I've started a few of these now, and have trouble keeping even one blog up-to-date. But I had to set up something to counter the "cheaper pizza" that we see creeping into the everyday lives of academics these days.
One of my colleagues refers to teaching as "selling pizza." As in, "we're all just selling pizza, here."
I can't disagree with this person more, but since that's the model they want to work under, I figured that we should try to work within it. After all, this person might be right. Or they might have some influence over the process.
My pizza is very expensive. And it will continue to be.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
New rules to help stop market meltdowns
From a story on FT.com today, it appears that new SEC rules are coming out next week to set floors on equity prices. This is an attempt to avoid the kind of firesale that we saw on May 6, and it's an echo of the limits that have been in place since 1987 to deal with daily changes in the S&P500, known as "circuit breakers." Although such a thing is common in futures markets, shutting markets down after max price changes is pretty new for equities, and not very well understood. Only time will tell if these limits are going to to harmful or worthwhile.
More here
More here
Thursday, May 27, 2010
A bit about Apple
As Apple has recently passed Microsoft as the highest-market-cap technology firm, AOLNews posted this about the comparisons that can be made.
Most of you probably know by now that I'm an Apple-phile. It was not always thus...
Back in the Win 3.10 days I hated the closed system that Apple represented. I was in the industry, and I wanted to be able to see a command line; we NEEDED to be able to open the box and throw in some cards or a new video subsystem. Nevermind that tweaking our AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files was a daily chore. Anyone else remember QEMM386? Wow, those were the days.
Well, along came Win95, and everything was broken for a few years there. A friend gave me a PowerBook 100 (yes, a 100) and a box full of apps. The rest is history. I bought my first new Mac when the toilet seat iBook premiered in 1999, and then a Strawberry iMac, a Pismo, an iceBook and now I'm working [in Windows XP] on a MacBook.
When Office gets back to being compatible between Windows and OS X, I'll go back to OS X as my desktop, but that's not Apple's fault now, is it?
I've had my share of disputes with Apple over the years, but as the last blog post mentioned, it's obvious that they have their heads on straight over in Cupertino. In particular, it seems that Apple has managed, over the last 30 years, to keep focused on WHY they are in business and not just HOW to stay in business or WHAT to make.
Another Apple reference to keep an eye on, from the old old days: Guy Kawasaki. Genius. Anything he touches turns to gold. And I think he never looks any older; maybe he has a pact with Satan for that.
His stuff from the early days of Apple is nothing short of brilliant. He "invented" the evangelist in modern marketing -- making sure that everyone ELSE knows "why" you're doing what you're doing. He was talking about guerrilla marketing before Faith Popcorn. Hundreds of years from now folks are going to know his name.
God Almighty, why can't everyone else "get it" the way Apple does? Is it that hard to understand? Can't anyone else put their culture into action this way? Does it take a Steve Jobs to get this kind of thing done? Are there other companies out there hiring and feeding people like Jef Raskin and Guy Kawasaki? Man, the difference is striking.
*Jef Raskin, for those of you who may not have heard of him before, invented the information appliance. He described the "computer for the rest of us" almost completely. But I don't think he anticipated the effect that Solitaire and MySpace would have on productivity -- seems that he was thinking computers would make people MORE productive.
Most of you probably know by now that I'm an Apple-phile. It was not always thus...
Back in the Win 3.10 days I hated the closed system that Apple represented. I was in the industry, and I wanted to be able to see a command line; we NEEDED to be able to open the box and throw in some cards or a new video subsystem. Nevermind that tweaking our AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files was a daily chore. Anyone else remember QEMM386? Wow, those were the days.
Well, along came Win95, and everything was broken for a few years there. A friend gave me a PowerBook 100 (yes, a 100) and a box full of apps. The rest is history. I bought my first new Mac when the toilet seat iBook premiered in 1999, and then a Strawberry iMac, a Pismo, an iceBook and now I'm working [in Windows XP] on a MacBook.
When Office gets back to being compatible between Windows and OS X, I'll go back to OS X as my desktop, but that's not Apple's fault now, is it?
I've had my share of disputes with Apple over the years, but as the last blog post mentioned, it's obvious that they have their heads on straight over in Cupertino. In particular, it seems that Apple has managed, over the last 30 years, to keep focused on WHY they are in business and not just HOW to stay in business or WHAT to make.
Another Apple reference to keep an eye on, from the old old days: Guy Kawasaki. Genius. Anything he touches turns to gold. And I think he never looks any older; maybe he has a pact with Satan for that.
His stuff from the early days of Apple is nothing short of brilliant. He "invented" the evangelist in modern marketing -- making sure that everyone ELSE knows "why" you're doing what you're doing. He was talking about guerrilla marketing before Faith Popcorn. Hundreds of years from now folks are going to know his name.
God Almighty, why can't everyone else "get it" the way Apple does? Is it that hard to understand? Can't anyone else put their culture into action this way? Does it take a Steve Jobs to get this kind of thing done? Are there other companies out there hiring and feeding people like Jef Raskin and Guy Kawasaki? Man, the difference is striking.
*Jef Raskin, for those of you who may not have heard of him before, invented the information appliance. He described the "computer for the rest of us" almost completely. But I don't think he anticipated the effect that Solitaire and MySpace would have on productivity -- seems that he was thinking computers would make people MORE productive.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
What is your mission?
Boy, I'm so glad that other folks share their brains with us sometimes.
As many of you know, I've been spending a lot of time pitching and helping with mission statements for a few of my students. I think it's a worthy bit of introspection, especially when changing careers or starting a family, etc. It really helps to be grounded BEFORE things happen that demand your attention.
This guy explains why Apple gets us to buy almost anything they decide to sell. It's all about tribal values. It's about mission orientation.
Apple operates on by starting with "Why?" WHY do we bother to make a product? WHY would anyone want this product?
Other folks start with the "What" and "HOW." WHAT do we do? [We make widgets.] HOW do we do it? [What is the actual transformation process, capital, etc.]
People are only sold from the WHY perspective. In other words, we don't buy Apple to get a computer, we buy Apple because we know their focus is on what the computer is for. It's a shared vision of ease of use and fault-tolerance and ... mission focus. We want to USE a computer, not just buy one with all of the bells and whistles.
The analogues are obvious:
WHY do we have an undergrad curriculum?
WHY do we have a grad curriculum?
WHY would anyone want to put themselves through the paces to get a degree?
Some of us can answer these questions. I hear "WHY do I bother?" from other faculty and administrators nearly every day -- all of these people KNOW why they bother, it's a rhetorical question for most of us.
Whatever you do everyday, individually, I challenge you to 1) watch the video, and 2) ask yourself WHY you do what you do. The answer is really really important to know in advance of life's unexpected challenges.
Write down something about all of the different roles you play in your life, and WHY you do them. That's a start.
And if you've never read Cameron Crowe's mission statement piece from Jerry Maguire, you should. It's not the first time I've posted it, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
To do the mission, you have to know the mission.
Apple knows their mission.
EDIT: Charlie sends in a reference to this TED video from Bobby McFerrin. Don't worry, be happy.
As many of you know, I've been spending a lot of time pitching and helping with mission statements for a few of my students. I think it's a worthy bit of introspection, especially when changing careers or starting a family, etc. It really helps to be grounded BEFORE things happen that demand your attention.
This guy explains why Apple gets us to buy almost anything they decide to sell. It's all about tribal values. It's about mission orientation.
Apple operates on by starting with "Why?" WHY do we bother to make a product? WHY would anyone want this product?
Other folks start with the "What" and "HOW." WHAT do we do? [We make widgets.] HOW do we do it? [What is the actual transformation process, capital, etc.]
People are only sold from the WHY perspective. In other words, we don't buy Apple to get a computer, we buy Apple because we know their focus is on what the computer is for. It's a shared vision of ease of use and fault-tolerance and ... mission focus. We want to USE a computer, not just buy one with all of the bells and whistles.
The analogues are obvious:
WHY do we have an undergrad curriculum?
WHY do we have a grad curriculum?
WHY would anyone want to put themselves through the paces to get a degree?
Some of us can answer these questions. I hear "WHY do I bother?" from other faculty and administrators nearly every day -- all of these people KNOW why they bother, it's a rhetorical question for most of us.
Whatever you do everyday, individually, I challenge you to 1) watch the video, and 2) ask yourself WHY you do what you do. The answer is really really important to know in advance of life's unexpected challenges.
Write down something about all of the different roles you play in your life, and WHY you do them. That's a start.
And if you've never read Cameron Crowe's mission statement piece from Jerry Maguire, you should. It's not the first time I've posted it, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
To do the mission, you have to know the mission.
Apple knows their mission.
EDIT: Charlie sends in a reference to this TED video from Bobby McFerrin. Don't worry, be happy.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
ObamaCare, Round One
I hate to personalize things here, but I know some of your guys read this for insight and ideas and I have to call 'em as I see 'em.
Yesterday, we had the last in a series of meetings about my son's progress in cognitive behavioral therapy. As you know, he's been doing this for a few months now, and we're seeing tremendous progress very quickly. As some of you know, it's almost $50k per year without insurance.
We found out yesterday at the meeting that he's doing very well, and making tremendous progress. It's very stressful on everyone in the family, and very costly, but it's paying off at this point, and he's starting to accelerate in his progress as well. In other words, we're seeing breakthroughs at each interim evaluation over the past couple of months.
Last night, though, we found out that our insurance program is proposing changes that will more than double our out-of-pocket for therapy during the year. Basically, they are considering a doubling of the stop-loss limit and a halving of the out-of-network copay. I'm not sure where the extra $4K per year will come from if it goes through.
Is this change random? Heck no. It's in response to a need to get ready for 2014. Changes were coming, for sure, but now with a mandate to cover more folks by 2014, this kind of thing is going to touch everyone.
The only way to give less to more people is to take more from the few. Can't work any other way.
Those of you who are thinking you're immune to this crap in Washington, think again.
Sooner or later, the bell will toll for thee.
In the immortal words of Edward Rooney, High School Principal Extraordinaire: "Pucker up, Buttercup."
Yesterday, we had the last in a series of meetings about my son's progress in cognitive behavioral therapy. As you know, he's been doing this for a few months now, and we're seeing tremendous progress very quickly. As some of you know, it's almost $50k per year without insurance.
We found out yesterday at the meeting that he's doing very well, and making tremendous progress. It's very stressful on everyone in the family, and very costly, but it's paying off at this point, and he's starting to accelerate in his progress as well. In other words, we're seeing breakthroughs at each interim evaluation over the past couple of months.
Last night, though, we found out that our insurance program is proposing changes that will more than double our out-of-pocket for therapy during the year. Basically, they are considering a doubling of the stop-loss limit and a halving of the out-of-network copay. I'm not sure where the extra $4K per year will come from if it goes through.
Is this change random? Heck no. It's in response to a need to get ready for 2014. Changes were coming, for sure, but now with a mandate to cover more folks by 2014, this kind of thing is going to touch everyone.
The only way to give less to more people is to take more from the few. Can't work any other way.
Those of you who are thinking you're immune to this crap in Washington, think again.
Sooner or later, the bell will toll for thee.
In the immortal words of Edward Rooney, High School Principal Extraordinaire: "Pucker up, Buttercup."
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Credit Default Swaps didn't doom Greece, Anthony Sanders says
At Congressional hearings on Thursday, Dr. Anthony Sanders pointed out that the CDS market actually served to warn us of the depth of the crisis with respect to Greece. More about this here.
For those of you not familiar with Dr. Sanders, he's a leading expert on mortgage-backed securities and collateralized products such as CMOs. He's also a contributor to Fabozzi's Handbook of Fixed Income Securities. He probably knows what he's talking about!
Finally, Dr. Sanders' home page is here.
For those of you not familiar with Dr. Sanders, he's a leading expert on mortgage-backed securities and collateralized products such as CMOs. He's also a contributor to Fabozzi's Handbook of Fixed Income Securities. He probably knows what he's talking about!
Finally, Dr. Sanders' home page is here.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Here comes the scary stuff. Virtual doctor visits.
Ahead of the passage of ObamaCare, we heard all kinds of claims about "cost savings" if we federalized healthcare for everyone. Here's the dirty little secret: federal healthcare cost savings depends on technology such as this. Doctors can wirelessly monitor a patient's blood sugar and administer insulin remotely.
This is the kind of thing being evaluated by the new "Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation".
What happens when that technology fails and someone dies? Does the federal government get sued? Of course not -- you can't sue the federal government.
They're also looking at pill tracking technology, to communicate whether you've taken your pills or not. What if you don't take your pills? What then?
All of this promoted by the same people who complain that profiling airline passengers is too intrusive. How about wearing a medical device that's controlled by remote? How intrusive is that?
For folks who don't want government in our bedrooms, or in our reproductive organs, it's really strange to see them wanting government in our medicine cabinets.
It's inevitable that government healthcare will lead to more of this type of thing. We can't have joint responsibility for costs without some loss of individual responsibility and rights. Just can't happen.
This is the kind of thing being evaluated by the new "Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation".
What happens when that technology fails and someone dies? Does the federal government get sued? Of course not -- you can't sue the federal government.
They're also looking at pill tracking technology, to communicate whether you've taken your pills or not. What if you don't take your pills? What then?
All of this promoted by the same people who complain that profiling airline passengers is too intrusive. How about wearing a medical device that's controlled by remote? How intrusive is that?
For folks who don't want government in our bedrooms, or in our reproductive organs, it's really strange to see them wanting government in our medicine cabinets.
It's inevitable that government healthcare will lead to more of this type of thing. We can't have joint responsibility for costs without some loss of individual responsibility and rights. Just can't happen.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Dodd Bill nears passage, grab your wallets
It's called the "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010". Full 1,410 pages here in PDF.
That name, alone, should scare the hell out of you.
The latest round of ground-breaking reform efforts (snicker) is the Dodd Bill, S.3217, which is designed to once and for all eliminate big bailouts as well as protect consumers from EEEEVIL Wall Street types.
The full text of the bill is here. And Reuters has summarized it here. HuffPo blathers about it here with their full page on "The Financial Fix" -- be sure to scroll down.
In the meantime, Larry Summers stays awake (sorry Dr. Summers, I had to) long enough to point out that lots of small banks can be dangerous, too. It's a PBS interview, with transcript.
Mike Konczal, no stranger to this stuff, has posted a list of things that MUST be in the bill if any REAL reform is going to take place. He's with the Roosevelt Institute, so understand that he has an agenda to start with. Good summary though.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric on this -- nobody in Congress is crusading for economic stability through reform. They are all playing to their money base, same with the President. For example, the new consumer agency will be a way to twist corporate arms to help "community organizers" get funds for their pet projects. How do we know? Look at the evolution of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Not only did it give banks an excuse for making bad loans, but it allowed them to mask their political payoffs as regulatory compliance.
Remember, the law of unintended consequences was written by some guy named Murphy. The essential problem here is that the folks writing the changes (Dodd, Franks, etc.) are the same folks who got us to this point.
And by the way, Tim Geithner has never held a real job. Policy jobs aren't real jobs, in other words. Boy that should make all the policy jocks out there feel real good.
The Editors at National Review Online have posted their counterpoint on this. Worth a look. One thing they point out is that corporate finance will be impacted by this, too. The bill requires "proxy access" for shareholders, which has been a rallying cry for institutional investors of late. The editors here figure that it's a way for unions to take over boards. They may be onto something.
More on proxy access at The New York Times, from last October. Looks like it might be a big deal after all.
That name, alone, should scare the hell out of you.
The latest round of ground-breaking reform efforts (snicker) is the Dodd Bill, S.3217, which is designed to once and for all eliminate big bailouts as well as protect consumers from EEEEVIL Wall Street types.
The full text of the bill is here. And Reuters has summarized it here. HuffPo blathers about it here with their full page on "The Financial Fix" -- be sure to scroll down.
In the meantime, Larry Summers stays awake (sorry Dr. Summers, I had to) long enough to point out that lots of small banks can be dangerous, too. It's a PBS interview, with transcript.
Mike Konczal, no stranger to this stuff, has posted a list of things that MUST be in the bill if any REAL reform is going to take place. He's with the Roosevelt Institute, so understand that he has an agenda to start with. Good summary though.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric on this -- nobody in Congress is crusading for economic stability through reform. They are all playing to their money base, same with the President. For example, the new consumer agency will be a way to twist corporate arms to help "community organizers" get funds for their pet projects. How do we know? Look at the evolution of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Not only did it give banks an excuse for making bad loans, but it allowed them to mask their political payoffs as regulatory compliance.
Remember, the law of unintended consequences was written by some guy named Murphy. The essential problem here is that the folks writing the changes (Dodd, Franks, etc.) are the same folks who got us to this point.
And by the way, Tim Geithner has never held a real job. Policy jobs aren't real jobs, in other words. Boy that should make all the policy jocks out there feel real good.
The Editors at National Review Online have posted their counterpoint on this. Worth a look. One thing they point out is that corporate finance will be impacted by this, too. The bill requires "proxy access" for shareholders, which has been a rallying cry for institutional investors of late. The editors here figure that it's a way for unions to take over boards. They may be onto something.
More on proxy access at The New York Times, from last October. Looks like it might be a big deal after all.
Friday, April 23, 2010
GM repays its debt to the government? Uh, no.
Earlier this week, GM made a big announcement and is running ads that it has paid back the government loan. You can find commentary on the matter here . The Youtube of the ad is here .
Chuck Grassley's comments from the Senate are here. TARP money was repaid from other TARP money. Who didn't see THAT coming?
Kinda like a kid asking Dad for a Jackson so they can go to the mall and buy the Father's Day present.
The ad is misleading at best, pedantic lies at worst. They must think that their audience, and the public in general, will believe whatever they say. They must think that we're a buncha morons.
Truth is, they didn't really pay back the government "in full." They didn't even get started good, as my grandmother would say.
THIS iteration of GM, the NEW GM, paid back some of the money it borrowed to keep running. THE FORMER iteration of GM, the one that went belly up, hasn't recouped anything for the taxpayers. Nor will it. The taxpayers took an ownership stake, and the bondholders got screwed out of something like 80 cents on their dollars.
Where is the payback for those guys?
The UAW, however, ended up with a big chunk of ownership too, at the expense of everyone else. Surprise.
Finally, everyone's talking about an eventual GM IPO that will bring in anywhere between $20B and $50B. Question: Who in their right mind would buy GM stock? Or GM bonds for that matter?
More importantly, how can portfolio managers and those with fiduciary responsibility (or reputational capital for that matter) purchase any NEW GM stock given what happened to the OLD GM stock? Wouldn't they be in jeopardy with the "prudent man" requirement?
What investor in her right mind would have anything to do with this going forward?
Chuck Grassley's comments from the Senate are here. TARP money was repaid from other TARP money. Who didn't see THAT coming?
Kinda like a kid asking Dad for a Jackson so they can go to the mall and buy the Father's Day present.
The ad is misleading at best, pedantic lies at worst. They must think that their audience, and the public in general, will believe whatever they say. They must think that we're a buncha morons.
Truth is, they didn't really pay back the government "in full." They didn't even get started good, as my grandmother would say.
THIS iteration of GM, the NEW GM, paid back some of the money it borrowed to keep running. THE FORMER iteration of GM, the one that went belly up, hasn't recouped anything for the taxpayers. Nor will it. The taxpayers took an ownership stake, and the bondholders got screwed out of something like 80 cents on their dollars.
Where is the payback for those guys?
The UAW, however, ended up with a big chunk of ownership too, at the expense of everyone else. Surprise.
Finally, everyone's talking about an eventual GM IPO that will bring in anywhere between $20B and $50B. Question: Who in their right mind would buy GM stock? Or GM bonds for that matter?
More importantly, how can portfolio managers and those with fiduciary responsibility (or reputational capital for that matter) purchase any NEW GM stock given what happened to the OLD GM stock? Wouldn't they be in jeopardy with the "prudent man" requirement?
What investor in her right mind would have anything to do with this going forward?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Email access to blogs!!!! Wow!
I found out yesterday that I can post to this blog by just emailing from my iPod Touch. Wow! That's the coolest thing yet.
More about Financial Reform as I get time to post. And as I remember the email address!
More about Financial Reform as I get time to post. And as I remember the email address!
Monday, April 19, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Shortage of Doctors? No frakkin' way.
We're on our way to being Cuber, folks. The Wall Street Journal comments that med schools are trying hard to keep up.
This is what happens, inevitably, when you over-regulate an industry. What's next?
Mediocrity. Med schools will eventually fill up with a bunch of marginally-qualified applicants just to meet the demand of government-sponsored or subsidized health care, and quality will go down that way, too, as with many of the other changes. It may take 30 years, but we'll see it happen, sure as anything.
What happened in banking was much the same: over-regulation drove talent out of the industry after the 1930s. After all, how hard is it to run a bank when the government micromanages every decision? The savings and loan industry, as it existed in 1980, is a really good example of "mediocracy" at its finest -- borrow at 3, lend at 6, hit the links for a 3 PM tee time.
Welcome to mediocrity. We'll have the best health care this side of Cuba.
This is what happens, inevitably, when you over-regulate an industry. What's next?
Mediocrity. Med schools will eventually fill up with a bunch of marginally-qualified applicants just to meet the demand of government-sponsored or subsidized health care, and quality will go down that way, too, as with many of the other changes. It may take 30 years, but we'll see it happen, sure as anything.
What happened in banking was much the same: over-regulation drove talent out of the industry after the 1930s. After all, how hard is it to run a bank when the government micromanages every decision? The savings and loan industry, as it existed in 1980, is a really good example of "mediocracy" at its finest -- borrow at 3, lend at 6, hit the links for a 3 PM tee time.
Welcome to mediocrity. We'll have the best health care this side of Cuba.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A Side Note: Let's Put Govt in Charge
CNN reports that the rotovirus vaccine is contaminated with a pig virus. Boy, if govt did it things would work so much better.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Here we go again (treadmill video)
Last night's new legislation, discussed by George Will here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032201528.html
Yeah, what he said. (That piece is a really good example of why Will is considered one of the best writers in the country. Writing, it seems, has gone the way of the dial telephone.)
Reminds me of that treadmill video from OK, Go. It was a YouTube phenom (now that song's a part of Rock Band 2 I think.)
OK, go find it here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTAAsCNK7RA
In any case, we're now all on the treadmill that is one more entitlement program. Those of you who have insurance now, cherish it. We'll be talking about the good old days soon enough.
I cannot fathom the level of disdain for the working class* in this country that it takes to chain them to a new set of entitlements. What system of morals must one have to bind one's constituents, and their children and grandchildren, to the treadmill of lifetime working to pay for the habits and conveniences of others?
Where is it in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that taking from me to give to others is OK? (I didn't bring that up -- that's Speaker Pelosi's quote).
Which begs the question: If healthcare is a basic human right, what LEVEL of healthcare is a basic human right? Actually, I'm not willing to concede the first part.
Where does it stop?
Speaker Pelosi said last night that we would now insure 32 million more Americans.
I ask: where does that money come from? Simple question, right? The government answer is "cost efficiencies."
So I'll ask another question: When was the last time government involvement resulted in cost efficiencies? Just name one thing.
If you've ever had to deal with Medicare, you know what's coming down the pike. We're all in for a shock, and the pundits that say it can't be reversed may be right -- once we get an entitlement in place, it's really hard for people to vote against it, no matter what they say to pollsters publicly. After all, we vote behind a curtain.
That, it seems, may be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
* By working class, I don't mean "unions" but instead those who actually work. There seem to be fewer and fewer of us all the time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032201528.html
Yeah, what he said. (That piece is a really good example of why Will is considered one of the best writers in the country. Writing, it seems, has gone the way of the dial telephone.)
Reminds me of that treadmill video from OK, Go. It was a YouTube phenom (now that song's a part of Rock Band 2 I think.)
OK, go find it here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTAAsCNK7RA
In any case, we're now all on the treadmill that is one more entitlement program. Those of you who have insurance now, cherish it. We'll be talking about the good old days soon enough.
I cannot fathom the level of disdain for the working class* in this country that it takes to chain them to a new set of entitlements. What system of morals must one have to bind one's constituents, and their children and grandchildren, to the treadmill of lifetime working to pay for the habits and conveniences of others?
Where is it in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that taking from me to give to others is OK? (I didn't bring that up -- that's Speaker Pelosi's quote).
Which begs the question: If healthcare is a basic human right, what LEVEL of healthcare is a basic human right? Actually, I'm not willing to concede the first part.
Where does it stop?
Speaker Pelosi said last night that we would now insure 32 million more Americans.
I ask: where does that money come from? Simple question, right? The government answer is "cost efficiencies."
So I'll ask another question: When was the last time government involvement resulted in cost efficiencies? Just name one thing.
If you've ever had to deal with Medicare, you know what's coming down the pike. We're all in for a shock, and the pundits that say it can't be reversed may be right -- once we get an entitlement in place, it's really hard for people to vote against it, no matter what they say to pollsters publicly. After all, we vote behind a curtain.
That, it seems, may be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
* By working class, I don't mean "unions" but instead those who actually work. There seem to be fewer and fewer of us all the time.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
New Banking Regs from the Administration
Thank goodness the current bunch in Washington are on top of things! After all, they had nothing to do with the growth of Freddie and Fannie, right?
Actually, the Obama administration is talking about tougher restrictions on banks trading for themselves, limitations on total deposits (as a percentage of a particular market, or the nation) and limitations on bankers' pay agreements. Most of it sounds familiar. Even so, they'll have a tough time getting it lined up.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a4OwfY2q_e9A
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=atqWb1rpdvzY
So far, Sec. Geithner has expressed some misgivings, and Rep. Barney Frank (D - Mass.) has suggested that any reform of this type would need a very long time horizon, certainly longer than has been mentioned so far.
And it looks as though Dr. Bernanke is having some trouble getting his reappointment. He might just be the sacrificial lamb after last Tuesday's bloodbath in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is now held by a Republican -- unthinkable!
Also, a post here about the Freddie/Fannie audit that's a good read.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=asJ4nSY4l9Vg
Actually, the Obama administration is talking about tougher restrictions on banks trading for themselves, limitations on total deposits (as a percentage of a particular market, or the nation) and limitations on bankers' pay agreements. Most of it sounds familiar. Even so, they'll have a tough time getting it lined up.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a4OwfY2q_e9A
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=atqWb1rpdvzY
So far, Sec. Geithner has expressed some misgivings, and Rep. Barney Frank (D - Mass.) has suggested that any reform of this type would need a very long time horizon, certainly longer than has been mentioned so far.
And it looks as though Dr. Bernanke is having some trouble getting his reappointment. He might just be the sacrificial lamb after last Tuesday's bloodbath in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is now held by a Republican -- unthinkable!
Also, a post here about the Freddie/Fannie audit that's a good read.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=asJ4nSY4l9Vg
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Southwest Airlines: Volunteering is like Fight Club
The first rule of fight club is --
you don't talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of fight club is --
you don't talk about Fight Club.
you don't talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of fight club is --
you don't talk about Fight Club.
I'll say the same about volunteering. I just saw the Southwest Airlines ad that they're running now that highlights their corporate recognition of volunteers. I'm all for it -- but not using it to spotlight the company. That kind of kills the effect if you ask me.
To be sure, in Corporate America you'll get plenty of chances to volunteer for stuff as part of the company's PR. So that's just another part of your career in some respects. I remind my students of this all the time. For those folks without other opportunities to contribute (via church or other organizations), work-related volunteering is a great opportunity.
Rule number one of Volunteering is -- you don't talk about Volunteering. To do so is to make it part of an agenda, something arranged. You volunteer when you can, for as long as you can, for things that you care about. I imagine that most of us have spent significant time volunteering -- it's very worthwhile. But we do it for the same reasons that people join Fight Club.
It helps meet needs that we have, deep down inside, that we can't discuss without making them trivial. Just like Fight Club.
It fills our need to belong to something larger than ourselves. It fills our need to get in touch with our basic human nature. To do something completely outside of ourselves. Same with Fight Club.
So I applaud SouthWest, I love those folks (bags fly free). I have a lot of respect for them as an organization, and all the SW people I've known over the years have been good people.
But the volunteering ad has got to go. My grandmother, if pressed to comment, would have called it "tacky."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
