Archive for June 2nd, 2010

“We’re too broke to be this stupid”

June 2, 2010

Punch line: Beleaguered taxpayers may finally put a stop to the sheer waste of government spending …  Why?  There’s no choice !

* * * * *

Excerpted from Macleans:: We’re too broke to be this stupid, Mark Steyn, May 27, 2010

Back in 2008, a reader wrote to advise me to lighten up, on the grounds that “we’re rich enough to afford to be stupid.”

Two years later, we’re a lot less rich. In fact, many Western nations are, in any objective sense, insolvent. 

It no longer matters whether you’re intellectually in favour of European-style social democracy: simply as a practical matter, it’s unaffordable.

In any advanced society, there will be a certain number of dysfunctional citizens either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to support themselves and their dependents.

What to do about such people? Ignore the problem? Attempt to fix it?

The former nags at the liberal guilt complex, while the latter is way too much like hard work.

So the easiest “solution” to the problem is to throw public money at it.

Since the Second World War, the hard-working middle classes have transferred historically unprecedented amounts of money to the unproductive sector in order not to have to think about it. We were rich enough that we could afford to be stupid.

To be “poor” in the 21st-century West is not to be hungry and emaciated but to be obese.  When Michelle Obama turned up to serve food at a soup kitchen, its poverty-stricken clientele snapped pictures of her with their cellphones.

In one-sixth of British households, not a single family member works. They are not so much without employment as without need of it.

At a certain level, your hard-working bourgeois understands that the bulk of his contribution to the treasury is entirely wasted. It’s one of the basic rules of life: if you reward bad behaviour, you get more of it.

According to a Fox News poll earlier this year, 65 per cent of Americans understand that the government gets its money from taxpayers, but 24 per cent think the government has “plenty of its own money without using taxpayer dollars.”

There is almost nothing the state won’t pay for. A much-mocked mayor in Doncaster, England, announced a year or two back that he wanted to stop funding for the Gay Pride parade on the grounds that, if they’re so damn proud of it, why can’t they pay for it? He was soon forced to back down.

“Green jobs” is just another of those rich-enough-to-be-stupid scams. The Spanish government pays over $800,000 for every “green job” on a solar-panel assembly line. This money is taken from real workers with real jobs at real businesses whose growth is being squashed.

The social compact of the postwar era cannot hold. Across the developed world, a beleaguered middle class is beginning to understand that it’s no longer that rich. At some point, it will look at the sheer waste of government spending, the other shoe will drop, and it will decide that it no longer wishes to be that stupid.

Full article:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/27/were-too-broke-to-be-this-stupid/

The power of branding: Ally Bank

June 2, 2010

Have you seen any of the clever commercials promoting Ally Bank?

The ads show a con man  banker taking advantage of innocent children with the equivalent of typical bank practices (e.g. teaser offers, high service fees, misleading fine print).

My opinion: the campaign is very effective positioning Ally as a fair, customer-oriented bank.

Embarrassed to admit that I thought Ally was a new bank, or maybe an obscure one that I just hadn’t heard of …

Then today I picked up on an incidental mention in the WSJ:

Keeping GM alive, albeit in shrunken form, was an expensive undertaking for America’s taxpayers: about $65 billion in all, if one counts government aid to the company’s former financial arm, formerly GMAC, now renamed Ally Bank.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264641145227612.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

How did I miss that one ?

Below is a recap of the rebranding announcement.

Re-branding is usually done out of necessity.

Sometimes an acquiring company loses the right to use a brand name  — think GE household appliances to Black & Decker.

In those instances, you see references back to the old brand – think Brinks Home Security is now Broadview Security – to transfer some of the old brand equity to the new brand.

But, who would want to be associated with GMAC these days?

So, you see Ally signaling that it’s new from scratch with no references to its original branding.

Worked on me !

* * * * *

Excerpted from USA Today: GMAC Bank re-brands itself as Ally Bank, 5/15/2009

The banking arm of ailing auto finance company GMAC is taking on a new name, hoping to smooth its image and entice new customers as it works to drive deposit growth.

GMAC has since been trying to expand its consumer banking offerings to offset sharp declines in new vehicle loan and home mortgage originations.

GMAC Bank has become Ally Bank, which will offer a variety of savings products, including no-penalty certificates of deposits, online savings accounts and money market accounts.

“We are launching a new brand with a new approach of treating customers with total transparency.”

The company settled on the name Ally after extensive interviews with customers.

“The name Ally aptly fit the character of the brand”

The re-branding of the bank, a unit of GMAC Financial Services, is a clear effort to distance itself from its troubled parents, GM and GMAC. 

Full article:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-05-15-ally-gmac-bank_N.htm