).” The second relating to commerce, from Webster is “the capitalized value of the excess of estimated future profits of a business over the rate of return on capital considered normal in the related industry.” I’m very fond of the thing described by the first definition, and I’m not much of a fan at all of the thing described by the second definition. Unfortunately, as I am an accountant by trade, and since I usually spend my time talking about things I don’t like, in this forum anyway, today we are going to talk about the second one.

           For your benefit, here is just a little background on goodwill in the accounting sense of the word to help expand the meaning of the definition. Goodwill is only recorded when a company purchases another company for an amount that is greater than what the fair market value of the company is decided to be. It is called goodwill because it feels like an amount given freely as it is in excess of what the market would demand for such a purchase. Previously, these amounts were recorded as an asset and then depreciated (expense recorded over time a period of time) over an estimated useful life. Now the generally accepted convention in the US is to continue to record it as an asset, and evaluate it on a regular basis for impairment, writing down the value, but never writing up, based on updated value forecasts.

          When first learning about the concept of goodwill I didn’t really have an issue, because I was just learning convention and kept being fed answers to goodwill questions like “that’s just how it is.” But after four years auditing I have begun to take up issue with the concept. Because for all the reasons we had to debate what an asset was and what a liability was, and why we had to break apart anything called an investment and anything that was appraised on a fair value basis to ensure that nothing was being recorded to the balance sheet that exceeded fair value, for some reason I found that none of the rules applied to goodwill. That goodwill was an amount in excess of fair market value, but this time for some reason it was still treated as an asset, and for some reason that was ok.

Why All Drugs Should Be Legalized

          My main reason for being in favor of the legalization of all drugs is that the illegality of drugs is not what prevents people from doing them. I will discuss this more throughout. But if we decide that is a true statement, then what really is the purpose making drug illegal? The goal of making drugs illegal (I think) is to restrict the use so that those who are not experts about the substance do not make mistakes with it and hurt themselves or others. However, I think the logic of solving that problem with that solution is very flawed. I think additionally our history of attempts to win the “war on drugs” shows that this policy plainly isn’t working. Particular examples of it not working are the terrible violence in Mexico the past few years that has resulted in senseless reckless ultra violent death of those involved in the drug trade, public officials trying to combat the drug trade, family members of both of these groups, and just plain ordinary citizens who live in Mexico. Another example is the swelling prison populations we’re facing domestically. Even if you don’t care about any of these who suffer from this policy because you think they are less important people, let me explain what a terrible fiscal policy this is for our country that leads to more extraction of American wealth, something you must care about... unless you’re a nihilist of course.

          Ok, here is why this logic is flawed, simple. If you want to influence an individual’s behavior so that they don’t make mistakes, you have to educate them on the front end before they make mistakes. This policy does not accomplish that. This policy provides consequences only once the crime has been committed. Retroactive education on drugs (i.e. incarceration, rehab) is not completely useless in combating the problem, but I don’t think it is very effective. How many celebrities with expensive drug problems only need to go to rehab once? How many drug addicts face multiple drug convictions? Once drugs have gotten to the point where they are mentally or physically addicting it is generally too late to have a true complete recovery. This is also the point where prosecution of drug use or possession has little effect. Drugs are very tricky in that they aren’t a thing where you can just let psychological conditioning take its effect because it alters mental perception. They make you think you are getting a good outcome and should repeat the behavior when really you are probably getting a bad one. Addicts can get sober, but it is a very long tough process and in many of those cases there are real irreversible consequences from the use that has already been done be it mental, physical, emotional, stunting of career development/opportunities, etc. So as this policy of illegality does not successfully deter consumption it does not provide any real benefit and drags along with it numerous other problems

Have Republicans violated the Taxpayer Protection Pledge? If so, I’m still waiting for the fallout

          I don’t want to get political :) but I just wanted to point this out… Doesn’t the refusal to vote in favor of the American Jobs Act violate Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge: “I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____ district of the) state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates” which 95% of Republicans in Congress signed? If the bill does not pass, a previously enacted 2% payroll tax cut for all wage earners will expire and marginal tax rates on income will go up by 2%. This can be viewed as either an increase to the marginal income tax for individuals and families, or an elimination of deductions and credits. I don’t care which interpretation is more correct, it is clear that not passing this legislation would violate at least one, if not both of the points made in the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. In fact, Mr. Norquist already clarified his position on this matter when the Bush era tax cuts were set to expire that he does not support the allowance for in place tax cuts to expire because it would result in a tax increase for the American people. Here’s that video:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/grover-norquist-bush-tax-cuts-tax-hike_n_905624.html.

          I don’t know why nobody is mentioning this even if it is simply for the reason that it is hypocritical and it is always fun to catch politicians (and well publicized lobbyists) going back on what they previously stated. How do you think Jon Stewart makes a living? But also, how come Mr. Norquist only raised this issue when it was the tax breaks for the top 1% that were about to expire? Why did he support republican efforts to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, but he isn’t raising the issue now when taxes for everyone are about to increase and Republicans who signed his pledge are not supporting the extension of the payroll tax cuts?

          I don’t get it. I really don’t get it. Usually in this situation Norquist would be making ominous statements about how he will remind the voters which are constituents of these pledge signers, that their representatives are breaking the pledge. He says the pledge relates to all tax increases which relate to the American people. Here is a clip of him saying this: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388996n. So where is he now with ominous statements now that it’s Republicans who are going to let cuts expire for everybody?

Are We a Christian Nation?

          Where does the movement to make the United States a Christian country come from logically speaking? This country was founded on the freedom to practice religion, that is in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment wasn’t an accident, it was first, it was thought about. That means you as a citizen of this country have the freedom to be a Christian of whatever denomination or flavor you want. Without the First Amendment you couldn’t pick which church you go to. The current day Baptists might have to go to a Mormon church instead. The First Amendment is great, it even gives you the freedom of speech so you can tell other people about your great religion. But to try to impose that religion into your government and thereby giving the indication, either in fact or appearance, that the state has a specific associated religion, that strips away the freedom for all citizens to have the freedom that allowed those Christians to be Christians in the first place. I understand that this is just reinforcing what has already been determined by the US Supreme Court that there should be a separation between Church and State, but there are still many people in the nation who say “this is a Christian nation.” But that is an incorrect statement, this is a nation where you are free to practice your own religion of your choosing, and more have chosen Christianity than any other religion, but it is that freedom that allows the nation to have that ability to choose to be Christian if they want that makes it a great and free nation. So why would you try to take away that beautiful freedom and force everyone to conform, doesn't that oppose the values of our nation? Isn't that the oppression that the country’s founders were trying to avoid when they created the country?

          While religion itself has no place in government the morals which are included in the bible may be included in government, but that is not the same thing as imposing religion into government by, for example, making bible teaching mandatory in public school or making biblical law into societal law. Additionally, several Christian morals like ‘don’t kill’ and ‘don’t steal’ are pretty universal in any society, even Muslim and other non-Christian societies, believe it or not. For the bible or bible readers to take credit for these morals is presumptuous, inaccurate, and self-righteous. I’m sure the Egyptians and Sumerians had these morals in their culture before Christ or Moses came around. So while some of the morals in the bible are good for society, I don't think we can make the case that it's all of them, and they are morals that are not necessarily bible specific or derived. They are morals that are good for society and essentially stem from treating others as you would want to be treated.