American Scholar, Spring 2010
Article: Solitude and Leadership
Author: William Deresiewicz
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/
Why is it so often that the best people are stuck in the middle and the people who are running things—the leaders—are the mediocrities? Because excellence isn’t usually what gets you up the greasy pole. What gets you up is a talent for maneuvering. Kissing up to the people above you, kicking down to the people below you. Pleasing your teachers, pleasing your superiors...
Henry David Thoreau looks alive and well in the body of William Deresiewicz.
"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
Monday, May 3, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Friday Night
Just saw Darrell Hammond at San Jose's Improv. He was good, but not great. Most of his stuff is recycled, but it's mainly impersonations, so his routine never gets old. Hammond's Arnold Schwarzenegger impression is probably one of his best, and I also enjoyed his Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson impersonations. Hammond thanked Bill Clinton for his house during the routine, and he doesn't seem to think too highly of the South (where he's from), Panda Express, or Hillary Clinton.
Jim Breuer, also an SNL alumnus, is still the best stand-up comic I've ever seen live.
Jim Breuer, also an SNL alumnus, is still the best stand-up comic I've ever seen live.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Government Workers and Pensions
In today's WSJ (April 29, 2010), Gary Shilling delivers the lowdown on government pensions:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117943161614762.html
Years ago, there was an informal "social contract"—public employees generally received lower wages than private-sector workers, and in return they got earlier retirement and generous pensions, allowing them to catch up. That arrangement has long since gone by the boards. The result is a remarkable trend. State and local government employees for years have received pay increases in excess of inflation, and BLS figures show they now have wages that are 34% higher on average than in the private sector.
To me, it's even more simple. It is foolish to spend lots of money on unproductive people, because each dollar that goes to someone who isn't working is a dollar taken away from someone who wants to work or is currently working. Typically, working and non-retired people contribute more to the economy because they spend more money on purchases such as homes, cars, appliances, and miscellaneous items, including items for their children.
Also, if retired people--whether Joe the Plumber or Joe the Police Officer--continue to make large purchases, they would actually hurt younger, newer couples by raising demand and prices. For example, if a retired person has a large pension and decides to buy a second home, s/he takes the home off the market for a first-time homebuyer who now has to look elsewhere for a home or try to compete with someone who has a stable pension and who has had decades to built up assets.
In a world where products and money are not infinite, each dollar makes a difference, whether positive or negative.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117943161614762.html
Years ago, there was an informal "social contract"—public employees generally received lower wages than private-sector workers, and in return they got earlier retirement and generous pensions, allowing them to catch up. That arrangement has long since gone by the boards. The result is a remarkable trend. State and local government employees for years have received pay increases in excess of inflation, and BLS figures show they now have wages that are 34% higher on average than in the private sector.
To me, it's even more simple. It is foolish to spend lots of money on unproductive people, because each dollar that goes to someone who isn't working is a dollar taken away from someone who wants to work or is currently working. Typically, working and non-retired people contribute more to the economy because they spend more money on purchases such as homes, cars, appliances, and miscellaneous items, including items for their children.
Also, if retired people--whether Joe the Plumber or Joe the Police Officer--continue to make large purchases, they would actually hurt younger, newer couples by raising demand and prices. For example, if a retired person has a large pension and decides to buy a second home, s/he takes the home off the market for a first-time homebuyer who now has to look elsewhere for a home or try to compete with someone who has a stable pension and who has had decades to built up assets.
In a world where products and money are not infinite, each dollar makes a difference, whether positive or negative.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Pension Promises Bankrupting California?
Interesting article (April 12, 2010, Sac Bee, Phillip Reese) on public pensions and their effect on California cities and counties:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/11/2670020/pension-promises-threaten-california.html
"The old joke is that General Motors is just a health insurance company that makes cars on the side," San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam Hill said during a pension presentation at a recent board meeting. "My concern is that the county government is becoming a pension provider that provides government services on the side."
The legacy of Gray Davis: blackouts and unsustainable pension promises?
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/11/2670020/pension-promises-threaten-california.html
"The old joke is that General Motors is just a health insurance company that makes cars on the side," San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam Hill said during a pension presentation at a recent board meeting. "My concern is that the county government is becoming a pension provider that provides government services on the side."
The legacy of Gray Davis: blackouts and unsustainable pension promises?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Economy is Linked in Strange Ways
Until this year, I had been a loyal Wall Street Journal subscriber. I usually paid less than $200 for an annual subscription, but last year, the WSJ decided to increase the price to over $300/yr. I balked. For a while, I received only the local paper. The WSJ would call me once a month--usually very early in the morning--to try to get me to renew, but the sales rep wouldn't budge on the price.
After a few months, I grew tired of the local paper and signed with the New York Times, but just its Sunday edition. Some time thereafter, the WSJ sent me a renewal request with a price I was willing to pay. Apparently, if you wait 180 days between WSJ subscriptions, the WSJ finally offers you its "old" or "original" price, which--last time I checked--is less than $200. By this time, however, I thoroughly enjoyed the New York Times, especially its "Modern Love" Sunday pieces, and was unwilling to go back to the WSJ.
Why should anyone care about my newspaper habits? Because even small consumer habits, in the aggregate, create ripple effects. When I was receiving the weekday WSJ, I would go to Panera Bread (PNRA) for coffee and a cobblestone pastry every weekday. But once I stopped receiving the weekday paper, I skipped my Panera Bread morning outing. That eliminates over a thousand dollars from Panera's annual revenue, and they did nothing to lose my business--the Dow Jones & Company (NWSA), owner of the WSJ, caused me to change my morning habits with its strange marketing strategies. Now, with a much longer and more informative Sunday paper, I spend more time on the weekend at my local coffeeshop, which is usually Peet's Coffee (PEET). Dow Jones & Company basically transferred some of my money from Panera Bread to Peet's Coffee and Tea. Yet, no one at the WSJ intended Panera to lose my business and Peet's Coffee to gain it.
What is the point of this story? Basically, the economy is extremely difficult to manage because of the potential for unintended results. When the government tries to fix the economy, it, too, creates unintended consequences. Right now, we don't know the exact nature of those consequences, but at some point, we will be able to study how the stimulus package created unintended winners and losers. I agree that Congress should limit leverage on Wall Street. At the same time, Americans are losing sight of the big picture when it comes to federal spending. For example, the portion of the federal budget dedicated to defense spending continues to increase. It is now 23% of the entire federal budget. TARP, which many Americans bitterly protested, was only 4% of the 2009 federal budget. The ever-increasing defense budget has more than just financial consequences. Over 4,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Over 30,000 American soldiers have been injured in Iraq. Yet, many Americans, encouraged by mass media, pay more attention to "tea parties," golfer Tiger Woods' personal life, sports, and reality television. And so it goes.
After a few months, I grew tired of the local paper and signed with the New York Times, but just its Sunday edition. Some time thereafter, the WSJ sent me a renewal request with a price I was willing to pay. Apparently, if you wait 180 days between WSJ subscriptions, the WSJ finally offers you its "old" or "original" price, which--last time I checked--is less than $200. By this time, however, I thoroughly enjoyed the New York Times, especially its "Modern Love" Sunday pieces, and was unwilling to go back to the WSJ.
Why should anyone care about my newspaper habits? Because even small consumer habits, in the aggregate, create ripple effects. When I was receiving the weekday WSJ, I would go to Panera Bread (PNRA) for coffee and a cobblestone pastry every weekday. But once I stopped receiving the weekday paper, I skipped my Panera Bread morning outing. That eliminates over a thousand dollars from Panera's annual revenue, and they did nothing to lose my business--the Dow Jones & Company (NWSA), owner of the WSJ, caused me to change my morning habits with its strange marketing strategies. Now, with a much longer and more informative Sunday paper, I spend more time on the weekend at my local coffeeshop, which is usually Peet's Coffee (PEET). Dow Jones & Company basically transferred some of my money from Panera Bread to Peet's Coffee and Tea. Yet, no one at the WSJ intended Panera to lose my business and Peet's Coffee to gain it.
What is the point of this story? Basically, the economy is extremely difficult to manage because of the potential for unintended results. When the government tries to fix the economy, it, too, creates unintended consequences. Right now, we don't know the exact nature of those consequences, but at some point, we will be able to study how the stimulus package created unintended winners and losers. I agree that Congress should limit leverage on Wall Street. At the same time, Americans are losing sight of the big picture when it comes to federal spending. For example, the portion of the federal budget dedicated to defense spending continues to increase. It is now 23% of the entire federal budget. TARP, which many Americans bitterly protested, was only 4% of the 2009 federal budget. The ever-increasing defense budget has more than just financial consequences. Over 4,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Over 30,000 American soldiers have been injured in Iraq. Yet, many Americans, encouraged by mass media, pay more attention to "tea parties," golfer Tiger Woods' personal life, sports, and reality television. And so it goes.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Excessive Government Pay?
The best part is the S.F. deputy police chief saying he's helped reduce the deficit because of the taxes he paid on his half million dollars salary. (Rachel Gordon, April 26, 2010, SF Chronicle)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2010/04/25/MNC51CLUBN.DTL
Oh, the arrogance and self-dealing.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2010/04/25/MNC51CLUBN.DTL
Oh, the arrogance and self-dealing.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Usain Bolt
[Update: link no longer works. Sigh.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)