S&P downgraded California's debt again:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123306751662819585.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget4-2009feb04,0,2705277.story
California's debt is now the lowest rated in the entire United States. What does this mean for investors? If you don't think California is going to default, you may be able to get good prices on California bonds. As a California resident, however, I am disgusted--and I even predicted this bond downgrade here (on December 19, 2007):
California’s bond ratings have gone from AAA to single A and are approaching status that is slightly above junk.
I apparently live in a state where legislators can't agree that cutting spending is essential to achieving a balanced budget. My representatives must believe they don't have to exercise fiscal discipline. This stance is troubling when the recession guarantees that state tax receipts will be lower than previous years. Where's Mr. Smith when you need him?
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Law Firms Not Immune to Recession
The WSJ had a great article on recessions and law firms:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292954232713979.html
What really interests me is the assumptions these now-defunct law firms made. For example, why were they so confident that complex cases, like the Microsoft anti-trust matter, would continue indefinitely? Didn't they realize at some point, all those associates had to work on other cases to bill a sufficient number of hours?
It looks like the recession bankrupted law firms that were inefficient and that failed to diversify. What's the lesson? Whoever ignores the rule of "not putting all your eggs in one basket" does so at his own peril. In law and in stocks, it pays to diversify.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292954232713979.html
What really interests me is the assumptions these now-defunct law firms made. For example, why were they so confident that complex cases, like the Microsoft anti-trust matter, would continue indefinitely? Didn't they realize at some point, all those associates had to work on other cases to bill a sufficient number of hours?
It looks like the recession bankrupted law firms that were inefficient and that failed to diversify. What's the lesson? Whoever ignores the rule of "not putting all your eggs in one basket" does so at his own peril. In law and in stocks, it pays to diversify.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
A Fun Re-Post about Money
I posted this article a long time ago, but it didn't get too many hits. That made me sad, because it's one of my favorite posts. Here's one part I thought was hilarious:
James Boswell: "In civilized society, personal merit will not serve you so much as money will. Sir, you may make the experiment. Go into the street, and give one man a lecture on morality, and another a shilling, and see which one will respect you the most."
Like Chris Rock's stand-up comedy, it's funny because there's some truth to it. (And to those who haven't seen Chris Rock in action, I highly recommend Never Scared.)
Anyway, the post with the money quotes is here.
James Boswell: "In civilized society, personal merit will not serve you so much as money will. Sir, you may make the experiment. Go into the street, and give one man a lecture on morality, and another a shilling, and see which one will respect you the most."
Like Chris Rock's stand-up comedy, it's funny because there's some truth to it. (And to those who haven't seen Chris Rock in action, I highly recommend Never Scared.)
Anyway, the post with the money quotes is here.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Military Intelligence
The Winter 2009 Wilson Quarterly reminds us that even in peacetime, military intelligence is an oxymoron:
The most dramatic instance of a failure to override occurred in the Persian Gulf on July 3, 1988, during a patrol mission of the U.S.S. Vincennes. The ship had been nicknamed “Robo-cruiser,” both because of the new Aegis radar system it was carrying and because its captain had a reputation for being overly aggressive. That day, the Vincennes’s radars spotted Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus passenger jet. The jet was on a consistent course and speed and was broadcasting a radar and radio signal that showed it to be civilian. The automated Aegis system, though, had been designed for managing battles against attacking Soviet bombers in the open North Atlantic, not for dealing with skies crowded with civilian aircraft like those over the gulf. The computer system registered the plane with an icon on the screen that made it appear to be an Iranian F-14 fighter (a plane half the size), and hence an “assumed enemy.”
Though the hard data were telling the human crew that the plane wasn’t a fighter jet, they trusted the computer more. Aegis was in semi-automatic mode, giving it the least amount of autonomy, but not one of the 18 sailors and officers in the command crew challenged the computer’s wisdom. They authorized it to fire. (That they even had the authority to do so without seeking permission from more senior officers in the fleet, as their counterparts on any other ship would have had to do, was itself a product of the fact that the Navy had greater confidence in Aegis than in a human-crewed ship without it.) Only after the fact did the crew members realize that they had accidentally shot down an airliner, killing all 290 passengers and crew, including 66 children.
The tragedy of Flight 655 was no isolated incident. Indeed, much the same scenario was repeated a few years ago, when U.S. Patriot missile batteries accidentally shot down two allied planes during the Iraq invasion of 2003. The Patriot systems classified the craft as Iraqi rockets. There were only a few seconds to make a decision. So machine judgment trumped any human decisions. In both of these cases, the human power “in the loop” was actually only veto power, and even that was a power that military personnel were unwilling to use against the quicker (and what they viewed as superior) judgment of a computer.
Oh, the lack of common sense.
Update: another blogger discusses this issue here.
The most dramatic instance of a failure to override occurred in the Persian Gulf on July 3, 1988, during a patrol mission of the U.S.S. Vincennes. The ship had been nicknamed “Robo-cruiser,” both because of the new Aegis radar system it was carrying and because its captain had a reputation for being overly aggressive. That day, the Vincennes’s radars spotted Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus passenger jet. The jet was on a consistent course and speed and was broadcasting a radar and radio signal that showed it to be civilian. The automated Aegis system, though, had been designed for managing battles against attacking Soviet bombers in the open North Atlantic, not for dealing with skies crowded with civilian aircraft like those over the gulf. The computer system registered the plane with an icon on the screen that made it appear to be an Iranian F-14 fighter (a plane half the size), and hence an “assumed enemy.”
Though the hard data were telling the human crew that the plane wasn’t a fighter jet, they trusted the computer more. Aegis was in semi-automatic mode, giving it the least amount of autonomy, but not one of the 18 sailors and officers in the command crew challenged the computer’s wisdom. They authorized it to fire. (That they even had the authority to do so without seeking permission from more senior officers in the fleet, as their counterparts on any other ship would have had to do, was itself a product of the fact that the Navy had greater confidence in Aegis than in a human-crewed ship without it.) Only after the fact did the crew members realize that they had accidentally shot down an airliner, killing all 290 passengers and crew, including 66 children.
The tragedy of Flight 655 was no isolated incident. Indeed, much the same scenario was repeated a few years ago, when U.S. Patriot missile batteries accidentally shot down two allied planes during the Iraq invasion of 2003. The Patriot systems classified the craft as Iraqi rockets. There were only a few seconds to make a decision. So machine judgment trumped any human decisions. In both of these cases, the human power “in the loop” was actually only veto power, and even that was a power that military personnel were unwilling to use against the quicker (and what they viewed as superior) judgment of a computer.
Oh, the lack of common sense.
Update: another blogger discusses this issue here.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Judge to Juror: "Hi Mom"
This blog post, about a judge who keeps his mom on the jury, is fun to read:
http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2008/04/judges-mother-o.html
Small towns seem like interesting places.
http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2008/04/judges-mother-o.html
Small towns seem like interesting places.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Random Articles
Just some fun articles for my readers:
1. Here is Bill Simmons' moving piece about his golden retriever, Dooze:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090122
It's not your typical ESPN Simmons, and it shows a different side to him, one I've never imagined.
2. Here is the BBC on curvy women and IQ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7090300.stm
It's got a nice pic of the beautiful Nigella Lawson.
1. Here is Bill Simmons' moving piece about his golden retriever, Dooze:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090122
It's not your typical ESPN Simmons, and it shows a different side to him, one I've never imagined.
2. Here is the BBC on curvy women and IQ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7090300.stm
It's got a nice pic of the beautiful Nigella Lawson.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Reason #4083 to Reconsider Law School
This CNN article isn't against going to law school; however, it still imparts a good lesson about when to go:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/28/jobloss.hard.times/index.html
In July 2007, when [she] traded in her job as a corporate compliance officer [making 80K] to attend law school, she thought would help advance her career. But after a year of law school, she decided it wasn't for her. By then, her old job was gone and the job market had shrunk.
Basically, if you want to go to law school, wait until there's a recession. Don't do it when you have a good-paying job. Law school requires a lot of money, so you're shelling out beacoup bucks to pay for tuition. But that out of pocket cost isn't the only loss you have when you attend any school full-time. In addition to "losing" the money you spend on tuition, you lose in terms of opportunity cost. Basically, by attending law school full time, you lose time you would otherwise have to work and earn money. So it's a double loss. You're paying for tuition AND you're not making money someplace else.
The bottom line? Be sure you want to go to law school before you go. Most people cannot discharge student loans in bankruptcy, but they may be able to get a deferment. The woman in the CNN article probably owes at least ten grand in student loans. Sigh.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/28/jobloss.hard.times/index.html
In July 2007, when [she] traded in her job as a corporate compliance officer [making 80K] to attend law school, she thought would help advance her career. But after a year of law school, she decided it wasn't for her. By then, her old job was gone and the job market had shrunk.
Basically, if you want to go to law school, wait until there's a recession. Don't do it when you have a good-paying job. Law school requires a lot of money, so you're shelling out beacoup bucks to pay for tuition. But that out of pocket cost isn't the only loss you have when you attend any school full-time. In addition to "losing" the money you spend on tuition, you lose in terms of opportunity cost. Basically, by attending law school full time, you lose time you would otherwise have to work and earn money. So it's a double loss. You're paying for tuition AND you're not making money someplace else.
The bottom line? Be sure you want to go to law school before you go. Most people cannot discharge student loans in bankruptcy, but they may be able to get a deferment. The woman in the CNN article probably owes at least ten grand in student loans. Sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)