I am going to miss Justice Souter. After 19 years on the bench, he bid farewell to his colleagues and the Court:
I will not sit with you at our bench again after the Court rises for the Summer this time, but neither will I retire from our friendship, which has held us together despite the pull of the most passionate dissent.
Prior to leaving, Justice Souter issued a wonderfully-worded decision supporting students' rights. A school forced a 13 year old girl to show her bra and underpants to see if she had ibuprofen. The Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of the student, with only Justice Thomas dissenting. See Safford v. Redding (2009). Full decision here (warning, PDF file). The decision is a perfect example of Justice Souter's even-handed, reasonable style:
Savana’s [the 13 yrs old girl] subjective expectation of privacy is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. The reasonableness of her expectation is indicated by the common reaction of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the exposure’s patent intrusiveness. Its indignity does not outlaw the search, but it does implicate the rule that “the search [be] ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’ ” Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion...Wilson knew beforehand that the pills were prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen, common pain relievers equivalent to two Advil, or one Aleve.
Parents are known to overreact to protect their children from danger, and a school official with responsibility for safety may tend to do the same. The difference is that the Fourth Amendment places limits on the official, even with the high degree of deference that courts must pay to the educator’s professional judgment.
Makes sense, doesn't it? It's sad that we need the Supreme Court to tell us that government officials shouldn't be able to search a girl's private parts for Advil. If the school was that concerned about the girl's safety, why didn't they send her to the nurse's office and wait for her parents to come see/check her?
The Safford decision is a perfect example of Justice Souter's knack for getting past drama and tying the law to common sense. He will be missed.
"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, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
To Madoff's Investors: Welcome to Main Street
[On July 1, 2009, seekingalpha.com chose this article as an "Editor's Pick." On July 2, 2009, it became the fourth most popular article on seekingalpha.com's website.]
The WSJ is issuing more Madoff victim propaganda. It is interesting to see the WSJ advocating free markets while slyly supporting special treatment for rich investors who failed to follow basic financial advice. Remember: Madoff's investors only lost their life savings if they chose to violate Investment 101's cardinal rule: diversify, diversify, diversify.
In a free market, the rich must suffer when they violate basic investing rules. Otherwise, you don' t have a free market. Instead, you end up with two separate systems--one where the rich get preferential rules and use Congress and the IRS as their own personal insurance policies, and another where everyone else has to suck it up when things fall apart.
As I wrote before here, people who invested with Madoff thought they were buying membership into an exclusive club shielded from the vagaries of the stock market. Middle-class investors like you and me could not get Madoff as our financial advisor. Most of us did not even hear about him until the scandal broke. We were barred from Madoff's circle because we weren't rich and we weren't connected with the elite. Meanwhile, Madoff's investors lobbied hard to gain entrance into Madoff's circle and did so because they believed returns were practically guaranteed. Well, it was an exclusive group, all right--a group of connected, rich suckers who thought they were getting a sweet deal unavailable to Main Street.
Perhaps you think me coldhearted. Don't be naive. If it wasn't for the stock market's monumental, once-in-a-lifetime bust, Madoff's investors would have continued making good, safe, and illegal returns year after year. Madoff's investors would have continued playing golf, donating millions of dollars to charities, and hanging out on their yachts while Madoff wormed his way higher in the NASD's upper ranks. In short, Madoff's investors would have been seen as pillars of their community because they knew Madoff. Meanwhile, the rest of us--not having access to hedge funds or Madoff's exclusive circle--would have had to make it on our own the old-fashioned way: by saving our pennies and diversifying our investments (otherwise known as Investing 101).
What's that? You say not all of Madoff's investors invested directly with Madoff? And not all of them were rich? Fine. Go after the mutual fund companies that failed to do due diligence and violated their fiduciary duties to their investors. Last time I checked, mutual fund advisors get paid millions of dollars in fees to do research on suitable investments, not to find secret investment clubs and then spend the week playing golf. Main Street investors rely on mutual fund managers to check investments and make sure everything's on the up and up. Many people--not just Harry Markopolos--knew something was wrong.
Remember: not everyone invested with Madoff. Many people questioned his too-consistent returns, noticed his small, little-known auditing firm, and went the other direction. By bailing out Madoff's investors, we're punishing smart, ethical people like Harry Markopolos and rewarding unethical rich people who begged to be a part of Madoff's club precisely because it used techniques unavailable to Main Street.
First, let's put all of this in perspective: according to the NY Times (6/29/09), $1.25 billion has already been recovered for Madoff's investors. The WSJ (6/30/2009, A1) cites a similar figure:
Mr. Madoff's attorney, Ira Sorkin, said that Mr. Madoff was a "deeply flawed individual" but maintained that most of the fraud money went to other investors. He added that the $13 billion figure cited by the government as the net losses suffered by account holders since 1995 was overstated, since at least $1 billion in recovered assets will be returned to investors, and perhaps a lot more.
In addition to the to $1 billion, the SIPC has already approved almost $200 million for Madoff's investors:
SIPC has mailed out about $142 million in checks to eligible claimants, out of a total of $188.4 million that already has been approved. [See WSJ (Jane Kim, 6/29/2009, C1)]
The above figures don't include the special tax breaks Congress pushed through for Madoff's investors. Oh, you didn't forget, did you? Congress changed the tax rules to benefit Madoff's investors. (Don't you wish we could do that?) If the test of fair capitalism is whether the rich have to suffer when they make mistakes, America is getting a "D" grade--and I'm being a generous grader.
On top of the tax breaks given to Madoff's investors because of their losses, millions of dollars of taxpayer money is being spent on what is essentially a civil fraud matter. Many middle class and poor Americans suffer fraud at the hands of scam artists. When was the last time you saw local D.A.s and the DOJ spending this much time and effort recovering money for middle-class and poor victims? Where are the tax breaks for small businesses going bankrupt because of the ripple effects from the big banks and hedge funds? I am disgusted by the attention given to investors who were either too lazy to follow basic investing rules or so sophisticated, they had access to special investment vehicles. I am also sorry the WSJ is ruining its credibility by portraying all of Madoff's investors as poor, impoverished souls who bear no responsibility for what has happened to them.
There are no shortcuts. Madoff's investors forgot about that. Now they want us to cover their hides because their exclusive club didn't pan out? Sorry, I don't do handouts to rich people or negligent investors--especially not investors who knowingly violate basic investing rules and look for shortcuts unavailable to Main Street. Non-rich people who invested with Madoff through mutual and feeder funds need to look to the banks and insurance companies for recourse, not the taxpayer. You have my sympathy, but don't push it. Get a job and start saving your pennies like the rest of us. And welcome to Main Street. It ain't so bad.
The WSJ is issuing more Madoff victim propaganda. It is interesting to see the WSJ advocating free markets while slyly supporting special treatment for rich investors who failed to follow basic financial advice. Remember: Madoff's investors only lost their life savings if they chose to violate Investment 101's cardinal rule: diversify, diversify, diversify.
In a free market, the rich must suffer when they violate basic investing rules. Otherwise, you don' t have a free market. Instead, you end up with two separate systems--one where the rich get preferential rules and use Congress and the IRS as their own personal insurance policies, and another where everyone else has to suck it up when things fall apart.
As I wrote before here, people who invested with Madoff thought they were buying membership into an exclusive club shielded from the vagaries of the stock market. Middle-class investors like you and me could not get Madoff as our financial advisor. Most of us did not even hear about him until the scandal broke. We were barred from Madoff's circle because we weren't rich and we weren't connected with the elite. Meanwhile, Madoff's investors lobbied hard to gain entrance into Madoff's circle and did so because they believed returns were practically guaranteed. Well, it was an exclusive group, all right--a group of connected, rich suckers who thought they were getting a sweet deal unavailable to Main Street.
Perhaps you think me coldhearted. Don't be naive. If it wasn't for the stock market's monumental, once-in-a-lifetime bust, Madoff's investors would have continued making good, safe, and illegal returns year after year. Madoff's investors would have continued playing golf, donating millions of dollars to charities, and hanging out on their yachts while Madoff wormed his way higher in the NASD's upper ranks. In short, Madoff's investors would have been seen as pillars of their community because they knew Madoff. Meanwhile, the rest of us--not having access to hedge funds or Madoff's exclusive circle--would have had to make it on our own the old-fashioned way: by saving our pennies and diversifying our investments (otherwise known as Investing 101).
What's that? You say not all of Madoff's investors invested directly with Madoff? And not all of them were rich? Fine. Go after the mutual fund companies that failed to do due diligence and violated their fiduciary duties to their investors. Last time I checked, mutual fund advisors get paid millions of dollars in fees to do research on suitable investments, not to find secret investment clubs and then spend the week playing golf. Main Street investors rely on mutual fund managers to check investments and make sure everything's on the up and up. Many people--not just Harry Markopolos--knew something was wrong.
Remember: not everyone invested with Madoff. Many people questioned his too-consistent returns, noticed his small, little-known auditing firm, and went the other direction. By bailing out Madoff's investors, we're punishing smart, ethical people like Harry Markopolos and rewarding unethical rich people who begged to be a part of Madoff's club precisely because it used techniques unavailable to Main Street.
First, let's put all of this in perspective: according to the NY Times (6/29/09), $1.25 billion has already been recovered for Madoff's investors. The WSJ (6/30/2009, A1) cites a similar figure:
Mr. Madoff's attorney, Ira Sorkin, said that Mr. Madoff was a "deeply flawed individual" but maintained that most of the fraud money went to other investors. He added that the $13 billion figure cited by the government as the net losses suffered by account holders since 1995 was overstated, since at least $1 billion in recovered assets will be returned to investors, and perhaps a lot more.
In addition to the to $1 billion, the SIPC has already approved almost $200 million for Madoff's investors:
SIPC has mailed out about $142 million in checks to eligible claimants, out of a total of $188.4 million that already has been approved. [See WSJ (Jane Kim, 6/29/2009, C1)]
The above figures don't include the special tax breaks Congress pushed through for Madoff's investors. Oh, you didn't forget, did you? Congress changed the tax rules to benefit Madoff's investors. (Don't you wish we could do that?) If the test of fair capitalism is whether the rich have to suffer when they make mistakes, America is getting a "D" grade--and I'm being a generous grader.
On top of the tax breaks given to Madoff's investors because of their losses, millions of dollars of taxpayer money is being spent on what is essentially a civil fraud matter. Many middle class and poor Americans suffer fraud at the hands of scam artists. When was the last time you saw local D.A.s and the DOJ spending this much time and effort recovering money for middle-class and poor victims? Where are the tax breaks for small businesses going bankrupt because of the ripple effects from the big banks and hedge funds? I am disgusted by the attention given to investors who were either too lazy to follow basic investing rules or so sophisticated, they had access to special investment vehicles. I am also sorry the WSJ is ruining its credibility by portraying all of Madoff's investors as poor, impoverished souls who bear no responsibility for what has happened to them.
There are no shortcuts. Madoff's investors forgot about that. Now they want us to cover their hides because their exclusive club didn't pan out? Sorry, I don't do handouts to rich people or negligent investors--especially not investors who knowingly violate basic investing rules and look for shortcuts unavailable to Main Street. Non-rich people who invested with Madoff through mutual and feeder funds need to look to the banks and insurance companies for recourse, not the taxpayer. You have my sympathy, but don't push it. Get a job and start saving your pennies like the rest of us. And welcome to Main Street. It ain't so bad.
Essential Reading
Essential reading, from SmartMoney: "10 Things Your Congressperson Won't Say" (Brigid McMenamin, June 30, 2009)
http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/rip-offs/what-your-congressman-wont-tell-you-20207/
Basically, it's an article about how our legislative branch really works. Cover your children's eyes before clicking on the link.
http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/rip-offs/what-your-congressman-wont-tell-you-20207/
Basically, it's an article about how our legislative branch really works. Cover your children's eyes before clicking on the link.
Letter to Iran
From PARVANEH VAHIDMANESH: a touching letter to Iran's establishment:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623110886766123.html
Ali Khamenei, if you pursue the path you have been following, our people's anger will take a different form. It will turn you and your family, as it did the shah's and his, into forlorn and helpless individuals with the word "exile" stamped across your foreheads.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623110886766123.html
Ali Khamenei, if you pursue the path you have been following, our people's anger will take a different form. It will turn you and your family, as it did the shah's and his, into forlorn and helpless individuals with the word "exile" stamped across your foreheads.
The French and Sex
I read a while back that the French have the most sex compared to all other nationalities. (I think I saw it in Durex's annual sex survey.) Here might be why:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1195624/French-women-dont-just-tolerate-husbands-affairs--expect-them.html
Seems like a realistic approach. Many marital couples stop enjoying sex frequently, and under the French system, they don't have to get divorced. They just move on and be discreet. But what about STDs?
Anyway, if you notice, in most socialist countries, women tend to be more sexually open. See Scandinavian countries, for example. If Karl Marx had gone with the sex angle, maybe we'd all be red commies today. It does seem that many people compensate for a lack of a good sex life with material possessions. Perhaps that's one reason why capitalism and Puritanism go well together.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1195624/French-women-dont-just-tolerate-husbands-affairs--expect-them.html
Seems like a realistic approach. Many marital couples stop enjoying sex frequently, and under the French system, they don't have to get divorced. They just move on and be discreet. But what about STDs?
Anyway, if you notice, in most socialist countries, women tend to be more sexually open. See Scandinavian countries, for example. If Karl Marx had gone with the sex angle, maybe we'd all be red commies today. It does seem that many people compensate for a lack of a good sex life with material possessions. Perhaps that's one reason why capitalism and Puritanism go well together.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)