TTKS Links of the Week

Sam's favorite: a WSJ Op-Ed piece. From Karl Rove, no less! That's two strikes! But this isn't a scathing column. I thought it was an interesting take on Obama's penchant for invoking the straw man approach to discounting the contrary voices to his views. Worth the 5 minutes, for sure. Seems like too few (of the media) are holding Obama accountable for his hollow rhetoric and consistent two-facedness.

Speaking of Sam, he passed along this intriguing comparison between golf and triathlon. Some of us are wannabe golfers. Others wannabe triathletes. I dabble in both. And I'm definitely a wannabe. "Irregardless," the golf-tri comparison is a fun one. Thanks Sam.

Believe it or not, a glowing WSJ Op-Ed column about President Obama. Peggy Noonan saw BHO take command Tuesday and makes a few interesting observations:

In terms of policy, the jury not only is out but will be for some time. Years ago I wrote of an Italian woman in my neighborhood who made spaghetti every day. When I asked how you tell it's done, she showed me: You take a strand and fling it against the wall. If it's done, it sticks. If it's not done, it falls off the wall down the side of the stove. You keep flinging till one sticks. At the end of the day that is Obama's recovery plan. Cash infusions for the banks, fling. Tax increases, thwack. Pork—excuse me, public investment—splat. When we look back years from now, we'll see what stuck.

I think the president, politically, has three big things going for him as
he faces this crisis.

First, legitimacy. Our last two presidents were haunted by the circumstances of their election, and significant swathes of the country never fully accepted them. George W. Bush had the cloud of the 2000 recount, and his loss that year of the popular vote; Bill Clinton won in 1992 with only 43% , in a three-man race in which the other two were, essentially, Republican. But no one doubts Mr. Obama's legitimacy. He won by seven points, with 53%. He's the first president without the illegitimacy cloud since Bush I.

Second, we're in the middle of an emergency. In times like this, Americans want their president to succeed. Politically the crisis works for Mr. Obama.

Third is an unspoken public sense that we cannot afford another failed presidency, that we just got through one and a second would be terrible. Americans know how much good a successful presidency does for us in the world, in the public mind. The last unalloyed, inarguable success was Reagan. We need another. Liberal? Conservative? That, to the great middle of America, would, at the moment, be secondary. They want successful. They want "That worked." They want the foreign visitor to say, "I like your president." They want to respond, "So do I."

But here is an article from the WSJ that Sam would like, it is praising Obama! Plus it highlights something Obama said that I felt was missing from his pseudo State of the Union speech.

"We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime -- and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government -- and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life -- that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."

And one that Sam might not like as much. It challenges the claim that "W" was the worst President in history.

Is Mr. Bush worse than John Adams? When a shooting war at sea started between the United States and revolutionary France in 1798, Honest John wrote a letter to George Washington, offering to resign so that George could resume the job. How's that for presidential leadership? Meanwhile, Adams had kept Washington's cabinet officers on the job, although he loathed them. He finally fired them in a fit of hysteria, which made them wonder if he had lost his mind.

Is Mr. Bush worse than Thomas Jefferson in his second term? Rather than build a decent navy to deal with the British -- who had a habit of boarding American ships on the high seas and forcing kidnapped sailors into semislavery -- Jefferson declared an embargo on all trade with England and the rest of Europe. The American economy came to a horrific standstill; smuggling became New England's chief industry. Someone described the embargo as "cutting a man's throat to cure a nosebleed." Nonplussed, Jefferson quit, telling only James Madison, his secretary of state, who was de facto acting president for the last year of Tom's term.

Read more...

Calling All Rexes

Sports nut that I am, I tune into a smattering of sports talk radio when I am in the car. Dan Patrick is my favorite. Scott Van Pelt (aka Van Peezy) is probably second. Colin Cowherd third (because it rhymes). And Jim Rome is probably fourth on my list. I like them all. Typically, local sports talk guys annoy me and lately, I can hardly stand Mike & Mike in the Morning.

Anyway, so if I'm driving around at lunch, I'll catch a few minutes of the Jim Rome show. This week I got wind of his "Rex" streak. That is, he is on a mission to interview a "Rex" every day. Most notable among the Rexes is Rex Chapman, former NBA player and Kentucky legend.

Well, I thought I would do my part and advertise the Rex campaign. It's the least I can do.

I know that Josh, fellow TTKS author, has a son named Rex. He's not interviewable yet (he's only 5 months old), but if the streak holds on (i.e. if there are enough Rexes in the world to keep the streak alive for a year), then maybe this little Rex can get his 15 minutes of fame before he's 2. I'm sure Jim Rome would be thrilled. The only other Rex I know is the 3 year old son of my friend Will. He could definitely do an interview.

How many Rexes do you know, anyway?

Read more...

Wake Up And Study, It's Already 5 AM!

In a departure from my normal scathing critique of the left-wing policies threatening the survival of our nation, I'd like to highlight (wow I almost said "call out" like everyone else in this tower where I work) an article from Freakonomics. It even starts with a positive Obama anecdote!

I too have just read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and it was thought provoking. Generally I'm an IQ guy in that I believe that if you put 2 people on a job, the person with the higher IQ will figure out a better, more efficient way of accomplishing the task. Plenty of studies have validated the predictive strength of IQ and I believe it is between a .4 and .6 correlation to work performance. (by way of comparison, interviews have about a .1 correlation). The trouble is that there is still a lot unaccounted for in an IQ test, how to get at that data has kept me up at night.

Think about the power of walking into a room of 50 MBA students and being able to select the best 2 for your company? Consider the possibilities if you can walk into a room full of high school students and pull out the 3 or 4 best equipped to handle the work you need for a summer job?

Now you see why this is so exciting to me, selecting the right people for the job has layers and layers of complexity. How about in baseball? Can a team that has a superior method for evaluating people at age 18 able to gain an advantage. Certainly we can see the effects of having an inferior method of evaluating talent (I'm looking at you Pittsburgh and Kansas)

So anyway the question bumping around in my mind. Is it worth having a "daddy school" with your kids, making them spend extra time doing homework/studies starting at a young age? My reason for opposing this type of program is that I fear it will squeeze out any passion for learning that might otherwise develop in my children. Forcing them to study to "make the grade" in my mind ruins the discovery of their passions. I might have a child with a proclivity for academic work, but I also might have a musician, an athlete, an artist, or possibly even a politician (yikes). Rigorous schooling has little value to the aforementioned professions so why steal away their childhood forcing them to do something that won't help them and might even hurt?

Read more...

Tiger is Back!

Sing with me: "I'm so glad that Tiger is back, glad as I can BE! Clap my hands and shout for joy..."

Ok, enough of that.

But, seriously! He's back. And he won his first match today 3 and 2 (if you know what that means you're a total golf dork).

Special thanks to TTKS friend Zar for the link to this commercial. Awesome.



For all you Tiger haters out there, just realize we're watching history and the man is golf's version of Jordan and you might as well appreciate him while he's in his prime.

Read more...

A Not To Do List

Great article in wsj, yada yada I know Sam loves when I start with that lead in. Anyway the most notable thing I missed last night was BHO declaring that we are withdrawing troops from Iraq because we have WON. Everyone cheered about the "drawing down" part, but I think if he would have said, "Scoreboard, we won this one. Thanks to everyone that saw this victory through." It would have been a much more powerful message. We like to win wars, not withdraw from them, and Iraq is a bit of good news in a bad news environment.

So anyway some highlights from a great article.

Put away the global warming panic. Mankind's contribution to rising CO2 levels raises serious questions, but the tens of billions poured into climate science have, by now, added up only to a negative finding. We don't really have the slightest idea how an increase in the atmosphere's component of CO2 is impacting our climate, though the most plausible indication is that the impact is too small to untangle from natural variability.

In any case, has Mr. Obama taken a gander at collapsing industrial production numbers around the world? He's going to get a big reduction in CO2 output whether he wants it or not. Nor will the public be moved to make costly, material changes in its energy habits, especially if the recent global cooling trend continues. What we'll get instead is already depressingly clear: climate pork, or lucrative favors for lobbying interests in the name of global warming that have no impact on global warming.

We come down to a "good, better, best" question. Caring about the climate is good, getting people back into productive jobs is better, fixing the financial crises and reversing the GDP trend is best. He needs that filter working for him.

Put away class warfare tax politics: Only a flatter, less distorting tax code is compatible with the kind of growth needed to get us out of the debt mess without inflation.

We already levy punitive tax rates on bank deposits, at a time when households need to build up savings and banks need deposits. Now Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on small business, on investment, and on the incomes of the most productive job creators. Is he crazy?

Finally a point that should not be lost. He can't keep blaming his predecessors for what happens. He owns this stimulus, he owns the "stress test", he owns what happens going forward.

His will be a fascinating presidency to watch, not least because of his inexperience, his intellectual agility, and the crisis in which he finds himself. But his presidency will get really interesting in a year or two, or six months -- whenever he finally realizes that everything he thought he wanted to do is irrelevant. He'll then have to adapt an agenda for the world as it is, in which many childish things no longer have a place.

And, by the way, he kids himself if he believes he will be allowed, like FDR, to preside over a depression without being politically blamed for it. The public is different now -- the world is different -- and he will own the "Obama depression" sooner than he thinks.

Read more...

Fitna

I have wanted to post this film on our site for a while now, but have been hesitant to do so. But I believe the importance of it goes beyond any sensitivities or head-in-the-sand ignorance that we may be clinging to.

The situation Geert Wilders finds himself in is not unique. In fact, just about any European who publicly questions the motives, or criticizes the fruits of radical Islam has faced a similar fate. That is, the Islamic world has called for Geert Wilders murder.

Which only validates his point.

His criticism came in the form of a simple short film. The film contains no commentary, no opinionated talking heads, no scholars or social workers or theologians. It only contains verses from the Quran, and scenes of news footage that exemplify those verses.

The film is embedded below. Watch it. But be warned, it is not for the faint of heart. There are scenes of graphic death and violence. However, it should be noted that these are not Hollywood style special effects. They are real. And because they are real, I believe are very important to recognize and understand. That is, the threat we face from radical Islam is also very real.

I realize that posting this will garner cries of racism or bigotry from the left. But to that, I only say: 'by their fruits ye shall know them'.

Read more...

Rick Santelli of CNBC Goes Off

I saw this last week and meant to post it. I'm sure a few of you have seen this, but I thought it was still post-worthy. My favorite line: "Reward people that can carry the water, instead of drink the water." Hilarious.

Read more...

Money Problems

The problems these days and under this new administration are likely going to increase regarding the allocation of capital. To wit. We have money from our sign on bonus, we also have money we'll be earning while overseas for the next few months that we want to save. Where could we possibly hope to put it?

In the past that was an easy call, a nice diversified portfolio weighted towards bonds would be fairly secure in the 2-3 year time frame. Not anymore. I can't imagine any scenario that would point to that occurring. As things spiral downward prospects get worse not better. Countries are responding with protectionist moves thereby restraining global trade. Still other countries are wasting money on "green" initiatives and taking punitive actions on companies that produce needed goods. The whole EU is in shambles as countries realize that their own health and prosperity is more important than giving in to the demands of the French (or Germans, or Italians, etc.)

The fact that people like me with money to invest are keeping it on the sidelines only further exacerbates the problem. Companies could use our money to fund their operations, but instead we hold it. We need a leader that can start inspiring hope in the future. That hope will unlock money from the system. Are our current leaders equipped to change their playbook; from using this crisis to get all their pet projects paid for to inspiring a nation to lead the world once again out of a mess?

Read more...

Sports as a Platform

On the other side of the world last week and in a city I would love to visit or live in (Dubai), there was an ugly racial debacle in the women's tennis tournament. The short version is that the only Jewish woman slated to play in the tournament was denied a visa and thus precluded from entering the country and playing. On the surface, a blatant racially charged move on the part of the host country.

ESPN columnist, Jemele Hill, has an affinity for these types of stories. I think she feels that it is part of her mission as a black, lesbian columnist. Fair enough. We all have our agendas. So Hill writes this column and proceeds to call out Venus and Serena Williams for failing to boycott the event in light of the apparent lack of equity.

Venus explains why they opted to play instead of boycott:

"Sponsors are important to us," Venus said. "We wouldn't be here without sponsors and we can't let them down. Whatever we do, we need to do as a team -- players, sponsors, tour and whoever -- and not all break off in one direction. We are team players."

Hill counters:

If playing for a lucrative purse is more important than taking a stand for fairness, Venus needs to re-evaluate her definition of a team player.

If this had been a racial issue, the Williams sisters would never have played in Dubai, and I couldn't imagine Venus' expressing such unabashed loyalty to her sponsors, or even caring what sponsors thought. I'm certain the WTA would have withdrawn and the media coverage worldwide would have been unrelenting.

Ok, so Hill clearly believes that these two black women have the duty to speak up and act out to defy such prejudice from occuring.

But I take exception with how she qualifies it. "If this had been a racial issue..." Um, Jemele, it is. An Arab nation denying a visa to a Jew is an act of racism. Racism isn't just prejudice against blacks.

In driving her point home, Hill says:

I expect more from Venus and Serena because they've experienced discrimination. I'm as disappointed in them as I was with Tiger Woods, who said Augusta National Golf Club had the right to set club rules however it saw fit, even if it meant excluding female members. Woods clearly forgot the club once used that same excuse to prohibit golfers of color from playing there.

I support the notion that someone who has been discriminated against should have compassion on another someone who is discriminated. But c'mon, that Tiger Woods situation is TOTALLY different. Jemele, your argument loses value when you make lame comparisons.

True, Augusta should have opened its doors to males of any race a long time ago. That's a travesty. But are you kidding me? You're baggin' on Tiger for not stating that Augusta National needs to admit female members? Really? Why is it not acceptable in this world to have a men only club? That's like campaigning to have your daughter admitted into the local Boy Scout troop. Just drop it already. So, Augusta National wants to be a male only golf club. Tiger's right, they have the right to set club rules how they want. Calling that 'discrimination' in the negative racial or gender connotation is just mind boggling to me. Golf clubs are not countries.

Despite her awful approach to calling out the Williams sisters, Hill does bring up an interesting argument about how vocal stars should be in their respective sphere and how vocal once-discriminated stars ought to be in future acts of discrimination or prejudice.

When you're a leader of your sport, you bear a different responsibility.

Does Michael Jordan do more to move along the cause of equality by NOT speaking up every time there is discrimination than does, say, Reverends Sharpton or Jackson, who find their way to the camera EVERY time there is an issue? Maybe His Airness cannot be credited with much (if any) of the progress that's been made since the early 80s when he came on the scene.

But I would take his impact over the Reverends' any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Read more...

Just Parrotting the Bush Administration

What happens when one of the core criticisms of Bush can also become a failing of Obama? Let's just wait and see.

A Pentagon review of conditions at the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions but that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more religious and social interaction, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.

The report, which President Obama ordered, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House. Obama requested the review as part of an executive order on the planned closure of the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, on the southeastern tip of Cuba.

Consistency alert in 3...2...1

Read more...

New Movie Alert

The Uncler w/ Uncle Sam and Alyssa Milano from Alyssa Milano

This one looks hot and timely!

Read more...

TTKS Links of the Week

Not sure why this is so funny, but it is.



Here's a breakdown of of Rep. Pelosi's trip to Italy from the Catholic news agency: landing at an air force base (at the taxpayer's expense), meeting with the President of the Italian State (elected figurehead), President of the Government, President of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Defense, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Oh yeah. And the Pope. Why, exactly, does our House Speaker need to be on this trip?

Finding life on other planets? Thanks to the UK's Times Online for passing along this article about our budding potential to find at least theoretical evidence of life on other planets. From the article:

[The] expectation was that 85 per cent of Sun-like stars had one Earth-like planet, and that some could have many more. Given that there are 100 billion Sun-like stars in the galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, there may be 10 billion trillion planets that are good candidates for life. That is a one followed by 22 noughts. (For those of you who don't speak the King's English, a nought is a zero.)

ACORN is staking claim on foreclosed homes. By force. Glad we just gave them billions.

An American Muslim who founded a TV station dedicated to quelling stereotypes about Muslims, cut off his wife's head when she filed for divorce. In the United States we call that murder. But in the man's native Pakistan it known as an honor killing. Stereotypes? What stereotypes?

Are you a tree hugger? You might want to reconsider. Especially given the EPA's new assault on carbon dioxide. What's next? Are they going to tax and limit our breathe? Or maybe just limit when and how long we can exercise?

The Death of the Free press.

This generation's NBA has seen a classier set of stars in the opinion of many. ESPN's Ric Bucher thinks it's due to the much-complained-of dress code. Interesting read.

Thoughts on the new mortgage entitlement program.

A mileage tax? Fan.Tas.Tic. This would be an amazing intrusion of our privacy, and a crippling blow to people who rely on travel as part of their livelihood.

An Oklahoma man was pulled over by a police officer, and then had his home searched by the Secret Service. Why? He had an anti-Obama sticker on his car. Seriously.

Protesters voice their opinion about the Redistribution Reinvestment Act. Who says conservatives are not funny?

A Nation of Cowards?

This is from August, but I found it relevant. A 9 year old kid was banned from his little league for being too good. Yeah. Too good. So the whiny parents hijacked the league and barred him from pitching.

I must have played in one of the best little leagues in history. We had several kids grow up to play college and professional baseball. One of the guys I played against now pitches for the Detroit Tigers. Did we try and kick these players out of the league, or bar them from pitching because we could not hit them? No. We dug in and took our hacks.

Officials for the three-year-old league, which has eight teams and about 100 players, said they will disband Jericho's team, redistributing its players among other squads, and offered to refund $50 sign-up fees to anyone who asks for it. They say Jericho's coach, Wilfred Vidro, has resigned.

Sound familiar? It ought to.

And speaking of baseball, I am starting to get baseball fever again. So, in honor of the Boys of Summer I thought I'd share one of my favorite baseball highlights of all time. (Sadly, MLB has purged the video from the internet) Jeff Brantley is calling a Red's game, it's the bottom of the ninth inning. J.B. is in the midst of lecturing the audience how un-clutch Edwin Encarnacion is when this happens:

TB: "See that's the problem when you ask a guy who has never bunted..."
JB: "Take him out of the game!"
TB: "Well..."
JB: "If he can't bunt, take him out of the game..."
TB: "If you believe in the bunt in this situation..."
(zoom in on Dusty Baker)
JB: "You're at home, you have to tie the game..."
TB: "But again, that's a by-the-book kind of thing. I don't know if there's anyone on that bench you're gonna bring in... for Encarnacion."
JB: "This guy is NOT a clutch hitter. He is not a clutch hitter."
TB: "Well his numbers... would be contrary to that."
JB: "He is not a clutch player."
TB: "2-2 pitch..."
(Encarnacion hits a 3-run walk-off home run)

Terry Moran said the following:

In some ways Barack Obama is the first president since George Washington to be taking a step down into the oval office. From visionary leader of a giant movement, now he's got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way, and I think the coverage reflects that.

Um. OK.


And just because Julio is so amazingly awesome:




The Alex Roidriguez web of lies continues to grow. Sources now say he was involved with one of the most notorious known steroid trainers. During the Yankee years too. Oh boy.

Read more...

Miller Time

For those interested in a colorful Miller video (language warning), this one is a great commentary on the Iraq War from 4 years ago. Don't post comments about how you were watching this with your 5 year old and the language scarred them for life.

Read more...

Well Said, Mr. President

Yes, that title is sincere. Well said. As in I agree. As in I'm not throwing up in my mouth. As in I'm not afraid for the future. As in I genuinely like what the President's thinking. In this instance.

As the Washington Times reports, said President Obama regarding public school teachers:

"[W]e're also going to need more reform, which means that we've got to train teachers more effectively; bad teachers need to be fired after being given the opportunity to train effectively," he said, adding that "we should experiment with things like charter schools that are innovating in the classroom, [and] we should have high standards."

Most of us have memories of that one teacher who reached us. The teacher who was still passionate about teaching after all these years. The teacher who made a difference, who believed she could do so with any student, and so who succeeded at doing so more often than not. These teachers probably had several students who claim them as "their teacher."

Many of us also have memories of walking by that teacher's lounge with cigarette smoke leaking out the door to see the tired, worn out, beaten-into-submission, tenured teachers in there riding out the clock in the classroom until retirement grants them final respite.

The frustration is that teachers' unions represent one of the most powerful voting caucuses in the Democratic party, and President Obama just fired a warning shot across their bow. Good man.

Newt responded,

"If the president would back up his press conference words with a real step like that, he would force Republicans to join the dialogue."

I love it. I think that the President is off base on a LOT of his platforms, but I wish him success at education reform.

As an aside, I'd like to especially thank South Hills High School teacher Francis Wagner for being "that teacher" to me.

Read more...

Here's what I think:

There was a great article today in the Wall Street... SIKE! I won't be leaning on any snappy opinion columns from the wsj today. Sorry. And though I love the wsj and read it daily I hereby vow to no longer use it as a source for my posts as it is cited in many, many posts on this blog.

As an endowed member of the Church of Obama, I thought I'd give you an authoritative opinion on The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly referred to as 'the stimulus bill.'

I have had strong reservations about this bill. One big reason is that I believe a lot of what is in the bill is not remotely directed toward any kind of stimulus or jumpstart for the economy. But I've mulled it over the last couple weeks and here's what I think:

We are a fast-paced, short-term, band-aid society. Our businesses are driven by short-term results which, in many cases, compromise their longevity. Our bodies absorb a continual stream of short-term stimulants like Red Bull or Starbucks or cigarettes which may compromise our health and longevity as well.

Although I don't agree with some of the President's rhetoric that has surrounded this stimulus package or some of the spending in it I believe that yelling 'fire' is the only way to get anything done around here. We know our public schools suck but we'd never pour an additional $53 billion into them if there wasn't some kind of catastrophe (ya know, like if we were falling behind other industrialized nations in math and science or something crazy like that).

We know our health care system is broken but until the average family absolutely cannot afford to go to the doctor, we won't do anything about it. I know that the math just doesn't work for me to see any social security benefits when I retire but that too can wait until the program is on the verge of utter collapse before we address it.

So while a lot of this bill is not going to be realized as a stimulant to the economy I believe it is directed toward the right issues; the right issues that would never get the needed funding otherwise. Obama has burnt a lot of political capital on this and he'll go down with it if the economy doesn't soar in his first term. But I can't tell you how happy I am to have a little less of my taxes going toward an elective war and a little more going toward dilapidated schools.

Track how your money is being spent at recovery.gov.

Read more...

MBA Earnings Evaluation

I came across a really interesting report from BusinessWeek about MBA pay from the top 45 schools and showing the average pay at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years out, as well as a career estimate. I have been admitted to a couple schools now and intend to enroll this Fall, so this is of particular interest to me. B School is all the rage in this economy, making for the most competitive year in history.

But the report addresses the interesting question: How much impact does school choice have on career earnings?

And it lends some insight into the key question: Can you justify the required debt that will be incurred in the process?

New research commissioned by BusinessWeek suggests that when it comes to the post-MBA earnings accrued by graduates of top business schools over the span of their careers, not all schools are created equal. Some schools that start out strong with six-figure salaries sometimes sputter and stall, leaving grads with less-than-impressive salaries after 20 years in the workforce. And some schools where grads earn modest salaries out of the gate end up with the strongest of finishes, in some cases doubling their cash compensation after 20 years and overtaking better-ranked rivals.

You can see the interactive rankings of the earnings data here.

The data isn't perfect, of course. Averages and medians don't fully explain the large spectrum in MBA pay. But it does tell me a lot. If I had the luxury of choosing between Harvard and Duke, for example (and I don't, btw), there is an estimated difference in $1M in career earnings. Duke may offer a scholarship, or better cost of living, but even if the savings is $100k up front, the average lost earnings in this scenario would be around $900k. Looks like that extra cost for Harvard is well-justified.

The article explains:

Another complicating factor is cost. The top-ranked MBA programs have tuition and living expenses that can top $150,000 and after factoring in two years of forgone salary the total price tag can easily exceed $300,000. At big state institutions the cost might be half that amount or less. Is the more expensive program a great investment, or money down the drain?

Matt Wilson, 31, is in the "money down the drain" school. He turned down Chicago Booth, the top-ranked full-time MBA program in BusinessWeek's 2008 ranking, to attend No. 15 Indiana, at least in part because it was cheaper. Wilson, now a marketing manager for the tool division at Danaher (DHR), wasn't disappointed: He was fielding four different job offers before he graduated in May. "Is my starting salary [$10,000] less than it would have been at Harvard? Probably," says Wilson, adding "I probably saved [$50,000] over the two years."

Maybe so, but it may cost you in other ways. The founder of Doostang, an invitation-only career networking site for young professionals, and himself a graduate of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Mareza Larizadeh says a degree from the big three—Harvard, Wharton, or Stanford—opens doors that may be closed to grads of lesser-known schools. "As a recruiter from Goldman Sachs once told us, 'I'll never be upset at receiving a résumé from a Harvard MBA, even if it isn't a good fit for the position which they are applying for. It will be very useful to me for other positions or future positions that may open up.'"

So Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton provide opportunities long after the initial luster of the MBA has worn off. While those three schools certainly carry the strongest brands globally, I think you can make a similar case for many of the top 15 schools.

Using Duke for another comparison, let's look at Duke vs. Washington (my hometown U). Estimated career earnings out of Duke are $700k higher than they are out of UW. I would certainly save money up front with home cooking and low tuition costs, but can I really afford to pass up that career earning potential? I say no. I would spend an additional $100k to get $700k spread over my career.

By no means is this an exhaustive analysis (we're missing important factors like school location and culture, career placement and location, alumni network, career goals and personal preferences), but it is very telling from a financial perspective, or "return on investment" (ROI) perspective.

The BusinessWeek report.

Read more...

Name That Quote #1

A feature that I would like to implement on a weekly basis is what I am calling "Name That Quote". I will post a quote, and you, our readers (and fellow authors) can take a crack at who said it. Quotes may come from any source, and have to do with politics, sports, current events, pop culture... whatever. I will try not to get too obscure.

Here is how to play:

1. Read the quote.
2. Guess who said it.
3. Write your answer in the comment section.
4. NO GOOGLE or other outside help.

I will post the answer via a post edit after a few hours. Easy enough?

So, here is the first TTKS "Name That Quote":

We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism... Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent... In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive.

Who said it?

EDIT:

Alright, time to answer the question. (In future posts, I will most likely do a multiple choice format, rather than just have everyone try and pull it out of thin air)

Some of you were on the right track. The statement sounds like vintage Reagan or Mitt Romney right? Perhaps Thomas Sowell? Wrong. A former Soviet someone? Well, actually, yes. The quote comes from a very long, but interesting speech given at the World Economic Forum late in January 2009 by none other than former KGB thug, and Russian president:

Vladimir Putin.

How bizarre are these times, that Vladimir Putin, the narcissist strong man that seems to be trying to rekindle the hard Communism of the Soviet Union is lecturing the United States about the dangers and shortcomings of too much state involvement in a free market economic system?

The world has turned upside down.

Read the whole speech here.

Read more...

Ethics??!?!?!

Is anyone else yearning for the ethics problems of yesteryear? Sheesh it seems like the theme of this administration seems to be, "We all have ethics problems!"

Article on Rahm

NEWS broke last week that Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, lived rent- free for years in the home of Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-Conn.) - and failed to disclose the gift, as congressional ethics rules mandate. But this is only the tip of Emanuel's previously undislosed ethics problems.

Read more...

Picture of the Day

Borders Bookstore. Dallas, TX.

I think this must be the result of either:

1. There is a prankster working at this Borders, poking fun at the Obama cult or,
2. An employee is a true believer, just doing his part to spread the gospel of Obama.

Either way, it is hilarious. If a little disturbing. Especially given the display is in the children's section.

h/t Texas Rainmaker.

Read more...

Quote of the Day

"The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all."

~Richard Weaver, 1962

Read more...

The President's Rhetoric

This article from the WSJ raised a different critique of how the President is handling the stimulus, and it begs the question: where are the politics of hope?

The President's ability, unique among all other political leaders in the nation, to be a lone voice of policy and to so capture the public attention gives the office an enormous power to frame the issues and the debate. The article points to how the President's rhetoric in pushing for Congressional support of the stimulus paints the current economic crisis as the worst since the Great Depression.

The basic formula for President Obama's pleas is, "If we don't pass this stimulus right now, the next Great Depression will come."

I'm not a fan, especially since the average consumer's ability to spend hasn't changed too much, and his or her desire to do so is based largely on their outlook for the future. Barack ran a masterful campaign full of positive imagery and inspiring messages.

Although they were a bit lofty and dangerously vague and misleading for my taste, I can't deny the man's ability to move a room, though he does tend to fare better in a room already prone to love him. I'd love to see him change his tone from "If we don't pass this stimulus now, the Greater Depression will come," to:

"We can get out of this. We will get out of this. Hang in there. Have faith in America's innovation, its ability to push beyond temporary difficulties. Though for many of us these times have brought and will continue to bring hardship that seems impossible to bear. The rest of us need to pick up the slack and find ways to support those in need. In the meantime, we feel that this stimulus package is the best shot we have to help right the economic ship while leaving behind a footprint of valuable programs [aside: I personally argue with that notion, but that's at least what he's trying to argue] to benefit an America struggling and an America prosperous."

Anyway, I call on the President to see through his campaign of inspiration. I didn't vote for you, Barack, but I'm waiting to be inspired.

[Read the article for some of the key facts around which the President may be slightly guilty of hyperbole, and the economic reasons why this is counterproductive though there may be a political upside. Okay, really guilty of hyperbole. Also, I caught an article last week but can't find it that discussed how, in one of many instances where Dubya just couldn't win, he attempted early in his presidency to paint how much trouble our economy was in post-9/11 and was accused of fear-mongering, and while afterward when he responded with unrelenting optimism he was accused of ignoring the 'horrible truth,' but I can't find it. Anyone catch that article and can post a link to it?]

Read more...

A CFO's Take On the Right Stimulus Approach

I had an interesting conversation with my boss on Friday afternoon, and I've been mulling it over ever since. We were talking about different approaches to stimulating the economy and his was a pretty radical idea, but very intriguing, so I thought I'd share it and generate some dialogue here.

Disclaimer: I'll write it in first person because it's a lot easier that way, but again, the majority of this is his idea, and I am not trying to take credit for it.

If I were in charge, I would approach the Fortune 500 with the following proposal: You will get a guaranteed line of credit from the government to continue to make strategic investments and grow your business. As long as you have a balance on this credit line, the following rules apply: you cannot lay anyone off, you cannot raise prices, and you cannot pay your CEO more than $500k. Once you pay off the loan, those strings disappear and you are free to lay off employees, raise prices, and pay executives what you want. No one is forced to take the loan, it's just an offer on the table for any of the F500 to take or leave. If necessary, this offer could be extended to companies outside the F500, but this is a good place to start.

The primary benefits of this model are: first, businesses would continue to have credit available to make investments necessary for growth, second, this puts the stimulus money in the hands of those who create jobs and generate wealth, and third, employees of companies that take the loan would have the confidence to continue spending because they would feel secure in having their job as long as their company used the government credit line, assuming it would take more than a year to pay back loans of this magnitude, which is a reasonable assumption.

Consumer spending is arguably the most important aspect of the macroeconomy and inasmuch as the Fortune 500s need the credit line (and they do), they will dip into it and indirectly facilitate a steadier flow of consumer spending. Consumption smoothing is a sound economic principle.

Companies that take the loan offer will have the incentives to pay the loan back as quickly as possible so they have the flexibility to change their workforce size or executive pay or raise prices. Proper incentives are always a good thing while handouts and bailouts are not.

A note on executive pay (and this is Bitner speaking now): I am an absolute proponent of paying executives whatever is necessary to drive strong results. If that means $200 million with a Jet and all kinds of other perks, so be it. However, I believe that weak results should mean far less income for those executives. It is asinine to pay someone $200M when the company has a net loss for the year. If you are running a company that is in need of a government loan to make it through a rough economic climate, well, then as long as your company is in need of the loan, your pay should reflect that. That's strong incentive to restore profitability and pay down the loan. If you feel that doesn't give the companies ample leeway to attract the top executive talent, then backload the executive compensation deal to reward them handsomely for strong profits. Like the incentive-laden contract for an athlete, this would be the perfect carrot for the executives to deliver in the clutch.


But back to the CFO's idea. Our current grubby-handed political structure almost unilaterally precludes this idea from being implemented efficiently and as described. But, on its merits, I think this radical idea has some real potential in providing the stimulus that the economy needs without a rash of wasteful spending and massive layoffs.

Read more...

Biking to Build Schools

6 months. 6,000 miles. These people are crazy! I've been following their blog since they started this trek from the southern-most tip of Argentina. They are heading to Asuncion, Paraguay to raise awareness and funding for dilapidated Paraguayan schools. Having lived there for two years as an LDS missionary, I can vouch for the fact that their rural school systems boast one of the highest drop out rates in the world and the few students that finish receive a dismal education.

I highly recommend following their journey. For me, riding this route would be a 'Bucket List' or 'Last Holiday' adventure that I would consider doing if I found out I was terminally ill, didn't have a family and only had 6 months to live. But given my good fortunes of lacking both those criteria, I'll sit back, support them, cheer for them and read about the adventures of these two brave souls. Go, Joel and Karen! Jahapy!!!

You can donate to this project here.

Read more...

Special Day Part II

Pitchers and catchers report today. And if you're a fan that lives and dies by their pitchers, it is a truly special day. (Did I just undo all the good from my last post?) Here is something someone said on the baseball blog I follow, it captures my feelings well.

I look outside my window this morning, and I see flowers blooming, birds gliding above rooftops, commuters whistling cheery tunes. The aroma of coffee curls through the cubicle corridors, which somehow feel warmer and more welcoming today. I open an email entitled "Vertical strat flow mtg", and rather than racing to the bathroom to throw up and question my life path, I smile and type out a pleasant, jargon-peppered response.

The whole world is born anew. Thanks, baseball.

Read more...

Weekly Links

Charles Platt from the New York Post goes undercover to figure out the love/hate relationship with Wal-mart.

Seattle Mariners are looking to bring back a beloved son, Ken Griffey, Jr. As a home-grown Seattle fan, please bless it happens. We need something warm and fuzzy to hold on to after the last couple years of pain and anguish. The one great, clean player of this generation, ladies and gentlemen Ken Griffey, Jr.!!!!!!!


Daniel Henninger at WSJ explains how stimulus should work and whether the details are really important.


Sam posted on the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, but we failed to sing happy birthday to Charles Darwin who was born February 12, 1809, the same day as Honest Abe. Here's a good, quick read on Charles in the NY Times.

Andrew C. MacCarthy looks at how the UK is falling over itself to deny Geert Wilders (director of Fitna) a voice, as it appeases terrorists:

Fitna runs about 15 minutes long. It depicts a phenomenon familiar to Britons who witnessed July 7 and Americans who lived through September 11: The faithful rendition of verses from the Koran, often recited by influential Islamic clerics, followed by acts of terrorism committed by Muslim militants who profess that they are simply putting those scriptures into action. To be sure, this is not the dominant interpretation among the world’s billion-plus Muslims, most of whom do not so much interpret their creed as ignore those parts that would otherwise trouble them. But to deny that Fitna reflects an intellectually consistent construction of Islam, adhered to by an energetic minority, is to deny reality.

From Chris: Sometimes it's a matter of pride to be from California. Other times, not so much. Stay classy, Senator Feinstein.

Here's an update on Justice Ginsberg's cancer. The nomination of Supreme Court justices may be a President's biggest, yet least-talked-about power.

The president of the Heritage Foundation here writes an open letter to the Administration on the stimulus. The question asked that might not be asked often enough is why such potentially sweeping institutional reforms are part of a hasty spending package and not subject to much debate?

Text of VP Biden's speech at the Munich Security Conference. This was the first major articulation of the new Administration's foreign policy. Some call it weak and vague. Anyone else's take?

Read more...

Happy Valentine's Day

I got this in my email today from Patrick Lencioni, one of the few pop-business writers that I like, and I thought I'd pass it on.

Simple Wisdom POV: Love is a Verb

It amazes me how the simplest of truths are so easily forgotten, and how much pain in life is a result of that forgetting. One of the primary examples of this is the concept of love.

One of the worst misconceptions that people have about love, especially but not limited to that between a man and a woman, is that it is a function of feelings. Movies, television shows, celebrity magazines and the like promote this notion that attraction and love are the same, and that they should be entertained for as long as the feelings persist. The result of this, of course, is that too many worthwhile relationships end unnecessarily, replaced by new ones that again run their course when the feelings subside.

I recently saw a commercial for a new television show called Cupid, which is supposedly about finding real love. In the commercial, the main character who claims to be cupid explains that “love is heat, chemistry, sex!” And he is the protagonist on the show, the voice of modern wisdom and passion.

I use this example only because it is the most recent one I have seen and was so specific. But it wouldn’t take long to find a hundred other examples, just as egregious ones, by watching the trailers at your local cineplex or by glancing at the magazines in your grocery store check-out line.

What is tragic about this prevailing idea of love is that it actually influences so many people’s lives, and in profound, costly ways. The frequency of divorce and the percentage of our children who are living without one of their parents have reached epic proportions, not seen before in society. While people can speculate about the long-term impact this will have on those children and on society in general, it is almost impossible not to trace its cause back to the shallow, feeling-based definition of love. It still confounds me that people actually buy into it!

But true love is more about the actions we take and the decisions we make than it is about the feelings we have. That’s not to say that feelings don’t have a role in love, but that’s certainly not the most important or prevalent element involved.

I’ve learned this in my own family. I know that I’m not exhibiting the highest order of love for my wife when she looks her best on a romantic evening and I’m remembering how attracted I’ve been to her since college. It’s when she’s throwing up or looking scraggily or when she’s mad at me and the last thing I feel like doing is loving her. That’s when real love kicks in and I choose to love her.

And I don’t change my son’s diaper because I feel like it, or because I find him cute. I do it because it is what is best for him, and I’m committed to him. And I’m pretty sure that at least one of my boys will do something someday, maybe tomorrow, that will push me to the point of temporarily losing my feelings of affection for him, and that is when real love will override my feelings and he will know what it means to be loved.

Those who wait for their feelings to inspire them to love will certainly find themselves in temporary and fleeting relationships, with friends, spouses and children. And they will leave a trail of scarred and hurt people behind them.

Now, in spite of this grave and prevalent misunderstanding about love, people still seem to appreciate the real thing when they see it, even if they don’t understand it. Whenever someone celebrates a 50th wedding anniversary, everyone reacts with admiration and approval. Some will say “I guess they were meant to be,” or “how lucky they are to have found the right person.” What they don’t realize is that those who thrive and survive for fifty or more years merely understand that love is not a noun. It is a verb. It’s not something you feel or that exists independent of the people involved, but rather something you do. Especially when you don’t feel like it. Happy St. Valentines Day.

I'm fortunate to have a fantastic wife and a great son. Both of them have been on and off sick the past 2 weeks. Nothing has evoked more feelings of love then taking care of them in their times of need. I'm also eagerly looking forward to our second being born this August. (Yes that is an announcement)

Read more...

Joaquin? Is that you?

Slow. Motion. Train wreck.

Read more...

Nothing Like It...

Amidst the turmoil and debate of today's politics, there's nothing like the raw testosterone of tremendous athletes dunking a basketball....



From ESPN.com.

Read more...

Handpicking Genes

It was only a matter of time. We knew that some day parents would be able to go to a lab and select from a menu of traits to 'design' their child.

That time is imminent.

On the one hand, it seems full of pure, noble intent to prevent a child from suffering a genetic disease or a dibilitating birth defect. Having two children of my own, I can attest to the worry and fear that comes with pregnancy and delivery in terms of praying for a healthy child. So from that standpoint, it seems like a godsend to be able to eliminate that worry by removing the defective genes from the pool.

On the other hand, what the heck are we thinking?! Aren't we messing with "God's Plan" by handpicking only the traits we want? Aren't we playing God and Creator at that point? True male and female have procreative powers, but never before have they had real control over the 'outcome,' whether that outcome is gender or hair color or athletic ability or any other human trait.

What's ethical here? Should there be any restriction at all to what the 'menu' contains when parents arrive at the child design lab?

Read more...

The Bicentennial of Lincoln

February 12, 2009. 200 years of Lincoln. With the quagmire inside the Beltway right now I found it very refreshing to step back and spend some time on http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov/.

Looking back at the conditions under which Lincoln governed puts things into perspective real fast. It makes the current economic debacle look quite insignificant.

The outcome of our civil war is really incredible. As a general rule, nations do not come out of a civil war as a 'more perfect union.' But that is exactly what we have here.

This simultaneous reading of the Gettysburg Address struck me as some weird ouija board-esque communion with Mr. Lincoln but I think it is appropriate to reflect on that great piece of American literature some time today and get a sense of where we fit into this anomalous nation.

Read more...

Civil Unions in Utah

This week Utah Governor Jon Hunstman Jr. made a statement affirming his support for civil unions. With a few initiatives related to the topic of civil unions slated for the 2009 General Session of the State Legislature, its created a bit of stir.

Governor Hunstman isn’t exactly your textbook conservative, so to some this may not come as a surprise to some. However, due to its timing (we just re-elected the guy), he’s pissed a few people off. He was silent during Prop 8 and made no mention of his affirmation for civil unions. It doesn’t matter now, he’s positioning himself to play on the national stage, and is among the crowd of Republicans who believe the party needs to embrace a more moderate social agenda.

So what’s the big deal? Let homosexual couples enjoy a few (but not all) of the rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy. Slam dunk. Everybody’s happy. It seems innocent enough. But this issue isn’t just bestowing rights on the sweet lesbian couple that lives down the street. This spells fundamental changes to the basic structure of society. It redefines relationships, what gender is, how children should be raised, and what is taught in schools about societal/relationship behavior.

I don’t mean to resurrect the Prop 8 discussion we had going a while back. But in my mind this issue of civil unions is a different discussion. Arguably, civil unions are a slippery slope. Here's how it goes: Once a state allows a civil union to exist and grants a few harmless rights to homosexual couples, all it takes is a vote to open the door to every right enjoyed by the Traditional Marriage crowd. The next argument is that since they are substantially similar, let’s just call it marriage.

This is going to be an interesting issue to follow. Seventy percent of Utahns oppose gay marriage. Utah is also the home of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which came under serious scrutiny from some for its involvement during the Prop 8 hysteria in California. So far I haven’t seen a statement from the Church regarding Governor Huntsman’s remarks, and I probably wouldn’t expect one until a more serious debate surfaces. During Prop 8 the Church issued a few statements stating that the Church is not “anti-gay” nor does it have any issues with granting certain rights to gay couples including hospitalization rights, fair housing, employment, and/or probate rights. The Church also stated that it does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships that extend these rights to gay couples.

From what I gather, Governor Hunstman is a supporter of traditional marriage, but believes a domestic union extending a few rights to gay couples is appropriate. Is this a slippery slope? At the state level? The national level? I say yes, but you call it.

Read more...

A Good Start

Obama has been tossing around words like "crisis" and "catastrophe", and even "economic 9/11" (are you kidding?) to describe the current recession. His fear mongering is ridiculous. Especially given the fact that he has yet to ever utter one word of explanation on how exactly the massive spending bill will help the economy.

Only that we must do it. Now. Or else!

The real catastrophe is the decades of dependency that this act of theft will cause. Like the New Deal and The Great Society, we will be paying for this unabashed power grab for generations.

But, to quote Obama, the Generational Theft Act is merely "a good start".

Some other good starts to the coming disaster that will be known as the Obama Years:

Boy Genius and tax cheat Tim Geithner proposed another 2 Trillion dollars of spending today. He was laughed at. And then the market plummeted.

The bumbling idiot known as Barney Frank is ready to cap the salaries of CEOs of every American company. Not just those who accepted bailout funds. But all the rest as well. And why not? The government already imposes a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage as well? Hell, why not determine the wages of every American worker?

John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) has declared that individuals are not smart enough to invest their own money. He bemoaned the fact that tax cuts allow people to "freely invest" in what ever they want, instead of what the government deems important. Soft dictatorship anyone?

Barack Obama is ready to lift sanctions against Syria. Why? Only The One can know for certain.

Chuck Shumer admitted to the stimulus being filled with "porky" amendments. But doesn't think you care. Polls would suggest otherwise.

Obama is taking control of the census. Why? Ask ACORN.

Harry Reid blocked an amendment to the stimulus bill that would require citizenship verification in order to receive stimulus benefits. The amendment passed the House 407-2. But Reid blocked it in the Senate. Apparently illegal immigrants living off the American tax payer is a good thing.

President Obama recently said "We've got to recognize that if you're going to reward people for success, you've also got to punish them for failure and that hasn't been happening.” Since when was it the job of our elected officials to decide what constitutes success and failure? And since when were our elected officials charged with dolling out rewards and punishments for such? Is he Barack Obama or Benito Mussolini?

Obama also gave the most long winded press conference in the history of mankind. And yet, he managed to not answer one single question. He did however, display unbelievable ignorance about economic history.

And in the meantime a truly laugh out loud moment occurred at the Obama Spirit Rally. A rapturous middle aged woman could not hold back her undying devotion for Dear Leader. As Obama was busy promising a woman a free house, this weak kneed fan, in a teenager-at-an-Elvis-concert moment admitted, just louder than a whisper, "I love you Barack".

I have to ask:

At what point does the wonder and awe of electing a black man to the White House start to wear off? At what point do the American people realize that affirmative action has actually given rise to a neophyte Marxist that has never once in his life ever lead? Has never been held accountable. Has never made important and difficult choices. Has. Never.

Thomas Jefferson had some very relevant words of warning about the prosperity killing dependency of a welfare state.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned — this is the sum of good government. The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

If individual freedom is the sum of a good government, then 2 trillion must be the sum of a terrible, incompetent, prosperity sapping one. More here.

Obama seems to realize this. He stated at his Florida Spirit Rally that: "If stuff hasn’t worked, if people don’t feel like I’ve led the country in the right direction then you’ll have a new president."

One can only: Hope.

Read more...

Dow 5000

A couple weeks ago the question was posed about the Dow sinking to 5000. My own thoughts on this have gone through a couple of somersaults as I've watched the market gyrate with the news. Let me start by saying I am an efficient market guy. I don't think a normal, intelligent person who devotes less than 40 hours a week to studying the market can consistently "beat" the market. I also don't think most people that devote more than 40 hours can consistently beat the market anymore than someone can consistently "win" a coin flipping contest.

Imagine if you will a room full of 10,000 people. Each person is asked to flip a coin with the person standing next to them and call out "heads" or "tails". The winner of the 2 goes on to play the winner of the 2 people standing next to them. Eventually after this plays out you will have one person emerging victorious. Having won many games (someone better equipped at mathematics can solve for the 2^x) that person will be thought of as a coin flipping wizard right? We will all ask him his strategy and he will come up with something like, "Well I looked at what it was when it was flipped and I chose the opposite".

Aha, a contrarian flipper, in the next contest many will try that contrarian approach, and fail. The winner will be asked his strategy and he will say, "Well, I just alternated heads and tails each match." And the dance will continue each contest as people look for the winning strategy.

It is just random luck. Sorry to burst the bubble of the coin flipping savant. Now for the stock market. Imagine a roulette wheel. On this roulette wheel you have instead of numbers percentages. +1%, -3%, +5%, etc. There are lots of +1% and +.5% and -.5% squares. Those represent normal course of events, "Company signs new partner, +1%!" "Company loses lease on store in mall, -2%." There are a few slots with +10%, "Company wins lawsuit!" and a few with -10% "CFO under investigation for fraud."

When you invest in a company you are putting money on that roulette wheel. All the wheels will look slightly different (riskier companies will have more +5% and -5% slots). But the point is that where that ball falls at the end of the day is a random walk. Some people will be very good at flipping coins and likewise very good at having that ball land on the + squares for a time. In fact just like that coin flipper that won many rounds of coin flipping in a row, some investors will seemingly beat the market several years in a row. They have a system!

When someone asks me if the Dow will dip down to 5000, my answer is that there certainly is a square for the overall market that reads -20%. We've been landing on that one a lot lately. The current wheel that we have is one of those risky wheels with likely more negative than positive squares. Yesterday we saw the ball land on the -5% square when the Treasury Secretary bombed his first appearance (I'm glad we rushed him through the congressional approval process!). My guess is that with all the talk about government control over private enterprise and the huge spending initiatives we are sitting on a new roulette wheel. This one has a lot of negative squares. I will be moving money into bonds as companies will not be allowed to have a lot of profits in this environment but also won't be able to fail. LQD for a safe 7% yield, HYG for a 9% yield and JNK for a 16% yield.

I want off the equity roulette wheel.

Read more...

Economists all Agree!

Obama enjoyed invoking the opinion of all economists supporting his stimulus last night. Only Republicans seemed to disagree. Yet today we have an article in the WSJ seemingly disagreeing with the "stimulus" bill. That's unpossible.

So our conclusion is that the net stimulus to short-term GDP will not be zero, and will be positive, but the stimulus is likely to be modest in magnitude. Some economists have assumed that every $1 billion spent by the government through the stimulus package would raise short-term GDP by $1.5 billion. Or, in economics jargon, that the multiplier is 1.5.

That seems too optimistic given the nature of the spending programs being proposed. We believe a multiplier well below one seems much more likely.

Well, at least it will be a temporary boost and once we're through this "catastrophe" everything will head back to status quo ante.

The evidence of past expansions of government programs is just the opposite. Once created they tend to survive and grow over time, even when the increases initially were said to be temporary. The underlying reason for this is that interest groups develop around new and expanded programs, and they lobby to keep and expand those programs.

This implies that the spending programs in the stimulus package will continue to some extent after the economy has returned to full employment. The multiplier at that time will surely be much closer to zero. Looking several years ahead, then, the average stimulus from the expansion in government spending will be smaller, perhaps much smaller, than the short-term stimulus.

This seems to be not the sort of stimulus bill that I knew. Stimulus bills are supposed to be free lunches, like the one last year when everyone got checks in the mail so they could spend an "STIMULATE" the economy. Oh things have just gotten worse since then? We better keep digging, eventually we'll get out of this hole.

Our own view is that the short-term stimulus from the legislation before Congress will be smaller per dollar spent than is expected by many others because the package tries to combine short-term stimulus with long-term benefits to the economy. Unfortunately, short-term and long-term gains are in considerable conflict with each other. Moreover, it is very hard to spend wisely large sums in short periods of time. Nor can one ever forget that spending is not free, and ultimately it has to be financed by higher taxes.

Read more...

Stimulus?

The more I look into the "stimulus" bill, the more it smells.

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).

And my favorite part:

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

h/t: MM

Read more...

Get Minty on Your Finances

So my wife and I recently had a conversation about taking a little better care of our hard earned coin. And in times such as these, its time to keep score on where our money goes. The problem with budgeting for me is its like trying to diet by counting calories--it totally sucks. Its incredibly painstaking and boring (but, obviously important).

Sam put a plug in for Mint.com in a comment he made to Bitner's post about living with no income, so I thought I'd check it out. Sam, thanks for the plug because I'm loving me some Mint!

It took me 30 minutes to dump in all of my financial information, including checking accounts, saving accounts, retirement and investment accounts, credit cards, and all our other assets. This exercise gave me an instant snapshot of my net worth. Mint pulls all of your information from your online banking, including transaction history and automatically categorizes your expenses. There is no manual data entry! I do that at work, so why would I want to do it at home with my personal finance software?

If you're looking for a better way to keep score of your bottom line, check out www.mint.com.

Read more...

Change I Can't Believe In.

President Obama signed an executive order that limits government contracts to union only construction companies. I think the audacity of such a move speaks for itself. But I thought it would be important to remind people what Obama said all those days ago in his history making historic inaugural address.

Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed, starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin the work of remaking America.

(Emphasis mine)

So, how exactly is blacklisting non-union construction companies shrugging aside the protection of narrow interests? 84% of the nations construction workers are not affiliated with any union. Obama plans to remake America using just 16% of the construction workforce?

Oh wait, that's right. I had almost forgotten. White male workers need not apply.

What's next? A modern Blue Eagle?

And in the midst of all this, Melanie Phillips, from the Spectator UK is asking America, What Have You Done?

And how did the 44th President react to the growing public dismay over the mess he was making? He threw his toys out of the pram -- or perhaps that should read, he got into the pram. For he fled the scene of the disaster and sought the company of seven year-olds instead. As the Telegraph reported:

‘We were just tired of being in the White House,’ he told a group of excited seven-year-olds before discussing Batman and reading them a book.

Tired of being President – after two weeks!

Something tells me that Obama is not the only person tired of Obama being president.

Read more...

What Does Baseball Do Now?

You've undoubtedly heard the latest damning news in baseball: Alex Rodriguez juiced in his MVP season of 2003. I've suspected that A-Rod was using HGH for several years, but nobody in the sports world ever bothered to speculate about it. Well, it doesn't matter now. Arguably the greatest talent to ever play the game is now a known fraud, aptly nicknamed A-Fraud.

So what? He's just another big name on a long list, right?

Well, true, but I think that this has the potential to be more far-reaching if Baseball doesn't react properly. A-Rod was one of 104 players who tested positive back in 2003. If those names contintue to trickle out over the next 5-10 years, and if they are big names, I believe Baseball will die a slow death. There will still be Major League Baseball, but it will continually fall on the priority list of your DVR/TiVo. Pretty soon, you'll prefer that Jon and Kate Plus 8 is recorded instead of The World Series. Maybe you already do.

So here's what I propose. If I'm Bud Selig I go straight to the Players Union and I strike a deal to release the remaining 103 names this week. Those 103, along with A-Rod and Barry and McGwire and all the other cheaters will become the sacrificial lambs for the greater good of baseball's future. Take the beating now, all at once, so that the story can die quicker and we can move on past the Steroids Era. This Era has to find closure or Baseball will become a joke. (And again, maybe it already is a joke in your home.)

On a micro level, a player who is caught cheating is best suited to just admit the mistake and move on (a la Jason Giambi). Go the Roger Clemens route and you're bound to be hated and ridiculed far longer than is necessary.

On a macro level, the league is best suited to just air the dirty laundry for all to see and try and move on as quickly as possible. Plus, I want to see these 103 names!

What say ye?

Read more...

Cut Off in New York

This is a funny clip from Curb Your Enthusiasm, but it rings true. I really feel isolated out here from what is going on with my family back west sometimes. Anyway, enjoy.

Read more...

Weekly Links

The latest from our House Speaker.

Here's an article about the President, his salary, his expenses, his taxes, etc. It's an interesting perspective on comparisons between a CEO of a large corporation and the President.

LeBron's 52 v. Kobe's 61 at MSG this week. Excellent NBA drama if you're so inclined. Here's Chris Sheridan's take.

President Obama's op-ed piece in the Washington Post defending the stimulus if you didn't catch it, and the Post's editorial response.

Though I'm sure the President's piece in the post wasn't a specific response to this Salon.com query from a self-described Obama admirer, the piece raises some inquiries that are thought-provoking.

Oh, Michael Phelps.

Victor Davis Hanson, in an article from December, looks at the world wide threat of Islamic terror, specifically the problem of Pakistan.

If you're an NFL fan and haven't yet discovered Mike Lombardi, you should. Great analyst.

If you've not yet embraced Hulu and Joost for free TV on the Internet, you should.

President Obama is reorganizing and revamping the faith-based efforts of GWB. Where might this go?

Finally, a new twist on bowling! Okay, that was inadvertently a terrible pun. It's just hard to believe that this caught the Wall Street Journal's attention.

From an economic point of view, either you believe that government spending is sound economic policy or you don't. Both sides typically can "prove" and "model" how their theories work in a way that laypersons struggle with. Here's an L.A. Times editorial talking about how government spending doesn't work. Anyone out there have a good justification for how it does?

Mitt's take on the stimulus.

Read more...

Help Me Understand

I really want to understand the left view on this. I'll just pull it straight from Peggy Noonan's article. I won't respond in any of the comments as I genuinely want to know your view on this.

On Wednesday, in an interview with Politico, Dick Cheney warned of the possible deaths of "perhaps hundreds of thousands" of Americans in a terror attack using nuclear or biological weapons. "I think there is a high probability of such an attempt," he said....
The question for the Obama administration: Do they think Mr. Cheney is essentially correct, that bad men are coming with evil and deadly intent, but that America can afford to, must for moral reasons, change its stance regarding interrogation and detention of terrorists? Or, deep down, do the president and those around him think Mr. Cheney is wrong, that people who make such warnings are hyping the threat for political purposes? And, therefore, that interrogation techniques, etc., can of course be relaxed? I don't know the precise answer to this question. Do they know exactly what they think? Or are they reading raw threat files each day trying to figure out what they think?

Edited to add the Cheney quote for clarity.

Read more...