In case you missed it, here is the transcript of NBC's January 18, 2009 interview with Warren Buffett.
Every time I read what Warren says, I relax. America is lucky to have such an articulate, honorable spokesman. Excerpts from the interview are below.
Warren on public pensions:
[T]he pension plans of states and cities...have been decimated in the last year. And the costs from that, the lack of revenue they're going to face as the economy slows, means that you are going to see a parade of mayors and governors to Washington like you've never seen it. And they're gonna say, "If you can help out General Motors, and you can help out Citicorp, you can certainly help out, you know, this state or that state." So I think it's gonna make inauguration day look like nothing in terms of the public officials that come in here and say, "We need help." Their revenues are gonna be down. Their expenses, particularly including pension expenses, are going to be up. And you're going to have unbalanced budgets just all over the country with states and cities.
Warren on economic stimulus:
[E]very time you read about 523,000, or whatever, those people losing their jobs in December, those are 523,000 human tragedies. I mean, I can think of nothing worse than going home and saying, you know, to a family that, "I've lost my job and we've got mortgage payments and food to buy." And so we need to solve that one. And we will have consequences to the kind of deficits we're running up. And some of them will be unpleasant. But I would rather face those consequences than to face the consequences of doing nothing.
Warren on investing:
[Investors] have to look to the business, the asset itself. If you own an apartment house you wouldn't get a [price] quote on it every day. You'd just look at the rent, and what your taxes were and expenses were. And if they all came in line with what you expected when you bought it, you'd feel you'd made a satisfactory investment, and you'd never get a quote on it. So I don't look at quotes. Mostly-- I can't tell you what Berkshire Hathaway [BRK.A, BRK.B] is selling for today.
Warren on bailouts:
Well, that's [bank, auto bailouts] exactly what we did in 1933. I mean, in 1933, when Roosevelt came in, there was something called the Reconstruction Finance Corp, RFC. Actually, It got enacted under Hoover in '32. But Roosevelt appointed Jesse Jones in 1933. And they put preferred stocks into the banks. They concentrated on banks, but they went into other things. Incidentally, when [Jesse Jones] put that money in, he told 'em what the compensation rate was gonna be too. I mean, he was a tough tsar. And it helped take the United States out of a depression. I mean, the RFC was an important component. And I'm sure they got criticized at the start. And they said, "People, you're throwing money into the wrong things and all that." ...But you can't separate Wall Street, Main Street, side streets. We are connected. This is one big community. And you better have credit flowing.
I knew that Congress authorized loans in 1979 to prevent a Chrysler bankruptcy, and J.P. Morgan once bailed out the Treasury, but this is the first time I've heard about the RFC and Jesse Jones. I shouldn't be so surprised--as I wrote here, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
"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
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama's Inauguration Address Transcript
For those of you who missed it, here is the transcript of President Obama's inauguration address:
http://www.welt.de/english-news/article3062276/President-Obamas-inauguration-address.html
I didn't hear the address, but reading the transcript, this is my favorite part:
[I]t has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
In other news, stocks markets are down. The Dow is down 2.6%, and Nasdaq is down 4.2% in mid-day trading. It's got nothing to do with Obama's address--corporate earnings are still coming out, and people are scared.
http://www.welt.de/english-news/article3062276/President-Obamas-inauguration-address.html
I didn't hear the address, but reading the transcript, this is my favorite part:
[I]t has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
In other news, stocks markets are down. The Dow is down 2.6%, and Nasdaq is down 4.2% in mid-day trading. It's got nothing to do with Obama's address--corporate earnings are still coming out, and people are scared.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Madoff Investors and White Shirts
It's becoming fashionable for Madoff investors to share their stories. One investor, Alexandra Penney, shares her tale of woe here.
For the thousandth time, the lesson is “diversify”:
More than a decade ago, when I was in my late 40s, I handed over my life savings to Madoff’s firm...
It's also clear the elite were the ones connected to Madoff:
I was brought up in very comfortable circumstances in a Waspy Connecticut suburb. My mother was a descendant of Greek royalty, an intellectual grande dame who wore elegant shaded glasses. But my father, a Greek immigrant, was a product of the Depression. He was a smart, strict Harvard lawyer who had seen bad times...I asked around and talked to my smartest friends with Harvard and Wharton MBAs. There appeared to be a secret society of Madoff investors. A friend who was older, wealthier, and more established somehow got me in.
It's still difficult to identify with Madoff investors, partly because there's an element of self-exploitation involved. Ms. Penny, for example, uses her article to promote a sex book she wrote years ago. She also unconsciously reveals how insulated she is when she talks about her forty white shirts, ironed by an immigrant named Yolanda:
I wear a classic clean white shirt every day of the week. I have about 40 white shirts. They make me feel fresh and ready to face whatever battles I may be fighting in the studio to get the best out of my work.
The language is shockingly out-of-touch. "Battles" fought "in the studio"? Is she forgetting that Americans, mostly poor and middle class, are fighting real battles right now? Also, who has 40 white shirts? I'm an attorney, so I actually need white collared shirts. Yet, I own only three--one from Gap (GPS), one from Macy's (M), and another from Nordstrom (JWN). I also specifically look for "wrinkle-resistant" shirts to save money on drycleaning.
Other readers picked up on the "white shirt" phenomenon, too--here's a comment from "Hammett":
Hey, you're worried about clean white shirts. So, you're going to have to learn how to iron and stand there until your back hurts, like most people. That's life. Get off your [arse], and get to work. And stop feeling sorry for yourself.
More on Madoff here and here. Public outrage isn't going to go away anytime soon. Scott Burns, one of my favorite finance writers, received 3,000 emails/letters when he asked readers how Madoff should be punished. What do you think, readers? What would be an appropriate punishment for Madoff?
For the thousandth time, the lesson is “diversify”:
More than a decade ago, when I was in my late 40s, I handed over my life savings to Madoff’s firm...
It's also clear the elite were the ones connected to Madoff:
I was brought up in very comfortable circumstances in a Waspy Connecticut suburb. My mother was a descendant of Greek royalty, an intellectual grande dame who wore elegant shaded glasses. But my father, a Greek immigrant, was a product of the Depression. He was a smart, strict Harvard lawyer who had seen bad times...I asked around and talked to my smartest friends with Harvard and Wharton MBAs. There appeared to be a secret society of Madoff investors. A friend who was older, wealthier, and more established somehow got me in.
It's still difficult to identify with Madoff investors, partly because there's an element of self-exploitation involved. Ms. Penny, for example, uses her article to promote a sex book she wrote years ago. She also unconsciously reveals how insulated she is when she talks about her forty white shirts, ironed by an immigrant named Yolanda:
I wear a classic clean white shirt every day of the week. I have about 40 white shirts. They make me feel fresh and ready to face whatever battles I may be fighting in the studio to get the best out of my work.
The language is shockingly out-of-touch. "Battles" fought "in the studio"? Is she forgetting that Americans, mostly poor and middle class, are fighting real battles right now? Also, who has 40 white shirts? I'm an attorney, so I actually need white collared shirts. Yet, I own only three--one from Gap (GPS), one from Macy's (M), and another from Nordstrom (JWN). I also specifically look for "wrinkle-resistant" shirts to save money on drycleaning.
Other readers picked up on the "white shirt" phenomenon, too--here's a comment from "Hammett":
Hey, you're worried about clean white shirts. So, you're going to have to learn how to iron and stand there until your back hurts, like most people. That's life. Get off your [arse], and get to work. And stop feeling sorry for yourself.
More on Madoff here and here. Public outrage isn't going to go away anytime soon. Scott Burns, one of my favorite finance writers, received 3,000 emails/letters when he asked readers how Madoff should be punished. What do you think, readers? What would be an appropriate punishment for Madoff?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Salary Info and the Middle Class
From The Atlantic's Jan/Feb 2009 issue (p. 77):
[T]he median household income in the United States is $48,000... [but] the median-household-income statistic is too blunt an instrument, because it contains households headed by 20-year-olds (i.e., students), as well as 90-year-olds (i.e., retirees). If you earn $48,000 at 20, you're doing fine and don't need government help; at 90, you're on a fixed income and have different needs (and more options) from government than someone younger. According to an analysis by The Third Way, the median household income for people ages 25 to 60, the prime working years, is about $68,000; if they're married, it's about $78,000. If both spouses earn income at some point during the year, the number rises to $85,000.
Makes you reconsider the definition of middle-class, doesn't it?
[T]he median household income in the United States is $48,000... [but] the median-household-income statistic is too blunt an instrument, because it contains households headed by 20-year-olds (i.e., students), as well as 90-year-olds (i.e., retirees). If you earn $48,000 at 20, you're doing fine and don't need government help; at 90, you're on a fixed income and have different needs (and more options) from government than someone younger. According to an analysis by The Third Way, the median household income for people ages 25 to 60, the prime working years, is about $68,000; if they're married, it's about $78,000. If both spouses earn income at some point during the year, the number rises to $85,000.
Makes you reconsider the definition of middle-class, doesn't it?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Out of the Fire and Into the Frying Pan?
The WSJ's Greg Hitt reports that the stimulus plan isn't really going to taxpayers--much of it is going right into the hands of government workers. See January 13, 2009 article, "Stimulus Proposal Aims to Aid State, Local Governments."
In a nutshell, President-elect Obama has asked Congress to give him more taxpayer money--more than the $700 billion already printed. Purportedly, this new money would be used to stimulate an economic recovery. The problem is, much of it will go to a new "education stabilization fund," or into the pockets of government workers. Under the proposed plan, $80 billion would go towards programs benefiting teachers' unions.
Is this change, or just maintaining the status quo?
In a nutshell, President-elect Obama has asked Congress to give him more taxpayer money--more than the $700 billion already printed. Purportedly, this new money would be used to stimulate an economic recovery. The problem is, much of it will go to a new "education stabilization fund," or into the pockets of government workers. Under the proposed plan, $80 billion would go towards programs benefiting teachers' unions.
Is this change, or just maintaining the status quo?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Anthony Bourdain on the Decline of Meritocracy
I don't usually recommend television shows, but Anthony Bourdain's "No Reservations" is just too good to keep to myself. When I first saw Bourdain's show, I couldn't stand him. Fortunately, Bourdain is a quickly acquired taste, and by the second show, I couldn't get enough. Some people see Bourdain as a snarky alcoholic who gets paid to go around the world and eat for a living. Others, however, see him as confident America personified--unafraid of the foreign, friendly to all, direct, irreverent, and eager to socialize (preferably where alcohol is involved).
If you, like author Chuck Thompson (Smile When You're Lying), are disenchanted with the sanitized media, check out "No Reservations." In one of his best shows, Bourdain travels to Colombia. In between bites, we are treated to stories about Pablo Escobar, a local rap group, and the evolution of Colombia itself. (Other fans praise the Vietnam show as his best, but I haven't seen it yet.)
Bourdain's funniest moments seem to take place in cold weather. In Sweden, after a night out on the tundra, Bourdain goes on a hilarious 30 second monologue about how he wants to be called "Giver of life," because his cigarette lighter provided fire for his crew. In Iceland, Bourdain is looking forward to an annual party, and when it's nothing like promised, he gets drunk and proceeds to mock the entire event. At one point, he busts out his lighter in tribute to an Icelandic a capella group. Later, he names a horse Sarah Jessica Parker (she has a long face).
Mr. Bourdain also has a blog. [Update: looks like link has changed to here: https://www.travelchannel.com/shows/anthony-bourdain/articles/]
Bonus: here is a fantastic salon.com 2006 interview with him. My favorite excerpts are below:
On Bourdain's intense dislike for Rachael Ray:
Q: Will we see you in a year saying, "Oh, I had drinks with Rachael Ray, and actually, she's all right"?
A: Yeah, right. "After the hot-tub incident, I've changed my mind." You know, listen, like I said, I could be wrong. Unlikely. But maybe she's nice to puppies...[Anyway,] If I ever saw her getting trashed on Old Crow, pistol-whipping a vegan after a bar crawl, I would think, "That's an interesting woman. I would like to know her."
[Bonus: https://www.salon.com/2006/10/05/ruhlman_bourdain_foie/]
On immigration:
Listen, in 25 years, I don't remember ever seeing an American-born kid of any income level walk into my restaurant, or any restaurant owned by any of my friends, and ask, Do you have a dishwasher job, or a prep job, or a job for a kitchen porter? We're not willing to do it. If somebody else wants to come over here and do it, that's fine with me...
If you, like author Chuck Thompson (Smile When You're Lying), are disenchanted with the sanitized media, check out "No Reservations." In one of his best shows, Bourdain travels to Colombia. In between bites, we are treated to stories about Pablo Escobar, a local rap group, and the evolution of Colombia itself. (Other fans praise the Vietnam show as his best, but I haven't seen it yet.)
Bourdain's funniest moments seem to take place in cold weather. In Sweden, after a night out on the tundra, Bourdain goes on a hilarious 30 second monologue about how he wants to be called "Giver of life," because his cigarette lighter provided fire for his crew. In Iceland, Bourdain is looking forward to an annual party, and when it's nothing like promised, he gets drunk and proceeds to mock the entire event. At one point, he busts out his lighter in tribute to an Icelandic a capella group. Later, he names a horse Sarah Jessica Parker (she has a long face).
Mr. Bourdain also has a blog. [Update: looks like link has changed to here: https://www.travelchannel.com/shows/anthony-bourdain/articles/]
Bonus: here is a fantastic salon.com 2006 interview with him. My favorite excerpts are below:
On Bourdain's intense dislike for Rachael Ray:
Q: Will we see you in a year saying, "Oh, I had drinks with Rachael Ray, and actually, she's all right"?
A: Yeah, right. "After the hot-tub incident, I've changed my mind." You know, listen, like I said, I could be wrong. Unlikely. But maybe she's nice to puppies...[Anyway,] If I ever saw her getting trashed on Old Crow, pistol-whipping a vegan after a bar crawl, I would think, "That's an interesting woman. I would like to know her."
[Bonus: https://www.salon.com/2006/10/05/ruhlman_bourdain_foie/]
On immigration:
Listen, in 25 years, I don't remember ever seeing an American-born kid of any income level walk into my restaurant, or any restaurant owned by any of my friends, and ask, Do you have a dishwasher job, or a prep job, or a job for a kitchen porter? We're not willing to do it. If somebody else wants to come over here and do it, that's fine with me...
I also like the idea of people from other places coming to our country and multiplying. It makes for better food, higher expectations, more diversity and cuter people. Foreigners should come to our country and have sex with our womenfolk.
On how laws, P.C., and regulations are driving Americans apart and reducing merit-based values:
I think it's great that kitchens are maybe the last meritocracy, the last workplace where men and women can speak to each other honestly, however offensively that might be, where your value is only in how well you do your job and how well you can talk shit back at somebody. I see that as an admirable quality. I don't like the idea of tiptoeing around each other. I think that if you say something stupid and offensive, somebody should get right up in your face and say, "That was incredibly stupid and offensive, and f**k you too!" Once you enforce it, bring in the human resources department, everybody goes home to their own neighborhoods, and we never really talk.
On how laws, P.C., and regulations are driving Americans apart and reducing merit-based values:
I think it's great that kitchens are maybe the last meritocracy, the last workplace where men and women can speak to each other honestly, however offensively that might be, where your value is only in how well you do your job and how well you can talk shit back at somebody. I see that as an admirable quality. I don't like the idea of tiptoeing around each other. I think that if you say something stupid and offensive, somebody should get right up in your face and say, "That was incredibly stupid and offensive, and f**k you too!" Once you enforce it, bring in the human resources department, everybody goes home to their own neighborhoods, and we never really talk.
[More on kitchens as meritocracies here (Judy Joo, 1/22/09, WSJ, "Out of the Fire, Into the Frying Pan").]
Author's note: Bourdain's paragraph above really appeals to me. I am usually non-confrontational, so it's hard to tell my stance on most issues. However, despite my generally flexible nature, I am steadfast when it comes to the idea of meritocracy. Judging people based on their work, not their beliefs, should be the norm, not the exception. As a lawyer, for example, I don't care what a judge's political affiliation is, as long as s/he reads the pleadings. I don't even care if I lose, as long as the rationale makes sense. But give me a judge who's lazy, who got his/her job through charisma rather than hard work, and who relies entirely on law clerks, and it's all I can do not to have a Tourette's "incident" during oral argument and an anger-induced aneurysm afterwards.
Unfortunately, many judges, because of the political nature of the appointment process, got their jobs through charisma rather than a widely-acknowledged work ethic. Once on the bench, judges are given highly trained staff who prepare advisory legal memos on each case. Because of these law clerks--who initially have more overall substantive legal knowledge than the judge--the incentive to read litigants' pleadings is removed. Predictably, most judges lapse into a titular position, where they rubberstamp their clerks' opinions or memorandums of law.
Unfortunately, many judges, because of the political nature of the appointment process, got their jobs through charisma rather than a widely-acknowledged work ethic. Once on the bench, judges are given highly trained staff who prepare advisory legal memos on each case. Because of these law clerks--who initially have more overall substantive legal knowledge than the judge--the incentive to read litigants' pleadings is removed. Predictably, most judges lapse into a titular position, where they rubberstamp their clerks' opinions or memorandums of law.
In fact, if you were to put a camera above most judges during oral argument, you'd see only a legal memo prepared by a law clerk. The judge usually doesn't open any of the case files, unless an attorney specifically mentions an exhibit or particular page. Also, a judge knows that if s/he changes a law clerk's proposed opinion, either the clerk or the judge must spend time drafting a brand new opinion. As a result, changing a clerk's proposed opinion creates work (and trouble) for everyone. In this way, the "memo" system fundamentally changes oral argument and the legal system. Rather than seek the truth or a just result, the judge's job becomes corralling the attorneys into the confines of the law clerk's memo.
Inevitably, the "memo" system results in a clash between hard-working lawyers and judges who don't read the pleadings. That's because the "memo" system is fine if you're a bad or lazy lawyer--you get treated the same as a lawyer who's spent hours reading every single case cited in the papers and who knows every detail of his/her case. It's like going to a class with a teacher who doesn't prepare for a lecture and who treats all the kids the same--regardless of whether they did their homework perfectly or didn't bothering opening a textbook. If you're a student in that class, you can't help but be upset.
First, your teacher just got paid taxpayer money for showing up unprepared. Second, your teacher is wasting your time because s/he has nothing to offer. You could have spent the day doing productive, money-generating activities, but you can't, because you have to spend time preparing in case the teacher does have questions, and you have to spend time attending the class. Third, even if the best students don't get discouraged, they are less motivated to do their best. Good students like being pushed--lazy ones don't. Fourth, anyone who cares about the schooling system as a whole should get upset. By failing to work hard, your teacher is incentivizing his/her students to be unprepared or to submit shoddy work. Predictably, everyone starts slouching towards mediocrity, because unprepared teachers discourage students who ask questions or who are passionate about a topic. There's no point in having any substantive interaction anyway, because the unprepared teacher's job isn't to get the truth or the proper result--it's to get the students to be quiet and accept the findings in his/her research assistant's memo. (Some teachers, if they're particularly devious, will try to embarrass vocal students by having arbitrary decorum rules. Such rules allow teachers to divert attention from substantive matters when in a tough spot, while also making well-prepared students appear ill-mannered.) Thus, the purpose of the schooling system--to create an environment that encourages achievement and well-informed debate to maximize accurate results--is perverted, all on the taxpayer's dime. Change teachers to judges, research assistants to law clerks, and students to lawyers, and you might have an accurate metaphor for how our current judicial system works.
To be fair, most law clerks are quite good (almost all of them graduated at the top of their class). They're usually sitting in the back of the courtroom, silently viewing oral arguments. In the current judicial system, good lawyers learn that their job is to divine what the semi-invisible law clerk wants, not the judge. There are at least two major problems with this delegation of judicial work:
1. There is no way for an attorney to question the clerks; in fact, one federal court refused to even give me a clerk's name after I protested the court's refusal to have a hearing.
2. Most clerks usually have no law firm experience, so they don't know much about the actual practice of law. This can result in a new or pusillanimous clerk making a credibility determination based on the size or prestige of a firm rather than the merits of the case. It also results in a system that is disinclined to take any risks, no matter how small. (Better to "split the baby" and award something to each side, even if one side is completely correct. No one will protest too much, except perhaps the client--who is mostly invisible until trial.) Good lawyers quickly learn they need to prepare their clients for settlement--no matter how good or bad the case.
As for judges, they continue to have little incentive to read any of the pleadings. For example, I had one case where a judge got the name of my client's supervisor wrong--even though I had quoted her numerous times in my papers, and her testimony was our main source of evidence. Lest you think this was a routine motion, it was a dispositive motion that eventually dismissed my client's entire case. (This judge's colleague once said the judge isn't enamored with "motion work," and prefers to spend his time on trials. That's fine, except if your law clerk is the only one reading the pleadings, s/he decides whether you have a trial.) I've had a case where a judge pointed to my PO Box mailing address on my pleading caption, thinking I didn't have an office address. (After the first page, my papers actually listed my office address.) I could go on, but I'll spare my readers.
In any case, judging people on their work ethic is the clear solution to solving the timeless issues of racism, sexism, etc. I don't mean we should have a nation of Orwellian Boxers--the result counts, too. But make no mistake--without affirming work ethic as our primary value, we will rely on our prejudices and lesser angels to make decisions, leading to a decline in merit-based progress. Down the road, we'll realize that when meritocracy goes, down goes any nation--and by then, it will be too late.
And on that note, here is a paragraph attributed to Bourdain I can relate to, sans the Mary Jane:
In any case, judging people on their work ethic is the clear solution to solving the timeless issues of racism, sexism, etc. I don't mean we should have a nation of Orwellian Boxers--the result counts, too. But make no mistake--without affirming work ethic as our primary value, we will rely on our prejudices and lesser angels to make decisions, leading to a decline in merit-based progress. Down the road, we'll realize that when meritocracy goes, down goes any nation--and by then, it will be too late.
And on that note, here is a paragraph attributed to Bourdain I can relate to, sans the Mary Jane:
I know there's deep inside (me) some lazy hippie who'd be perfectly happy to lay on the couch, smoke weed and watch The Simpsons all day - I'm really afraid of that guy. I don't like him. I don't want him around. And my whole life is kind of constructed to avoid reverting to that guy: Stay busy. Stay focused. Try not to mess up.
Update on February 4, 2009: I forgot an essential element that needs to accompany work ethic--self-restraint. Without self-restraint, having a wonderful work ethic could mean Germany gearing up for WWII.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Intel Makes its Numbers, and My Deja Vu Experience
Looks like my hits are coming early this year--as I predicted, Intel (INTC) made its earnings numbers today. See my prediction here, and the AP earnings summary here. If the presidential inauguration goes well, Intel stock may rise above $14/share next week (Monday is a holiday). If I am correct in this follow-up prediction, I should achieve a 5.7% gain in less than one week. (If you're interested, you can view the results of my 2008 predictions here.) (Update on January 28, 2009: Intel stock today increased above $14/share, making my prediction true, but a few days later than I expected.)
If you read the first article linked above, you'll notice that two analysts downgraded Intel, even assigning a $10/share price to Intel recently. (Intel is trading around 13.58/share in after-hours trading.) Analysts came under fire because they were overly optimistic during the subprime crisis, so expect a reversal of sentiment--analysts will now become too pessimistic. In over a decade of investing, I've rarely seen any analyst issue "sell" ratings or assign prices to blue-chip companies below current trading levels. If you're a contrarian investor, you may be encouraged by these overly pessimistic signs. I know I am.
I just re-read a Money "special report" issue from September 2002, another turbulent time. The cover page had the following deja vu titles: "When will the bear market end?"; "Where should I put my cash?"; and "Who can I trust?" As I flipped through the pages, I began smiling. If Money magazine re-issued its September 2002 issue today, no one would notice any outdated information. Indeed, most stock prices and indices are back to where they were in 2002. In addition, Americans had just suffered through the Enron and Worldcom debacles, which reduced not only investor confidence, but faith in the entire capitalistic apparatus.
Let me share with you some lines from Money's 2002 special report--see if they look or feel familiar:
Stock prices in free-fall: "There's a disconnect between how these businesses are doing and how their stocks are performing," says one manager. (p. 36)
Anger over corporate irresponsibility: Nell Minow has developed some very clear ideas of how to cure what ails corporate America. To her, it boils down to one thing: Change the way boards of directors operate. Yes, reform of the accounting profession is needed. Yes, it ought to be easier to put corporate fraudsters in jail. Yes, something has to be done about those insanely outsize options packages that have given so many executives the motive to commit fraud. But to Minow, all of this is secondary to reforming corporate boards. (pps. 57-58). [Author's note: someone get Ms. Minow an SEC position pronto.]
Anger over inadequate government oversight: But after 2 1/2 years and a market loss of nearly $7 trillion, the White House and Congress still don't get it. (p. 63)
No commentary needed: Whoever said crime doesn't pay obviously never ran a big corporation. (p. 64)
Bargain hunting: Is General Electric (GE) stock a bargain? It looks like one to us. (p. 68) [note: GE was selling for around $28/share at the time. It is now selling for $13.77/share. I liked it at $14.66/share and look forward to averaging down.]
Nuff' said: Is Our Financial System Broken? (p. 79)
What's the lesson? Just this: the more things change, the more they stay the same. I will leave you with some reassuring words from experienced investor Peter Lynch, circa 2002 [warning: PDF file]:
RUKEYSER: If you could give one sentence of advice to scared investors right now what would it be?
LYNCH: I think you ought to see some kids. You know, hire an eight-year-old. Hire a six-year old. Just watch them. They don't know who Alan Greenspan is. They don't know about the shape of the curve. They're optimistic about the future. We'll be fine for the next 30 or 40 years.
When I heard Mr. Lynch on the Louis Rukeyser show in 2002, I remember thinking, "He gets it." I coach youth basketball to get away from the vicissitudes of my legal practice and investing. There's something about seeing a bunch of happy, healthy kids coming together as a team that inspires faith in the human race. This year, I'm coaching 4th graders at the Campbell Community Center. My favorite current NBA player is the San Antonio Spurs' Tim Duncan. Yet, in some sort of cruel cosmic joke, my assigned team this year is the Spurs' nemesis, the Lakers. Fittingly, our team uniforms consist of hideously bright yellow t-shirts. Oh, well. Things on the outside may look bad right now, but deep down, our future is bright, we have plenty of land, a new president, and peace within our shores. I don't know when we'll get a market recovery, but just like post-September 2002, it'll be here before we know it.
Disclosure: I own shares of GE and Intel.
If you read the first article linked above, you'll notice that two analysts downgraded Intel, even assigning a $10/share price to Intel recently. (Intel is trading around 13.58/share in after-hours trading.) Analysts came under fire because they were overly optimistic during the subprime crisis, so expect a reversal of sentiment--analysts will now become too pessimistic. In over a decade of investing, I've rarely seen any analyst issue "sell" ratings or assign prices to blue-chip companies below current trading levels. If you're a contrarian investor, you may be encouraged by these overly pessimistic signs. I know I am.
I just re-read a Money "special report" issue from September 2002, another turbulent time. The cover page had the following deja vu titles: "When will the bear market end?"; "Where should I put my cash?"; and "Who can I trust?" As I flipped through the pages, I began smiling. If Money magazine re-issued its September 2002 issue today, no one would notice any outdated information. Indeed, most stock prices and indices are back to where they were in 2002. In addition, Americans had just suffered through the Enron and Worldcom debacles, which reduced not only investor confidence, but faith in the entire capitalistic apparatus.
Let me share with you some lines from Money's 2002 special report--see if they look or feel familiar:
Stock prices in free-fall: "There's a disconnect between how these businesses are doing and how their stocks are performing," says one manager. (p. 36)
Anger over corporate irresponsibility: Nell Minow has developed some very clear ideas of how to cure what ails corporate America. To her, it boils down to one thing: Change the way boards of directors operate. Yes, reform of the accounting profession is needed. Yes, it ought to be easier to put corporate fraudsters in jail. Yes, something has to be done about those insanely outsize options packages that have given so many executives the motive to commit fraud. But to Minow, all of this is secondary to reforming corporate boards. (pps. 57-58). [Author's note: someone get Ms. Minow an SEC position pronto.]
Anger over inadequate government oversight: But after 2 1/2 years and a market loss of nearly $7 trillion, the White House and Congress still don't get it. (p. 63)
No commentary needed: Whoever said crime doesn't pay obviously never ran a big corporation. (p. 64)
Bargain hunting: Is General Electric (GE) stock a bargain? It looks like one to us. (p. 68) [note: GE was selling for around $28/share at the time. It is now selling for $13.77/share. I liked it at $14.66/share and look forward to averaging down.]
Nuff' said: Is Our Financial System Broken? (p. 79)
What's the lesson? Just this: the more things change, the more they stay the same. I will leave you with some reassuring words from experienced investor Peter Lynch, circa 2002 [warning: PDF file]:
RUKEYSER: If you could give one sentence of advice to scared investors right now what would it be?
LYNCH: I think you ought to see some kids. You know, hire an eight-year-old. Hire a six-year old. Just watch them. They don't know who Alan Greenspan is. They don't know about the shape of the curve. They're optimistic about the future. We'll be fine for the next 30 or 40 years.
When I heard Mr. Lynch on the Louis Rukeyser show in 2002, I remember thinking, "He gets it." I coach youth basketball to get away from the vicissitudes of my legal practice and investing. There's something about seeing a bunch of happy, healthy kids coming together as a team that inspires faith in the human race. This year, I'm coaching 4th graders at the Campbell Community Center. My favorite current NBA player is the San Antonio Spurs' Tim Duncan. Yet, in some sort of cruel cosmic joke, my assigned team this year is the Spurs' nemesis, the Lakers. Fittingly, our team uniforms consist of hideously bright yellow t-shirts. Oh, well. Things on the outside may look bad right now, but deep down, our future is bright, we have plenty of land, a new president, and peace within our shores. I don't know when we'll get a market recovery, but just like post-September 2002, it'll be here before we know it.
Disclosure: I own shares of GE and Intel.
Yahoo: Decker Out, Bartz In
As most of you already know, Carol Bartz is Yahoo's new CEO. Unfortunately, Susan Decker is no longer with Yahoo. I don't know anything about Carol Bartz, but I am happy to see at least one female CEO at a major Silicon Valley company.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Manuel Acuna's Wonderful Poem
Here are some lines from Manuel Acuna's "Before a Corpse":
...for out of nothingness we are not born,
and into nothingness we do not die.
Existence is a circle, and we err
when we assign it for measurement
the limits of the cradle and the grave.
The grave holds nothing but a skeleton;
and life within this mortuary vault
continues secretly to find its substance.
Beautiful, isn't it? The entire poem can be found here.
For whatever reason, it reminds me of John Donne's "Death Be Not Proud."
...for out of nothingness we are not born,
and into nothingness we do not die.
Existence is a circle, and we err
when we assign it for measurement
the limits of the cradle and the grave.
The grave holds nothing but a skeleton;
and life within this mortuary vault
continues secretly to find its substance.
Beautiful, isn't it? The entire poem can be found here.
For whatever reason, it reminds me of John Donne's "Death Be Not Proud."
Intel Stock
At these levels, I am a buyer of Intel (INTC) stock. You can pick up shares now for around 13.24/share. I realize Intel is reporting earnings on January 15, 2009, but Intel already warned the street that earnings would be below expectations. Unless things have changed substantially in the last week, it's hard to see any surprises happening tomorrow. No surprises is usually good for a company's stock price. Intel appears to have around 10 billion dollars in net cash, and its 4% dividend may prevent a deep slide in its stock price. On the other hand, options contracts relating to Intel stock expire on January 16, 2009, so expect short-term volatility.
Update: two analysts disagree with me--they have price targets of 11.50 and 10 dollars. Intel closed trading today at 13.08/share.
Disclosure: I own Intel shares and recently bought more Intel shares.
The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.
Update: two analysts disagree with me--they have price targets of 11.50 and 10 dollars. Intel closed trading today at 13.08/share.
Disclosure: I own Intel shares and recently bought more Intel shares.
The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Public Pensions: Rotting from Within
With all the talk about earnings per share and future profits, it's easy to forget that a country's stock market won't experience a bull market if the country spends more than it collects. This is the basic law of business, and it doesn't change just because government is involved. One area that needs a closer look is public pensions.
Pension Tsunami is a website about public pensions, and it's definitely worth a look. Here is one recent article on San Jose public pensions, focusing on police officers and firefighters. (The San Jose Mercury article contains the chart posted above.)
Most people respect police officers and other public safety workers, but there is no reason for any public worker to receive more benefits and a higher salary than the average private sector worker. When government employees receive higher salaries and benefits than private sector employees, private citizens end up protecting and serving the government--an odd reversal. This is because private sector taxes and IOUs (bonds) are used to finance government expenditures, and those monies come from the private sector. If there is an imbalance, government will have to run up deficits to keep paying itself, creating an imbalance that will devalue the currency (due to the need to print more money to pay for the higher-than-normal benefits) or cause inflation. Thus, whenever the people work to serve the government instead of the other way around, fiscal responsibility will not exist.
There's also the small matter that America was created so private citizens would not have to kowtow to kings or an insulated, domineering government. In short, American government was designed to serve non-government citizens. America's founders would probably disapprove of a political system where people work primarily to serve and pay their government.
Even though the evidence favors treating government workers no better than private workers, it will take a massive paradigm shift to educate the public about the danger of excessive government spending/benefits.
First, television glorifies police officers, D.A.s, and other government workers, while accountants and small businesses don't get any airtime. I still remember my CHiPs costume when I was a kid--but I don't remember seeing any bank teller or taxi driver costumes on Halloween. When the average American watches hours of television, public sector workers have an advantage because they are portrayed as more important than private sector workers--even though it's the private sector workers who are footing the bill.
Second, most of the people teaching our children are government workers. As a result, most students spend eighteen years in a system that has no incentive to educate them about the true costs of excessive government spending and exclusive government benefits. This systemic education failure not only aggrandizes teachers' unions, who have no incentive to reform themselves, but also creates a class divide. Rich people tend to send their children to private schools rather than public schools. In addition, many top government workers, including President-Elect Obama, send their children to private schools. When the children of the middle class and poor spend eighteen years in a different system than the children of the rich, class conflict is virtually guaranteed.
This is why allowing parents to have the option of charter schools is so important. With charter schools, public schools have competition--which usually improves performance--and public schools no longer have a monopoly on education. In general, the public opposes monopolies, knowing they typically produce less innovation and high performance; however, when it comes to charter schools, much of the public is against them. This is surprising, because vouchers are the easiest way the middle-class and poor can escape the monopoly of public schools. When the public views teachers' unions as the Microsofts of education and charter schools as the Googles of education, change will happen.
There are simple ways to resolve the problem of entrenched government. One, require all government workers to have medical and retirement benefits only available to private workers. If a 401(k) is good enough for private sector doctors and lawyers, why do D.A.s and teacher get better retirement benefits in the form of guaranteed pensions? If the average private sector worker doesn't get lifetime medical benefits, why should government workers get such an expensive benefit? (By the way, if we actually equalized medical benefits, all Americans would probably get subsidized healthcare coverage.) When government workers have to use the same services as the public, they have more information about how the average person lives and more of an incentive to fix problems.
Two, institute term limits for all government workers. If we have term limits for the president and other representatives, why allow lifetime jobs for other government workers? A reasonable term limit would be 10 to 15 years. After this time period, a government worker could not go into any other government position and would have to earn his keep in the private sector. The knowledge that a government job is not a lifetime position would incentivize the government worker to improve his/her skills for the inevitable day when s/he applies for a non-taxpayer-subsidized position.
In addition, the turnover would be beneficial to the younger population, who could learn significant job skills through government work and then use those skills in the private sector. It would be like having a government-funded apprenticeship, where future leaders would be trained by experienced government workers to serve the public. Experienced government workers would begin training the new crop of workers from Year 13 to Year 15.
Doing it this way, government would be a non-fossilized place. This moderate turnover (as opposed to almost non-existent turnover) would allow new ideas to flourish in government. It is true we would lose skilled government workers to the private sector, but the key is to train newer workers to ensure a consistent stream of skilled government workers.
In the end, if America wants another bull market, it needs to return to budget surpluses. Demanding that our government not spend more than it collects is one way Americans can help get our country back on track.
More on public pensions here.
2006 Interview with Milton Friedman
I just saw this excellent Imprimis interview with Milton Friedman. It took place in 2006, but the issues Mr. Friedman discusses are relevant today. He talks about reforming the Middle East, reforming medical care (which he calls a "socialist-communist system"), and extending school vouchers. My favorite quote: "Self-interest, rightly understood, works for the benefit of society as a whole."
Here is my book review of Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman's short, seminal book on economics and freedom.
Here is my book review of Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman's short, seminal book on economics and freedom.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Republicans v. Democrats
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Chrysler's Promises in December 2000
Automobile companies recently received a bailout from the White House. They promised to restructure, become more efficient, and gave the usual platitudes. These promises aren't new. The only difference seems to be that now, the Big Three are playing with taxpayer money instead of their own. Here are some excerpts from DaimlerChrysler's letter to shareholders, dated December 2000:
Over the last five years, [1995-2000] we have completely restructured and refocused the DaimlerChrysler Group...In the process, we have shed not only a number of loss-making and non-core operations, but we have also considerably improved the cost structure of our automobile operations in Germany... [Great! So things should be fine now...right?]
During the course of the year, we have also taken further important steps to focus our operations on the core automobile business...[But] competitive pressure in the US automobile market increased significantly, as evidenced by the strong rise in sales incentives or discounts which are up by over one third compared with a year ago, and are almost three times what they were in 1997... [Oh, I get it. It's not you--it's your competition. You can't compete on the open market. Got it.]
The management team has a wide-ranging mandate to reposition and restructure the Chrysler business to enable it to regain its strong market position and to become highly profitable again...
In order to restore Chrysler to profitability as soon as possible what is already clear is that we must also restructure the business--this will bring with it a cost. [Sounds like the job of the "car czar" has already been done.] This expenditure however should also ensure DaimlerChyrsler maintains its position at the forefront of the modern automobile industry. [Chrysler was mentioned as the most likely candidate for bankruptcy before the bailout.]
It boggles my mind that our government is using our money to finance companies that can't seem to ever get it together. In a hilarious press release titled, "The $13 Billion Industry Is In No Fear Of Collapse, But Why Take Chances?", Larry Flynt satirized the notion of bailing out troubled industries. Jokes aside, when, if ever, does moral hazard trump "too big to fail"? This question isn't just idle thinking. The bailouts have exposed a core weakness in our political system. Apparently, if you can't compete on the open market, all you need is a bunch of lobbyists to convince your government to give you taxpayer money. Luckily, in this case, the political system actually worked--Congress rejected the auto bailout plan. Even so, the White House, over the objections of the public, provided the bailout money. George W. Bush in bed with the automakers and their unions? Historians will be amused.
Over the last five years, [1995-2000] we have completely restructured and refocused the DaimlerChrysler Group...In the process, we have shed not only a number of loss-making and non-core operations, but we have also considerably improved the cost structure of our automobile operations in Germany... [Great! So things should be fine now...right?]
During the course of the year, we have also taken further important steps to focus our operations on the core automobile business...[But] competitive pressure in the US automobile market increased significantly, as evidenced by the strong rise in sales incentives or discounts which are up by over one third compared with a year ago, and are almost three times what they were in 1997... [Oh, I get it. It's not you--it's your competition. You can't compete on the open market. Got it.]
The management team has a wide-ranging mandate to reposition and restructure the Chrysler business to enable it to regain its strong market position and to become highly profitable again...
In order to restore Chrysler to profitability as soon as possible what is already clear is that we must also restructure the business--this will bring with it a cost. [Sounds like the job of the "car czar" has already been done.] This expenditure however should also ensure DaimlerChyrsler maintains its position at the forefront of the modern automobile industry. [Chrysler was mentioned as the most likely candidate for bankruptcy before the bailout.]
It boggles my mind that our government is using our money to finance companies that can't seem to ever get it together. In a hilarious press release titled, "The $13 Billion Industry Is In No Fear Of Collapse, But Why Take Chances?", Larry Flynt satirized the notion of bailing out troubled industries. Jokes aside, when, if ever, does moral hazard trump "too big to fail"? This question isn't just idle thinking. The bailouts have exposed a core weakness in our political system. Apparently, if you can't compete on the open market, all you need is a bunch of lobbyists to convince your government to give you taxpayer money. Luckily, in this case, the political system actually worked--Congress rejected the auto bailout plan. Even so, the White House, over the objections of the public, provided the bailout money. George W. Bush in bed with the automakers and their unions? Historians will be amused.
Federal Budget Outlays
The Epoch Times had a good chart showing what the federal government projected it would do with our taxes in 2007:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-15/54114.html
Social Security is the largest outlay, with 21% of our taxes going there. Next up is Defense, with 19%. Obama may reduce defense spending to shift more taxes towards infrastructure spending. Doing it this way would allow him not to raise taxes.
Defense hawks may disagree with any decrease in defense spending, arguing that it would cause a decline in domestic security. I do believe terrorists will hit the United States again, but much of the current defense spending is on major projects, like stealth fighters. Meanwhile, port security is inadequate. Consider this simple, low-tech scenario: a terrorist pays two dock workers to put an unmarked package on a ship. The dock workers will be told they are transporting drugs and will be paid a few thousand dollars for their discretion. In reality, the box would contain a major bomb or chemical weapon. The bomb doesn't even have to be inside a box. The terrorists could place a bomb inside an imported car, major appliance, or some other product that has many electrical components, making the bomb harder to detect.
Rather than focus on large-scale projects, such as the next generation of aircraft, which always seem to run over cost, the U.S. should shift more money into intelligence work. More specifically, Obama should hire more workers to 1) supervise America's major ports (e.g., Los Angeles, Miami, etc.); and 2) more effectively monitor the contents of packages before ships on-load and offload them. I realize modern ports have automated systems, but having more hi-tech automation doesn't necessarily lead to higher security.
If you're interested in reading more about Obama and defense spending, here is an interesting article:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17793/
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-15/54114.html
Social Security is the largest outlay, with 21% of our taxes going there. Next up is Defense, with 19%. Obama may reduce defense spending to shift more taxes towards infrastructure spending. Doing it this way would allow him not to raise taxes.
Defense hawks may disagree with any decrease in defense spending, arguing that it would cause a decline in domestic security. I do believe terrorists will hit the United States again, but much of the current defense spending is on major projects, like stealth fighters. Meanwhile, port security is inadequate. Consider this simple, low-tech scenario: a terrorist pays two dock workers to put an unmarked package on a ship. The dock workers will be told they are transporting drugs and will be paid a few thousand dollars for their discretion. In reality, the box would contain a major bomb or chemical weapon. The bomb doesn't even have to be inside a box. The terrorists could place a bomb inside an imported car, major appliance, or some other product that has many electrical components, making the bomb harder to detect.
Rather than focus on large-scale projects, such as the next generation of aircraft, which always seem to run over cost, the U.S. should shift more money into intelligence work. More specifically, Obama should hire more workers to 1) supervise America's major ports (e.g., Los Angeles, Miami, etc.); and 2) more effectively monitor the contents of packages before ships on-load and offload them. I realize modern ports have automated systems, but having more hi-tech automation doesn't necessarily lead to higher security.
If you're interested in reading more about Obama and defense spending, here is an interesting article:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17793/
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Battle of the Sexes
I was going through some old articles, and I found this one that reminded me of the battle of the sexes. Here are some quotes from the article:
Using hyperbole and humor that became infamous then, and sound far more awful today, Newsweek said those 40-year-olds were "more likely to be killed by a terrorist" than land a mate... Meanwhile, new research suggests that women today who are highly educated are actually more likely to find husbands.
At least we know what can knock the gender wars off the front pages: terrorism, a real war, and a recession.
Deflation--and Why It's Harmful
This PLI "Pocket MBA" article summarizes deflation so well, I had to share it:
http://inbrief.pli.edu/2009/01/deflation-ii-deflation-in-the-real-world.html
Before reading the above post, I didn't understand why deflation could lead to a Depression.
PLI also provides a link to another blog, Debtwatch, which may interest some readers:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/
http://inbrief.pli.edu/2009/01/deflation-ii-deflation-in-the-real-world.html
Before reading the above post, I didn't understand why deflation could lead to a Depression.
PLI also provides a link to another blog, Debtwatch, which may interest some readers:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/
Friday, January 9, 2009
Reason #2536 You Might Reconsider Law School
From the California Lawyer magazine (January 2009, page 34):
[L]awyers, as a group, have their own unique set of characteristics. For one thing, they are famously prone to depression. A frequently cited Johns Hopkins University study from 1991 found that among more than 100 occupations surveyed, attorneys topped the list for having major depressive disorders, suffering from depression at a rate 3.6 times higher than the general employed population..."You see figures that 20 to 25 percent of lawyers have an alcohol problem," says [Carol] Langford [who practices state bar defense]. "I think it's more like 40 percent."
When I went into law, I thought I could change the world. My thinking proved to be naive, as I learned about insurance, bankruptcy, overloaded court dockets, and procedure over substance. Hearing about my initial desire to change the world, one of my friends, also a lawyer, told me, with a kind laugh, "The world changed you." There's a lesson in there somewhere, but knowing I'm a positive agent in most of my clients' lives keeps me going. Like everything else, the legal profession is what you make of it.
_____________
As a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough. -- Abraham Lincoln
Thanks to the Hon. Judge Morgan of the United States Bankruptcy Court (Northern District of California) for posting Lincoln's "Notes for a Law Lecture" outside her courtroom, where I and many other lawyers have discovered the above words.
[L]awyers, as a group, have their own unique set of characteristics. For one thing, they are famously prone to depression. A frequently cited Johns Hopkins University study from 1991 found that among more than 100 occupations surveyed, attorneys topped the list for having major depressive disorders, suffering from depression at a rate 3.6 times higher than the general employed population..."You see figures that 20 to 25 percent of lawyers have an alcohol problem," says [Carol] Langford [who practices state bar defense]. "I think it's more like 40 percent."
When I went into law, I thought I could change the world. My thinking proved to be naive, as I learned about insurance, bankruptcy, overloaded court dockets, and procedure over substance. Hearing about my initial desire to change the world, one of my friends, also a lawyer, told me, with a kind laugh, "The world changed you." There's a lesson in there somewhere, but knowing I'm a positive agent in most of my clients' lives keeps me going. Like everything else, the legal profession is what you make of it.
_____________
As a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough. -- Abraham Lincoln
Thanks to the Hon. Judge Morgan of the United States Bankruptcy Court (Northern District of California) for posting Lincoln's "Notes for a Law Lecture" outside her courtroom, where I and many other lawyers have discovered the above words.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Wise Words from Bush (Yup, You Read that Right)
Oh, the wisdom before an election.
Update: from the year 2000 debates, George W. Bush:
Q: How would you project us around the world?
A: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be...one way for us to be viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way, so should you.' ... If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us."
Fed Judge Rebukes U.S. in Guantanamo Case
Just when you think it can't get worse, it does. A federal judge has accused the United States government of withholding evidence in a Guantanamo Bay case:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123127182296258253.html
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he was forced to delay ruling on whether to free Aymen Saeed Batarfi because as many as 10 documents of classified information were withheld from the court until recently.
So here's what we know: the U.S. sought to deny Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights; it specifically placed them in Guantanamo, outside of the U.S., to bolster its argument that the detainees didn't deserve Constitutional rights; it detained them on secret evidence for years; and now it's hiding evidence?
It appears even after Justice Antonin Kennedy, attorney Seth Waxman, and Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Constitution is gasping for its life.
Here is an interesting documentary on Guantanamo:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/
There is also an excellent, must-read article in Transcript, a UC Berkeley School of Law journal (Fall-Winter 2008, Vol. 40, No. 2). I can't find an online link, but it includes an article by Jon Jefferson titled, "Life After Gitmo," and an interview with Moazzam Begg.
Update on January 14, 2009: the Washington Post reports that some Guantanamo Bay detainees were tortured:
The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.
Americans should oppose torture because it's in our own self-interest. The next time an opposing country captures one of our military personnel, our moral authority to object to his/her torture may not exist.
Update: excellent WSJ Op-Ed (12/22/08) by Thomas Wilner.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123127182296258253.html
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he was forced to delay ruling on whether to free Aymen Saeed Batarfi because as many as 10 documents of classified information were withheld from the court until recently.
So here's what we know: the U.S. sought to deny Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights; it specifically placed them in Guantanamo, outside of the U.S., to bolster its argument that the detainees didn't deserve Constitutional rights; it detained them on secret evidence for years; and now it's hiding evidence?
It appears even after Justice Antonin Kennedy, attorney Seth Waxman, and Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Constitution is gasping for its life.
Here is an interesting documentary on Guantanamo:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/
There is also an excellent, must-read article in Transcript, a UC Berkeley School of Law journal (Fall-Winter 2008, Vol. 40, No. 2). I can't find an online link, but it includes an article by Jon Jefferson titled, "Life After Gitmo," and an interview with Moazzam Begg.
Update on January 14, 2009: the Washington Post reports that some Guantanamo Bay detainees were tortured:
The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.
Americans should oppose torture because it's in our own self-interest. The next time an opposing country captures one of our military personnel, our moral authority to object to his/her torture may not exist.
Update: excellent WSJ Op-Ed (12/22/08) by Thomas Wilner.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Swiss Helvetia Fund on U.S. Economy
The Swiss Helvetia Fund, Inc. (SWZ) issued its quarterly report. Here are Rodolphe Hottinger and Rudolf Millisits' thoughts on our current economic situation--and it's not a pretty sight:
It is now apparent that the so-called "debt super-cycle" of the the U.S. economy has gone into reverse and that, consequently, savings must be rebuilt. As a result, much lower consumption levels have to be expected for years to come.
Mssrs. Hottinger and Millisits take a dim view of recent government intervention:
While government efforts are addressing the liquidity issue for now and some of the solvency issues, these efforts have not yet resulted in making private credit more available.
I kept waiting for the silver lining, but to no avail:
The world economic order is being structurally re-balanced away from growth driven by the U.S. consumer. The current process of de-leveraging is the result of a reduction in the U.S. current account deficit, a condition that had been pushed to the extreme. During this adjustment period, accidents are prone to happen.
As more investors seek safe havens, the Swiss franc (FXF) may receive a boost. This would allow Swiss companies to increase M&A activity, strengthening their future competitiveness. Roche's expected acquisition of Genentech (DNA) is one example.
If you're looking to invest in Swiss shares, the iShares Switzerland ETF (EWL) has outperformed SWZ over the last two years. Today, for example, SWZ dropped over 3%, while EWL declined by less than 1%. As it happens, I own SWZ. I am unsure whether to add to my SWZ positions, or open a new position in EWL.
It is now apparent that the so-called "debt super-cycle" of the the U.S. economy has gone into reverse and that, consequently, savings must be rebuilt. As a result, much lower consumption levels have to be expected for years to come.
Mssrs. Hottinger and Millisits take a dim view of recent government intervention:
While government efforts are addressing the liquidity issue for now and some of the solvency issues, these efforts have not yet resulted in making private credit more available.
I kept waiting for the silver lining, but to no avail:
The world economic order is being structurally re-balanced away from growth driven by the U.S. consumer. The current process of de-leveraging is the result of a reduction in the U.S. current account deficit, a condition that had been pushed to the extreme. During this adjustment period, accidents are prone to happen.
As more investors seek safe havens, the Swiss franc (FXF) may receive a boost. This would allow Swiss companies to increase M&A activity, strengthening their future competitiveness. Roche's expected acquisition of Genentech (DNA) is one example.
If you're looking to invest in Swiss shares, the iShares Switzerland ETF (EWL) has outperformed SWZ over the last two years. Today, for example, SWZ dropped over 3%, while EWL declined by less than 1%. As it happens, I own SWZ. I am unsure whether to add to my SWZ positions, or open a new position in EWL.
Good Times for SCU Grads
I graduated from Santa Clara Law School in 2002. It looks like Santa Clara University grads are doing well under Obama:
http://www.scu.edu/news/releases/release.cfm?month=0109&story=Panetta
Leon Panetta will take over the Central Intelligence Agency. He will work with another SCU grad, Janet Napolitano, who is the current appointee for Director of Homeland Security.
You smell that? Yup, that's change in the air.
Update: https://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2018/04/santa-clara-universitys-law-school-dean.html
http://www.scu.edu/news/releases/release.cfm?month=0109&story=Panetta
Leon Panetta will take over the Central Intelligence Agency. He will work with another SCU grad, Janet Napolitano, who is the current appointee for Director of Homeland Security.
You smell that? Yup, that's change in the air.
Update: https://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2018/04/santa-clara-universitys-law-school-dean.html
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
From Brooklyn to Minnesota
I don't own a home. I view big homes as money pits. Once you factor in the property tax, possible HOA fees, and maintenance costs, stocks and bonds don't seem too shabby. Here's an interesting article about one couple's journey to homeownership:
http://escapebrooklyn.blogspot.com/2009/01/dhs-long-awaited-guest-post.html
http://escapebrooklyn.blogspot.com/2009/01/dhs-long-awaited-guest-post.html
Religious Profiling
A t-shirt with Arabic script? 10 dollars. TSA costing taxpayers 240,000 dollars because of its ignorance? Well, 240,000 dollars. Government ineptitude in action? Timeless.
I wish the article mentioned the name of the attorneys handling the case [Update: according to the ACLU's website, the attorneys were Aden Fine, Reginald Shuford, Dennis Parker, Director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, and Palyn Hung of the NYCLU]. Raed Jarrar was the plaintiff.
I was laughing at the TSA's stupidity until this line: "Last week, nine Muslims, including three children, were ordered off a domestic US flight after passengers heard what they believed were suspicious remarks about security...[E]ight of them [were] US citizens, were cleared by the FBI, [but] they were reportedly still barred from the AirTran flight."
"If the pilot is uncomfortable with someone flying on their plane, that's their decision," said Christopher White, a federal Transportation Security Administration spokesman. Is the TSA serious? Under their logic, if you pay for a ticket, and you say something the driver/pilot doesn't like, or you just happen to look at him the wrong way, s/he has the complete discretion to kick you off. Sounds like another lawsuit is in order.
Update: here's a link to more information, including a neat vid:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/jarrar.html
Hat tip to Political Colors for the link.
I wish the article mentioned the name of the attorneys handling the case [Update: according to the ACLU's website, the attorneys were Aden Fine, Reginald Shuford, Dennis Parker, Director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, and Palyn Hung of the NYCLU]. Raed Jarrar was the plaintiff.
I was laughing at the TSA's stupidity until this line: "Last week, nine Muslims, including three children, were ordered off a domestic US flight after passengers heard what they believed were suspicious remarks about security...[E]ight of them [were] US citizens, were cleared by the FBI, [but] they were reportedly still barred from the AirTran flight."
"If the pilot is uncomfortable with someone flying on their plane, that's their decision," said Christopher White, a federal Transportation Security Administration spokesman. Is the TSA serious? Under their logic, if you pay for a ticket, and you say something the driver/pilot doesn't like, or you just happen to look at him the wrong way, s/he has the complete discretion to kick you off. Sounds like another lawsuit is in order.
Update: here's a link to more information, including a neat vid:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/jarrar.html
Hat tip to Political Colors for the link.
Law Students: Caveat Emptor
This WSJ article, from 9/24/08, has information for aspiring attorneys:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119040786780835602.html
He's making less money than at his last job and has thought about moving back to his parents' house. "I didn't think three years out I'd be uninsured, thinking it's a great day when a crackhead brings me $500."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119040786780835602.html
He's making less money than at his last job and has thought about moving back to his parents' house. "I didn't think three years out I'd be uninsured, thinking it's a great day when a crackhead brings me $500."
Monday, January 5, 2009
Bankruptcy Filings Show Consumer Overspending
UC Davis Magazine (Winter 2009) published an interesting study on bankruptcy filings:
Simple overspending has driven most personal bankruptcies in recent years, a change from previous decades when illness and unemployment were major factors, concludes a new study from the University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management.
"The reasons people file for personal bankruptcy indeed have shifted during the past couple of decades," says Ning Zhu, the study's author and an associate professor of management at UC Davis. "Although our research supports the notion that adverse life events, like losing one's health or job, contribute to personal bankruptcy filings, excessive consumption contributes more to the recent increase in personal bankruptcy filing."
According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, 2,039,214 personal bankruptcies were filed in 2005, up nearly five-fold from the 412,510 bankruptcies filed in 1985. Indeed, personal bankruptcies jumped from 0.3 percent to 1.8 percent of all U.S. households during the same period.
The UC Davis study looked at all personal bankruptcy filings in Delaware in 2003, because the state was among the first to make its bankruptcy filings available through the Public Access to Court Electronic Record system and its demographics closely resemble those nationwide. The year 2003 was chosen because it allowed the study to follow cases to their conclusion, and permitted observation of filing patterns before 2005. (Filings may have been accelerated in the months leading up to October 2005, when the federal Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act took effect, by households wanting to avoid the new act's stricter requirements.)
So that he could compare bankrupt households with solvent ones, Zhu also collected information from the Federal Reserve Board's national Survey of Consumer Finance about households that had never declared bankruptcy.
Overall, Zhu concluded that debt accounted for more than 50 percent of recent bankruptcies, while medical problems caused just 5 percent and unemployment led to only 13 percent.
Zhu found that bankrupt households have bigger mortgages, car loans and credit card balances than solvent ones, but make less than half as much money.
Among bankrupt homeowners, mortgages were 3.21 times higher than annual household income, versus 1.73 times for solvent households. Auto loans were double the annual income for bankrupt households, versus 0.4 times for solvent households. And bankrupt households carried credit card balances that almost equaled their annual household income, while the average credit card balance for solvent households was 6 percent of annual income.
In addition, bankrupt households had a median annual income of $25,738, versus $43,341 for solvent ones. (The median is the midpoint in a set of values; a median income of $25,738 for bankrupt households means that half of the bankrupt households in the study made higher salaries and half made less).
Interestingly, more than 5 percent of bankrupt households owned at least one luxury automobile (average age of the car was 7 years), compared with 8 percent of solvent households (average age was 8 years).
The study also suggests that some Americans deliberately spend beyond their means with the intention of using the bankruptcy system to erase some or all of their debt, and recommends reforms to discourage such abuse.
"Our results emphasize that bankruptcy law reform should aim to address the issue," Zhu writes. "Current means test focusing on income, rather than consumption patterns or adverse events, may not set the best criteria for sorting out the households who truly need bankruptcy protection from those that consume beyond their means to take advantage of the system."
The research has been presented at Boston College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, UCLA and Yale, and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Legal Studies, a publication of the University of Chicago Law School. The working paper is online at [PDF file]:
http://www.gsm.ucdavis.edu/Faculty/Zhu/PersonalBankruptcy [PDF file]
Zhu earned his doctorate in finance from Yale in 2003. He specializes in individual behavior in financial markets, bankruptcy and distress, and investments.
Simple overspending has driven most personal bankruptcies in recent years, a change from previous decades when illness and unemployment were major factors, concludes a new study from the University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management.
"The reasons people file for personal bankruptcy indeed have shifted during the past couple of decades," says Ning Zhu, the study's author and an associate professor of management at UC Davis. "Although our research supports the notion that adverse life events, like losing one's health or job, contribute to personal bankruptcy filings, excessive consumption contributes more to the recent increase in personal bankruptcy filing."
According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, 2,039,214 personal bankruptcies were filed in 2005, up nearly five-fold from the 412,510 bankruptcies filed in 1985. Indeed, personal bankruptcies jumped from 0.3 percent to 1.8 percent of all U.S. households during the same period.
The UC Davis study looked at all personal bankruptcy filings in Delaware in 2003, because the state was among the first to make its bankruptcy filings available through the Public Access to Court Electronic Record system and its demographics closely resemble those nationwide. The year 2003 was chosen because it allowed the study to follow cases to their conclusion, and permitted observation of filing patterns before 2005. (Filings may have been accelerated in the months leading up to October 2005, when the federal Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act took effect, by households wanting to avoid the new act's stricter requirements.)
So that he could compare bankrupt households with solvent ones, Zhu also collected information from the Federal Reserve Board's national Survey of Consumer Finance about households that had never declared bankruptcy.
Overall, Zhu concluded that debt accounted for more than 50 percent of recent bankruptcies, while medical problems caused just 5 percent and unemployment led to only 13 percent.
Zhu found that bankrupt households have bigger mortgages, car loans and credit card balances than solvent ones, but make less than half as much money.
Among bankrupt homeowners, mortgages were 3.21 times higher than annual household income, versus 1.73 times for solvent households. Auto loans were double the annual income for bankrupt households, versus 0.4 times for solvent households. And bankrupt households carried credit card balances that almost equaled their annual household income, while the average credit card balance for solvent households was 6 percent of annual income.
In addition, bankrupt households had a median annual income of $25,738, versus $43,341 for solvent ones. (The median is the midpoint in a set of values; a median income of $25,738 for bankrupt households means that half of the bankrupt households in the study made higher salaries and half made less).
Interestingly, more than 5 percent of bankrupt households owned at least one luxury automobile (average age of the car was 7 years), compared with 8 percent of solvent households (average age was 8 years).
The study also suggests that some Americans deliberately spend beyond their means with the intention of using the bankruptcy system to erase some or all of their debt, and recommends reforms to discourage such abuse.
"Our results emphasize that bankruptcy law reform should aim to address the issue," Zhu writes. "Current means test focusing on income, rather than consumption patterns or adverse events, may not set the best criteria for sorting out the households who truly need bankruptcy protection from those that consume beyond their means to take advantage of the system."
The research has been presented at Boston College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, UCLA and Yale, and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Legal Studies, a publication of the University of Chicago Law School. The working paper is online at [PDF file]:
http://www.gsm.ucdavis.edu/Faculty/Zhu/PersonalBankruptcy [PDF file]
Zhu earned his doctorate in finance from Yale in 2003. He specializes in individual behavior in financial markets, bankruptcy and distress, and investments.
Media contacts:
* Ning Zhu, Graduate School of Management, (852) 9848-2096, nzhu@ucdavis.edu (Ning is on sabbatical in Hong Kong; note time difference when calling his cell phone.)
* Tim Akin, Graduate School of Management , (530) 752-7362, tmakin@ucdavis.edu
* Claudia Morain, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9841, cmmorain@ucdavis.edu
Law and Verdicts
Below are recent stats for employment discrimination jury verdicts. Remember, these only apply if the case actually goes to trial.
In 2007, the median discrimination verdict rose some 70 percent to $252,000 from $147,000 in 2006.
Employers won only 38% of discrimination cases in 2007, prevailing most often in race discrimination cases (43 percent) and losing most frequently in sex discrimination cases (30 percent).
Employers in the manufacturing and industrial sectors had the biggest verdicts, followed by the government, transportation and service sectors.
Source: Employment Practice Liability: Jury Award Trends and Statistics, 2008 report by Jury Verdict Research.
In 2007, the median discrimination verdict rose some 70 percent to $252,000 from $147,000 in 2006.
Employers won only 38% of discrimination cases in 2007, prevailing most often in race discrimination cases (43 percent) and losing most frequently in sex discrimination cases (30 percent).
Employers in the manufacturing and industrial sectors had the biggest verdicts, followed by the government, transportation and service sectors.
Source: Employment Practice Liability: Jury Award Trends and Statistics, 2008 report by Jury Verdict Research.
Letter to Miss Manners
It's blast-to-the-past time again. I found another letter I wrote, this time to Miss Manners. She doesn't list the names of people who send in questions, but this one's mine:
SJ Mercury News, November 13, 1999:
Dear Miss Manners:
I am a young adult who is hearing-impaired and consequently wears a hearing aid. I am often approached by curious children of friends and strangers who ask what is in my ear. The "glasses for ears" analogy is getting old, and I wonder if the 4-9 year-old children understand what I'm talking about anyway. Do you have any suggestions as to what I can do when approached by these young people? I have not been able to come up with an answer that successfully satisfies their curiosity and also dissuades them from attempting to touch my ears.
Gentle Reader:
"It's to turn up the volume." If it weren't for the satisfaction of answering your question, Miss Manners would regret that no child will fail to understand this. Your next problem will be what to say when those children ask where they can get these for themselves.
To this day, Miss Manners' advice works for me. It's stunning how she was able to come up with the perfect answer.
SJ Mercury News, November 13, 1999:
Dear Miss Manners:
I am a young adult who is hearing-impaired and consequently wears a hearing aid. I am often approached by curious children of friends and strangers who ask what is in my ear. The "glasses for ears" analogy is getting old, and I wonder if the 4-9 year-old children understand what I'm talking about anyway. Do you have any suggestions as to what I can do when approached by these young people? I have not been able to come up with an answer that successfully satisfies their curiosity and also dissuades them from attempting to touch my ears.
Gentle Reader:
"It's to turn up the volume." If it weren't for the satisfaction of answering your question, Miss Manners would regret that no child will fail to understand this. Your next problem will be what to say when those children ask where they can get these for themselves.
To this day, Miss Manners' advice works for me. It's stunning how she was able to come up with the perfect answer.
Letter from the Past
I am going through my old things and found this letter I wrote way back in 1999. Even then, you could see my libertarian leanings:
San Jose Mercury News, July 25, 1999, 7G:
I never cease to be astounded at how utterly stupid people show themselves to be while judging "moral" content. All the hoopla over "Austin Powers" neglects to see that the movie is a farce that lampoons filmmaking and general society. As such, it isn't meant to be the focus of discussions on the same level as, say, Kantian ethics. If you have something against laughter, stay near your white picket fence and watch a Disney flick with your 2.2 kids--the rest of us will be at the theaters, trembling and writhing on the floor in our moral bankruptcy.
The best part? On the same page is an ad for "Austin Powers, The Spy Who Shagged Me."
San Jose Mercury News, July 25, 1999, 7G:
I never cease to be astounded at how utterly stupid people show themselves to be while judging "moral" content. All the hoopla over "Austin Powers" neglects to see that the movie is a farce that lampoons filmmaking and general society. As such, it isn't meant to be the focus of discussions on the same level as, say, Kantian ethics. If you have something against laughter, stay near your white picket fence and watch a Disney flick with your 2.2 kids--the rest of us will be at the theaters, trembling and writhing on the floor in our moral bankruptcy.
The best part? On the same page is an ad for "Austin Powers, The Spy Who Shagged Me."
War is Hell
The SJ Merc published an interesting letter (1/4/09, 12A) about the current Middle East war:
The similarity between the Native American Indians and the Palestinians is that in the case of both people, lands were taken from them by violence, and their people were decimated so that someone else could establish a new nation on their land. The difference between them is that Native American Indians eventually gave up, accepted their fate and moved to reservations. The Palestinians have never given up, and they still want their land back.
Bob Christensen
San Jose
I am a fervent believer in non-violence, but as an attorney, I also accept the legal principle of self-defense. This principle states:
Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
The following line, from above, strikes me as pivotal: "However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances." Its essential meaning is that self-defense must be proportionate.
The Gaza Strip, because it is densely populated, presents an interesting moral question. When dealing with one of the most densely populated places in the world, how does a country attack and defend itself proportionately? If it uses ground troops in an effort to avoid indiscriminate bombing, it will sustain more deaths on its side. On the other hand, if it uses air attacks, it will knowingly kill many more civilians than necessary, but with fewer losses on its own side.
Palestine is also presented with difficult moral questions. It appears its neighbor is continuing to annex more Palestinian land through settlements, an action both the U.N. and the U.S. have opposed. Palestine's weaponry is not as sophisticated as its neighbor's, so attacking only military installations would be impossible or futile. If, however, it is completely non-violent, then it will lose more land and civilian lives as Israel builds more settlements and protects those settlements with force. Malcolm X once pointed out that nonviolence isn't always wise: "Concerning nonviolence: It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." (Of course, both Israelis and Palestinians could use this Malcolm X quote to justify their actions.)
In the end, neutral observers are left with a Catch-22 situation. When confronted with a Catch-22 situation, any ethical action must involve extricating both sides from the Catch-22. This means creating an environment where each side has viable options. What makes this goal so complicated is the presence of religion (i.e., Jerusalem) and an absence of products that can create substantial trade.
Palestinians, being generally poor, cannot afford high-margin Israeli products, which are generally marketed to developed countries. While Palestinians can function as laborers for the generally more affluent Israelis, even this potential economic cooperation is complicated because of the limited land in Israel and Palestine. The fact that land is limited creates disincentives for Israel to treat Palestinian workers as anything more than short-term, throw-away workers. Just as Palestinians oppose the building of settlements on their land, Israel will most likely never accept substantial Palestinian immigration or permanent settlement. As a result, Israel is forced to treat Palestinian workers as means to an end, rather than an end in itself. When the best-case scenario violates Kant's rule, we can see why this situation is so complex. (In contrast, America has vast tracts of land and liberal citizenship laws, allowing America to more easily accept and assimilate Mexicans.)
I have always believed economics is the key to any successful relationship, because it causes each side to be useful to each other, which leads to a natural interest in each side's long-term health. After all, one cannot sell products to a dead man, no matter how great the product, or how much money the dead man has.
From my non-expert angle, I see peace only when the following occurs: one, territorial boundaries are firmly established and protected (temporarily) by a strong, neutral third-party; and two, Palestinians become more affluent through trade--which requires them to manufacture products needed in neighboring countries and to be able and willing to trade with Israelis and other neighbors.
Update on January 6, 2009:
A U.N. school has been hit by an Israeli mortar:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
Also, according to CNN, "A Hamas rocket penetrated farther than ever before into Israel on Tuesday, landing in the town of Gadera, about 23 miles (36 kilometers) north of the Gaza border, the Israeli military said. On Monday, a rocket hit a kindergarten in Ashdod, about 16 miles (26 kilometers) north of Gaza." The school was vacant at the time, so no civilian casualties were reported.
Bombing any densely populated area will knowingly result in civilian casualties. Thus, no matter how civilized a society is, and no matter how much it strives not to target civilians, bombing densely populated areas is an automatically uncivilized course of action. Call me an idealist, but I just can't wrap my head around the concept of "collateral damage." I agree with Mohandas K. Gandhi when he said, "What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
Idealism aside, the question still remains: "How can the world persuade Hamas to stop firing rockets?" Hamas has agreed to several cease-fires, which shows that it will respond to various incentives. If the British were able to persuade the Irish Republican Army to disarm, especially after bombs like this, there must be a way to persuade Hamas to disarm as well. The alternative is more civilian deaths on both sides, more images Hamas will use to recruit more men, and more pain and suffering on both sides.
Here is one idea to reduce civilian casualties: prior to an attack or war, Israel should offer safehouses on its own soil. All children under 18 years of age and all women would be able to cross the border into the safehouses. These Palestinian residents would be returned after the war or attack was over. I am not an expert on war, but there must be some way to mitigate civilian casualties so that schoolchildren are not at risk.
_________
"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower
_________
Update on January 8, 2009: Charlie Rose interviewed Bob Simon with a special focus on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The result is an informative primer for anyone searching for answers on how to improve Israel-Palestinian relations:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9900
Readers who prefer a transcript rather than video should scroll down and hit the "Transcript" tab (located next to "Comments").
More info: here is a NY Times op-ed, from the Palestinian perspective ("What You Don't Know about Gaza").
Update on January 10, 2010: here is a WSJ op-ed (this link doesn't appear to work, so you may want to google ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, July 3, 2009, "Has Obama Turned on Israel?"). Dershowitz agrees with and quotes Yousef Munayyer: "'Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally,'" he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build 'up' rather than 'out.'"
Also, here is an interview with Mr. Olmert (NYT, by Ethan Bronner, 9/29/08):
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.
The similarity between the Native American Indians and the Palestinians is that in the case of both people, lands were taken from them by violence, and their people were decimated so that someone else could establish a new nation on their land. The difference between them is that Native American Indians eventually gave up, accepted their fate and moved to reservations. The Palestinians have never given up, and they still want their land back.
Bob Christensen
San Jose
I am a fervent believer in non-violence, but as an attorney, I also accept the legal principle of self-defense. This principle states:
Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
The following line, from above, strikes me as pivotal: "However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances." Its essential meaning is that self-defense must be proportionate.
The Gaza Strip, because it is densely populated, presents an interesting moral question. When dealing with one of the most densely populated places in the world, how does a country attack and defend itself proportionately? If it uses ground troops in an effort to avoid indiscriminate bombing, it will sustain more deaths on its side. On the other hand, if it uses air attacks, it will knowingly kill many more civilians than necessary, but with fewer losses on its own side.
Palestine is also presented with difficult moral questions. It appears its neighbor is continuing to annex more Palestinian land through settlements, an action both the U.N. and the U.S. have opposed. Palestine's weaponry is not as sophisticated as its neighbor's, so attacking only military installations would be impossible or futile. If, however, it is completely non-violent, then it will lose more land and civilian lives as Israel builds more settlements and protects those settlements with force. Malcolm X once pointed out that nonviolence isn't always wise: "Concerning nonviolence: It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." (Of course, both Israelis and Palestinians could use this Malcolm X quote to justify their actions.)
In the end, neutral observers are left with a Catch-22 situation. When confronted with a Catch-22 situation, any ethical action must involve extricating both sides from the Catch-22. This means creating an environment where each side has viable options. What makes this goal so complicated is the presence of religion (i.e., Jerusalem) and an absence of products that can create substantial trade.
Palestinians, being generally poor, cannot afford high-margin Israeli products, which are generally marketed to developed countries. While Palestinians can function as laborers for the generally more affluent Israelis, even this potential economic cooperation is complicated because of the limited land in Israel and Palestine. The fact that land is limited creates disincentives for Israel to treat Palestinian workers as anything more than short-term, throw-away workers. Just as Palestinians oppose the building of settlements on their land, Israel will most likely never accept substantial Palestinian immigration or permanent settlement. As a result, Israel is forced to treat Palestinian workers as means to an end, rather than an end in itself. When the best-case scenario violates Kant's rule, we can see why this situation is so complex. (In contrast, America has vast tracts of land and liberal citizenship laws, allowing America to more easily accept and assimilate Mexicans.)
I have always believed economics is the key to any successful relationship, because it causes each side to be useful to each other, which leads to a natural interest in each side's long-term health. After all, one cannot sell products to a dead man, no matter how great the product, or how much money the dead man has.
From my non-expert angle, I see peace only when the following occurs: one, territorial boundaries are firmly established and protected (temporarily) by a strong, neutral third-party; and two, Palestinians become more affluent through trade--which requires them to manufacture products needed in neighboring countries and to be able and willing to trade with Israelis and other neighbors.
Update on January 6, 2009:
A U.N. school has been hit by an Israeli mortar:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
Also, according to CNN, "A Hamas rocket penetrated farther than ever before into Israel on Tuesday, landing in the town of Gadera, about 23 miles (36 kilometers) north of the Gaza border, the Israeli military said. On Monday, a rocket hit a kindergarten in Ashdod, about 16 miles (26 kilometers) north of Gaza." The school was vacant at the time, so no civilian casualties were reported.
Bombing any densely populated area will knowingly result in civilian casualties. Thus, no matter how civilized a society is, and no matter how much it strives not to target civilians, bombing densely populated areas is an automatically uncivilized course of action. Call me an idealist, but I just can't wrap my head around the concept of "collateral damage." I agree with Mohandas K. Gandhi when he said, "What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
Idealism aside, the question still remains: "How can the world persuade Hamas to stop firing rockets?" Hamas has agreed to several cease-fires, which shows that it will respond to various incentives. If the British were able to persuade the Irish Republican Army to disarm, especially after bombs like this, there must be a way to persuade Hamas to disarm as well. The alternative is more civilian deaths on both sides, more images Hamas will use to recruit more men, and more pain and suffering on both sides.
Here is one idea to reduce civilian casualties: prior to an attack or war, Israel should offer safehouses on its own soil. All children under 18 years of age and all women would be able to cross the border into the safehouses. These Palestinian residents would be returned after the war or attack was over. I am not an expert on war, but there must be some way to mitigate civilian casualties so that schoolchildren are not at risk.
_________
"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower
_________
Update on January 8, 2009: Charlie Rose interviewed Bob Simon with a special focus on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The result is an informative primer for anyone searching for answers on how to improve Israel-Palestinian relations:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9900
Readers who prefer a transcript rather than video should scroll down and hit the "Transcript" tab (located next to "Comments").
More info: here is a NY Times op-ed, from the Palestinian perspective ("What You Don't Know about Gaza").
Update on January 10, 2010: here is a WSJ op-ed (this link doesn't appear to work, so you may want to google ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, July 3, 2009, "Has Obama Turned on Israel?"). Dershowitz agrees with and quotes Yousef Munayyer: "'Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally,'" he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build 'up' rather than 'out.'"
Also, here is an interview with Mr. Olmert (NYT, by Ethan Bronner, 9/29/08):
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.
Steve Nash Video
Although Reggie Miller will always be my favorite NBA player, Steve Nash isn't far behind on my personal list. For those of you who don't follow basketball, the white player is former NBA MVP Steve Nash, who attended Santa Clara University and who plays for the Phoenix Suns. The other player is Baron Davis, who was born in L.A. and who rejuvenated the Golden State Warriors. Wait till you see Nash and Davis street dancing:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Video-Gold-Steve-Nash-and-Baron-Davis-are-Step?urn=nba,97409
Oh, the awesomeness.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Video-Gold-Steve-Nash-and-Baron-Davis-are-Step?urn=nba,97409
Oh, the awesomeness.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
NY Times and Madoff
Today's NY Times mentions Madoff. Michael Lewis says that Wall Street's misaligned incentives led to corruption.
Poetry and My Poems
Once in a while, I like to take a break from economics and read poetry. Here are some of my favorites:
AUBADE, by Rick Barot
Scintillas of the anatomical
on the vines, buds opening—
make me a figure
for the woken.
On the vines, buds opening—
blue, little throats.
For the woken,
this different tin sky.
Blue, little throats
speak to me in the right voice.
This different tin sky,
the playground thawing.
Speak to me in the right voice,
only clean, sweeter.
The playground thawing
into its primary colors.
Only clean, sweeter,
briary as honeysuckle,
into their primary colors
the words come: bitter, astral.
Full version after the jump: http://enskyment.org/poetsatog.html
I am sharing part of Barot's poem for educational purposes. It sounds and reads perfectly--a difficult combination. Even the unusual repetition, "bitter, astral," feels perfectly placed. The only blemish is the phrase, "blue little throats," which seems too harsh among "clean, sweeter," and "honeysuckle." This poetic form, which relies on repetition, is the "lilibonelle." More on poetry forms at Sol Magazine.
I also love a poem by C. Milosz called "Hymn," but I can't find it online. Here are the first few lines:
There is no one between you and me.
Neither a plant drawing sap from the depths of the earth
nor wind walking between the clouds.
The most beautiful bodies are like transparent glass.
Here is an interview with Mr. Milosz.
Another poem by Bill Watterson is a must-read. It's from Calvin and Hobbes' Indispensable Treasury:
I made a big decision a little while ago.
I don't remember what it was, which prob'ly goes to show
That many times a simple choice can prove to be essential
Even though it often might appear inconsequential.
I must have been distracted when I left my home because
Left or right I'm sure I went. (I wonder which it was!)
Anyway, I never veered: I walked in that direction
Utterly absorbed, it seems, in quiet introspection.
For no reason I can think of, I've wandered far astray.
And that is how I got to where I find myself today.
As you can see, poetry doesn't have to be in a Norton Anthology to be required reading. I own the complete Calvin and Hobbes collection, and Calvin has so many lines that are poetic in their own right. I shared the above lines to show readers that poetry can be found in unexpected places and to encourage readers to discover Calvin and Hobbes if they haven't already done so. Newer fans can share their thoughts on Calvin and Hobbes here.
Oh, the beauty.
___________
Here are a few poems I found today, which I wrote about 10 years ago:
Haiku
The mahogany maelstrom
stares at me.
Charred black holes
peeking through space,
gentle lashes nurturing
smoldering volcanoes.
copyright Matthew Rafat (written 1995-1999)
Embezzlement
Bank statements invade dreams
Of holding hands, making babies, laughing for no reason;
And eyes that once sparkled are now jaundiced,
Critiquing every missing George Washington,
Forgetting the spontaneous smiles
That once would follow accidental breaking of dishes.
Now your reassuring voice seems like an important historical event
One should remember, but can't,
Like the date of the Missouri Compromise or the victor at Yorktown.
The laundry undone and the mold growing
Used to sit patiently while we lay on our backs feeling the wind brush our faces--
And it would be okay if we missed dinner
When I wanted to see your face above mine,
Your falling sweat sticking to my just-showered stomach.
But bringing Benjamin Franklin in the bedroom
Made you sexually insolvent, and I felt cheated, because I never invited him in--
It was as if you were making me part of a threesome without my consent,
Allowing little green men to rape me while you watched and did nothing.
Even the prospect of your copper-stained hands going through my hair
Would have aroused in me forgiveness--
But you always just plopped down next to me in the dark, faceless and foreboding.
One day, as you mentioned going down a tax bracket,
I packed my bags and left without your interest
And with the realization I would never be included
In your value estimations.
copyright Matthew Rafat (written 1995-1999)
Pellucid Life
Children dance their songs of glee,
Roses approve with laughs of scent,
The sun joins in, beaming smiles of light.
Women cradle bundles of sound,
Men walk with words of friends,
The world turns with slow of sure.
I sit amidst sights of smell,
Enjoying feel of touch,
Remembering you of love.
copyright Matthew Rafat (written 1995-1999)
Dupont Circle was one of my favorite hangouts when I lived in D.C. around 1999. I loved its coffeeshops and used bookstores. Back in the day, as soon as you got off the Metro and exited the escalator, you saw the aptly-named Xanadu's Cafe on your left. Dupont has become much more gentrified since then.
Dupont Circle
"No talking please,"
"No talking please,"
The jolly old man bellowed out,
Hovering over the chessboard,
About to devour his opponent,
Another old man, teeth and glasses broken,
Reflecting his shattered condition.
The old man must have wanted to be more than a wino once--
Whatever the dreams were, they certainly never included
Prostituting his knowledge of a queen's gambit for a ham and cheese sandwich.
The words of death didn't need to be said,
And they weren't, but the black king lay prostrate on the board
As 25 dollars exchanged trembling hands.
A drunk Physics major stumbled about,
Mumbling, "A win is a win is a win is a win,"
But then lost the next two games.
"Pow! Pow! Pow!"
In the corner, an entrenched Vietnam Vet, between sips,
Echoed out threats
Against the man who had just
Refused his request for a light.
A size six waist and double Ds walked in,
Capturing the crowd,
And I remembered thinking,
"God I wish those are real."
But they're not, and they're just as empty and heavy
As the old men's machismo
And their dances and drunkenness,
Gambling money they don't have,
Hollering words without force,
Trying to find connections in a city
That offers none,
As sorry and hopeful
As those two pneumatic sacks.
copyright Matthew Rafat
AUBADE, by Rick Barot
Scintillas of the anatomical
on the vines, buds opening—
make me a figure
for the woken.
On the vines, buds opening—
blue, little throats.
For the woken,
this different tin sky.
Blue, little throats
speak to me in the right voice.
This different tin sky,
the playground thawing.
Speak to me in the right voice,
only clean, sweeter.
The playground thawing
into its primary colors.
Only clean, sweeter,
briary as honeysuckle,
into their primary colors
the words come: bitter, astral.
Full version after the jump: http://enskyment.org/poetsatog.html
I am sharing part of Barot's poem for educational purposes. It sounds and reads perfectly--a difficult combination. Even the unusual repetition, "bitter, astral," feels perfectly placed. The only blemish is the phrase, "blue little throats," which seems too harsh among "clean, sweeter," and "honeysuckle." This poetic form, which relies on repetition, is the "lilibonelle." More on poetry forms at Sol Magazine.
I also love a poem by C. Milosz called "Hymn," but I can't find it online. Here are the first few lines:
There is no one between you and me.
Neither a plant drawing sap from the depths of the earth
nor wind walking between the clouds.
The most beautiful bodies are like transparent glass.
Here is an interview with Mr. Milosz.
Another poem by Bill Watterson is a must-read. It's from Calvin and Hobbes' Indispensable Treasury:
I made a big decision a little while ago.
I don't remember what it was, which prob'ly goes to show
That many times a simple choice can prove to be essential
Even though it often might appear inconsequential.
I must have been distracted when I left my home because
Left or right I'm sure I went. (I wonder which it was!)
Anyway, I never veered: I walked in that direction
Utterly absorbed, it seems, in quiet introspection.
For no reason I can think of, I've wandered far astray.
And that is how I got to where I find myself today.
As you can see, poetry doesn't have to be in a Norton Anthology to be required reading. I own the complete Calvin and Hobbes collection, and Calvin has so many lines that are poetic in their own right. I shared the above lines to show readers that poetry can be found in unexpected places and to encourage readers to discover Calvin and Hobbes if they haven't already done so. Newer fans can share their thoughts on Calvin and Hobbes here.
Oh, the beauty.
___________
Here are a few poems I found today, which I wrote about 10 years ago:
Haiku
The mahogany maelstrom
stares at me.
Charred black holes
peeking through space,
gentle lashes nurturing
smoldering volcanoes.
copyright Matthew Rafat (written 1995-1999)
Embezzlement
Bank statements invade dreams
Of holding hands, making babies, laughing for no reason;
And eyes that once sparkled are now jaundiced,
Critiquing every missing George Washington,
Forgetting the spontaneous smiles
That once would follow accidental breaking of dishes.
Now your reassuring voice seems like an important historical event
One should remember, but can't,
Like the date of the Missouri Compromise or the victor at Yorktown.
The laundry undone and the mold growing
Used to sit patiently while we lay on our backs feeling the wind brush our faces--
And it would be okay if we missed dinner
When I wanted to see your face above mine,
Your falling sweat sticking to my just-showered stomach.
But bringing Benjamin Franklin in the bedroom
Made you sexually insolvent, and I felt cheated, because I never invited him in--
It was as if you were making me part of a threesome without my consent,
Allowing little green men to rape me while you watched and did nothing.
Even the prospect of your copper-stained hands going through my hair
Would have aroused in me forgiveness--
But you always just plopped down next to me in the dark, faceless and foreboding.
One day, as you mentioned going down a tax bracket,
I packed my bags and left without your interest
And with the realization I would never be included
In your value estimations.
copyright Matthew Rafat (written 1995-1999)
Pellucid Life
Children dance their songs of glee,
Roses approve with laughs of scent,
The sun joins in, beaming smiles of light.
Women cradle bundles of sound,
Men walk with words of friends,
The world turns with slow of sure.
I sit amidst sights of smell,
Enjoying feel of touch,
Remembering you of love.
copyright Matthew Rafat (written 1995-1999)
Dupont Circle was one of my favorite hangouts when I lived in D.C. around 1999. I loved its coffeeshops and used bookstores. Back in the day, as soon as you got off the Metro and exited the escalator, you saw the aptly-named Xanadu's Cafe on your left. Dupont has become much more gentrified since then.
Dupont Circle
"No talking please,"
"No talking please,"
The jolly old man bellowed out,
Hovering over the chessboard,
About to devour his opponent,
Another old man, teeth and glasses broken,
Reflecting his shattered condition.
The old man must have wanted to be more than a wino once--
Whatever the dreams were, they certainly never included
Prostituting his knowledge of a queen's gambit for a ham and cheese sandwich.
The words of death didn't need to be said,
And they weren't, but the black king lay prostrate on the board
As 25 dollars exchanged trembling hands.
A drunk Physics major stumbled about,
Mumbling, "A win is a win is a win is a win,"
But then lost the next two games.
"Pow! Pow! Pow!"
In the corner, an entrenched Vietnam Vet, between sips,
Echoed out threats
Against the man who had just
Refused his request for a light.
A size six waist and double Ds walked in,
Capturing the crowd,
And I remembered thinking,
"God I wish those are real."
But they're not, and they're just as empty and heavy
As the old men's machismo
And their dances and drunkenness,
Gambling money they don't have,
Hollering words without force,
Trying to find connections in a city
That offers none,
As sorry and hopeful
As those two pneumatic sacks.
copyright Matthew Rafat
Answer to W.H. Auden
At the party,
Go sit in your dismal, desolate corner--
Good friends laugh and play
As you deem yourself their official mourner.
Blow the cobwebs from the mirror,
See the face of optimism resisted;
You cannot plunge the penknife
Into a heart that never existed.
Time will only say "I told you so,"
You've said over and over;
Let Time watch from the shadows--
I will kiss while it coughs, and be Life's lover.
At the party,
Go sit in your dismal, desolate corner--
Good friends laugh and play
As you deem yourself their official mourner.
Blow the cobwebs from the mirror,
See the face of optimism resisted;
You cannot plunge the penknife
Into a heart that never existed.
Time will only say "I told you so,"
You've said over and over;
Let Time watch from the shadows--
I will kiss while it coughs, and be Life's lover.
copyright Matthew Rafat
Gift Cards and Refunds
Now that the X-Mas shopping is done and the gifts opened, what happens if you want to return your gift? Or, if you received a gift card, do you know when you can get cash from the card? Here are some tips, prepared by the Consumer Protection Unit of the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, relating to refunds/returns and gift cards:
Refunds
A retail store in California does not have to accept your return of merchandise simply because you have changed your mind.
A retail store in California can set its own policy on returning merchandise. It may elect to refuse any returns once a purchase has been made, or accept returned merchandise for a store credit only.
However, if a retail store elects not to give a full refund or store credit within 7 days after purchase, it must post that written refund policy:
*on a sign at each cash register and sales counter;
*on tags associated with that merchandise;
*at each public entrance; or
*on order forms.
The policy must state:
*whether the store will give a cash refund, store credit, or exchange for the full amount of the purchase price;
*the time within which the return must be made; and
*any other conditions related to the policy.
There are exceptions under this law so be a wise shopper and ask to see the refund policy.
Gift cards and gift certificates
While gift cards and certificates make for very flexible and easy gifts, you should keep in mind the restrictions allowed under California law.
While the gift card or certificate cannot have an expiration date, the card may include a dormancy fee (a fee charged for not using the card or certificate within a certain time period); such fees are required to be printed on the front or back of the card or certificate. You also need to consider the likelihood that the store will close before you can use the card or certificate.
Finally, sellers of gift cards and certificates must redeem them only when the balance on them falls below $10.00.
Refunds
A retail store in California does not have to accept your return of merchandise simply because you have changed your mind.
A retail store in California can set its own policy on returning merchandise. It may elect to refuse any returns once a purchase has been made, or accept returned merchandise for a store credit only.
However, if a retail store elects not to give a full refund or store credit within 7 days after purchase, it must post that written refund policy:
*on a sign at each cash register and sales counter;
*on tags associated with that merchandise;
*at each public entrance; or
*on order forms.
The policy must state:
*whether the store will give a cash refund, store credit, or exchange for the full amount of the purchase price;
*the time within which the return must be made; and
*any other conditions related to the policy.
There are exceptions under this law so be a wise shopper and ask to see the refund policy.
Gift cards and gift certificates
While gift cards and certificates make for very flexible and easy gifts, you should keep in mind the restrictions allowed under California law.
While the gift card or certificate cannot have an expiration date, the card may include a dormancy fee (a fee charged for not using the card or certificate within a certain time period); such fees are required to be printed on the front or back of the card or certificate. You also need to consider the likelihood that the store will close before you can use the card or certificate.
Finally, sellers of gift cards and certificates must redeem them only when the balance on them falls below $10.00.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Memories of 10 Years Ago
I am going through some old items and re-discovered two old songs I love.
This one's from Meatloaf, and this one's an incredible old-school rap song.
I also discovered an Atlantic article written by Miranda Seymour--Seymour's review so captivated me, I saved it. I must have been in a really foul mood at the time:
This is, even for Brookner, an unusually cheerless work, about the moral education of a young woman as assessed by herself in retrospect. The lesson she learns is that a wise woman expects nothing from life and will probably get it. Only a fool, Brookner suggests, would believe the lessons offered by the novels and fairy tales in which Zoë, like many of her predecessors, has rashly placed her trust. Poor girls who sit and wait to become princesses get nowhere. Ordeals may lead only to further suffering. There are no rewards for virtue beyond self-respect. Life is best viewed as a journey toward death, to be lived with attentive restraint.
Ah, memories.
This one's from Meatloaf, and this one's an incredible old-school rap song.
I also discovered an Atlantic article written by Miranda Seymour--Seymour's review so captivated me, I saved it. I must have been in a really foul mood at the time:
This is, even for Brookner, an unusually cheerless work, about the moral education of a young woman as assessed by herself in retrospect. The lesson she learns is that a wise woman expects nothing from life and will probably get it. Only a fool, Brookner suggests, would believe the lessons offered by the novels and fairy tales in which Zoë, like many of her predecessors, has rashly placed her trust. Poor girls who sit and wait to become princesses get nowhere. Ordeals may lead only to further suffering. There are no rewards for virtue beyond self-respect. Life is best viewed as a journey toward death, to be lived with attentive restraint.
Ah, memories.
Wise Consumer Tips (California)
My readers are no doubt enjoying the new year--the Nasdaq is up 3.5% and the Dow is up almost 3%. But stock market gains mean nothing if you get scammed in personal economic transactions. To help my California readers avoid fraud, I found some excellent consumer tips, prepared by the Consumer Protection Unit of the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. The resolutions/tips are very helpful and definitely worth a look:
As a consumer, I resolve, in 2009, to:
-read and understand every consumer contract, especially when purchasing or leasing a car, BEFORE signing it and get all oral promises added to the contract in writing
-check with the Contractors State Licensing Board on the status of a contractor before hiring one to work on my home (Licenses can be checked by telephoning the Board at 1-800-321-CSLB or using the Board’s website at www.cslb.ca.gov .)
-understand the refund/return policy before purchasing in a store or from a store online
-watch the register when items are being scanned to catch pricing errors (Consumers may call the Santa Clara County Department of Weights and Measures’ toll-free scanner hotline at 1-866-SCANNER to complain or ask questions about scanning devices at stores.)
-use my credit card for purchases, whenever possible and reasonable, so I can write to my credit card company to dispute any charge
-make all car payments on schedule to avoid repossession and a bad credit record
-obtain a written estimate for any auto repair and ask for replaced parts, if I need them (Licenses can be checked by telephoning the Bureau of Automotive Repair at 1-800-952-5210 or using the Bureau’s website at www.bar.ca.gov .)
-review my itinerary and cancellation terms before purchasing travel arrangements, whether online or through a travel agent
-not disclose my personal or financial information, such as credit card or bank account numbers, over the telephone or online to any organization I cannot verify as reputable
-check with the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, the Bay Area Consumer Checkbook or simply do an internet search on any company from which I am purchasing
For more information, call the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, Consumer Protection Unit at 408-792-2880.
[Note: this number goes to a local D.A.'s office, designed to assist residents of Santa Clara County, or those complaining about businesses in Santa Clara County.]
As a consumer, I resolve, in 2009, to:
-read and understand every consumer contract, especially when purchasing or leasing a car, BEFORE signing it and get all oral promises added to the contract in writing
-check with the Contractors State Licensing Board on the status of a contractor before hiring one to work on my home (Licenses can be checked by telephoning the Board at 1-800-321-CSLB or using the Board’s website at www.cslb.ca.gov .)
-understand the refund/return policy before purchasing in a store or from a store online
-watch the register when items are being scanned to catch pricing errors (Consumers may call the Santa Clara County Department of Weights and Measures’ toll-free scanner hotline at 1-866-SCANNER to complain or ask questions about scanning devices at stores.)
-use my credit card for purchases, whenever possible and reasonable, so I can write to my credit card company to dispute any charge
-make all car payments on schedule to avoid repossession and a bad credit record
-obtain a written estimate for any auto repair and ask for replaced parts, if I need them (Licenses can be checked by telephoning the Bureau of Automotive Repair at 1-800-952-5210 or using the Bureau’s website at www.bar.ca.gov .)
-review my itinerary and cancellation terms before purchasing travel arrangements, whether online or through a travel agent
-not disclose my personal or financial information, such as credit card or bank account numbers, over the telephone or online to any organization I cannot verify as reputable
-check with the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, the Bay Area Consumer Checkbook or simply do an internet search on any company from which I am purchasing
For more information, call the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, Consumer Protection Unit at 408-792-2880.
[Note: this number goes to a local D.A.'s office, designed to assist residents of Santa Clara County, or those complaining about businesses in Santa Clara County.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)