The US Open started today; the big news leading up to the tournament was the withdrawal of Serena Williams due to a foot injury. Her absence leaves the women's singles field wide open--as in, there is no favorite. Caroline Wozniacki moves up to the #1 seed, and she has played well in recent weeks, but I am unconvinced that she is ready to conquer the rigors of the Open.
Looking at the draw, the top half is the one is where the important upsets should be expected. Look for Maria Sharapova (#11) to meet Wozniacki in the third round, and quite possibly to beat her. The section of the draw right below should end up with Svetlana Kuznetzova--maybe the most consistent woman player, if not the most talented--playing China's Li Na, who's also very consistent. The quarter of the draw below that is the one that really looks wide open--#4 Jelena Jankovic and #7 Vera Zvonareva are the nominal favorites, but I don't expect either one to make it to the tournament semifinal.
The bottom half of the draw would be similarly wild, except that it contains the real quality of the field in Kim Clijsters and Venus Williams. I expect them to meet in the semifinal and the winner to take the championship in a one-sided final. This could be Venus' best chance in a long while to win another major.
The men's field is different--deeper and yet more predictable, I think. The defending champion, Juan Martin del Potro, is unfortunately not yet able to compete. I see the tourney boiling down to the following quarterfinal matchups: Nadal (1) vs. Nalbandian (31, on the comeback trail); Murray (4) vs. Berdych (7); an American matchup of Roddick (9) vs. Mardy Fish (17), if Roddick can get by or around Nikolai Davydenko and Fish--playing his best tennis of his career recently--by #3 Novak Djokovic; and Federer (2) vs. the winner of a huge match between Marin Cilic (11) and Robin Soderling (5). After that, it gets very tough to pick, but I'll go with Federer defeating Roddick in one semifinal, Murray over Nadal in the other, and Federer defeating Murray in the final.
Some Brag
Soon after my last sports post, the Reds hosted the Cardinals and were thoroughly outclassed in three straight games. Then, something surprising happened: the Reds resumed their winning ways against lesser teams, but the Cardinals couldn't beat anyone for a while. Now, the Reds have opened up a five-game lead. It's far from over--the big rematch series, in St. Louis, will be this weekend--but the Reds have already exceeded my expectations, and there's a better-than-decent chance they will figure into the playoffs regardless of how that goes.
After only two games, Chelsea already stood alone at the top of the English Premier League, and their third win leaves them with 14 goals scored, none allowed. The tough matchups haven't started yet--they're a couple weeks away still--but Chelsea looks good, without a doubt.
It's a Drag
The NBA is a team sport, but one with stars of the first magnitude. There are signs this summer that some are getting a bit too big for their baggy britches. The Miami Heat has made itself overnight the team everyone loves to hate--even more than the Lakers--with their forced combo of Wade, LeBron, and Bosh. The new fad--like the football Bengals' combo of Ochocinco and T.O.--is players deciding who they want to play with and forming up accordingly.
The other rather miserable development is the US' team for the World Championships in Turkey. Not that the team is miserable--basically they are all second-line all-stars who would like to prove something--but, unlike most other countries' teams, our best players opted out this time. The team has not yet lost, in exhibitions or in the group stage of the championships, but the median expectation for this smallish team (it has only one center, and that's Tyson Chandler) would be third place or so. A lot depends on young Kevin Durant, the clear scoring leader on the team and star of the new team everyone wants to love, the Oklahoma City Thunder (what happened to New Orleans?)
Finally, the team I've adopted since moving out West, Chauncey Billups' and Carmelo Martinez' Denver Nuggets, seems on the verge of breaking up--Billups (who is on the US team) seems to be in decline, J.R. Smith is freaking himself and everyone else out again, Nene managed to get hurt with the Brazilian team, Coach Karl's return from cancer treatment is uncertain, and 'melo has made it clear he's going to do his version of the LeBron Thing next summer, when he'll be a free agent. Maybe I'll have to go back to the Knicks, who are showing some signs of sanity after a decade of madness.
Favre Be It From Me
It's hard to believe how much attention the NFL gets during its preseason. Oh well, it should phase into the real thing soon, though I will hardly notice until the World Series is over. The Brett Favre soap opera raises 24-hour sports journalism to a new high in banality and makes the Vikings the new must "Who cares?" team.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Alfred, Lord Hobbs
Taos suffered a great loss last Friday when our dear friend Alfred Hobbs passed away. He was 83 and had been in poor health for a few months, basically since his return a few months ago from his final round-the-world trip.
What made Alfred so special was his spirit and zest for life; it drew people of all kinds to him, and he was always welcoming, graceful and tolerant. The title above is a bit of a play on words on the poet Tennyson; Alfred in one sense was hardly lordly, being down-to-earth and unpretentious, but he was a fine Southern gentleman, chivalrous and noble in behavior (especially with the ladies).
Did I mention that he looked like a cross between Grizzly Adams and Santa Claus (though he did slim down the last few years, he still had that facial aspect, not to mention a long, white beard and a bright red, slightly misshapen nose)?
The Adventure of a Lifetime
Alfred's life was one of a rogue and wanderer, who found his destination here in Taos (though it never erased the wanderlust, which he would exercise periodically to the end of his days).
He basically ran off from his rural North Carolina home and joined the Marines as an underage 17 in 1944. "His war" was not a bad one, in the sense that he was fully credited as a veteran (which came in handy toward the end when he needed major eye surgery), but didn't end up needing to fight. His unit was mobilized in the Pacific and was one of those which would have faced the daunting task of invading Japan, had it not been for the atomic bombs (at least that's the official story).
After the war, he kicked around for a while, then married a Danish woman. Then, together they took a huge, multi-year adventure through Africa and Asia in a '30's-era London taxi (which they converted into a sort of camper). The taxi eventually made it back to Taos and he preserved it, on blocks, until the present (it's now in the custody of his son in upstate New York). A documentary movie (working title: "Driven") is planned of the great adventure, and of the last cross-country trip he made in it with his son just last year (details below).
He undertook many more trips (six round-the-world trips in all), but after that expedition he went to live in upstate New York and was studying for a Ph.D. in anthropology when he came to Taos in the late '60's to write his thesis on the New Buffalo hippie commune that had been started near here. The paper was never finished, and he stayed here as his permanent residence thereafter. He worked--mostly as an archeologist on road crews, in case some bones or fossils turned up--but not too much. He kept his lifestyle simple and his costs low.
His Ideas
At one point some six or seven years ago, Alfred remarked to me that he had a number of ideas he wanted to propagate while he still could, but that people didn't listen. So, we had a series of interviews on our back porch: mostly just him, me, some refreshments maybe, and the tape recorder.
As it turned out, most of the 3-4 hours of interviews consist of reminiscences--from his childhood, his military days, his travels--but still I got some idea of what he wanted to get across (also from a public meeting he held 2-3 years later).
To a surprising extent, this very tolerant and progressive person's ideas wouldn't be out of place at a Tea Party conclave (minus all the birther and Muslim and socialism nonsense). Alfred had no faith in politicians or top-down reform; he distrusted government meddling. He was looking for a spontaneous movement of the people--leaders not required--to change the way things are done around here and preserve our liberties.
The fullest elaboration of his thinking would've focused on ideas of education: teaching traditional values in a more-or-less Socratic method, learning how to exchange ideas sincerely, with passion, but respectfully. He did have a sense, which came late, of the supernatural and its involvement in human affairs; that part I mostly never elicited too much detail about.
Alfred's memorial celebration was held August 28 at Anglada's. It was extremely well attended (I'd estimate 250-300 people at its peak), cheerful but not overly so (given the recent loss we still felt acutely), plenty of food, plenty of music (something that Alfred really did not care about all that much). Oh, and necessarily so, for one of Alfred's parties, lots of "buddah" (as he would say).
His absence will leave a void, but it will be filled with memories and inspirational thoughts.
For his formal bio, a great picture, and a reference to the movie--and an appeal for money to help finish it--see:
What made Alfred so special was his spirit and zest for life; it drew people of all kinds to him, and he was always welcoming, graceful and tolerant. The title above is a bit of a play on words on the poet Tennyson; Alfred in one sense was hardly lordly, being down-to-earth and unpretentious, but he was a fine Southern gentleman, chivalrous and noble in behavior (especially with the ladies).
Did I mention that he looked like a cross between Grizzly Adams and Santa Claus (though he did slim down the last few years, he still had that facial aspect, not to mention a long, white beard and a bright red, slightly misshapen nose)?
The Adventure of a Lifetime
Alfred's life was one of a rogue and wanderer, who found his destination here in Taos (though it never erased the wanderlust, which he would exercise periodically to the end of his days).
He basically ran off from his rural North Carolina home and joined the Marines as an underage 17 in 1944. "His war" was not a bad one, in the sense that he was fully credited as a veteran (which came in handy toward the end when he needed major eye surgery), but didn't end up needing to fight. His unit was mobilized in the Pacific and was one of those which would have faced the daunting task of invading Japan, had it not been for the atomic bombs (at least that's the official story).
After the war, he kicked around for a while, then married a Danish woman. Then, together they took a huge, multi-year adventure through Africa and Asia in a '30's-era London taxi (which they converted into a sort of camper). The taxi eventually made it back to Taos and he preserved it, on blocks, until the present (it's now in the custody of his son in upstate New York). A documentary movie (working title: "Driven") is planned of the great adventure, and of the last cross-country trip he made in it with his son just last year (details below).
He undertook many more trips (six round-the-world trips in all), but after that expedition he went to live in upstate New York and was studying for a Ph.D. in anthropology when he came to Taos in the late '60's to write his thesis on the New Buffalo hippie commune that had been started near here. The paper was never finished, and he stayed here as his permanent residence thereafter. He worked--mostly as an archeologist on road crews, in case some bones or fossils turned up--but not too much. He kept his lifestyle simple and his costs low.
His Ideas
At one point some six or seven years ago, Alfred remarked to me that he had a number of ideas he wanted to propagate while he still could, but that people didn't listen. So, we had a series of interviews on our back porch: mostly just him, me, some refreshments maybe, and the tape recorder.
As it turned out, most of the 3-4 hours of interviews consist of reminiscences--from his childhood, his military days, his travels--but still I got some idea of what he wanted to get across (also from a public meeting he held 2-3 years later).
To a surprising extent, this very tolerant and progressive person's ideas wouldn't be out of place at a Tea Party conclave (minus all the birther and Muslim and socialism nonsense). Alfred had no faith in politicians or top-down reform; he distrusted government meddling. He was looking for a spontaneous movement of the people--leaders not required--to change the way things are done around here and preserve our liberties.
The fullest elaboration of his thinking would've focused on ideas of education: teaching traditional values in a more-or-less Socratic method, learning how to exchange ideas sincerely, with passion, but respectfully. He did have a sense, which came late, of the supernatural and its involvement in human affairs; that part I mostly never elicited too much detail about.
Alfred's memorial celebration was held August 28 at Anglada's. It was extremely well attended (I'd estimate 250-300 people at its peak), cheerful but not overly so (given the recent loss we still felt acutely), plenty of food, plenty of music (something that Alfred really did not care about all that much). Oh, and necessarily so, for one of Alfred's parties, lots of "buddah" (as he would say).
His absence will leave a void, but it will be filled with memories and inspirational thoughts.
For his formal bio, a great picture, and a reference to the movie--and an appeal for money to help finish it--see:
http://www.riverafuneralhome.com/sitemaker/sites/rivera0/obit.cgi?user=244417Hobbs
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Political Trivia
The inanity of this year's political season is beyond belief. I continue to have hope that the American electorate will show some good sense when it finally goes to the polls this November, but there is plenty of reason to worry.
TP: Don't Just Beat It, Wipe It
Conceptually, the idea of renovating the Republican Party through a hostile takeover from its core makes sense and is even somewhat appealing. It was certainly time to throw over the Bushite elements who have spoiled the party's image of competent, limited governance. There was something similarly appealing about the grassroots nature of the movement, to the extent it was not merely Astroturf generated by right-wing media sucking wind in a vacuum.
My only complaint is about the quality of the candidates being promoted by the Tea Party elements and about the quality of their leadership. In terms of the latter: Dick Armey? Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck? And the candidates: Sharron Angle? Rand Paul? And these people could actually win?
I endorsed Sarah Palin for the Republican nomination in November, 2008, and I'll stick with that--somehow I can't believe she could ever win, and I do feel that the GOP deserves her as their standard-bearer. It's sad, but I agree with the analysts who perceive that the one who could stop her is Mike Huckabee--if he runs, he either neutralizes her by splitting their shared supporters, or she decides to stick to producing highly-compensated, oil-slick-thin political commentary.
Anti-Obama Fever
What does it mean when a quarter of the population believe President Obama is a Muslim? When only about three-eighths think he's a Christian? Somebody's not paying attention, maybe?
It's perfectly understandable that the Democrats' national fortunes may be sagging this year. For one thing, most independents believe the government works best when control is split between parties. Second, we must expect the governing party's support to suffer when the economy is so weak; so why is there no meaningful debate about revitalizing the economy (extending Bushite tax cuts certainly doesn't qualify, and why would anyone of middle-income or less ever support that idea)?
How can "firing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker" be an attractive campaign slogan when the person proposed to replace her in the job is John Boehner?
As Hillary Clinton once remarked, there is "a vast right-wing conspiracy", and what's got them all conspiring nowadays is the notion that they can demonize President Obama and destroy him with big lies.
Somebody has to step up and say this year's campaign is idiotic, so I guess that's me.
And Now for the Stupid Mosque Debate
(It's the debate stupid.)
Although it is appropriate for opponents of the proposed Islamic center to urge its sponsors to move it, it does not appear there is any legal basis to compel them to move. Anyway, how far away from Ground Zero is far enough to put up a mosque? If, indeed, the proposed Islamic Community Center could be called a mosque...
I would propose that the Islamic center's sponsors announce that the center will have a permanent exhibition on its ground floor which will promote the argument that the atrocities perpetrated not far away were in all ways un-Islamic, contrary to the precepts of the religion. If they would only do that, the moral argument against the center disappears immediately.
If they won't do that, they may still be able to build it (will their financial backers stay the course?), but what will come? Probably permanently continuing demonstrations against the center....
TP: Don't Just Beat It, Wipe It
Conceptually, the idea of renovating the Republican Party through a hostile takeover from its core makes sense and is even somewhat appealing. It was certainly time to throw over the Bushite elements who have spoiled the party's image of competent, limited governance. There was something similarly appealing about the grassroots nature of the movement, to the extent it was not merely Astroturf generated by right-wing media sucking wind in a vacuum.
My only complaint is about the quality of the candidates being promoted by the Tea Party elements and about the quality of their leadership. In terms of the latter: Dick Armey? Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck? And the candidates: Sharron Angle? Rand Paul? And these people could actually win?
I endorsed Sarah Palin for the Republican nomination in November, 2008, and I'll stick with that--somehow I can't believe she could ever win, and I do feel that the GOP deserves her as their standard-bearer. It's sad, but I agree with the analysts who perceive that the one who could stop her is Mike Huckabee--if he runs, he either neutralizes her by splitting their shared supporters, or she decides to stick to producing highly-compensated, oil-slick-thin political commentary.
Anti-Obama Fever
What does it mean when a quarter of the population believe President Obama is a Muslim? When only about three-eighths think he's a Christian? Somebody's not paying attention, maybe?
It's perfectly understandable that the Democrats' national fortunes may be sagging this year. For one thing, most independents believe the government works best when control is split between parties. Second, we must expect the governing party's support to suffer when the economy is so weak; so why is there no meaningful debate about revitalizing the economy (extending Bushite tax cuts certainly doesn't qualify, and why would anyone of middle-income or less ever support that idea)?
How can "firing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker" be an attractive campaign slogan when the person proposed to replace her in the job is John Boehner?
As Hillary Clinton once remarked, there is "a vast right-wing conspiracy", and what's got them all conspiring nowadays is the notion that they can demonize President Obama and destroy him with big lies.
Somebody has to step up and say this year's campaign is idiotic, so I guess that's me.
And Now for the Stupid Mosque Debate
(It's the debate stupid.)
Although it is appropriate for opponents of the proposed Islamic center to urge its sponsors to move it, it does not appear there is any legal basis to compel them to move. Anyway, how far away from Ground Zero is far enough to put up a mosque? If, indeed, the proposed Islamic Community Center could be called a mosque...
I would propose that the Islamic center's sponsors announce that the center will have a permanent exhibition on its ground floor which will promote the argument that the atrocities perpetrated not far away were in all ways un-Islamic, contrary to the precepts of the religion. If they would only do that, the moral argument against the center disappears immediately.
If they won't do that, they may still be able to build it (will their financial backers stay the course?), but what will come? Probably permanently continuing demonstrations against the center....
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Financing the Recovery
The Dodd-Frank Financial Reform and Prevention of Self-Immolation Act
I haven't commented on the financial reform legislation as it finally came down the pike. Mostly, it was unobjectionable in the sense that it contains provisions that the banking industry agreed were needed to prevent itself from destroying itself so easily next time.
Think of the banking crisis which caused the Great Crater as being like a person strapping an explosive device to himself, going into a public area, and threatening to blow himself and everyone around to smithereens if the authorities don't come and help him take this thing off.
In that scenario, the new legislation is simply the banks agreeing not to strap explosive devices to themselves anymore, and, if they do, agreeing that the authorities can clear the square of others before they blow themselves up. Sounds OK, but you still wouldn't want such individuals hanging around your kids.
The one thing in the legislation that might put a crimp in the bankers' plans is the new Consumer Financial Practices agency: the banks assumed they could negate the power of that organization from the start, but there's a chance it could still be a problem for them, at least for a short while if President Obama picks Elizabeth Warren for it.
Unfinished Business
I commented at one point that the legislation was too silent on the subject of capital requirements for banks. It's clear now that there was a strategy there--this will be the province of the Bank for International Settlements (a/k/a Basel), and that the rules will be standardized across countries. That's really the only approach that will make sense--otherwise, the US banks would be penalized (or advantaged) vs. banks from other countries. There has been an agreement in principle on the new rules, which will be phased in slowly enough that their impact in restraining lending (requiring higher capital for a given amount of lending, for the most part) will not impede global recovery from the current downturn.
The other big time bomb strapped to public chests out there is Fannie/Freddie (FNMA and FRMC), the government-backed enterprises which insure huge quantities of mortgages, which are losing money hand over fist these days, presenting a potential new bailout issue. It appears to be either bail or jail--letting these organizations fail, or taking away their government backing, would have a catastrophic effect on the weak domestic housing market and simply can't be contemplated at the time.
The solution is pretty straightforward, and I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually. It would be called "recapitalization", and it would be quite similar to what was done through a consortium of banks in the '80's, when sovereign Third World debt volumes threatened to sink all the major banks. Here, the healthy loans in Fannie/Freddie (and there are plenty) would require a smaller amount of capital (using the new rules) once the bad loans are stripped off. Fannie/Freddie used to have rules which kept out the bad loans; they degenerated in the final years before the crisis, but not nearly as bad as some others. The bad loans on their books--a relatively small percentage but still a huge quantity--would be reworked, hopefully very creatively, and the effort put into them would eventually limit damage to something much smaller than what current estimates would suggest.
Where is the Love?
This should be a good situation: the banks are sitting on a ton of money; the companies that might borrow it are sitting on their own tons of money (which makes them great candidates for loans); neither banks nor companies can make enough just pussyfooting around with their piles (i.e., Treasury bills and the like).
What's needed is actually a FDR-style National Recovery Act kind of industrial and energy plan which the companies could rally around and put the system's money to work. The problem with this is all the TP hanging around gumming things up, but that problem isn't going away. The challenge of framing targeted investments to get the economy going (gradually) and moving in logical directions to assist our economic future is one that will have to be handled with a great deal of diplomacy. If it is handled properly (for example, "energy independence" to bring the conservatives on board; the promise of easy profits to get the companies falling in line), it can work.
I haven't commented on the financial reform legislation as it finally came down the pike. Mostly, it was unobjectionable in the sense that it contains provisions that the banking industry agreed were needed to prevent itself from destroying itself so easily next time.
Think of the banking crisis which caused the Great Crater as being like a person strapping an explosive device to himself, going into a public area, and threatening to blow himself and everyone around to smithereens if the authorities don't come and help him take this thing off.
In that scenario, the new legislation is simply the banks agreeing not to strap explosive devices to themselves anymore, and, if they do, agreeing that the authorities can clear the square of others before they blow themselves up. Sounds OK, but you still wouldn't want such individuals hanging around your kids.
The one thing in the legislation that might put a crimp in the bankers' plans is the new Consumer Financial Practices agency: the banks assumed they could negate the power of that organization from the start, but there's a chance it could still be a problem for them, at least for a short while if President Obama picks Elizabeth Warren for it.
Unfinished Business
I commented at one point that the legislation was too silent on the subject of capital requirements for banks. It's clear now that there was a strategy there--this will be the province of the Bank for International Settlements (a/k/a Basel), and that the rules will be standardized across countries. That's really the only approach that will make sense--otherwise, the US banks would be penalized (or advantaged) vs. banks from other countries. There has been an agreement in principle on the new rules, which will be phased in slowly enough that their impact in restraining lending (requiring higher capital for a given amount of lending, for the most part) will not impede global recovery from the current downturn.
The other big time bomb strapped to public chests out there is Fannie/Freddie (FNMA and FRMC), the government-backed enterprises which insure huge quantities of mortgages, which are losing money hand over fist these days, presenting a potential new bailout issue. It appears to be either bail or jail--letting these organizations fail, or taking away their government backing, would have a catastrophic effect on the weak domestic housing market and simply can't be contemplated at the time.
The solution is pretty straightforward, and I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually. It would be called "recapitalization", and it would be quite similar to what was done through a consortium of banks in the '80's, when sovereign Third World debt volumes threatened to sink all the major banks. Here, the healthy loans in Fannie/Freddie (and there are plenty) would require a smaller amount of capital (using the new rules) once the bad loans are stripped off. Fannie/Freddie used to have rules which kept out the bad loans; they degenerated in the final years before the crisis, but not nearly as bad as some others. The bad loans on their books--a relatively small percentage but still a huge quantity--would be reworked, hopefully very creatively, and the effort put into them would eventually limit damage to something much smaller than what current estimates would suggest.
Where is the Love?
Where is the Loan,
You said was mine oh mine
Til the end of time
Was it just a lie
Where is the loan?
This should be a good situation: the banks are sitting on a ton of money; the companies that might borrow it are sitting on their own tons of money (which makes them great candidates for loans); neither banks nor companies can make enough just pussyfooting around with their piles (i.e., Treasury bills and the like).
What's needed is actually a FDR-style National Recovery Act kind of industrial and energy plan which the companies could rally around and put the system's money to work. The problem with this is all the TP hanging around gumming things up, but that problem isn't going away. The challenge of framing targeted investments to get the economy going (gradually) and moving in logical directions to assist our economic future is one that will have to be handled with a great deal of diplomacy. If it is handled properly (for example, "energy independence" to bring the conservatives on board; the promise of easy profits to get the companies falling in line), it can work.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Rot Reversal
I do get involved in some of these online chat/debate/name-calling sessions, though not as often as I used to do. I often do this under my nom de plume, chinshihtang (usually without caps or apostrophes) so if you want to find some of those you can find them searching Google and some other sites (N.Y. Times, Huffington Post, etc.). The ones I cut, paste, and post on this blog are probably about only 25% of those that I get into, but I generally don't get too much more feedback there than here.
So, why do I bother? Good question, and one that I can not answer in so many words except to paraphrase a writing teacher I had once who said, essentially, that if you don't feel compelled to write, you won't.
Anyway, I'd been thinking about a blog posting about our economic mess and found I'd pretty much said what I wanted in this comment dialogue about a posting called "18 Signs America Is Rotting Right Before Our Eyes". That posting itself was a bit of selective reporting drawing huge conclusions from anecdotal information, so as such not a big deal, but I was touched by the comment posted by a sincere guy named "George":
And here was my response:
The macroeconomic debate seems to focus on a point/counter-point between the Keynesians and the supply-siders, neither of which has a good argument to deal with this jobless recovery (a/k/a the shallow ascent portion of The Great Crater). I have plenty of respect for the ideas of deficit spending in a recession, and I do not agree that the stimulus did not "work", in that it stopped a downward spiral, but I think it's clear that we both overspent and overly cut taxes all the way through the lead-in to this economic miasma, so it is almost illogical to expect the same policies to get us out of it.
The high jobless rates we are in are structural in nature and will tend to continue for decades, because this society simply doesn't need to put everyone who wants a job to work in order to produce and consume everything we need or think we need. There is no short-term solution which is really going to work to produce millions of new private-sector jobs, so forget about it, accept the reality, and blame whomever you want.
The key word is "structural": we need to be building a new economic structure suited to our children's and grandchildren's needs--upon that is what it would be worth spending our macroeconomic, legislated (or executively ordered) dollars. I gave a few ideas above.
So, why do I bother? Good question, and one that I can not answer in so many words except to paraphrase a writing teacher I had once who said, essentially, that if you don't feel compelled to write, you won't.
Anyway, I'd been thinking about a blog posting about our economic mess and found I'd pretty much said what I wanted in this comment dialogue about a posting called "18 Signs America Is Rotting Right Before Our Eyes". That posting itself was a bit of selective reporting drawing huge conclusions from anecdotal information, so as such not a big deal, but I was touched by the comment posted by a sincere guy named "George":
I agree with the "diagnosis," but would like to hear from people who have good ideas on solutions. They could be categorized as follow: (1) Targeted taxes (increases) and targeted tax breaks (reductions). (2) Major cuts in selected domestic programs. (3) Major cuts in selected military programs. (4) Getting more money in the hands of people who will spend it right-away to immediately boost consumer spending - i.e., the lower middle class, the poor, people out-of-work, ect. (5) Means Test" selected entitlement programs (social security, medicare). (6) Eliminate "corporate tax breaks" to companies who outsource jobs overseas, and give tax breaks to companies who increase their payroll and pay a living wage. (7) Renegotiate U.S. taxpayer interest rate to The Federal Reserve. (8) Remove corporate subsidies and introduce real capitalism into the marketplace. (9) Employ cost-benefit analysis to all unnecessary wars and miltary bases.(10) Charge other nations and companies when the U.S. military is used to protect "their" shipping lanes and locations. (11) Promote "workfare" and public works for able-bodied persons receiving pubic assistance. (12) etc.
You get the idea, George.
And here was my response:
I like what you are doing, George, trying to be constructive. I would say immediately that 3), 6), and 8) are great ideas that should be no-brainers but in this constipated political environment are not. 2) sounds good but will not produce the results many expect. 9) doesn't really make sense--if the war is "unnecessary" there would be no cost-benefit analysis that would change that and make it desirable.
I would like to suggest a general category that I don't see: targeted investment in our nation's future. To give an example, highway investment makes sense to a certain extent to keep the economy flowing, but not all highways and bridges need to be kept up, and minor roads returning to gravel may make sense in some cases (remember the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska?). There should be a strategic assessment of the roads and bridges that are most important. We should be investing in alternative fuels such as natural gas for public transportation, upgrade of rail lines, and research in lower-emission forms of cars and airplanes. We should be investing in upgrading our power grid and providing home electricity inverters so that alternative energy sources will be more practicable. Investment in education is actually on the right track now but should be more strategic in the expenditures.
The macroeconomic debate seems to focus on a point/counter-point between the Keynesians and the supply-siders, neither of which has a good argument to deal with this jobless recovery (a/k/a the shallow ascent portion of The Great Crater). I have plenty of respect for the ideas of deficit spending in a recession, and I do not agree that the stimulus did not "work", in that it stopped a downward spiral, but I think it's clear that we both overspent and overly cut taxes all the way through the lead-in to this economic miasma, so it is almost illogical to expect the same policies to get us out of it.
The high jobless rates we are in are structural in nature and will tend to continue for decades, because this society simply doesn't need to put everyone who wants a job to work in order to produce and consume everything we need or think we need. There is no short-term solution which is really going to work to produce millions of new private-sector jobs, so forget about it, accept the reality, and blame whomever you want.
The key word is "structural": we need to be building a new economic structure suited to our children's and grandchildren's needs--upon that is what it would be worth spending our macroeconomic, legislated (or executively ordered) dollars. I gave a few ideas above.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Baseball View: 2/3 Re-, 1/3 Pre-
Major league baseball teams reach the two-thirds mark of the season (108 of 162 regular-season games) this week, and the principal trade deadline just passed. This is a good time to review the season so far and what remains.
MLB YTD
In my preseason picks, I had a few things right (besides the obvious ones), but there have been some big surprises, as well. Here are the top five unexpected team performances for me, thus far:
Next on the list would be the degree of collapse of the Orioles, which I had thought may be an improving team (it may yet be, but not meaningfully for this year), and the continuing rise of the late-starting Chicago White Sox.
On an individual performance level, there are several surprises, but generally the positive ones (like, for example, Jose Bautista on the Blue Jays, or Rickie Weeks on the Brewers) have not translated into major team success. The one exception I would note is the combo of Vladimir Guerrero, who has had a great season so far for the Texas Rangers (moderately surprising, as he seemed to be in decline the past couple years), and Josh Hamilton; their hitting has been a key component in their developing a large lead in the AL West.
Yet to Come
American League
There are really two races remaining in the AL regular season: 1) the AL Central rematch between Minnesota and Chicago; and 2) the three-way race in the AL East (and for the Wild Card) with New York, Tampa Bay, and Boston. The latter race could realistically be down to two after this weekend, if Boston doesn't hurt the Yanks in their series in New York.
One might say that it doesn't matter whether New York or Tampa Bay wins the division, but I would disagree with that. If the likely scenario unfolds with one winning the AL East--with the best record in the league--and the other the Wild Card, the rules would set the WC against the second best of the division winners, which I would expect to be Texas. Although I picked the Yanks to win the pennant (not much of a stretch, I admit), I would look to a possible first-round matchup with the Rangers as a likely route to getting the Yanks out of the way in the postseason, before they build up a head of steam. So, I do care, and I want TB to take the division. I won't be happy with anything but a Tampa Bay-Texas AL Championship series, in which I now like the Rangers (due to their acquisition of Cliff Lee).
The conventional wisdom is that the ChiSox' surge will continue and push them well past the Twins, but I'm not buying that. I see some weak spots in Chicago's pitching, which I think will lead to a cold streak before long and keep the race close until the end. Still, they are probably the better bet, and I'm willing to pull for them for our President's sake (he's a White Sox backer).
National League
In the National League, every postseason spot is seriously contested, with no sign that the tension will end soon. Late trading moves by most of the contenders will have significant effect on the pennant races, too.
In the East, the Phillies' pickup of Roy Oswalt gives them a reasonable facsimile of last year's postseason star, Cliff Lee, whom they should've kept. That failure still rankles me, and I'm actively rooting against them, for the division and, more critically for me, for the Wild Card. Josh Howard's injury gives me hope for that outcome. The Braves have emerged as a team with a good mix of youths and veterans, with a sense of purpose to win now (Bobby Cox's last year, seems like it's likely to be Chipper Jones' last, and also closer Billy Wagner's, at least according to him, and he should know). I'm moderately confident of the Bravos' ability to hold off Philly, as long as they have no more setbacks to their pitching rotation (the recent loss of Kris Medlen hurts, but another loss would be fatal).
In the NL West, San Francisco has slightly better pitching than San Diego, with similarly anemic team offense. This looks to be a tight race, possibly coming down to a key failure in the Padres' pitching (most likely, on a road trip), or a key hitter on one team or the other (Adrian Gonzalez, say, or Pablo Sandoval or newcomer Pat Burrell on the Giants) either getting real hot, real cold, or injured. The Dodgers and the Rockies have fallen out of the race, but will be playing key games down the stretch against the contenders and are likely spoilers.
In the NL Central, the Cardinals have shored up their pitching with Jake Westbrook, which should help both down the stretch and in the postseason, if they make it. And I would have to say I expect them to get in, and to do well. The Reds' emergence--a good blend of young hitters, young starting pitching arms, and good defense, is the most exciting development in recent years (at least since Tampa Bay's emergence). I fear they might be overmatched (because of lack of experience) in a head-to-head for the divisional title, but I'm hoping they can stay with the Cards until the end, and that that will be good enough for a Wild Card berth (over the East and West's second-placers--so, another reason to root against the Phils).
I will stick with my preseason pick of the Cards to win the NL pennant, and the World Series, though of course I hope I will be wrong here, too.
Historical Notes
My preseason World Series pairing of the Yanks and Cards features the two teams with the most World Series wins (the Cards' 10 slightly ahead of the Athletics' franchise--we won't discuss the 27 titles the Yankees have), and they have played many times in the World Series in the past (I didn't check to see if it is the most frequent matchup, but it's certainly one of them). Somewhat surprisingly, though, they haven't opposed each other in the Fall Classic since 1964. Of course, I am hoping my prediction is wrong and that, in fact, neither team makes it, but I'd still say it is the most probable single matchup.
If the Phillies overcome my moral resistance and make it to the NL Championship Series, they will be gunning to make history, as the first NL team to three-peat for league pennants since...the 1942-44 Cardinals. Eight teams have won twice and come up short in the third try since then, from most recently:
Before the Cards' wartime threepeat, there had been in the modern era three consecutive NL pennants for the New York Giants (1911-1913) and the 1906-08 Cubs. The alltime NL record of four consecutive pennants is held by the New York Giants, from 1921-24.
MLB YTD
In my preseason picks, I had a few things right (besides the obvious ones), but there have been some big surprises, as well. Here are the top five unexpected team performances for me, thus far:
1) San Diego Padres--I had them dead last; I was not alone in this. They are over the hump in terms of believing they can win, but that doesn't mean they're in. It looks as though they will have a tough battle down the stretch with the Giants (whom I did see coming; I picked them to win the Wild Card, and if the season ended today, they'd have it).
2) Colorado Rockies--The offsetting error, the team that I picked to win the NL West, is now in fourth place, despite the performance of the most outstanding NL player of the year thus far, pitcher Ubaldo Jimenez. It's not surprising that their pitching, other than Jimenez, has been spotty (or downright poor); the surprising thing has been a relative lack of hitting.
3) Cincinnati Reds--I thought they were a year away from what they have been able to achieve so far this year. They are a great example of the sudden surge in pitching depth; seems like they have a new, young flamethrower emerging every three months (with the flamiest thrower of all, Cuban defector Aroldis Chapman, about ready to emerge). Like the Padres, though, they haven't won anything yet, and they are up against the wiliest veteran team in the league, the Cardinals.
4) Tampa Bay Rays--I am thrilled by their resurgence this year. I had hoped for this; a lot of misfortune to the Botox has contributed to that result.
5) Atlanta Braves--Like the Reds, they came up faster than expected; like Tampa Bay, they've been helped by the ineptness of a key divisional rivals, the Phillies.
Next on the list would be the degree of collapse of the Orioles, which I had thought may be an improving team (it may yet be, but not meaningfully for this year), and the continuing rise of the late-starting Chicago White Sox.
On an individual performance level, there are several surprises, but generally the positive ones (like, for example, Jose Bautista on the Blue Jays, or Rickie Weeks on the Brewers) have not translated into major team success. The one exception I would note is the combo of Vladimir Guerrero, who has had a great season so far for the Texas Rangers (moderately surprising, as he seemed to be in decline the past couple years), and Josh Hamilton; their hitting has been a key component in their developing a large lead in the AL West.
Yet to Come
American League
There are really two races remaining in the AL regular season: 1) the AL Central rematch between Minnesota and Chicago; and 2) the three-way race in the AL East (and for the Wild Card) with New York, Tampa Bay, and Boston. The latter race could realistically be down to two after this weekend, if Boston doesn't hurt the Yanks in their series in New York.
One might say that it doesn't matter whether New York or Tampa Bay wins the division, but I would disagree with that. If the likely scenario unfolds with one winning the AL East--with the best record in the league--and the other the Wild Card, the rules would set the WC against the second best of the division winners, which I would expect to be Texas. Although I picked the Yanks to win the pennant (not much of a stretch, I admit), I would look to a possible first-round matchup with the Rangers as a likely route to getting the Yanks out of the way in the postseason, before they build up a head of steam. So, I do care, and I want TB to take the division. I won't be happy with anything but a Tampa Bay-Texas AL Championship series, in which I now like the Rangers (due to their acquisition of Cliff Lee).
The conventional wisdom is that the ChiSox' surge will continue and push them well past the Twins, but I'm not buying that. I see some weak spots in Chicago's pitching, which I think will lead to a cold streak before long and keep the race close until the end. Still, they are probably the better bet, and I'm willing to pull for them for our President's sake (he's a White Sox backer).
National League
In the National League, every postseason spot is seriously contested, with no sign that the tension will end soon. Late trading moves by most of the contenders will have significant effect on the pennant races, too.
In the East, the Phillies' pickup of Roy Oswalt gives them a reasonable facsimile of last year's postseason star, Cliff Lee, whom they should've kept. That failure still rankles me, and I'm actively rooting against them, for the division and, more critically for me, for the Wild Card. Josh Howard's injury gives me hope for that outcome. The Braves have emerged as a team with a good mix of youths and veterans, with a sense of purpose to win now (Bobby Cox's last year, seems like it's likely to be Chipper Jones' last, and also closer Billy Wagner's, at least according to him, and he should know). I'm moderately confident of the Bravos' ability to hold off Philly, as long as they have no more setbacks to their pitching rotation (the recent loss of Kris Medlen hurts, but another loss would be fatal).
In the NL West, San Francisco has slightly better pitching than San Diego, with similarly anemic team offense. This looks to be a tight race, possibly coming down to a key failure in the Padres' pitching (most likely, on a road trip), or a key hitter on one team or the other (Adrian Gonzalez, say, or Pablo Sandoval or newcomer Pat Burrell on the Giants) either getting real hot, real cold, or injured. The Dodgers and the Rockies have fallen out of the race, but will be playing key games down the stretch against the contenders and are likely spoilers.
In the NL Central, the Cardinals have shored up their pitching with Jake Westbrook, which should help both down the stretch and in the postseason, if they make it. And I would have to say I expect them to get in, and to do well. The Reds' emergence--a good blend of young hitters, young starting pitching arms, and good defense, is the most exciting development in recent years (at least since Tampa Bay's emergence). I fear they might be overmatched (because of lack of experience) in a head-to-head for the divisional title, but I'm hoping they can stay with the Cards until the end, and that that will be good enough for a Wild Card berth (over the East and West's second-placers--so, another reason to root against the Phils).
I will stick with my preseason pick of the Cards to win the NL pennant, and the World Series, though of course I hope I will be wrong here, too.
Historical Notes
My preseason World Series pairing of the Yanks and Cards features the two teams with the most World Series wins (the Cards' 10 slightly ahead of the Athletics' franchise--we won't discuss the 27 titles the Yankees have), and they have played many times in the World Series in the past (I didn't check to see if it is the most frequent matchup, but it's certainly one of them). Somewhat surprisingly, though, they haven't opposed each other in the Fall Classic since 1964. Of course, I am hoping my prediction is wrong and that, in fact, neither team makes it, but I'd still say it is the most probable single matchup.
If the Phillies overcome my moral resistance and make it to the NL Championship Series, they will be gunning to make history, as the first NL team to three-peat for league pennants since...the 1942-44 Cardinals. Eight teams have won twice and come up short in the third try since then, from most recently:
1995-96 Braves (lost in '97 NLCS to the Florida Marlins, who won the Series;
1991-92 Braves (lost in the '93 NLDS to the Phils, who lost the Series)
1977-78 Dodgers (were beaten out in the NL West in '79 by the Reds, who lost to the eventual Series winner, the Pirates);
1975-76 Reds (in '77, despite George Foster's breakout 52-HR year and the midyear trade for Tom Seaver, the Reds finished a distant second in the NL West, the loss of mojo blamed by us Reds' fans on the preseason trade of Tony Perez);
1967-68 Cards (lost in '69 to the Mets' team of destiny);
1965-66 Dodgers (lost to the aforementioned Cards);
1955-56 Dodgers (lost out to the Atlanta Braves);
1952-53 Dodgers (lost out in '54 to the Giants, who actually won the Series).
Before the Cards' wartime threepeat, there had been in the modern era three consecutive NL pennants for the New York Giants (1911-1913) and the 1906-08 Cubs. The alltime NL record of four consecutive pennants is held by the New York Giants, from 1921-24.
Nickel and Dime-ing US (and Tuppence, too!)
Stamp Act Reaction
In the 1770's the reaction to the Stamp Act was the original Boston Tea Party. This year, Congress is expected to authorize a 2-cent increase in the first class postage, from 44 to 46 cents. Under the current regime, Congress can not/will not subsidize the Post Office, requiring it to support itself like a business, but on the other hand it must approve any increases in postage. The financial situation at USPS is such that Congress really has no choice.
My reaction and advice to the postal unit: why stop at 46 cents? Go on up to 50 cents, a respectable round number, accompanied by a promise not to raise rates for, say, six years (two-cents every other year is about the recent pattern). Take the windfall revenues and do some real upgrading of capabilities, and maybe you won't even need to increase in six years.
Always Forever Now
When the Post Office inevitably gets its OK to raise the prices, there will be one of those great investment opportunities: buy the "Forever" stamps at 44 cents just before the rates go up, and you can save on the cost increase--as many stamps as you want!
This seems to be one of those calculated business decisions: balancing the time value of money against the expected "leakage" rate (people will lose some of the stamps they buy and never use them), but for the sophisticated stamp investor, it would make sense to buy about six months' worth of stamps, which, assuming a uniform rate of usage, would give a return of just under 5% for an investment with an average duration of three months. That's a return worth cashing your Treasury bills to obtain.
I, though, won't be taking much advantage of this opportunity. Most of my stamps come to me free from certain charitable organizations who think that their commitment to me--expressed by placing stamps on their return envelopes--will be fully reciprocated by contributions. I haven't done the math to see if that's true or not (I do give to them, but only a fraction of the time), but I do appreciate the willingness to save me trouble. (I've never forgotten Brooklyn Union Gas, which had metered prepaid postage on their return envelopes 15-20 years ago; do they still?) Instead, I take the trouble to save those envelopes, cut off the uncancelled stamps, and I eventually glue them onto other return envelopes of billers which are not so accommodating.
I see that, rather than helping me pay them by putting the postage out there (for which they would get paid sooner--American Express charge cards, take notice!), the debtor community prefers to "hock" me to pay through the Internet (allowing us to do the heavy lifting for them). They should back that up by giving us a postage-stamp's worth of rebate for our trouble.
Optimal Purchase of Socks
On another topic, totally unrelated except by the identical theme of "common-sense consumerism", I am shocked--shocked!--to find that I have not yet posted the results of my lifetime's worth of close observation on the best strategy for purchasing socks.
I presume that all you readers share certain tendencies: accidentally to occasionally pull too hard and tear irrevocably single socks, the nature of laundry machines to somehow randomly "disappear" a sock, a preference for wearing socks that actually match each other. If one grants all these, then there is a single, best strategy for buying socks.
You should buy exactly three pairs of socks--the same color, brand, and size--at a time. If you do this, then, over time, individual sock attrition will not leave you with a drawer-full of single socks. Instead, your pool of that particular style of sock will eventually pare down to two pair, and, over a long period of time, one pair--at which time you can examine the survivors to see if those two are worth keeping in the rotation.
Buying less than three pairs will mean the remaining socks will not get their full use before reducing to the useless status of <2 (and buying a single pair of socks is the moral equivalent of unjustly condemning one valid sock to permanent isolation in the dead drawer); buying more than three pairs will mean you are over-committing to a single style and color (i.e., boring). Of course, this strategy doesn't work so well if one goes for the ultra-modern "toe socks" which fit each toe snugly and therefore have a sense of right sock and left sock--I discourage their purchase for that reason, except for use in rare occasions of luxury or foot ostentation.
In the 1770's the reaction to the Stamp Act was the original Boston Tea Party. This year, Congress is expected to authorize a 2-cent increase in the first class postage, from 44 to 46 cents. Under the current regime, Congress can not/will not subsidize the Post Office, requiring it to support itself like a business, but on the other hand it must approve any increases in postage. The financial situation at USPS is such that Congress really has no choice.
My reaction and advice to the postal unit: why stop at 46 cents? Go on up to 50 cents, a respectable round number, accompanied by a promise not to raise rates for, say, six years (two-cents every other year is about the recent pattern). Take the windfall revenues and do some real upgrading of capabilities, and maybe you won't even need to increase in six years.
Always Forever Now
When the Post Office inevitably gets its OK to raise the prices, there will be one of those great investment opportunities: buy the "Forever" stamps at 44 cents just before the rates go up, and you can save on the cost increase--as many stamps as you want!
This seems to be one of those calculated business decisions: balancing the time value of money against the expected "leakage" rate (people will lose some of the stamps they buy and never use them), but for the sophisticated stamp investor, it would make sense to buy about six months' worth of stamps, which, assuming a uniform rate of usage, would give a return of just under 5% for an investment with an average duration of three months. That's a return worth cashing your Treasury bills to obtain.
I, though, won't be taking much advantage of this opportunity. Most of my stamps come to me free from certain charitable organizations who think that their commitment to me--expressed by placing stamps on their return envelopes--will be fully reciprocated by contributions. I haven't done the math to see if that's true or not (I do give to them, but only a fraction of the time), but I do appreciate the willingness to save me trouble. (I've never forgotten Brooklyn Union Gas, which had metered prepaid postage on their return envelopes 15-20 years ago; do they still?) Instead, I take the trouble to save those envelopes, cut off the uncancelled stamps, and I eventually glue them onto other return envelopes of billers which are not so accommodating.
I see that, rather than helping me pay them by putting the postage out there (for which they would get paid sooner--American Express charge cards, take notice!), the debtor community prefers to "hock" me to pay through the Internet (allowing us to do the heavy lifting for them). They should back that up by giving us a postage-stamp's worth of rebate for our trouble.
Optimal Purchase of Socks
On another topic, totally unrelated except by the identical theme of "common-sense consumerism", I am shocked--shocked!--to find that I have not yet posted the results of my lifetime's worth of close observation on the best strategy for purchasing socks.
I presume that all you readers share certain tendencies: accidentally to occasionally pull too hard and tear irrevocably single socks, the nature of laundry machines to somehow randomly "disappear" a sock, a preference for wearing socks that actually match each other. If one grants all these, then there is a single, best strategy for buying socks.
You should buy exactly three pairs of socks--the same color, brand, and size--at a time. If you do this, then, over time, individual sock attrition will not leave you with a drawer-full of single socks. Instead, your pool of that particular style of sock will eventually pare down to two pair, and, over a long period of time, one pair--at which time you can examine the survivors to see if those two are worth keeping in the rotation.
Buying less than three pairs will mean the remaining socks will not get their full use before reducing to the useless status of <2 (and buying a single pair of socks is the moral equivalent of unjustly condemning one valid sock to permanent isolation in the dead drawer); buying more than three pairs will mean you are over-committing to a single style and color (i.e., boring). Of course, this strategy doesn't work so well if one goes for the ultra-modern "toe socks" which fit each toe snugly and therefore have a sense of right sock and left sock--I discourage their purchase for that reason, except for use in rare occasions of luxury or foot ostentation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
