The Death of NASA

Thanks a lot, Barack. 

Our economy was already in the toilet, unemployment was through the roof, and you just had to go and crush American morale by ending the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and all the pride and glory with which it came. No, really -- thank you for doing that!

Sorry folks, but if history is here to instruct us, then we ought to be able to look into the past and realize that bureaucracy (government departments, administrations, and agencies) are rarely -- if ever -- more innovative and creative than their private sector counterparts. Consider the following image:

It's true. You can't deny it. If the government tried to create and regulate video game consoles, do you think we would have such remarkably fantastic gaming systems on which to spend our free time? Of course not. 

Why, you might ask, is that the case?

The answer is fairly simple. Incentives are the enzymes of innovation. And money is the human race's most basic form of incentive. In other words, money is what motivates and lays the foundation for cutting-edge new technological creations. 

Then it follows that bureaucrats are not the most fit group of individuals to develop new, breakthrough products. They get paid by the hour or the year at the same salary whether or not they create something marvelous. This is why the private sector has the obvious advantage. A private corporation's motives for innovation lie, as stated, in profit. Cold, hard, limitless cash. Private companies aren't paid set wages -- they reap what they sow. If their newly invented product revolutionizes the market, then they will certainly earn the incentive that motivated them from the start; the incentive that they so rightly deserve.

This, we can only hope, will boost American ingenuity and resolve to explore and travel into space. If competition within private industry can create a new space age for mankind, then perhaps the death of NASA is merely an intergalactic rebirth…

What do YOU think? Can the government innovate as effectively as private industry? How do you see the future of space travel in the US of A?

A Monopoly Divided

We can all thank Theodore Roosevelt for the anti-trust laws that protect the American consumer against monopolistic and anti-competitive business practices. But do corporations ever form duopolies or triopolies and simply accept their staggered profit margins? Perhaps...

As I observe the apathy and lack of willingness of other fast food restaurants to try and compete with McDonalds, I can't help but wonder whether if large-scale corporations ever "call a huddle" and sit down to decide industy-leader positions. I mean, do the high-ups of McDonalds invite the executives of Burger King, Taco Bell, and Wendys to get together on some sort of corporate conference call and just say, "Hey, look guys...let's let McDonalds be number one. In return, they'll deal with media and Hollywood barrages on the Fast Food industry, smiling and waving with their overpaid lawyers." After a billionaire-baronesque puff from the cigar, the McDonalds executive representative would continue, "and as for Burger King and Wendys...you two can dish it out for second. Taco Bell, since the burger market is occupied by 3 of us, we can't risk letting you compete with us, so no breakfast menu. Ok?".

What do YOU think? Are corporations this sneaky? Would you put it past them?

The Fast Food Hierarchy

Is it just me, or is McDonalds the king of the fast food industry? The restaurant originally created in the 1950's is now the industry leader in fast-food sales, both domestic and abroad. Why is this? What makes McDonalds the best of the worst (food, that is)?

As an executive said on a special investigative report on McDonalds on CNBC, "Nothing turns off a customer more than a dirty bathroom". It's true. And their pledge to cleanliness is true. Every McDonalds I've ever been too -- and mind you, I've visited the Golden Arches in Belgium and London, among other places -- has remarkably clean, tidy restrooms. They also have a new machine that counts change, thus minimizing the time spent by clerks and cashiers counting change. Their cleanliness and efficiency is obviously leading the industry, but what else do they have in the capitalist repertoire?

Well, they add new items to their menu every-so-often, keeping customers' minds and appetites piqued. The Snack-Wraps were introduced last year and have since become a smash-hit for McD's value-based consumers like myself. The McRib has been on-and-off the menu as some sort of a visiting menu item like that of a visiting university professor! And lastly, their advertising is phenomenal. I may not be the biggest fan of the golden arch's actual food, but I am an idol of their ads. Their marketing techniques are nearly flawless. Take, for example, their summer campaign for their new "Real Fruit Smoothies". Their ads are all over Hulu, bound to catch the eyes and tongues of teenage viewers who might opt to visit McD's for a refreshing new beverage. And honestly, who goes to a fast-food joint just for a drink? Most of those who buy into McD's new summer drink campaigns will end up buying a burger or two -- probably with some friends. So what was originally a $2 smoothie is now $15 in revenue from food, fries, and drink for the McDonalds corporation. It is psychology behind advertising like that of McDonalds that renews and strengthens my vigor and resolve to join the advertising industry after college.

Tell me what YOU think about McDonalds restaurants in general compared to those of their fast-food counterparts (BK, Taco Bell, Wendys, etc.)