Lessons from the Calvin Coolidge Snack Bar: Diet Sprite, the Stimulus, and Creating Demand

I took two economics classes at the University of Massachusetts. One was ECON 103, a course in basic macro economics that taught freshman how to draw basic supply and demand curves. It was taught by a professor in a big lecture hall with smaller sections on Friday mornings (which were mercifully taught in classrooms that were just a few hundred yard from my dorm). I slept through most of it, and if it had been the only economics class I took, I might be shrugging my shoulders right now and saying “Stimulus? Sure, why not.”

The second class I took was in a building named, appropriately, after Calvin “Silent Cal” Coolidge (a staunch supporter of free market economics) when our dorm’s House Council decided to found a snack bar in the 19th floor lounge. I was one of the nerds involved in House Council – a quasi-governmental body which, up to that point, had focused on putting on educational and social programming that no one cared about and no one went to. We decided to put the tax money we had collected to a better, more productive use by launching a social hub for Coolidge residents. It also taught me a great deal about how business works.

We launched simply in Spring 1998, and sent one of our volunteers out to buy the first run of supplies. She came back with one twelve pack of every type of soda she could find – assuming that we needed variety. We learned that demand didn’t call for a wide variety – people were just happy to have a place in the building where they could get soda cheaper than the vending machines. We also learned that no one likes Diet Sprite. To get rid of the supply, I gamely purchased about eleven of the ten cans our supply director bought (so I can personally attest to how horrible it was – seriously, don’t ever buy Diet Sprite).

Essentially, I subsidized the purchase of a product no one wanted. If we had only looked at raw data about which sodas sold quickest for our next supply run, we might have thought Diet Sprite was selling like hot cakes and bought more. Luckily, we were a tight knit group, so I could express my distaste for Diet Sprite. (Have I mentioned it’s sickeningly sweet? Stay away from Diet Sprite.) What I had done is artificially create demand.

Eleven years later, our economy is lagging and President Barack Obama – in a phrase uttered last week that has been retooled for this week’s speeches and press conferences – is blaming lost demand. People are simply not spending money, so the government will start spending for them.

When I created demand, it was 50 cents per can and I spent my own money. But now, with this stimulus plan, we’re all chipping in.

And this is the problem with any government action under the umbrella of a so-called “stimulus package.” Government doesn’t seem to understand the world of business – which is why President Obama can say, with a straight face, that an entity with a trillion dollar operating deficit “is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life.” (Seriously – he actually said that.)

Since government doesn’t understand business, and doesn’t operate by the same rules, how can we expect government activity to turn the business world around? Maybe Obama is wrong to say doing nothing is not an option. Maybe doing nothing – for a change – would be the best option.

In the meantime, I hope you like Diet Sprite; since no one is buying it, we’re going to buy a whole lot more of it.

NOTE: After some cursory research, it appears “Diet Sprite” is the same product as Sprite Zero. You’re warned.

Bookmark and Share

SOMEONE has to be making money…

An economic recession is difficult on a personal level. I know several people who are looking for work right now, and still more who are worried about whether their job – or even their entire company – will exist next week.

That said, slow economic times provide a chance to make needed corrections. In his pro-stimulus stand up act at last week’s Democrat retreat, President Obama mentioned our economy losing trillions in demand. The stimulus, he said, is a way to artificially create demand.

There are, however, industries which are growing by leaps and bounds. Aging baby boomers are making assisted living and home health care major growth industries. Demand for office administrative services is growing – probably because top-heavy companies are recognizing that two or more cheap, administrative-level workers get more work done than an expensive partner-level executive. Outplacement firms are booming, helping laid-off workers with career changes.

I’ve worked at a company that went through what was called a “right-sizing” – and while some employees saw that term as a euphemism for down-sizing, it seemed appropriate to me. Tough times force belt-tightening and discipline – whether in personal finances or a national economy. It promotes efficiency. And the industries that thrive are usually stronger because they find demand that transcends the difficult times – versus boom industries, like late-1990’s dot-coms or mid 2000s real estate, that are based on people gambling to make a quick buck.

I drive less now than I did a year ago. The $4/gallon gas prices this summer led me to be more economical, and now I fill my gas tank usually about twice a month and no more. Similarly, I spend money a lot more intelligently now than I did four or five years ago with the knowledge that, even if I don’t get laid off, raises and bonuses that I was used to in the past may not be available now – realities also make me work harder and strive to expand my job-related knowledge.

As I work with fellow conservative activists to build new organizations, we realize that we cannot rely on an influx of donations to help fund our efforts so we must be streamlined and put an emphasis on providing a deliverable service to potential donors.

Tough times are leading to the development of good habits for me. Hopefully the same will be true nationally.

Bookmark and Share

Faux-miliarity

Growing up, there were certain television personalities that were so familiar they seemed like family. Johnny Carson was one of these – I distinctly remember one of the few times I saw the Tonight Show when I was in elementary school, thinking that it wouldn’t be odd to run into Johnny Carson at one of my grandfather’s St. Patrick’s Day parties. I bet many people felt that way about Carson – and about Ronald Reagan, too, which as big a reason as anything for his political success.

That type of connection is hard to forge, and the bond is strong enough to withstand quite a bit of stress – which is why folks who wouldn’t otherwise agree with conservative policies voted for Reagan, and why Carson was the King of Late Night even if a joke fell flat now and then.

I thought of this when I read Judith Warner’s Friday blog post at the New York Times. Warner recounts several anecdotes from people who share that level of false familiarity with Barack Obama and his family. From folks who feel a jealous respect for Obama’s accomplishments to those that think about the activities of first family just a little too much, there’s a similar connection that Carson and Reagan enjoyed.

Immediately, this has ramifications on the debate over the stimulus package – the bipartisan opponents will have a better chance of defeating something if they can hang it on the “Democrats” in general rather than on a popular and apparently approachable President. Long term, it means that defeating one unpopular bill will not completely turn the tables, and that opponents of the President’s agenda won’t carry as much momentum from one victory into the next battle.

Even when Johnny Carson bombed, people still tuned in the next night, ready to laugh.

Bookmark and Share

Thanks, Washington!

Recent comments on the economy have shown just how much confidence we can place in our representatives. There are lots of companies out there that are failing or in debt because of irresponsible spending. Now that those companies are being supported by the taxpayers, President Obama and his pals are setting strict regulations – for instance, the people who caused this mess aren’t allowed to give themselves raises. And they’ve come out strongly against those fancy “retreats” that are really just subsidized vacations.

It’s good to see that folks with business sense are making decisions on the economic recovery.

Bookmark and Share

Post-partisanship means never

The morning news was abuzz with video of President Obama’s reactions to accusations that his “stimulus bill” is just a pork spending bill: “What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point.”

That’s refreshing honesty, and it would have been nice to hear the same candor last year when he promised to work with Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Though there have been attempts by moderate Senators from both parties to reach across the aisle, Obama’s team of die-hards see no reason to engage in such niceties.

This may be a departure from campaign rhetoric, but it is consistent with Obama’s “I won, you lost, I make the rules” brand of “cooperation”over the last two weeks. Despite the misgivings of fiscally responsible Democrats, he has a big enough cadre of his own team behind him and eager to push out a bill. “Has bipartisanship been a failure? So far it isn’t working,” claimed Chuck Schumer. The left has enough votes that they don’t need moderates and conservatives.

Obama remarked last night that the American people didn’t vote for “petty politics.” It sounds like we’re getting that anyway.

Bookmark and Share

Settling up campaign debts

The AP is suing Shepherd Fairey for illegally using one of their images for his now-famous “Hope” illustration of Barack Obama. As my favorite journalism professor at UMass used to say, you can’t spell “cheap” without AP. The Associated Press wants compensation for the use of their photo.

The compensation claim is difficult. Fairey has clearly benefited from the exposure gained through his portrait, but received little if any compensation from the image itself – since Fairey’s goal was to elect Barack Obama, he allowed the image to be used freely. The biggest benefactor of the image was Barack Obama.

If there’s any cash left in his $750 million campaign coffers, it might be nice to use some to help Fairey out – especially since the image was the basis for the official inauguration poster and buttons designed by the Obama transition team.

Of course, they might wonder – as I do – why the AP is bringing up the controversy now when the image saw its heaviest use months and months ago during the campaign.

Bookmark and Share

For transparency, this is a little fuzzy…

President Obama’s stimulus package was the story of the week. The bill passed, but the bigger story may be what didn’t happen – or at least, didn’t happen yet.

TechPresident’s Nancy Scola was incredulous that President Obama did not mobilize his grassroots standing army to support the stimulus, even as Republicans began crying “pork.” Scola wondered if this showed the President felt he could take care of navigating the bill through Congress on his own. But some Obama critics – like Craig Colgan of TechRepublican – point out that the White House has not exactly on the cutting edge of new media, with a website that delivers little of the transparency, connection, and access that was promised on the campaign trail.

The answer may be that Team Obama cares more about the image of transparency than the actual substance. Consider Recovery.gov – a site which promises to track the stimulus package after its passage, so citizens can see where their tax dollars are going. A nice concept, but somewhat useless – after the bill passes, taxpayers can do little if nothing to change where their dollars go.

It may be that the Obama Administration realizes that, with less-than-ironclad public support, it may be wise to keep the people at an arms length while the stimulus is debated and ultimately passed by Congressional Democrats. But they will give you a great view once your money starts getting flushed.

Bookmark and Share