Opinion

Page 26PAGE 22

The Business Times Contributors THE BUSINESS TIMES aPril 7-20, 2022JANUARY 15-28, 2015 Opinion Opinion Business BriefsA new year affords Business Peoplea new opportunity to meet local needs Almanac

A new year almost always brings an opportunity for a fresh start and renewed ambition to do things better.

In business, that usually boils down to providing customers better products and services faster and at lower cost than competitors. Part of the process must include listening to customers to determine what they actually need and then meeting that need. After all, it does little good to offer the latest and greatest if nobody actually wants what you’re selling.

Just like the businesses that belong to the group, the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce invariably starts out the new year with a reassessment of the services and resources it provides and how well they match with members needs. Jeff Franklin, the new chairman of the chamber board of directors, personifies this approach in describing what he considers his role for the coming year: listen to members, determine their needs and then meet those needs. It’s a role with which Franklin is familiar as market president of Bank of Colorado.

The process will take on a more structured approach in what the chamber plans as the resumption of a program aptly called Listening to Business. Under the program, business owners participate in in-depth interviews to identify barriers to growth and other problems they encounter.

The new year offers a good time to join the proverbial club.

As an advertiser or reader, what do you need from the Business Times?

While business journals traditionally gather and report the relevant news to readers, communication isn’t necessarily a one-way street. That’s especially true as Web sites and e-mail make the dialogue more convenient than ever.

Good publications don’t exist in a vacuum. They respond to the needs of advertisers and readers. They provide what’s needed.

So what do you need?

Is there additional news coverage that would help keep you informed about local business developments? Are there features that would be interesting or useful? Is there advice that would make your jobs a little easier?

It’s equally important to ask what you don’t need. With limited time to produce content and limited space in which to publish it, would time and space be better devoted to something else?

What’s good? What isn’t? What’s needed? What isn’t?

Let us know. Send us an e-mail. Comment online on the Business Times Web site at www.thebusinesstimes.com. You could even write an old-fashioned letter to the editor if you’d like. Your feedback, both positive and negative, is valued and will be carefully considered.

Good publications are the result of not only the efforts of their staffs, but also collaborative efforts involving advertisers and readers.

Like any other good business, we want to listen to our customers, find out what they need and then meet those needs.

It’s a new year. Please help us to do so. ✦ THE BUSINESSTIMES 609 North Ave., Suite 2, Grand Junction, CO 81501

TEL (970) 424-5133 • FAX (970) 424-5134

Publisher/Owner: Craig R. Hall Editor: Phil Castle Reach advertising at: publisher@thebusinesstimes.com Reach the editor at: phil@thebusinesstimes.com.

Subscribe or submit press releases online at www.thebusinesstimes.com

The Grand Valley Business Times, a subsidiary of Hall Media Group LLC, is published twice monthly and distributed throughout Grand Junction, Fruita and Palisade. Advertising rates and deadlines are available upon request. Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, editor, staff or advertisers.

Copyright © 2015 — All rights reserved.

It’s that time of year when resolutions and prognostications abound. My favorite saying applied to New Year’s resolutions is in saying they’re basically a bunch of promises to break the first week of January. And while I won’t predict a whole lot, I can pretty much accurately nail a few things that without question will make the news. You will see these are pretty, well, predictable: ■ Prediction one: There will be some sort of weather event, natural disaster or heinous occurrence where someone will be interviewed and say the following: “I’ve never seen anything like that in my lifetime.” It’s as if this person is a required attendee at every news reporting event. While I understand most people’s perspective can indeed be limited by, or contained within, their own personal experiences, it is too much to ask to consult some historical perspective before saying such a thing? Yes, this response can apply to some events. But when it comes to weather and natural disasters, I’m pretty sure this is simply history repeating itself. Same as it has for millions and millions of years. More important, the planet made it! What didn’t were certain species. How’s that for perspective? ■ Prediction two: When it comes to a crime or something that occurs between humans, the other required attendee at all news reporting events is the person who says this: “They we’re just the nicest people, and in no way did I see something like this coming.” Exactly. No one does most of the time when it comes to neighbors and acquaintances. People should be surprised at what goes on from time to time in their neighborhoods, towns and with people they know because people are good. And for the times that they shouldn’t be shocked — like with politicians, repeat offenders and terrorists — where’s the interview that says, “This doesn’t surprise me in the least.” ■ Prediction three: Something good will happen economically, and the government will take credit for it. The most recent example is gas prices, where people ask me why I won’t credit the president for low gas prices. My answer is simple: Government never makes the price of something go down and simply takes credit for good news. Gas pricing is subject to many global factors. Now there are government answers to addressing some of them to keep prices stable for Americans, but our government has none of them in place. The only things it has in place in the

Bold predictions for 2015 more like not-so-bold repeats long run always hurt consumers. Another fact is that unemployment reaches a certain level based on the economy. And while the government might brag the number is low, it’s more than likely the government did something to cause that number being low — and not in a good way. Conversely, when business picks up, it’s because the people who need to buy widgets who were not buying widgets because the economy was contracting due to natural (or unnatural, government caused) reasons, decided we better buy some widgets. The government had nothing to do with this. ■ Prediction four: In keeping with things the government does, I predict the government will manipulate the numbers to make the claim the economy is getting better because of how hard it is working to help all of us “working Americans.” Now Craig Hall you might say, “Craig, you always say this about President Obama because you don’t like him.” You’re right in a sense. I don’t know the man, but what I know of him and his thinking, I don’t like it or him one iota. Before you go off, however, I didn’t like President Bush and his bailouts, stimulus and his abandoning the free market to save the free market. And I don’t know him either. What the government does, and the only thing it can do, is hurt the economy. Unless it does nothing or put criminals in jail instead of partnering with them, nothing the government does will help. Always look at it this way, whatever the government says it is doing, whatever the name of the law it is passing, or whatever the name or goal of the bureaucracy it is presenting to the people, expect the polar opposite to occur. I guess what I’m saying is that perhaps it’s time to get out of our own perspective. There’s plenty of history books and historical research out there to begin to understand that all of this has happened before. And it will again, whether the topic is people or government. The best recommendation is to find some books or try that whole Google thing. There’s a lot of information on the Great Depression. The truth is it wasn’t even a good one until the government got involved. There’s also plenty of research on the medieval warm period when the planet was much warmer than today with a whole lot less people (and warmer well before man was here at all). And yep, people have been killing other surprised people since history was first written. Maybe some research will help stop all of these trends. Otherwise, we’ll be saying we’ve never seen anything like it in our lives. And not in a good way. Craig Hall is owner and publisher of the Business Times. Reach him at 424-5133 Copyright © 2022 — All rights reserved. or publisher@thebusinesstimes.com. F ✦

Remember our parents’ warning about getting what we ask for coming back to bite us in our backsides? Even if we don’t, life has a way of making us realize what our parents warned about was an eternal truth.

In my life, it’s more than just that single truth to be careful about as I’ve learned two caveats to the lesson our parents tried unsuccessfully to tell us: 1. No good deed goes unpunished. 2. Be careful who you ask in what you’re asking for.

Which leads me to the latest “listening tour” promoted by Mesa County officials. They’re asking for public input on creating a vision of “Mesa Together” — for what’s most important to the future of our county in terms of government policy and actions to address the concerns of the citizens.

At least that’s the idea. And at first glance it looks like a good one. Who can argue against government listening to constituents in making plans? If people feel they’re part of the process, the solutions must be for the common good and, even better, they’ll defend the results.

But what I’ve discovered in my life is this: Most government solutions aren’t good for everyone despite the public relations campaigns about taking action on citizen suggestions. That’s because people never agree on their ideas.

Here’s reason No. 1 under be more careful in who you’re asking what you’re asking for. Whenever one asks government to do something, two things always occur. First is the obvious. Someone is probably asking government to do something to benefit them personally, which in the yin and yang of real life won’t benefit someone else personally. Let’s be honest. EVERY government decision, law or regulation benefits one person over the other, one group over another or takes from some to give to others.

Find me one government solution that’s benefitted all. I dare you. Even those who despise every keystroke I make — especially those invoking the perfection of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence — are quick to point out how those documents didn’t do much for slaves in our new country. What makes anyone think our current leadership at all levels of government (who aren’t qualified to tie the shoes of our founders) would come up with better solutions than the founders? I sure don’t.

Second, when it comes to these public relations campaigns and the few who participate is the problem of asking for something one might want at the expense of others. Those are the folks who always participate in government programs and

Big tech less a threat than big government efforts. They love being part of the process. And they participate for one reason only: There’s more to the warning be careful what you ask for

Private sector technology and innovation have made real differences in helping It benefits them at the expense of others who entrepreneurs start new businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s right. might think differently. More important, it To use the political vernacular, big tech has been important to startup entrepreneurs. benefits them over competitors. After all, Meanwhile, big government — which has had big tech in that was the “new” in the New Deal. Who its regulatory crosshairs supposedly to help the little guy — do you think wrote the regulations for the has created costs and concerns for these small businesses. government? You got it, the big boys. You It would be ironic if it weren’t common sense. think Roosevelt had time to listen to the These are just some the lessons to be learned from the little guy, if by some miracle their voice rose results of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council survey above the din? of entrepreneurs who started businesses during the pandemic. Does that remind you of anything Regarding technology, 89 percent of entrepreneurs agreed recently? Perhaps the last couple of years social media was a major factor in launching their businesses, when certain businesses were allowed to be 87 percent said access to electronic payment options was open, but not others? Do you honestly think

Raymond important, 79 percent cited affordable online ads, 77 percent pointed to e-commerce sites and website builders, 73 percent noted Craig Hall government was listening to you and me? Or was that about listening to the “experts,”

Keating access to back office services provided by technology platforms as FDR did while destroying small business and 56 percent highlighted access to online marketplaces. after small business? At its base level, it’s

When all of us should be focused on re-energizing entrepreneurship in nothing more than government picking America, these are vital results to recognize and digest. But there’s more. winners and losers. Sorry dear reader:

For good measure, 68 percent said they rely on such established tech Against someone who regularly takes part platforms as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Instagram, Microsoft and TikTok in a “listening tour” in getting access to a either a great deal (38 percent) or quite a bit (30 percent), with another 22 percent politician, you’re always the loser. saying somewhat. That tallies up to 90 percent. That leads to another indisputable

As for big government taking on big tech, 61 percent of entrepreneurs said fact: Anything government addresses as a they’re worried about proposed regulations on tech companies, seeing negatives result of these surveys it takes over. And for those enterprises and their own businesses. taking over things never works well for

Among those concerned: Joe Lunchbucket. Let’s say you’re a small n 58 percent are worried tech regulation will make it more expensive for developer and ask our county to be more them to access and retain customers. involved in the fee and permit process in n 58 percent are worried they’ll have to pay for services that are currently streamlining projects. And let’s be honest free to them. here, usually it’s in streamlining your n 49 percent are concerned about disrupted communications with current and project before your competitors. As any potential customers, and 47 percent worry it will be harder for customers to find politician will do in doing good deeds, their business. they’ll promise to get right on it. And n 43 percent believe customer acquisition will become more difficult. maybe that works out for you — this time.

Politicians and their appointees often try to portray intrusions into the It’s the next time where the problem competitive marketplace as government coming to the rescue of the little guy lies. Because next time your competitor suffering at the hands of big business. It’s an old political pitch that made little might answer the survey before you do. sense in the past. And, as evidenced by fundamental economics and the views of Or worse, all those streamlined deals entrepreneurs, even less today. will now be given to larger projects from

The big concern for small business certainly isn’t the technology firms out-of-town developers promising more that have provided powerful tools to make it easier and more affordable to start jobs and a bigger tax base for the county. and build a business. Instead, it’s big government undermining private sector Honestly, who’s gonna get the better deal innovation and investment. — your small company or a project worth millions more in tax revenues? Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Want to take this one step further? Council. Reach him through the website at www.sbecouncil.org. Just who did government decide was F essential the last few years? Why did only certain businesses get to open after meeting “special” emergency requirements laid out by our county? These fell under the good deeds of emergency government powers. Who bore the negative brunt of these government “good deeds?” There are things the county should do and provide. Roads, infrastructure and keeping communities safe — equally and fairly, emergency or not. But it can’t do any of those effectively or equally if it’s trying to do everything for everyone. It’s why we shouldn’t ask it to. Craig Hall is owner and publisher of the Business Times. Reach him at 424-5133 or publisher@thebusinesstimes.com.

New and improved isn’t in adding “modern” twist to supply-side economics

Have you ever noticed that products advertised as new and improved rarely are? Definitions of words and phrases constantly change to modify or gloss over original meanings. Politicians masters this. The same thing happens in economics.

The policy of supply-side economics stressing limited government regulations and low taxes has been in use since the founding of the United States. In 1776, Adam Smith published “An Inquiry

Phyllis Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth

Hunsinger of Nations,” the result of years of research and observations in European countries. Smith castigated government intervention in economies and provided a model for free markets and free trade. These principles became the pillars of capitalism in the U.S., which has produced the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people in the world.

Enter Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who recently proposed in a speech to the World Economic Forum that President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better policies should be labeled modern supply-side economics.

Yellen defended her new definition: “Modern supply-side economics seeks to spur economic growth by both boosting labor supply and raising productivity while reducing inequality and environment damage. Essentially, we aren’t just focused on achieving a high topline growth number that is unsustainable. We are instead aiming for growth that is inclusive and green.” What Yellen forgot to mention is the economy has never thrived under the intervention of federal bureaucrats.

Robert Genetski recently wrote in the Epoch Times: “During the 50 years when U.S. policies clearly followed free market classical principles, our country enjoyed its greatest progress.”

Genetski said President Woodrow Wilson, known as the father of progressive economics, made the first departure from free market principles. “Wilson increased the money supply and government spending while enacting burdensome regulations, wage and price controls and tax increases intended for businesses and wealthy individuals.” The result of these policies was disastrous.

Since then, presidents have come and gone who favored government control over the economy as opposed to letting the free market work. The definition of insanity comes to mind: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

There’s no need to be misled by a new and improved label when it comes to the health of the economy. Studying the economic history of the United States provides leaders with actual data as to the most effective economic policies. But politicians appear less interested in adopting policies proven to lift more citizens out of poverty and improve the standard of living for all and more interested in power and control.

The pattern has held throughout history. Leadership favoring government intervention in business and high taxes leads to minimum economic growth and hurts the average American.

Genetski wrote: “As great as the U.S. economy is, when we adopted policies similar to those found in underdeveloped nations, it has behaved like the economy of an underdeveloped nation.”

There’s no need to be misled by a new and improved label when it comes to the health of the economy. Studying the economic history of the United States provides leaders with actual data as to the most effective economic policies. But politicians appear less interested in adopting policies proven to lift more citizens out of poverty and improve the standard of living for all and more interested in power and control.

Don’t fall for adding the word modern before supply-side economics. This is an attempt to deceive. Look at the data, follow the results.

Big government has never been the answer.

Phyllis Hunsinger is founder of the Freedom & Responsibility Education Enterprise Foundation in Grand Junction. The FREE Foundation provides resources to students and teachers in Western Colorado to promote the understanding of economics, financial literacy and free enterprise. A former teacher, principal and superintendent, Hunsinger wrote “Down and Dirty: A ‘How To’ Math Book.” For more information, log on to www.free-dom.us.com. Contact Hunsinger at phyllis@free-dom.us.com. F

Caucus and assembly part of political process closest to founders’ vision

To the editor:

A recent editorial in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel requires a response.

First and most importantly, the local party does not set the election rules, nor does the state Republican party. Those decisions are made by the State Legislature. I am, as the local party chair, not allowed to alter those rules. You might be surprised to learn that in 2020, when the

Letter to Legislature altered the rules for the caucus/assembly because the editor of COVID, I made a proposal for that year that we suspend the caucus/assembly process out of safety concerns. I was unsuccessful in that attempt.

Just last fall, the state GOP heard a debate at our fall meeting about suspending our participation in the primary. I was one of the leaders to keep the GOP in that process in spite of the knowledge that our opponents on the left were going to use the open primary process to attempt to influence the candidates in the Republican primary.

One of the reasons there are no Democrats on the local ballots this year is the attempt for them to do just what was described above. We have seen countless letters in the Daily Sentinel urging Democrats to go unaffiliated and vote in the Republican primary instead.

I have long been a proponent of having as many candidates as possible to encourage the debate necessary in our political system. I have been chastised about this for years, but I do not view it as the job of the county chair to be the arbiter of who belongs on the ballot.

That decision belongs to the voters.

It is the job of the candidates to convince those voters.

That process starts with the caucus, which the Mesa County Republican Party held on March 5. It took about 2 hours to complete the caucus. (Not really that significant amount of time). The party chose that date in order to give a maximum amount of time for candidates to campaign before the assembly.

This year’s Republican assembly was held on March 26. Out of 413 delegates possible, we had 353 voting delegates. Those delegates voted on candidates for the following offices: county commissioner District 2, county clerk and recorder, county sheriff, county coroner, county assessor, county surveyor, county treasurer, and Colorado House District 55 and Colorado Senate District 7.

We had three contested races — county commissioner, county clerk and county sheriff. Those three races produced two contested primary races — county clerk and county sheriff.

The voting and rules for the races are set out by Colorado state statutes, the Colorado Republican Party bylaws and the Mesa County Republican bylaws.

I do find it odd that the Daily Sentinel is complaining about an event they chose not to cover live. Yes, Tina Peters was there campaigning for secretary of state. So was U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert. So were candidates for governor, U.S. Senate and other statewide races.

Seems like it might have been an event your local hometown newspaper would have wanted to cover live. They might even have learned why the voters voted the way they did in various races. The Daily Sentinel chose not to and to complain after the fact about the outcomes.

The caucus assembly process is a pain in the butt for county boards. It takes a tremendous amount of time and effort, costs a big chunk of money and always leaves unhappy feelings from losing candidates.

It is also the closest thing in our political process to the way our country was formed and what the founders envisioned. Groups of people gathering with their neighbors to discuss the issues of the day and who is the best person to handle those problems.

It was and is the founding basis of our republic. It would be a shame to dismiss them in order to make the political process easier.

F Kevin McCarney Chairman Mesa County Republican Party

SHARE YOUR VIEWS

The Business Times welcomes letters to the editor and guest columns on issues affecting businesses in Western Colorado. Submissions should be emailed to phil@thebusinesstimes.com and include names and telephone numbers for verification.