"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
Saturday, March 28, 2009
California Economy
I almost missed this Washington Post article about Southern California's economy. Mr. Pearlstein sounds like a member of California's Tipping Point Club.
Friday, March 27, 2009
How Did My X-Mas Shopping Go?
On December 18, 2008, I posted my personal X-Mas shopping list for stocks. Although I intended to hold the stocks for at least a year, I made some changes, taking some losses to raise cash and to buy Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B). Let's review:
12/18/08
CSCO = 16.66
EWZ = 35.95
INTC = 14.26
KO = 45.18
MXIM = 12.00
WFC = 29.65
S&P 500 = 885.28
DJIA = 8,604.99
Nasdaq = 1,552.37
3/26/09
CSCO = 17.31 (+3.9%)
EWZ = 40.85 (+1.3%)
INTC = 15.82 (+10.9%)
KO = 44.85 (-0.7%)
MXIM = 14.11 (+17.58%)
WFC = 15.95 (-46.2%)
S&P 500 = 832.86 (negative 5.9%)
DJIA = 7924.56
Nasdaq = 1587.00
Overall, the return on the above portfolio is a negative 2.2% (not including dividends). This return beats the S&P 500, but my victory is admittedly Pyrrhic. If I had avoided Wells Fargo, I would be doing quite well. In fact, I bought Wells Fargo stock all the way down to 9 dollars and recently sold at around 14 dollars, taking a loss. I just sold Intel and Maxim, too, but plan on buying them back at lower prices. The recent run-up seems too much, too soon. Even so, my major holdings, all in mutual funds, are untouched and mostly in stocks.
I am worried about the T. Rowe Price Latin America mutual fund (PRLAX) and iShares MSCI Brazil Index (EWZ). Despite its name, the T. Rowe Price Latin America fund holds Brazilian stocks. I am concerned because Brazilian government projections seem overly optimistic; demand for commodities continues to be soft; and political rivals appear all-too-willing to undermine President Luiz Silva's authority.
Right now, the above list is not representative of my major holdings. I continue to trade actively in my retirement accounts.
The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only. Under no circumstances do any statements here represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence. To summarize, I do not provide investment advice, nor do I make any claims or promises that any information here will lead to a profit, loss, or any other result.
Update on 3/27/09: an astute seekingalpha.com reader points out that my math above is incorrect (and in my favor):
"You need to check your math. On EWZ, a price move from $35.95 to $40.85 is 13.63%, not 1.3%."
That, my friends, is why I'm a lawyer. I leave the math to the professionals and the expert witnesses.
12/18/08
CSCO = 16.66
EWZ = 35.95
INTC = 14.26
KO = 45.18
MXIM = 12.00
WFC = 29.65
S&P 500 = 885.28
DJIA = 8,604.99
Nasdaq = 1,552.37
3/26/09
CSCO = 17.31 (+3.9%)
EWZ = 40.85 (+1.3%)
INTC = 15.82 (+10.9%)
KO = 44.85 (-0.7%)
MXIM = 14.11 (+17.58%)
WFC = 15.95 (-46.2%)
S&P 500 = 832.86 (negative 5.9%)
DJIA = 7924.56
Nasdaq = 1587.00
Overall, the return on the above portfolio is a negative 2.2% (not including dividends). This return beats the S&P 500, but my victory is admittedly Pyrrhic. If I had avoided Wells Fargo, I would be doing quite well. In fact, I bought Wells Fargo stock all the way down to 9 dollars and recently sold at around 14 dollars, taking a loss. I just sold Intel and Maxim, too, but plan on buying them back at lower prices. The recent run-up seems too much, too soon. Even so, my major holdings, all in mutual funds, are untouched and mostly in stocks.
I am worried about the T. Rowe Price Latin America mutual fund (PRLAX) and iShares MSCI Brazil Index (EWZ). Despite its name, the T. Rowe Price Latin America fund holds Brazilian stocks. I am concerned because Brazilian government projections seem overly optimistic; demand for commodities continues to be soft; and political rivals appear all-too-willing to undermine President Luiz Silva's authority.
Right now, the above list is not representative of my major holdings. I continue to trade actively in my retirement accounts.
The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only. Under no circumstances do any statements here represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence. To summarize, I do not provide investment advice, nor do I make any claims or promises that any information here will lead to a profit, loss, or any other result.
Update on 3/27/09: an astute seekingalpha.com reader points out that my math above is incorrect (and in my favor):
"You need to check your math. On EWZ, a price move from $35.95 to $40.85 is 13.63%, not 1.3%."
That, my friends, is why I'm a lawyer. I leave the math to the professionals and the expert witnesses.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on Economics and Morality
My Catholic readers are going to love this link:
http://www.acton.org/publications/occasionalpapers/publicat_occasionalpapers_ratzinger.php
Pope Benedict XVI is too traditionally conservative for my tastes, a comment a real Catholic ought to consider a compliment. Regardless of his political beliefs, the Pope's 1986(!) essay makes some very good points. Take this paragraph, for example:
The great successes of this [free market] theory concealed its limitations for a long time. But now in a changed situation, its tacit philosophical presuppositions and thus its problems become clearer. Although this position admits the freedom of individual businessmen, and to that extent can be called liberal, it is in fact deterministic in its core. It presupposes that the free play of market forces can operate in one direction only, given the constitution of man and the world, namely, toward the self-regulation of supply and demand, and toward economic efficiency and progress.
What the Pope is saying seems all too prescient, given the recent collapse of the banking sector. The Pope continues to make some common sense points when he quotes Peter Koslowski: “The economy is governed not only by economic laws, but is also determined by men.” In other words, the free market may be a relatively good path, but men have flaws, and their decisions impact the free market. It sounds so simple when the Pope says it, you almost want to resurrect Milton Friedman for a debate.
The Pope's main point is that free market systems require self-restraint, and religion provides self-restraint. As a result, a free market system without religion probably won't be ethical and won't include self-restraint. Extrapolating from these points, the Pope is arguing that religion is required to inject ethics and discipline into the ethics-less enterprise of the free market.
Again, the Pope no doubt makes excellent points. Ethics can flow from religion, but he veers off-course when he argues that self-restraint and discipline are necessarily tied to religion. It is true that religion can produce self-restraint and discipline; however, self-restraint can be learned without religion. Given America's wise policy of separating church and state, we need to determine how to effectively teach all of our children self-restraint and other ethical behavior without using religion.
Law schools have attempted to teach ethics without religion, but almost every law school ethics course is a joke amongst students. This is because too much of the course relies on counter-intuitive case studies, such as defense lawyers who know where a body is buried but cannot reveal the location because of attorney-client privilege. Since lawyers have failed to create broadly applicable ethics courses, we need to go back to the time when ethics was a central part of education.
How do we do this? At first blush, it seems simple, because the subject matter already exists. Learned philosophers, which would certainly include religious philosophers, have written volumes on ethics. Sadly, most high school and college students lack the reading or analytical ability to study Immanuel Kant, Socrates, and Thomas More. Ultimately, the problem isn't available content, but the willingness to read and to spend time reading complicated texts. I hate to sound so stodgy, but television bears much of the blame. Given the way humans are designed--with traces of the hunter in all of us--visual stimulation is more powerful than the written word. As long as children are exposed to hours of television on a daily basis, their ability to read and to have the attention span to read profound works will evaporate. Even among the children I coach in basketball, I can see a discernible difference in attention span among the parents who restrict television time and the ones who do not.
But it's not just television that's the problem--the intellectual value of all visual media has declined precipitously. For example, I love old movies. I notice they are slower in pace, but I don't mind. More importantly, Hollywood designed the dialogue of older films for educated adults; consequently, movies challenged audiences and forced children and teenagers to evolve to a higher linguistic standard to keep up with mainstream culture. Just compare Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and A Man for All Seasons with most of the films in today's theaters. Outside of David Mamet's films, intelligent dialogue is a rarity in most modern films.
How does a society stop the corrosion of intellectual discourse, which includes ethics, when major media channels are dumbing down dialogue everywhere? I don't know the answer, but I do know this: when we implement a culture that prizes reading and books above television, we will be on the right path. Reading great books used to be automatic for society's elites, the college-educated, and the upper class. Today, it's hard to imagine George Bush or Sarah Palin fully understanding Shakespeare or Erich Maria Remarque. Pope Benedict XVI is correct that the free market needs disciplined practitioners to prevent itself from turning excessive. It's too bad he sees only one (unlikely) path to get to the promised land of self-restraint.
© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2009)
http://www.acton.org/publications/occasionalpapers/publicat_occasionalpapers_ratzinger.php
Pope Benedict XVI is too traditionally conservative for my tastes, a comment a real Catholic ought to consider a compliment. Regardless of his political beliefs, the Pope's 1986(!) essay makes some very good points. Take this paragraph, for example:
The great successes of this [free market] theory concealed its limitations for a long time. But now in a changed situation, its tacit philosophical presuppositions and thus its problems become clearer. Although this position admits the freedom of individual businessmen, and to that extent can be called liberal, it is in fact deterministic in its core. It presupposes that the free play of market forces can operate in one direction only, given the constitution of man and the world, namely, toward the self-regulation of supply and demand, and toward economic efficiency and progress.
What the Pope is saying seems all too prescient, given the recent collapse of the banking sector. The Pope continues to make some common sense points when he quotes Peter Koslowski: “The economy is governed not only by economic laws, but is also determined by men.” In other words, the free market may be a relatively good path, but men have flaws, and their decisions impact the free market. It sounds so simple when the Pope says it, you almost want to resurrect Milton Friedman for a debate.
The Pope's main point is that free market systems require self-restraint, and religion provides self-restraint. As a result, a free market system without religion probably won't be ethical and won't include self-restraint. Extrapolating from these points, the Pope is arguing that religion is required to inject ethics and discipline into the ethics-less enterprise of the free market.
Again, the Pope no doubt makes excellent points. Ethics can flow from religion, but he veers off-course when he argues that self-restraint and discipline are necessarily tied to religion. It is true that religion can produce self-restraint and discipline; however, self-restraint can be learned without religion. Given America's wise policy of separating church and state, we need to determine how to effectively teach all of our children self-restraint and other ethical behavior without using religion.
Law schools have attempted to teach ethics without religion, but almost every law school ethics course is a joke amongst students. This is because too much of the course relies on counter-intuitive case studies, such as defense lawyers who know where a body is buried but cannot reveal the location because of attorney-client privilege. Since lawyers have failed to create broadly applicable ethics courses, we need to go back to the time when ethics was a central part of education.
How do we do this? At first blush, it seems simple, because the subject matter already exists. Learned philosophers, which would certainly include religious philosophers, have written volumes on ethics. Sadly, most high school and college students lack the reading or analytical ability to study Immanuel Kant, Socrates, and Thomas More. Ultimately, the problem isn't available content, but the willingness to read and to spend time reading complicated texts. I hate to sound so stodgy, but television bears much of the blame. Given the way humans are designed--with traces of the hunter in all of us--visual stimulation is more powerful than the written word. As long as children are exposed to hours of television on a daily basis, their ability to read and to have the attention span to read profound works will evaporate. Even among the children I coach in basketball, I can see a discernible difference in attention span among the parents who restrict television time and the ones who do not.
But it's not just television that's the problem--the intellectual value of all visual media has declined precipitously. For example, I love old movies. I notice they are slower in pace, but I don't mind. More importantly, Hollywood designed the dialogue of older films for educated adults; consequently, movies challenged audiences and forced children and teenagers to evolve to a higher linguistic standard to keep up with mainstream culture. Just compare Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and A Man for All Seasons with most of the films in today's theaters. Outside of David Mamet's films, intelligent dialogue is a rarity in most modern films.
How does a society stop the corrosion of intellectual discourse, which includes ethics, when major media channels are dumbing down dialogue everywhere? I don't know the answer, but I do know this: when we implement a culture that prizes reading and books above television, we will be on the right path. Reading great books used to be automatic for society's elites, the college-educated, and the upper class. Today, it's hard to imagine George Bush or Sarah Palin fully understanding Shakespeare or Erich Maria Remarque. Pope Benedict XVI is correct that the free market needs disciplined practitioners to prevent itself from turning excessive. It's too bad he sees only one (unlikely) path to get to the promised land of self-restraint.
© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2009)
Amartya Sen on Adam Smith
Amartya Sen agrees that trust is the necessary foundation of successful capitalism:
Even though people seek trade because of self-interest (nothing more than self-interest is needed, as Smith famously put it, in explaining why bakers, brewers, butchers, and consumers seek trade), nevertheless an economy can operate effectively only on the basis of trust among different parties...
[I]n his [Adam Smith's] first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which was published exactly a quarter of a millennium ago in 1759, that he extensively investigated the strong need for actions based on values that go well beyond profit seeking. While he wrote that "prudence" was "of all the virtues that which is most useful to the individual," Adam Smith went on to argue that "humanity, justice, generosity, and public spirit, are the qualities most useful to others."
Profit-oriented capitalism has always drawn on support from other institutional values...
The moral and legal obligations and responsibilities associated with transactions have in recent years become much harder to trace, thanks to the rapid development of secondary markets involving derivatives and other financial instruments. A subprime lender who misleads a borrower into taking unwise risks can now pass off the financial assets to third parties—who are remote from the original transaction. Accountability has been badly undermined, and the need for supervision and regulation has become much stronger.
I like almost everything Mr. Sen writes. Even when I disagree with him, I see his point of view. I also like Mr. Sen's idea that all Americans deserve basic healthcare: "The failure of the market mechanism to provide health care for all has been flagrant, most noticeably in the United States." Still, I don't see how he gets "the need for regulation" from "accountability has been badly undermined." I suppose it depends on the definition and scope of "regulation"; even so, Congress cannot solve the problem of attenuated responsibility by written fiat. It seems that Mr. Sen gets the root cause (attenuated profit-making) right, but the solution (Congressional acts) wrong. More on this topic here.
Even though people seek trade because of self-interest (nothing more than self-interest is needed, as Smith famously put it, in explaining why bakers, brewers, butchers, and consumers seek trade), nevertheless an economy can operate effectively only on the basis of trust among different parties...
[I]n his [Adam Smith's] first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which was published exactly a quarter of a millennium ago in 1759, that he extensively investigated the strong need for actions based on values that go well beyond profit seeking. While he wrote that "prudence" was "of all the virtues that which is most useful to the individual," Adam Smith went on to argue that "humanity, justice, generosity, and public spirit, are the qualities most useful to others."
Profit-oriented capitalism has always drawn on support from other institutional values...
The moral and legal obligations and responsibilities associated with transactions have in recent years become much harder to trace, thanks to the rapid development of secondary markets involving derivatives and other financial instruments. A subprime lender who misleads a borrower into taking unwise risks can now pass off the financial assets to third parties—who are remote from the original transaction. Accountability has been badly undermined, and the need for supervision and regulation has become much stronger.
I like almost everything Mr. Sen writes. Even when I disagree with him, I see his point of view. I also like Mr. Sen's idea that all Americans deserve basic healthcare: "The failure of the market mechanism to provide health care for all has been flagrant, most noticeably in the United States." Still, I don't see how he gets "the need for regulation" from "accountability has been badly undermined." I suppose it depends on the definition and scope of "regulation"; even so, Congress cannot solve the problem of attenuated responsibility by written fiat. It seems that Mr. Sen gets the root cause (attenuated profit-making) right, but the solution (Congressional acts) wrong. More on this topic here.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Judges and Francis Bacon
Francis Bacon has written eleven rules on how to be a good judge. Click here for more.
The first is this: "You should draw your learning out of your books, not out of your brain."
My favorite? "That you should be truly impartial, and not so as men may see affection through fine carriage."
The first is this: "You should draw your learning out of your books, not out of your brain."
My favorite? "That you should be truly impartial, and not so as men may see affection through fine carriage."
Not Just Guantanamo Bay
If you believed America considered "due process" an imaginary term only in Guantanamo Bay, you'd be wrong. See this story, about Ali Al-Marri. The United States held him, a legal U.S. resident, "without charges for more than five years at a Navy brig in South Carolina." (See WSJ, 3/24/09, A7). Apparently, President Obama has finally ordered a trial.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The rule of law isn't America's saving grace--the law always arrives last to an important event. If I'm wrong, then Mr. Al-Marri would have had a trial at some point in his five years in jail. People who place their faith in the law do not have recent history to support them.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The rule of law isn't America's saving grace--the law always arrives last to an important event. If I'm wrong, then Mr. Al-Marri would have had a trial at some point in his five years in jail. People who place their faith in the law do not have recent history to support them.
Incredible Romantic Movie
I highly recommend the 2005 film, Sweet Land. It's not a chick flick, but a sincere, heartfelt film about love in early America. Relevant links are below:
Movie's website: http://www.sweetlandmovie.com/
Interview with director: http://www.movienet.com/sweetland.html
The world really is a small place and, as we move around it and commingle, we have the ability to recognize our similarities, to go beyond tolerance toward acceptance, to redefine communities and humanity out of new combinations of people, sounds, stories and, of course, food.
Movie's website: http://www.sweetlandmovie.com/
Interview with director: http://www.movienet.com/sweetland.html
The world really is a small place and, as we move around it and commingle, we have the ability to recognize our similarities, to go beyond tolerance toward acceptance, to redefine communities and humanity out of new combinations of people, sounds, stories and, of course, food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)