I was at a baseball game the other day with a friend when the topic of global warming came up. He asked, “are you one of these people who don’t believe there is a problem?” This is always a tough question for me to answer—not because I don’t know what I think, but because I’m internally doing the calculus around “is this person going to bother listening to what I have to say?”
The problem with global warming is that it has fallen into the “everybody knows” category, meaning that the “fact” that man is killing the Earth through various activities is a known fact, and questioning this in ANY way puts you on par with the “Flat Earth” set. Well, I am not a global warming denier, but having doubts or even asking for clarification does not make me into a criminal. Perfectly “normal” everyday people will shout you down in a heartbeat, “oh come ON! Don’t know anything?”
The irony is that the people shouting you down are typically the ones that have been spoon-fed their information. They’ve heard it enough times that they’re more than comfortable feeling smart by tearing down your opinion, though they haven’t a scientific bone in their body, and haven’t bothered to ever consider a single dissenting opinion. Real “informed.”
The very real truth is that global warming is an uber-politicized issue. That by definition makes it ripe for misinformation and exaggeration. People who take the time to think about the issue would of course be on guard for biased opinion.
The Wall Street Journal had an op-ed the other day about the EPA’s silencing of a noted NASA scientist and global warming critic. (The EPA silences a climate skeptic). Alan Carlin, a 35 year veteran of the EPA doesn’t believe in global warming. Having amassed an argument against man made global warming, your government, in the form of the EPA management has silenced him. Essentially telling him to not publish or speak on the topic if he values his job.
If “everyone knows” that man made global warming is a fact, and the proof is absolutely incontrovertible, why are so many so threatened by people who ask questions? Hmmm… could it be that the Al Gore stands to benefit personally from the “fact” of global warming? Could it be that Democrats and their henchman at Goldman Sachs stand to benefit both politically (power grab) and economically from a massive Cap & Trade system? Funny, I don’t stand to make a dime from asking for a little more proof.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Sunday, July 05, 2009
True now more than ever...
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' "
- Ronald Reagan
Sunday, June 21, 2009
It's the Government's fault
A few months ago, I was driving home and passing by the Boston Federal Reserve building and saw a huge protest against the Fed. Ever since my UMASS days I have always thought that protesters are usually...well, stupid. Okay, I'm not a "protest" guy. Not so much because I don't believe (hey, it's meaningful in Tehran), but more that the activity gets so watered down when people protest at the drop of a hat.
My first reaction the protestors, which included small childred with signs demanding "End the FED!" (you have to be an adult to even remotely understand the arcana of "the FED"), was that these people were moonbat, beatnick, nutjobs... I mean hey, someone has to clear our checks, and set interest rates....right? Right?
After reading Ron Paul's book, The Revolution, A Manifesto, I signed up for a Ron Paul mailing list somewhere, and the Congressman Paul's recomendation of this book is what turned me on to it. Well, I have to say that after reading Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, next time, I might be making my own sign and joinging the protest.
If you're a free market guy, or proclaim to be, this is a must read. It hits home. This book makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. The ENTIRE point of the belief in free markets is that individuals (in aggregate) will always make better decisions with their money and resources than a third party (e.g. government). As any economist will tell you, the "price" of anything is a piece of information. In order for free markets to work...prices must float and be determined by supply and demand. Allowing the market to work is what sets the right price for any product or service.
What this book does best, is explain the problem of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is essentially a central planning entity that sets the price of money. It's price controls. The Fed's price controls essentially screw up the free market by setting prices at the most basic level of a free market economy. "Fiat money," that is money that is controlled by a centrally planned entity (in this case the Federal Reserve board) drives the business boom/bust cycle that we experience in our economy. It also provides an irresistable, crack-cocaine-like opportunity for governments to devalue money by just printing more.
It's government's fault. Centrally planned money is subject to the whims, foibles, and just plain corrupt motives of a small set of people in our goverment (The Fed, plus the political pressure of Washington D.C.). The right solution, as this book also advocates, is "Commodity money." The United States should go to the Gold standard as fast as possible. Do not "pass Go," and we WILL collect "$200" in the form of stable money that will gain value over time.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Federal Reserve has got to go!"
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Question Mr. President...
"Thank you Mr. President. You have been President now for over two months. Can you give a timeframe tonight to the American people that you will commit to stop answering every quesiton with the words, "I didn't create these problems, I inherited them. This is how it was when I got here...?"
Thursday, March 05, 2009
"Work, ideas, innovation..."
There is a great article in today's WSJ by Daniel Henniger called "Has Obama buried Reagan?"
The article makes the perfect point that if we could get one person who could explain Reganomics (a.k.a. ECONOMIC GROWTH!) only HALF as well as Ronald Reagan, we'd win back this country. As a conservative it is SO frustrating that nationaly known Republicans are so poor at articulating our basic fiscal values. Who are these gutless idiots? For crying out loud-- LOW TAXES, Stable MONETARY POLICY, BALANCED BUDGETS throug smaller and smaller governement...And for the love of God almighty -- FREEDOM!!!! LIBERTY! Why can't these LOSERS get this basic concept out there. We're Americans, we don't need this disgusting, revolting nanny state that Obamunism is foisting upon us.
Rush is totally right. DO NOT BE EMBARASSED TO BE CONSERVATIVE. This IS a Conservative-right nation. Even people who don't consider themselves conseravtive DO act and believe based on fiscal conservative values.
Henniger is right - Economics in one Lesson, Free to Choose, The Reagan Diaries...if only they taught these texts in school!
Sigh.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Heeeeeeeer's Socialism!!!
....er....I thought the automobile was invented in Germany.
Did he just promise to cure cancer?
Socialized health care...this year? Don't get sick.
Monday, February 23, 2009
A Bipartisan idea for the Stimulus
William J. Suntz’s cover article in the February 23, 2009 issue of The Weekly Standard entitled “Law and Disorder – the case for a police ‘surge,’” is brilliant. What’s more, if it was in a different publication (say, The Atlantic, or Newsweek) its premise would be falling off the lips of both Democrats and Republicans. The basic premise of the piece is that as the “surge” in Iraq was successful in tamping down violence there, so could a domestic surge of Police quell the violence in the United State’s urban centers.
The author points out that the front line of America’s race problem is very much entwined with the crime rate. You probably wouldn’t be shocked to learn that poor black neighborhoods have a much higher murder rate that the suburbs – but listen to the actual numbers. “In the United States in 2005, the homicide rate among wintes stood at 3.5 per 100,000. Among blacks, the figure was 26.5.” Almost eight times the rate! The argument he goes on to make is compelling, that government is falling flat on it’s obligation to keep urban black populations safe. That is racism, isn’t it? (Related 2005 posting).
Stunz makes the case that the correct response to crime in urban centers is not more efficient imprisonment of offenders, but rather deterrence brought about by the increased safety felt by a community:
“The answer is the same in American cities as in Iraqi ones. General Patraeus saw the process: Increase soldiers’ street presence, make civilians feel safe, and the local traffic increases; before long, the streets are inhospitable to terrorists and militia members. Over time, the real work of pacification is done by civilians reclaiming their own streets.”
Stunz goes on to make a nice comparison of criminal acceptance of risk and price stability. As he puts it, “Criminals are what economists call ‘risk-preferring;’ they enjoy taking changes.” He points out that when punishment for crimes varies widely, it’s a form of “price-instability,” more like a lottery. “Fluctuating ‘prices’ thus rob criminal punishment of its deterrent power.” I think this example is interesting and it makes sense – the decision to commit a crime is of course – at least by the rational minded – weighed against potential consequences. Potential crime is only prevented when the prevailing feeling is you’re more likely to get caught than not.
This article is so commonsense it makes you wish you could make every politician sit and absorb it. The sad part, as pointed out in the beginning of the article, is that with all this completely wasted (my words) spending in the stimulus package, we could easily finance a surge in police officers across America’s violent urban neighborhoods. The first and maybe most important purpose of government is protecting its citizens. We’re spending crazy amounts of money anyway – why wouldn’t bringing safety and security to all neighborhoods be something both Democrats and Republicans would support? Surge or no surge, that is government spending I can get behind!
The author points out that the front line of America’s race problem is very much entwined with the crime rate. You probably wouldn’t be shocked to learn that poor black neighborhoods have a much higher murder rate that the suburbs – but listen to the actual numbers. “In the United States in 2005, the homicide rate among wintes stood at 3.5 per 100,000. Among blacks, the figure was 26.5.” Almost eight times the rate! The argument he goes on to make is compelling, that government is falling flat on it’s obligation to keep urban black populations safe. That is racism, isn’t it? (Related 2005 posting).
Stunz makes the case that the correct response to crime in urban centers is not more efficient imprisonment of offenders, but rather deterrence brought about by the increased safety felt by a community:
“The answer is the same in American cities as in Iraqi ones. General Patraeus saw the process: Increase soldiers’ street presence, make civilians feel safe, and the local traffic increases; before long, the streets are inhospitable to terrorists and militia members. Over time, the real work of pacification is done by civilians reclaiming their own streets.”
Stunz goes on to make a nice comparison of criminal acceptance of risk and price stability. As he puts it, “Criminals are what economists call ‘risk-preferring;’ they enjoy taking changes.” He points out that when punishment for crimes varies widely, it’s a form of “price-instability,” more like a lottery. “Fluctuating ‘prices’ thus rob criminal punishment of its deterrent power.” I think this example is interesting and it makes sense – the decision to commit a crime is of course – at least by the rational minded – weighed against potential consequences. Potential crime is only prevented when the prevailing feeling is you’re more likely to get caught than not.
This article is so commonsense it makes you wish you could make every politician sit and absorb it. The sad part, as pointed out in the beginning of the article, is that with all this completely wasted (my words) spending in the stimulus package, we could easily finance a surge in police officers across America’s violent urban neighborhoods. The first and maybe most important purpose of government is protecting its citizens. We’re spending crazy amounts of money anyway – why wouldn’t bringing safety and security to all neighborhoods be something both Democrats and Republicans would support? Surge or no surge, that is government spending I can get behind!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Bill Gates on Talent Management
Bill Gates directly addressed the issue of Talent Management in education during his address at last week’s TED conference. After an initial discussion of the battle against Malaria in the poorest parts of the world (complete with an actual release of mosquitoes into the crowd) Gates gives a great example of a true Performance Management process at work. It’s useful to look at because it mirrors exactly what HR professionals would like to accomplish inside of their own organizations.
You can watch the video of the talk here (the Malaria discussion is about ten minutes at the start): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_unplugged.html
As you watch the discussion, note each piece or step of an integrated talent management process that comes into play:
1. Defining Organizational Goals – In the U.S. the top 20% of individuals get a superior education, but the balance of people are continually getting a less and less competitive education versus some other countries. The goal then is to increase the performance of the bottom 80%.
2. Identifying key Jobs that affect the desired outcome – Gates presents evidence from studies that show the difference in performance between top quartile teachers and bottom quartile. It turns out that teachers in the top quartile are able to increase the performance of their classes on test scores by 10% in a single year.
Gates puts an exclamation point on this with the example, “If the entire U.S. for two years had top quartile math teachers, the entire difference in test scores between us and Asia would go away.” This of course begs the question, how do we find, recruit, and or grow more top performing teachers?
3. Characterizing what predicts success in that role (Competencies, Skills, and Experience) – Once you’ve decided which key jobs drive the economic value of your company, or in this case your organizational goal to improve education, you need to describe what traits are predictive of success (in say, your Job Profile!) Gates simply asks, “How do you make a great teacher?”
Mr. Gates then takes us through a quick set of attributes that might be predictive of what makes a top quartile teacher: Seniority, whether the person participated in Teach for America, whether they have a math degree (he’s talking about math teachers), or whether the person has a Master’s degree. In real life of course, there might be 10, 20 or 100 different measures.
4. Measuring variability of performance in that job – Gates illustrates the problem of feedback in the teaching role. He actually hits on what is more of an Education specific issue – that is, that teacher’s contract might only allow a principal to observe in his or her classroom a single time a year, and only with notice. The problem is the total lack of coaching or feedback on the behaviors and competencies that make someone a great teacher. Union issues aside, there are certainly comparisons to the once a year appraisal process common in most corporate settings. Does anyone believe that type of appraisal process is core to changing the behaviors that drive top quartile performance? Of course not!
5. Turnover & Retention in that role – Guess what? According to Gates, “On average, the slightly better teachers leave teaching. There’s a lot of turnover.” That may have a lot to do with the next step…
6. Pay-for-Performance – Spoiler alert. If you haven’t watched the video, this ruins the payoff. As it turns out, the characteristics that are predictive of top quartile performance map out like this:
- Possession of a Master’s Degree: Almost no effect
- Teach for America: A little bit more effect
- Math major in college: A bit more effect
- Actual past top performance: GINORMOUS effect
Gates kicker in this section, of course, is around the pay portion. What do teachers get bumps in pay for? Seniority, and earning a Master’s degree.
7. Coaching & Learning and Development – Finally, the most optimistic part of Gate’s presentation comes at the end. If you can move around some of the incentive systems the real opportunity is around developing individual teachers. Using various tools to coach and develop individuals, the hope is that they can encourage the behaviors that drive top quartile performance.
The one major piece of a talent management process Gates doesn’t mention in all this is Recruiting. However, from here it’s an easy leap to see the value in integrated talent management. If we fully understand our Organizational goals, the jobs that drive the goals, and the job behaviors that predict top performance, we can focus hiring efforts on measuring those behaviors and skills.
Did you notice there is no discussion here about managing “A” players? While you want to identify key players, it’s not to manage them, it’s to learn what behavioral competencies they use to produce top performance. The “managing” part is about managing “A” jobs. How do I reduce the variability of performance in the key roles that drive my Organizational goals? By focusing on a foundational piece of the system, in this case jobs, they’re looking to increase the performance of the whole. THAT takes an integrated approach to talent management. Of course, there’s no discussion here of technology, just the process. However, in practice, you must have technology in place to support a systematic approach to this many individuals.
“By thinking of this as a Personnel system, we can do it better.” - Bill Gates
You can watch the video of the talk here (the Malaria discussion is about ten minutes at the start): http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_unplugged.html
As you watch the discussion, note each piece or step of an integrated talent management process that comes into play:
1. Defining Organizational Goals – In the U.S. the top 20% of individuals get a superior education, but the balance of people are continually getting a less and less competitive education versus some other countries. The goal then is to increase the performance of the bottom 80%.
2. Identifying key Jobs that affect the desired outcome – Gates presents evidence from studies that show the difference in performance between top quartile teachers and bottom quartile. It turns out that teachers in the top quartile are able to increase the performance of their classes on test scores by 10% in a single year.
Gates puts an exclamation point on this with the example, “If the entire U.S. for two years had top quartile math teachers, the entire difference in test scores between us and Asia would go away.” This of course begs the question, how do we find, recruit, and or grow more top performing teachers?
3. Characterizing what predicts success in that role (Competencies, Skills, and Experience) – Once you’ve decided which key jobs drive the economic value of your company, or in this case your organizational goal to improve education, you need to describe what traits are predictive of success (in say, your Job Profile!) Gates simply asks, “How do you make a great teacher?”
Mr. Gates then takes us through a quick set of attributes that might be predictive of what makes a top quartile teacher: Seniority, whether the person participated in Teach for America, whether they have a math degree (he’s talking about math teachers), or whether the person has a Master’s degree. In real life of course, there might be 10, 20 or 100 different measures.
4. Measuring variability of performance in that job – Gates illustrates the problem of feedback in the teaching role. He actually hits on what is more of an Education specific issue – that is, that teacher’s contract might only allow a principal to observe in his or her classroom a single time a year, and only with notice. The problem is the total lack of coaching or feedback on the behaviors and competencies that make someone a great teacher. Union issues aside, there are certainly comparisons to the once a year appraisal process common in most corporate settings. Does anyone believe that type of appraisal process is core to changing the behaviors that drive top quartile performance? Of course not!
5. Turnover & Retention in that role – Guess what? According to Gates, “On average, the slightly better teachers leave teaching. There’s a lot of turnover.” That may have a lot to do with the next step…
6. Pay-for-Performance – Spoiler alert. If you haven’t watched the video, this ruins the payoff. As it turns out, the characteristics that are predictive of top quartile performance map out like this:
- Possession of a Master’s Degree: Almost no effect
- Teach for America: A little bit more effect
- Math major in college: A bit more effect
- Actual past top performance: GINORMOUS effect
Gates kicker in this section, of course, is around the pay portion. What do teachers get bumps in pay for? Seniority, and earning a Master’s degree.
7. Coaching & Learning and Development – Finally, the most optimistic part of Gate’s presentation comes at the end. If you can move around some of the incentive systems the real opportunity is around developing individual teachers. Using various tools to coach and develop individuals, the hope is that they can encourage the behaviors that drive top quartile performance.
The one major piece of a talent management process Gates doesn’t mention in all this is Recruiting. However, from here it’s an easy leap to see the value in integrated talent management. If we fully understand our Organizational goals, the jobs that drive the goals, and the job behaviors that predict top performance, we can focus hiring efforts on measuring those behaviors and skills.
Did you notice there is no discussion here about managing “A” players? While you want to identify key players, it’s not to manage them, it’s to learn what behavioral competencies they use to produce top performance. The “managing” part is about managing “A” jobs. How do I reduce the variability of performance in the key roles that drive my Organizational goals? By focusing on a foundational piece of the system, in this case jobs, they’re looking to increase the performance of the whole. THAT takes an integrated approach to talent management. Of course, there’s no discussion here of technology, just the process. However, in practice, you must have technology in place to support a systematic approach to this many individuals.
“By thinking of this as a Personnel system, we can do it better.” - Bill Gates
Monday, February 09, 2009
Less Thomas, more Milton...
After reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman, I have to say that what the United States really needs is not the prescriptions of Thomas Friedman, but a big dose of Milton Friedman!
With my dig out of the way, I have to go on to say that I consider Thomas Friedman must reading. The World is Flat and the Lexus & the Olive tree were both great reads, and Hot Flat and Crowded is just as interesting. While I ended up disagreeing with his conclusions, the reading is certainly fascinating and a great addition to the conversation on the environment.
The most interesting discussion in the book was about the correlation between freedom in the world and the price of oil at any given time. Studies have shown that when a worldwide “freedom index” (an amalgamation of different factors including free elections and other characteristics of free societies) is compared to the prevailing price of oil, a surprising correlation of less freedom comes with a higher price of oil. Basically, it works like this. The higher the price of oil, the more money Petro-dictators have to give away free goodies (in the form of social subsides) to their people. Then in turn, the higher level of goodies, the lower social unrest in these countries. Unfortunately, in return for higher standard of living/handouts, those same people are willing to live with reduced freedom. Or at the very least, it’s harder to get an opposition movement going.
The reverse is true as well. The lower the price of oil, the harder it is for Petro-dictators like you’ll find in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Russia to hold onto their tyranny. Friedman claims this is one of his main points when speaking in front of conservative groups who might be less interested in his global warming message. I have to say, the value of low-priced oil for national security reasons is compelling on its own. I just differ on how to get there (drill here, drill now!)
That discussion is worth the cost of the book on it’s own. Friedman than goes on to discuss several other aspects of the battle against global warming. If there is a flaw in the book, it’s Friedman’s total hook, line, and sinker buy-in to man-made global warming. Assumption after assumption is presented as fact, and if you don’t agree that it’s irrefutable facts you’re a “naysayer.” In the end it doesn’t matter. Even a naysayer like me sees the great benefits to a green revolution (“you had me at national security”).
My real point of contention with Friedman is his gas tax. He rightly observes that high oil prices represent a price signal makes a market for alternative energy. He’s also right that the unpredictable price volatility prevents true private sector investment in alternative energies (why would I put 100 million into wind-farms technology when oil might be a dollar cheaper six months from now – as it’s turned out to be).
It is the kind of conundrum that argues for some type of government intervention. Even a laissez-faire kind of guy like me can almost get over that (almost). Friedman’s solution is to tax you more. He’d like to put a floor on the price of a gallon of gas – still allowing shifting in the price, but any savings below a certain floor determine the amount of the tax (e.g. If the “real” price of gas is $2.50 and the floor is set at $3.00, Uncle Sam nets fifty cents). His goal is to set the price high enough and stable enough to foster investment in alternative energy sources.
It would be one discussion if this new consumption tax was offset with a reduction in other taxes such as income, but Friedman basically chalks it up to “hey, extra revenue for the government!” The real problem in my mind is the distortion of the market. “Price” is the most important piece of information for effective free markets, and price controls always corrupt the outcome. Because of that I just cannot get on board, as seductive as it might sound.
The real solution is in the passage on moon shot versus “1,000 garages.” The question he’s looking at is about whether this effort is a massive “moon shot” effort that needs an enormous centralized government solution, or whether it instead will get solved by the thousands of inventors and entrepreneurs out there. It seems to me that rather than mucking up a perfectly good free market system (bounded by law/contracts), why not sponsor the equivalent of the Ansari X Prize? Heck, we’re talking government here…even if you made the prize “one BILLLION dollars,” it would still be cheaper for American tax payer.
The Price of Everything
"The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity," should be required reading in every high school across America!
The book explains "how the world works" in the form of a parable. A young, professional tennis player is dismayed when a local hardware store raises its prices after a natural disaster in his town. The obvious "price gouging" infuriates him and he becomes the spokesman against the big box retailer in an on-campus movement at Stanford. When our hero's girlfriend comes home and talks about her unique economics professor the action is just getting started.
It's not such a page turner that I'm really risking ruining the ending for you here, but I'll save you the details. It's a parable, so it's about the lesson more than the story. The reason I loved the book is that it is able to explain in plain terms a free market system and how it works. Not a demand curve in sight but you'll take more away from this book than any basic economics class you had in college!
Monday, June 16, 2008
So incredibly sad about Tim Russert
You know I'm not even sure what year I started watching Meet the Press with Tim Russert. I believe it was in the early 90's, sometime around the time when I was newly married and had a new baby daughter. Watching all the Tim Russert tribute shows this weekend I figured out that it was only in 1991 that Tim took over the show. For years and years now it has just been an assumption that nothing happened on Sunday morning until after 11:30 when MTP was over. Has driven more than one girlfriend in the past crazy (until the invention of Tivo!).
You know I completely forgot I had this blog thing. At some point it just seemed to be me yelling into the big "nothing." Either that or me just way too enthralled with my own thinking that night. I think i remembered it tonight because I just want to record how much i hate, absolutely hate the fact that Tim Russert is gone. I loved MTP with Tim Russert. LOOOOVED it. I would never miss it if I could help it. Friday was just an absolute shock. Tim Russert was just an "assumption," just part of my Sunday morning.
Lots of people have talked about how good he was at interviewing people and I agree with all of that. Now that he's gone, what I think about is just the "comfort" factor. There were certain things that were just part of the experience: "Our issues this week," and "If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press."
I saw some thing on Drudge or somewhere that linked to an article that had mild surprise at the reaction, that Tim was being treated like a head of state. I can't believe there would ever be anything but such a reaction. I mean really - Tim was the guy that kept those bastards on Captial Hill honest, right? I know they're not all bastards, but plenty are. He was just such a good guy, and we trusted him to be fair.
When my daughter was young she would come to visit me on the weekends, and she knew the TV rules on Sunday morning. She would moan about MTP and leave the room. I used to joke "Tim Russert is like your second father!" She never really went for that, but I took some pleasure in that just this year, as a teenager, she'd started to "not mind" MTP so much. She even watched with me. I hope her ongoing "A+" in world Civilization (closest thing to civics in high school) is a tribute to some of her forced watchings of the goings on in the world on MTP.
My friend Cara and I argue on IM all the time (for fun!) She is very liberal, and of course I am an "enlightened free market conservative." We don't agree on much of anything...ever. She IMed me the news on Friday. My first and only reaction was just, "NO!" On one thing we agree- we know that Meet the Press will never be the same.
I remember famous people passing away and feeling sad before. I felt bad when Johnny Carson died. I felt bad when President Reagan died. The fact that Tim Russert was so, so young, and had so much left. I don't remember the last time i felt so, truely sad when someone I've never met passed away.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Gun control means hitting your target…
Okay, ok, so that’s over the top NRA type slogan, but after the differing results of two murderous rampages this week, you have to admit that it’s at least a valid point of view. Today the latest whack job crazy went on a shooting spree in Colorado Springs, killing at least four people. Thankfully, there was a security guard there…with a gun!
Jeanne Assam, a security guard employed by the church under attack, shot the attacker dead:
"I saw him coming through the doors," she told reporters on Monday. "I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer, and I came out of cover and identified myself, and engaged him, and took him down. And that's pretty much it."
Amen!
I’m sure I’m not the only person that is completely sick of these absolute crazy people who need to take out their frustrations on the innocent.
I do not own a gun, but I’m perfectly comfortable around them. My father taught me how to shoot at a young age, and that included absolute respect for the weapon and what it can do. Even still, I’ve often revisited my feelings on gun control and wondered if maybe America would be better off without all the guns. I think perhaps the answer was once “yes,” but that now it is too late. We’d be better off without all these guns, but it is impossible to get this genie back in the bottle. There are just too many out there.
Certainly tragedies like Virginia Tech and last week’s Mall shooting would have been averted if the United States citizens had never had guns so readily available, but they did, and they do. If that’s the case, how much better (or rather, less worse) would Virginia Tech and the numerous mass shootings have been if someone with a good heart had protected the defenseless. Good for Jeanne Assam. Thank God that she was there, that she had a piston, and that this creep didn’t get away with killing more than the four people that he did.
Jeanne Assam, a security guard employed by the church under attack, shot the attacker dead:
"I saw him coming through the doors," she told reporters on Monday. "I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer, and I came out of cover and identified myself, and engaged him, and took him down. And that's pretty much it."
Amen!
I’m sure I’m not the only person that is completely sick of these absolute crazy people who need to take out their frustrations on the innocent.
I do not own a gun, but I’m perfectly comfortable around them. My father taught me how to shoot at a young age, and that included absolute respect for the weapon and what it can do. Even still, I’ve often revisited my feelings on gun control and wondered if maybe America would be better off without all the guns. I think perhaps the answer was once “yes,” but that now it is too late. We’d be better off without all these guns, but it is impossible to get this genie back in the bottle. There are just too many out there.
Certainly tragedies like Virginia Tech and last week’s Mall shooting would have been averted if the United States citizens had never had guns so readily available, but they did, and they do. If that’s the case, how much better (or rather, less worse) would Virginia Tech and the numerous mass shootings have been if someone with a good heart had protected the defenseless. Good for Jeanne Assam. Thank God that she was there, that she had a piston, and that this creep didn’t get away with killing more than the four people that he did.
Monday, October 08, 2007
hey this thing works!
Hello World???
This thing hasn't let me log in for months. So much to rant about! Will be sure to get back to it asap.
So funny watching Hardball tonight. I saw Pat B. arguing with Robert Reicsh (am I spelling that right? No time to lookup tonight). Surreal to see Pat be SO wrong on free trade (knew he was a protectionist) and RR be so hard core free market. In my mind RR totally destroyed him. Even weirder to see Chris Matthews announce Pat as the"winner!" The more i watch him the more I'm convinced that Matthews is a complete idiot!
This thing hasn't let me log in for months. So much to rant about! Will be sure to get back to it asap.
So funny watching Hardball tonight. I saw Pat B. arguing with Robert Reicsh (am I spelling that right? No time to lookup tonight). Surreal to see Pat be SO wrong on free trade (knew he was a protectionist) and RR be so hard core free market. In my mind RR totally destroyed him. Even weirder to see Chris Matthews announce Pat as the"winner!" The more i watch him the more I'm convinced that Matthews is a complete idiot!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
I spent the weekend watching all sort of documentaries, starting with a Saturday morning running of HBO’s “The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib.” When pictures of the events at Abu Ghraib first surfaced a few years ago, I had the reaction that most all Americans had, horror. This was not our America, this was not representative of the ideals we hold dear.
Unfortunately, given the climate at the time (and still pervades today), the dialog about these completely unacceptable events quickly devolved into a blame game. Instead of rooting out causes, punishing wrong doers, and putting measures in place to prevent this in the future, the discussion immediately went to cries of “Bush lied!” or “America, love it or leave it.” In retrospect, I think responsibility for the poor handling after the fact lies with the Bush administration, and more specifically Donald Rumsfeld.
More on that in a second, but first a few words on torture. If any good has come from the whole ordeal it is that the events have forced the discussion of torture into the national debate. As a civilized society, we pride ourselves on being “above” the coarser elements of humanity. For example, rather than follow a path of vengeance toward serial killers and mass murderers, we dole out life imprisonment or even quiet euthanasia by lethal injection to people who clearly earned far worse. We like to think that we have taken the high road versus evil.
Torture, in the context it’s entered into our national discussion on the other hand is a different animal all together. Torture as we are discussion it has a goal or end of its own, to extract information. In traditional confrontations where one nation is heads up fighting another, it is easy for both sides to agree not to torture captured combatants under the Geneva Conventions. However, the world is different now. We, that is, “civilized” people, are scared. Faced with faceless, unknown enemies that don’t “fight fair,” we’re as a society thrashing on what is a “right” or “moral” path. How do we fight evil without it pulling us down with it?
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz has written extensively about torture and posed difficult questions that we need to confront as a nation. The American people are somewhat bi-polar on the issue of torture. On the one hand, we despise torture and anything remotely resembling it. As practiced by unlawful tyrants, say Saddam Hussein, we’re outraged and disgusted. On the other hand, we cheer many of our idyllic heroes, the “Dirty Harry’s,” and the “Jack Bauer’s,” when they take the pragmatic-but-brute-force measures necessary against evil doers to save the innocent.
Dershowitz cuts to the quick of the matter with his hypothetical scenario –(paraphrasing) Imagine a known killer has been captured. Prior to capture he has kidnapped your child (not “a” child, your child). The child is in a box, buried in the ground with only an hour of oxygen left. The killer isn’t saying where to find the box. In this instance, Mr. Civilized, would torture be an acceptable tool to save the life of your child? Is there a parent out there, confronted with this reality that would say “no?”
Intellectual discussions and new world reality aside, what happened at Abu Ghraib was nothing remotely like the seemingly black and white scenario above. It’s clear, from the documentary’s point of view at least, that what happened at Abu Ghraib was grossly out of line with anything Americans would ever accept as their standards. What happened at Abu Grahib appears to be a case of the lack of enough resources (or the right resources), lack of proper communication, and lack of leadership around what is acceptable. Military Police, who were trained for battle operations around collecting POWs, not being prison guards, were in effect co-opted by Military Intelligence. The practice of “softening up” prisoners prior to interrogations was left in the hands of non-trained, non-accountable, non-lead individuals. The best description was one witnesses mention in the movie of how it reminded him of the behavior of the school boys in the Lord of the Files.
The real loss here is America’s claim to the high ground. It is a basic American value that when they can the strong should protect the weak. The individual gets the benefit of the doubt (which does not mean that enemy combatants get the rights that an citizen accused of a crime does). This is not what happened here. The images at Abu Ghraib have fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. This was a big loss that unfortunately, no one really paid for. Several soldiers were convicted of various infractions, and one Brigadier General was dropped in rank. I really like Donald Rumsfeld. I think he’s smart, and tells it like it is, and was honestly working to protect the United States. The documentary showed proof that Rumsfeld approved some techniques for extracting information from enemy combatants. I’m not sure you can place actual blame for Abu Ghraib on the approvals Rumsfeld made, but it’s clear to me now that we should have placed responsibility. Unfortunately, it’s lonely at the top. If someone working for you steps out of line that bad on your watch, you have to go. Rumsfeld probably should have been taken out of office, if only to send a high-level message to the world that Abu Ghraib is not what we stand for. (To his credit, Rumsfeld offered to resign three times while in office)
Unfortunately, given the climate at the time (and still pervades today), the dialog about these completely unacceptable events quickly devolved into a blame game. Instead of rooting out causes, punishing wrong doers, and putting measures in place to prevent this in the future, the discussion immediately went to cries of “Bush lied!” or “America, love it or leave it.” In retrospect, I think responsibility for the poor handling after the fact lies with the Bush administration, and more specifically Donald Rumsfeld.
More on that in a second, but first a few words on torture. If any good has come from the whole ordeal it is that the events have forced the discussion of torture into the national debate. As a civilized society, we pride ourselves on being “above” the coarser elements of humanity. For example, rather than follow a path of vengeance toward serial killers and mass murderers, we dole out life imprisonment or even quiet euthanasia by lethal injection to people who clearly earned far worse. We like to think that we have taken the high road versus evil.
Torture, in the context it’s entered into our national discussion on the other hand is a different animal all together. Torture as we are discussion it has a goal or end of its own, to extract information. In traditional confrontations where one nation is heads up fighting another, it is easy for both sides to agree not to torture captured combatants under the Geneva Conventions. However, the world is different now. We, that is, “civilized” people, are scared. Faced with faceless, unknown enemies that don’t “fight fair,” we’re as a society thrashing on what is a “right” or “moral” path. How do we fight evil without it pulling us down with it?
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz has written extensively about torture and posed difficult questions that we need to confront as a nation. The American people are somewhat bi-polar on the issue of torture. On the one hand, we despise torture and anything remotely resembling it. As practiced by unlawful tyrants, say Saddam Hussein, we’re outraged and disgusted. On the other hand, we cheer many of our idyllic heroes, the “Dirty Harry’s,” and the “Jack Bauer’s,” when they take the pragmatic-but-brute-force measures necessary against evil doers to save the innocent.
Dershowitz cuts to the quick of the matter with his hypothetical scenario –(paraphrasing) Imagine a known killer has been captured. Prior to capture he has kidnapped your child (not “a” child, your child). The child is in a box, buried in the ground with only an hour of oxygen left. The killer isn’t saying where to find the box. In this instance, Mr. Civilized, would torture be an acceptable tool to save the life of your child? Is there a parent out there, confronted with this reality that would say “no?”
Intellectual discussions and new world reality aside, what happened at Abu Ghraib was nothing remotely like the seemingly black and white scenario above. It’s clear, from the documentary’s point of view at least, that what happened at Abu Ghraib was grossly out of line with anything Americans would ever accept as their standards. What happened at Abu Grahib appears to be a case of the lack of enough resources (or the right resources), lack of proper communication, and lack of leadership around what is acceptable. Military Police, who were trained for battle operations around collecting POWs, not being prison guards, were in effect co-opted by Military Intelligence. The practice of “softening up” prisoners prior to interrogations was left in the hands of non-trained, non-accountable, non-lead individuals. The best description was one witnesses mention in the movie of how it reminded him of the behavior of the school boys in the Lord of the Files.
The real loss here is America’s claim to the high ground. It is a basic American value that when they can the strong should protect the weak. The individual gets the benefit of the doubt (which does not mean that enemy combatants get the rights that an citizen accused of a crime does). This is not what happened here. The images at Abu Ghraib have fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. This was a big loss that unfortunately, no one really paid for. Several soldiers were convicted of various infractions, and one Brigadier General was dropped in rank. I really like Donald Rumsfeld. I think he’s smart, and tells it like it is, and was honestly working to protect the United States. The documentary showed proof that Rumsfeld approved some techniques for extracting information from enemy combatants. I’m not sure you can place actual blame for Abu Ghraib on the approvals Rumsfeld made, but it’s clear to me now that we should have placed responsibility. Unfortunately, it’s lonely at the top. If someone working for you steps out of line that bad on your watch, you have to go. Rumsfeld probably should have been taken out of office, if only to send a high-level message to the world that Abu Ghraib is not what we stand for. (To his credit, Rumsfeld offered to resign three times while in office)
On America’s positive side, we really wash our dirty laundry in public. Few countries around the world practice the self-flagellation that we do. We’re big, and we’re powerful, and we mean well, but sometimes we screw up (big). When we do, we beat it to death, and we do so in public. I found the participants and witnesses in the movie to be quite credible and forthcoming about the situation and the things they did wrong. Unfortunately, the self-examination will be lost on America’s enemies. Our best hope is that we learn from our mistakes going forward.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Wisdom of Crowds
Just finished James Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds.” This is a great book about the “behavioral economics” involved in groups. The basic premise of the book is that with certain conditions met, the decisions and actions taken by a group of people produces consistently better results than those that would have been taken by any single person in the group, including the smartest and or best informed individuals.
Surowiecki explores numerous examples that encompass problems of cognition, cooperation and coordination. Through these examples, he shows how very often performance of these groups is strikingly better than the performance of any single person. A group of people with a diverse set of information and opinions on a topic, can better predict the right answer if they have a way of systematically aggregating all of their input. Each person has a different set of incomplete information for a particular problem, some of it correct, some of it incorrect, but all of it incomplete. The aggregated results of these different proposed answers cancel out the incorrect information, and produce a better (not necessarily “best”) result.
One of the things I found most interesting in the book was the discussion of predictive markets. A predictive decision market is a form of game theory whereby different actors are allowed to trade on the given likelihood of possible events. The idea is that a group of people betting on potential outcomes can predict certain events as more likely than others, giving government or private enterprise more actionable information.
You might remember a few years back a DARPA project called the Policy Analysis Market (PAM) (which was lumped under a program called Total Information Awareness) that set up a market that predicted the possibility of world events including terrorist attacks, assassinations, and other world events. Some eager beaver congressional-types leapt on the program as morbid and “crazy.” It’s unfortunate, as it could be one way to better aggregate and surface the U.S.’s maze of intelligence agencies. Today the United States’ intelligence information is spread out across myriad agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, ATF, etc.) that don’t have incentive to always work together. PAM would have had actors across these organizations make “bets” on potential world events. No, not with real money – though predictive decision markets get better when the actors have real skin in the game of one sort or another. The U.S.’s solution to the cross agency information problem? Make them all report to a single person, the National Intelligence Director. If Surowiecki’s theory is to be believed (and it’s a convincing argument) this is the exact wrong action – in effect, placing all of the responsibility on a single person (see the CEO-worship section near the end of the book). We can only hope that the predictive decision market has been setup anyway, but that it’s actually classified.
A real predictive decision market that you can go to and play with (and bet real money) is called Intrade Prediction markets. Intrade allows you to bet on real events, including current events, financial index milestones, entertainment, and even the weather. For example, you can bet that on both the Republican and Democratic nominations for the 2008 election, as well as the eventual winner. For example as of today the market predicts a 51% likelihood that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic ticket (Obama is tracking next at 23.4, and Edwards at around 11, plus other candidates which are more noise.) Just to mark it down, if you were to take the leaders in both Presidential and VP nominations, the Democratic ticket will be Clinton/Obama. Republican ticket will be either Giuliani or Mccain (they’re tracking 31 and 30), with Mitt Romney as V.P. We’ll see. The idea of the market is that as we get closer and closer to an event the market reads information better or sees a given outcome as more likely. Actors in the market can buy and sell contracts at any time.
Predictive decision markets are a really interesting area. Definitely not the last you’ve heard of this topic.
The end of the book describes an instance of crowds not acting in concert for a better benefit, stock bubbles. Surowiecki details multiple examples of stock bubbles, and potential explanations of how and why they are caused (no one knows exactly). One reason (or at least sign that one is happening) is that people are basing their actions on other’s actions, rather than their own information. That is, when people are buying an asset because prices have gone up (opposite usual trend when a price goes up) and they think prices are going to continue to go up – sign of a bubble.
This is a really interesting book – great companion to Freakanomics, The Tipping Point, and The Undercover Economist. Highly recommend it.
Surowiecki explores numerous examples that encompass problems of cognition, cooperation and coordination. Through these examples, he shows how very often performance of these groups is strikingly better than the performance of any single person. A group of people with a diverse set of information and opinions on a topic, can better predict the right answer if they have a way of systematically aggregating all of their input. Each person has a different set of incomplete information for a particular problem, some of it correct, some of it incorrect, but all of it incomplete. The aggregated results of these different proposed answers cancel out the incorrect information, and produce a better (not necessarily “best”) result.
One of the things I found most interesting in the book was the discussion of predictive markets. A predictive decision market is a form of game theory whereby different actors are allowed to trade on the given likelihood of possible events. The idea is that a group of people betting on potential outcomes can predict certain events as more likely than others, giving government or private enterprise more actionable information.
You might remember a few years back a DARPA project called the Policy Analysis Market (PAM) (which was lumped under a program called Total Information Awareness) that set up a market that predicted the possibility of world events including terrorist attacks, assassinations, and other world events. Some eager beaver congressional-types leapt on the program as morbid and “crazy.” It’s unfortunate, as it could be one way to better aggregate and surface the U.S.’s maze of intelligence agencies. Today the United States’ intelligence information is spread out across myriad agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, ATF, etc.) that don’t have incentive to always work together. PAM would have had actors across these organizations make “bets” on potential world events. No, not with real money – though predictive decision markets get better when the actors have real skin in the game of one sort or another. The U.S.’s solution to the cross agency information problem? Make them all report to a single person, the National Intelligence Director. If Surowiecki’s theory is to be believed (and it’s a convincing argument) this is the exact wrong action – in effect, placing all of the responsibility on a single person (see the CEO-worship section near the end of the book). We can only hope that the predictive decision market has been setup anyway, but that it’s actually classified.
A real predictive decision market that you can go to and play with (and bet real money) is called Intrade Prediction markets. Intrade allows you to bet on real events, including current events, financial index milestones, entertainment, and even the weather. For example, you can bet that on both the Republican and Democratic nominations for the 2008 election, as well as the eventual winner. For example as of today the market predicts a 51% likelihood that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic ticket (Obama is tracking next at 23.4, and Edwards at around 11, plus other candidates which are more noise.) Just to mark it down, if you were to take the leaders in both Presidential and VP nominations, the Democratic ticket will be Clinton/Obama. Republican ticket will be either Giuliani or Mccain (they’re tracking 31 and 30), with Mitt Romney as V.P. We’ll see. The idea of the market is that as we get closer and closer to an event the market reads information better or sees a given outcome as more likely. Actors in the market can buy and sell contracts at any time.
Predictive decision markets are a really interesting area. Definitely not the last you’ve heard of this topic.
The end of the book describes an instance of crowds not acting in concert for a better benefit, stock bubbles. Surowiecki details multiple examples of stock bubbles, and potential explanations of how and why they are caused (no one knows exactly). One reason (or at least sign that one is happening) is that people are basing their actions on other’s actions, rather than their own information. That is, when people are buying an asset because prices have gone up (opposite usual trend when a price goes up) and they think prices are going to continue to go up – sign of a bubble.
This is a really interesting book – great companion to Freakanomics, The Tipping Point, and The Undercover Economist. Highly recommend it.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Everyone has an angle....
I really enjoy documentaries, but sometimes a documentary is so obviously a piece of propaganda that you cannot let it pass. I recently watched “Wal-Mart, the High Cost of Low Price,” and found it to be outrageously one sided.
Okay, so I admit it. I am a “free-market” conservative with a MBA who is ardently pro-business. However, I really do try to be honest with my opinions. Abuses happen all the time in a free market system, and since I also fancy myself a “law and order” type, I fully support ironing out misdeeds whenever they happen. So it was with my best go at neutrality that I popped in this DVD. Unfortunately, this piece of work is so blatantly anti-Wal-Mart that any criticisms of the company’s business practice that are honestly worthy of being questioned are drowned out by total anti-consumer, anti-business, anti-choice rhetoric.
The film starts out okay. It confronts the very real question of – Do we want to allow large competitors to drive mom & pop businesses in small towns out of business with their superior pricing power. This is a sensitive topic and actually a very fair question. The film uses the example of H&H Hardware, a small hardware store in business for forty-three years that is being forced to close its doors because of the competition represented from Wal-mart. It is heart-wrenching to see this family owned business being destroyed because it is unable to compete with a behemoth. Real issues are surfaced including the fact that the presence of Wal-Mart in the town instantly discounts the value of the retail space that H&H hardware owns. Resale or lease to other retail vendors is immediately devalued because Wal-Mart would likely compete against any new tenant.
It’s sad, and it’s horrible, and sorry (this is where “mean” market guy comes in), completely irrelevant! What is left out of the argument in the documentary is the value that Wal-Mart brings as a superior competitor. The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart wins versus these smaller competitors not because of an “unfair advantage,” but because it delivers better value to the market. Potential customers of H&H software (and any other small business) are free to spend their dollars wherever they want. Given Wal-Mart’s lower prices or convenience provided by wider product selection, Wal-Mart is winning customers based on delivering value to the customer. Customers vote with their dollars, and Wal-Mart is winning.
The film passes on the sentiments of the small town businesses, but their own words give them away:
“ I’m all for free enterprise, but…it’s [Wal-Mart] owned by the richest people in the world….”
Okay, so I admit it. I am a “free-market” conservative with a MBA who is ardently pro-business. However, I really do try to be honest with my opinions. Abuses happen all the time in a free market system, and since I also fancy myself a “law and order” type, I fully support ironing out misdeeds whenever they happen. So it was with my best go at neutrality that I popped in this DVD. Unfortunately, this piece of work is so blatantly anti-Wal-Mart that any criticisms of the company’s business practice that are honestly worthy of being questioned are drowned out by total anti-consumer, anti-business, anti-choice rhetoric.
The film starts out okay. It confronts the very real question of – Do we want to allow large competitors to drive mom & pop businesses in small towns out of business with their superior pricing power. This is a sensitive topic and actually a very fair question. The film uses the example of H&H Hardware, a small hardware store in business for forty-three years that is being forced to close its doors because of the competition represented from Wal-mart. It is heart-wrenching to see this family owned business being destroyed because it is unable to compete with a behemoth. Real issues are surfaced including the fact that the presence of Wal-Mart in the town instantly discounts the value of the retail space that H&H hardware owns. Resale or lease to other retail vendors is immediately devalued because Wal-Mart would likely compete against any new tenant.
It’s sad, and it’s horrible, and sorry (this is where “mean” market guy comes in), completely irrelevant! What is left out of the argument in the documentary is the value that Wal-Mart brings as a superior competitor. The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart wins versus these smaller competitors not because of an “unfair advantage,” but because it delivers better value to the market. Potential customers of H&H software (and any other small business) are free to spend their dollars wherever they want. Given Wal-Mart’s lower prices or convenience provided by wider product selection, Wal-Mart is winning customers based on delivering value to the customer. Customers vote with their dollars, and Wal-Mart is winning.
The film passes on the sentiments of the small town businesses, but their own words give them away:
“ I’m all for free enterprise, but…it’s [Wal-Mart] owned by the richest people in the world….”
“I think government should have more control, if Wal-Mart isn’t’ a monopoly, what is?”
“I’m a staunch American, there are things that are not good for the people…”
“I don’t think Sam Walton would be happy with this. He didn’t start the store to crush competition.”
What all these statements have in common is that the speakers feel that they are “owed” a job. Consumers should “have to” shop from them because they have been there for years and put their time in. The egalitarian side of anyone would say “yes,” certainly these people are owed something. However, reality dictates that consumers want, and will migrate to the best value. What the statements above really say is “you owe me a job. Because I’ve been working hard all these years, you should be forced to shop at my store, even if a cheaper solution exists.” I’m certain none of these well-meaning people would actually say this, but their sentiments say as much.
Incidentally, Sam Walton (IMHO) would think no such thing. This is a man who was OBSESSESED with cutting costs inside his operation, and was EQUALLY OBSESSED with passing that value on to his customers. It’s documented over and over how Walton would traipse the isles of competitors constantly recording prices for goods, as well as new merchandising ideas. The precise reason Wal-Mart is the “monster” it is today is the culture of cost-cutting and passing value on to the customer that Sam Walton championed. It is not hyperbole to say that millions, perhaps billions of people have benefited from lower prices for goods and services offered by the cost cutting Sam Walton and his company.
What follows in the movie is one reason after another why Wal-Mart is ruining the country. “They’re a billion dollar company – why can’t they afford a better health care program.” The simple answer is – they don’t have to. Most workers at Wal-Mart are low-skilled workers. Translation- easily replaceable. That sounds harsh (and to some extent it is), but it is reality. Undoubtedly one of the highest components of cost built into prices at Wal-Mart stores is the cost of employing people at the company. If getting workers at the lowest cost produces lower costs for consumers, is that really bad? No one who works at Wal-Mart is forced to work there. You might say, “but Wal-Mart is the only large employer in town.” Yes, that may be true. History is littered with examples of people who moved out of town to seek employment where it was more plentiful. It DOES create hardship for individuals, but what is the alternative? Should we only allow Wal-Mart’s in towns that also have a Target? Maybe. Certainly many many communities have voted to pass up on allowing Wal-Mart zoning rights to build in their town. That is completely within their prerogative in our society.
The fact is that retail workers are low skilled and reasonably easy to replace – that is why they are low paid. If there was a dearth of available talent to fill these positions, basic supply and demand would raise those wages (including the “good” health care benefits offered to those employees). One man in the movie quips, “I’ve worked there three years and only got $1.07 raise.” That sounds horrible, but if someone can be hired to fill that position for the same cost (maybe even minus the $1.07 raise) why should they give him more? If he’s not contributing more value to the company, should he be entitled to more automatically? In a free society, if he can contribute more and is not getting it, can’t he take another job where he is fully valued? (um..yes!)
A good portion of the middle part of the movie is devoted to how Wal-Mart actively fights to bust any type of union organization at the company. My first reaction to this was, “ummm…duh!” Unions serve different purposes (in some eyes), but mainly they add to the cost of labor. If Wal-Mart’s mission is “always the low price,” (in other words- give the best value to consumers), how could it possibly stand by and allow such an enormous cost to be added to the delivery of it’s products and services? What’s more, if (in the United States at least) no on is being forced to work at Wal-Mart, what value does unionization bring to the employees.
Many things are brought up in the movie that strike me as innocuous. “Wal-Mart does illegal surveillance of employees in the break room!” Well, um, don’t they own the break room? Why is it illegal? “Wal-Mart managers are told to do more with less- discourage any overtime.” Well, um, isn’t that their prerogative – if they want to hire more people to cover the time they need and decide that costs less than paying some people overtime, um, isn’t that their right?
Of course, there is completely potential for abuse in a hard nose system like this. There are reports in the movie of intimidation of employees. Something along the lines of “you have to do this work off the clock so as to avoid overtime, or you’ll lose your job.” Or, “this is how you cheat workers by moving their overtime work to their next pay check/pay period.” If that’s true, that’s wrong and immoral and a perfect place for a hotshot government prosecutor to do the right thing and take Wal-Mart to task. Certainly abuse like this would be hard for your average hourly unskilled worker to combat. The same holds true for reported bias against women and blacks. However, absent proof, it’s just hearsay. Certainly this particular “documentary” has not established it’s bonifides as an impartial source. OF COURSE a company with 1.2 MILLION employees is going to experience racial and gender bias – that does not in of itself prove that it is systemic.
Possibly the most disturbing part of the film had to do with Wal-Mart’s treatment of workers in other countries, specifically China. Given our pre-disposition to think of China as, well, less-than-giving to the average worker, it is easier to believe such abuses of the system as described in the film. Lack of a true free market economy, as in the United States, makes it easy to believe that many of these workers are half-enslaved by China and actions of Wal-Mart. IF they are true, they are shameful, and the free market should react by voting with it’s dollars else ware. However, this film is hardly proof.
In summary (sorry, so long winded this time), this movie is completely intellectually dishonest. A company of Wal-Mart’s size must certainly have some problems. It must do some things that are less than optimal for society, or even wrong. However, the film completely omits any mention of ANY of the good that Wal-Mart does through providing jobs in rural areas (or anywhere for that matter) or the low prices that it brings to consumers (including the low-income families) that shop there. What’s more, the film ostracizes the Walton family, certainly collectively the richest in the world, but leaves out the world-wide set of investors that benefit from the profits of a successful Wal-Mart. In fact, the company is so big and successful, that any person who owns a mutual fund with any percentage of large cap equities is almost guaranteed to have some ownership in the Wal-Mart company.
Incidentally, Sam Walton (IMHO) would think no such thing. This is a man who was OBSESSESED with cutting costs inside his operation, and was EQUALLY OBSESSED with passing that value on to his customers. It’s documented over and over how Walton would traipse the isles of competitors constantly recording prices for goods, as well as new merchandising ideas. The precise reason Wal-Mart is the “monster” it is today is the culture of cost-cutting and passing value on to the customer that Sam Walton championed. It is not hyperbole to say that millions, perhaps billions of people have benefited from lower prices for goods and services offered by the cost cutting Sam Walton and his company.
What follows in the movie is one reason after another why Wal-Mart is ruining the country. “They’re a billion dollar company – why can’t they afford a better health care program.” The simple answer is – they don’t have to. Most workers at Wal-Mart are low-skilled workers. Translation- easily replaceable. That sounds harsh (and to some extent it is), but it is reality. Undoubtedly one of the highest components of cost built into prices at Wal-Mart stores is the cost of employing people at the company. If getting workers at the lowest cost produces lower costs for consumers, is that really bad? No one who works at Wal-Mart is forced to work there. You might say, “but Wal-Mart is the only large employer in town.” Yes, that may be true. History is littered with examples of people who moved out of town to seek employment where it was more plentiful. It DOES create hardship for individuals, but what is the alternative? Should we only allow Wal-Mart’s in towns that also have a Target? Maybe. Certainly many many communities have voted to pass up on allowing Wal-Mart zoning rights to build in their town. That is completely within their prerogative in our society.
The fact is that retail workers are low skilled and reasonably easy to replace – that is why they are low paid. If there was a dearth of available talent to fill these positions, basic supply and demand would raise those wages (including the “good” health care benefits offered to those employees). One man in the movie quips, “I’ve worked there three years and only got $1.07 raise.” That sounds horrible, but if someone can be hired to fill that position for the same cost (maybe even minus the $1.07 raise) why should they give him more? If he’s not contributing more value to the company, should he be entitled to more automatically? In a free society, if he can contribute more and is not getting it, can’t he take another job where he is fully valued? (um..yes!)
A good portion of the middle part of the movie is devoted to how Wal-Mart actively fights to bust any type of union organization at the company. My first reaction to this was, “ummm…duh!” Unions serve different purposes (in some eyes), but mainly they add to the cost of labor. If Wal-Mart’s mission is “always the low price,” (in other words- give the best value to consumers), how could it possibly stand by and allow such an enormous cost to be added to the delivery of it’s products and services? What’s more, if (in the United States at least) no on is being forced to work at Wal-Mart, what value does unionization bring to the employees.
Many things are brought up in the movie that strike me as innocuous. “Wal-Mart does illegal surveillance of employees in the break room!” Well, um, don’t they own the break room? Why is it illegal? “Wal-Mart managers are told to do more with less- discourage any overtime.” Well, um, isn’t that their prerogative – if they want to hire more people to cover the time they need and decide that costs less than paying some people overtime, um, isn’t that their right?
Of course, there is completely potential for abuse in a hard nose system like this. There are reports in the movie of intimidation of employees. Something along the lines of “you have to do this work off the clock so as to avoid overtime, or you’ll lose your job.” Or, “this is how you cheat workers by moving their overtime work to their next pay check/pay period.” If that’s true, that’s wrong and immoral and a perfect place for a hotshot government prosecutor to do the right thing and take Wal-Mart to task. Certainly abuse like this would be hard for your average hourly unskilled worker to combat. The same holds true for reported bias against women and blacks. However, absent proof, it’s just hearsay. Certainly this particular “documentary” has not established it’s bonifides as an impartial source. OF COURSE a company with 1.2 MILLION employees is going to experience racial and gender bias – that does not in of itself prove that it is systemic.
Possibly the most disturbing part of the film had to do with Wal-Mart’s treatment of workers in other countries, specifically China. Given our pre-disposition to think of China as, well, less-than-giving to the average worker, it is easier to believe such abuses of the system as described in the film. Lack of a true free market economy, as in the United States, makes it easy to believe that many of these workers are half-enslaved by China and actions of Wal-Mart. IF they are true, they are shameful, and the free market should react by voting with it’s dollars else ware. However, this film is hardly proof.
In summary (sorry, so long winded this time), this movie is completely intellectually dishonest. A company of Wal-Mart’s size must certainly have some problems. It must do some things that are less than optimal for society, or even wrong. However, the film completely omits any mention of ANY of the good that Wal-Mart does through providing jobs in rural areas (or anywhere for that matter) or the low prices that it brings to consumers (including the low-income families) that shop there. What’s more, the film ostracizes the Walton family, certainly collectively the richest in the world, but leaves out the world-wide set of investors that benefit from the profits of a successful Wal-Mart. In fact, the company is so big and successful, that any person who owns a mutual fund with any percentage of large cap equities is almost guaranteed to have some ownership in the Wal-Mart company.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Much ado about nothing
What is going on with congress? The recent passage of the non-binding resolution opposing President Bushes troop increases in Iraq seems to have unleashed a wave of back-patting. What astounds me is that anyone thinks anything has actually been accomplished.
Totally separate than the question of whether you support or oppose the troop surge, when did we start recognizing Congress for spending days and days debating a “non-binding” resolution. Basically, a bill that even if passed, does…nothing. It doesn’t require the Executive branch of government to change how it operates one bit.
Sure, you could argue that all the hubbub has brought focus on the issue in the media and in the minds of the American people. That might be perfectly legitimate, but wouldn’t “binding” legislation do the exact same thing?
It strikes me that this is the exact reason so many Americans choose to send Governors to the White House more often than Legislatures. Not only do Governors DO things, they don’t run around congratulating themselves after using taxpayer time and money to pass irrelevant legislation. Again, put the issue itself aside. Republican or Democrat -- how are we supposed to take these clowns seriously?
Totally separate than the question of whether you support or oppose the troop surge, when did we start recognizing Congress for spending days and days debating a “non-binding” resolution. Basically, a bill that even if passed, does…nothing. It doesn’t require the Executive branch of government to change how it operates one bit.
Sure, you could argue that all the hubbub has brought focus on the issue in the media and in the minds of the American people. That might be perfectly legitimate, but wouldn’t “binding” legislation do the exact same thing?
It strikes me that this is the exact reason so many Americans choose to send Governors to the White House more often than Legislatures. Not only do Governors DO things, they don’t run around congratulating themselves after using taxpayer time and money to pass irrelevant legislation. Again, put the issue itself aside. Republican or Democrat -- how are we supposed to take these clowns seriously?
Sunday, February 04, 2007
The Blind Side
If you enjoyed the book Moneyball, and you like football, you’ll really enjoy Michael Lewis’ new book, The Blind Side. Michael Lewis is well known for writing business profiles of finance and high technology personalities. In both Moneyball and The Blind Side, Mr. Lewis describes the events involved in the evolution of a major league sport, and how those changes have changed how players are paid.
The story told in The Blind Side is a perfect example of how market forces work together to shape events. The book is the story of how the Left Tackle position evolved from just another lineman position, to be the second highest paid position in the National Football League.
Two forces in NFL football intersected to create the circumstances we have today. The first was the success of Bill Walsh, former coach of the San Francisco 49’ers, and his West Coast Offense. The second force was the emergence of a single player, Lawrence Taylor.
The West Coast offense changed football from a running game where the pass was used as the exception, to a game where receivers spread the field and ran exact passing routes. Quarterbacks in this system proceed through a number of pre-set choices as a receiver, and look to make the highest completion rate, not necessarily the longest yard gain. Quarterbacks in this system were becoming very successful.
A glitch emerged in the West Coast offense. More eligible receivers meant less men on the line blocking. Bill Parcells, the Defensive mastermind and head coach of the New York Giants unleashed Lawrence Taylor, a new kind of pass rusher. Bill Parcells believed that a very important piece of a football game is the element of fear. Taylor lived to sack quarterbacks, and he did so in a way that would hurt, not a small example of which was the infamous Joe Theisman broken leg.
And so this became the crux of the problem. The highest paid member of the team, the quarterback, and thus the business’ largest asset, was under fire. It so happens that most people, and so most quarterbacks, are right-handed. When the quarterback drops back in the pocket they stand sideways, with their right side back and their left side pointed forward. In this position the team’s largest asset can see in front of him, and to his right, but not behind him, thus…the blind side.
What emerges from this is a really fascinating example of market forces at work. Where once all lineman were considered interchangeable parts, now one line position becomes critical. The left tackle became the definitive position that protects the quarterback’s blind side from the new order of Lawrence Taylor like defensive ends. With the labor agreement in the early nineties that brought on free agency, pure market forces erupted.
The scarcity of the body-type and skills that make the best Left Tackle became so in demand that that position became the second highest paid position in the NFL. Higher than running backs, higher than wide receivers – all for a player that most fans never distinguish from the other lineman.
As in Moneyball, The Blind Side has its own equivalent of “the Greek God of Walks.” That is, a player that epitomizes this new reality of the game. In the Blind Side, that player is a “freak of nature,” by the name of Michael Oher. A poor black kid from West Memphis, Michael Oher came “out of nowhere” to be the country's best left tackle prospect. Lewis interweaves the story of Oher’s journey from nothing to college football (he currently plays for Old Miss), with the story of the evolution of the left tackle position.
The story told in The Blind Side is a perfect example of how market forces work together to shape events. The book is the story of how the Left Tackle position evolved from just another lineman position, to be the second highest paid position in the National Football League.
Two forces in NFL football intersected to create the circumstances we have today. The first was the success of Bill Walsh, former coach of the San Francisco 49’ers, and his West Coast Offense. The second force was the emergence of a single player, Lawrence Taylor.
The West Coast offense changed football from a running game where the pass was used as the exception, to a game where receivers spread the field and ran exact passing routes. Quarterbacks in this system proceed through a number of pre-set choices as a receiver, and look to make the highest completion rate, not necessarily the longest yard gain. Quarterbacks in this system were becoming very successful.
A glitch emerged in the West Coast offense. More eligible receivers meant less men on the line blocking. Bill Parcells, the Defensive mastermind and head coach of the New York Giants unleashed Lawrence Taylor, a new kind of pass rusher. Bill Parcells believed that a very important piece of a football game is the element of fear. Taylor lived to sack quarterbacks, and he did so in a way that would hurt, not a small example of which was the infamous Joe Theisman broken leg.
And so this became the crux of the problem. The highest paid member of the team, the quarterback, and thus the business’ largest asset, was under fire. It so happens that most people, and so most quarterbacks, are right-handed. When the quarterback drops back in the pocket they stand sideways, with their right side back and their left side pointed forward. In this position the team’s largest asset can see in front of him, and to his right, but not behind him, thus…the blind side.
What emerges from this is a really fascinating example of market forces at work. Where once all lineman were considered interchangeable parts, now one line position becomes critical. The left tackle became the definitive position that protects the quarterback’s blind side from the new order of Lawrence Taylor like defensive ends. With the labor agreement in the early nineties that brought on free agency, pure market forces erupted.
The scarcity of the body-type and skills that make the best Left Tackle became so in demand that that position became the second highest paid position in the NFL. Higher than running backs, higher than wide receivers – all for a player that most fans never distinguish from the other lineman.
As in Moneyball, The Blind Side has its own equivalent of “the Greek God of Walks.” That is, a player that epitomizes this new reality of the game. In the Blind Side, that player is a “freak of nature,” by the name of Michael Oher. A poor black kid from West Memphis, Michael Oher came “out of nowhere” to be the country's best left tackle prospect. Lewis interweaves the story of Oher’s journey from nothing to college football (he currently plays for Old Miss), with the story of the evolution of the left tackle position.
Trailing decisions
Why is it that so much of the argument around Iraq is about four years ago? I love Tim Russert and think his show is great, but every Sunday the start of every conversation is defined by “did you make the right decision back then and if you knew then what you know now would you have voted the same way?”
While Monday morning quarterbacking may be a fun “what if” scenario, and serve to help us collectively learn from our mistakes, it doesn’t help us define who would be a good commander and chief. Today it seems that all of these candidates for President in 2008 so far seem to define themselves most by “what was my position on a particular issue at a particular time (the war) and do I think I was right or wrong?”
In my mind, this is the entirely wrong criteria to choose a President. It’s a bit like evaluating a stock. You can look at “trailing earnings” as an indicator of a particular company’s past performance, but it in no way guarantees future performance. And you would never look at a single quarter’s results. What matters is the future outlook. This is why a company can announce a growth in earnings but have it’s stock go down.
A better indicator of a Presidential candidate’s future success is a more in depth analysis of his or her values and character. A look at a lifetime of decisions provide evidence of a person’s character, looking at a single decision, even a big one, does not qualify as rigorous analysis. Show me a single great leader that at one time or another has not made the wrong call on a big decision.
The continual harping on “what would you have done four years ago and would you do the same thing now,” is only serving to teach politicians that they can never be wrong. What we do want in a President is someone who, given something they perceive as a clear and present danger (rightly or wrongly)…does something!
While Monday morning quarterbacking may be a fun “what if” scenario, and serve to help us collectively learn from our mistakes, it doesn’t help us define who would be a good commander and chief. Today it seems that all of these candidates for President in 2008 so far seem to define themselves most by “what was my position on a particular issue at a particular time (the war) and do I think I was right or wrong?”
In my mind, this is the entirely wrong criteria to choose a President. It’s a bit like evaluating a stock. You can look at “trailing earnings” as an indicator of a particular company’s past performance, but it in no way guarantees future performance. And you would never look at a single quarter’s results. What matters is the future outlook. This is why a company can announce a growth in earnings but have it’s stock go down.
A better indicator of a Presidential candidate’s future success is a more in depth analysis of his or her values and character. A look at a lifetime of decisions provide evidence of a person’s character, looking at a single decision, even a big one, does not qualify as rigorous analysis. Show me a single great leader that at one time or another has not made the wrong call on a big decision.
The continual harping on “what would you have done four years ago and would you do the same thing now,” is only serving to teach politicians that they can never be wrong. What we do want in a President is someone who, given something they perceive as a clear and present danger (rightly or wrongly)…does something!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
