We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Yesterday, The Barrister posted a terrific video in which the manipulation of Europe was exposed in a speech at the European Parliament. The thought that a 'conspiracy' may be taking place seems far-fetched, but the fingerprints are showing up everywhere.
The Euro is probably doomed. It was a lousy idea from the start, but once it was implemented, it was managed poorly. The EuroZone is a mess, democracy there is a thing of the past. It's amazing how the mismanagement of money can alter politics, but we are seeing the same theatre take place here in the US, although it's happening in slow motion. For all intents and purposes, the dollar remains "the best looking horse in the glue factory."
As it stands, the central bankers are the power brokers now. Bernanke will choose the next president, just as the ECB drove two Prime Ministers from office.
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws. ~Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I'd like to thank my teens for pointing out to me that pizza has been declared a vegetable by Congress.
Years ago, the Reagan administration received abuse for suggesting ketchup was a vegetable. Now we have Congress actually voting on this stuff?
At a point in time where the government could be shut down almost weekly, is nearly bankrupt and the Super Committee can't help forge agreement, we can agree that pizza is a vegetable.
Tomatoes, of course, are a fruit. So pizza should be a fruit, not a vegetable. Since they can't even get that right, it's probably no surprise Congress can't come to a reasonable agreement on the budget.
I'm not inclined to believe conspiracy theories, and the thought that Jon Corzine would comply with something along these lines seems absurd. But Jon is very well connected and does have an interest in maintaining the strong link between the government and Wall Street. That link, however, is starting to show signs of wear. Between Tea Partiers and OWS complaining about crony capitalism, and the fact that market rigging only lasts so long before it collapses on itself, we may well be seeing the end stages of the game being played out.
From that standpoint, a 'hit' on MF Global would make perfect sense. It's true that even in the best economic conditions, speculators are viewed as evil. The balance they bring to prices and markets, as well as the liquidity they provide, are overlooked because they operate in a realm many people simply don't understand. As a result, there is a belief that somehow speculators 'control' market outcomes. Nothing is further from the truth, but it is a widely held concept.
Did the Fed want to see some pressure taken off upward price movements? Yes. Will this help? Yes. Does this undermine markets further? Yes. Does this increase the uncertainty which is keeping our economy from moving forward? Yes.
We can ask many other questions, but none will answer whether or not this was a hatchet job. My guess? It wasn't, it was just mismanagement. But there is an awful stench coming from this whole affair.
Jon Corzine left a few days ago, and turned down any funds he was due, as he should. He is no doubt positioning his defense. Is he any worse than Madoff? I certainly don't think he is any better. Yet another political figure, in this case of the Left, shames himself.
I don't want to take anything away from our Veterans, and Bruce's earlier posts, particularly regarding the link between St. Martin's Day and the end of WWI, were enlightening and enjoyable. Certainly, I am proud of my family's veterans (a picture of my stepfather receiving a drink from an Italian police officer is posted, sorry for the quality), and I have nothing but good things to say about those who serve.
But, for those of you willing to take a moment to chuckle, I would like to point out that 11/11/11 is "Nigel Tufnel Day".
Last night, I attended a 50th anniversary screening of "West Side Story". The event was for one night only, and having never seen it anywhere but on TV, my better half felt it would be fun to see on the big screen. As usual, she was right.
The film has been digitally remastered for the 50th anniversary release, with the sound and picture as crisp as if it were filmed today.
Prior to the feature there were short interviews of Russ Tamblyn, Richard Beymer, George Chakiris, and Rita Moreno. Turner Classic Movies then interviewed Chakiris, producer Walter Mirisch, and Natalie Woods' singing voice double Marni Nixon. Each preview offered insight to the casting, the production, the choreography and the amazing amount of training and effort that went into the production.
The seamless nature in which the singing was dubbed is not noticeable. Pitch, accents, and lip synching were all managed extraordinarily well. Meanwhile, the framing of the shots and choreography are phenomenal. This remains true today even if we compare "West Side Story" to movies which take advantage of modern film and audio technology.
The current market on Wall Street is driven by a number of outrageous factors. Europe and U.S. Debt, Fed Quantitative Easing, Hot IPOs, and large scale fraud are headlines each day.
Last night, an interesting IPO was priced, and it could be a bellwether, as its movement may be indicative of market conditions.
The business plan was good. This was going to be a moneymaker. The problem with the deal was optics. Rendering is a nasty business.
So are businesses with low costs of entry. One of the sure signs of bubble behavior is herd mentality that becomes contagious and self-reinforcing.
The "MF" in MF Global does not stand for "Maggie's Farm". But it could stand for "Massive Fraud". What's amazing, as the MF Global story unfolds, is how one of the liberal standard bearers, Jon Corzine, put his future and his reputation on the line to make more money than the tidy sum he already has. He was, after all, known as a risk taker. But he was also one of the Left's golden boys.
There's nothing wrong with making money, and nobody should begrudge Corzine what he earned. However, I was happy to see him removed as my governor, due to the hypocrisy of his rhetoric and his disastrous leadership. His political views, contrasted with his behavior as CEO of Goldman Sachs, were inconsistent. He claims to be a man of the people, seeking to right wrongs and help the poor. He also gave support to, and received support from, unions. As CEO of Goldman during the run up to a public offering, he cut staff, fought unions, and tried to lower wages. In doing so, he oversaw a successful IPO, but was eventually ousted.
It's always intriguing to see liberal hypocrisy laid bare and listen to the spin. After all, it was recently speculated that Corzine might be a Geithner replacement. Few of his Democratic colleagues have jumped to defend him.
Corzine could, and should, have been much smarter about this. After all, MF Global purchased a firm which had executives jailed for exactly the same kind of fund commingling which seems to have just occurred. So it seems reviewing history was not helpful to the management of MF Global. Does a connected politico earn a jail cell for his behavior?
Recently, I posted about Steve Jobs. I believe, despite faults which he undoubtedly possessed, Steve was a visionary who radically altered our lives for the better over the last thirty years. Were it not for his untimely passing, he may have altered them further in the next twenty to thirty years.
It was part of his lifestyle, his mission, to look at things in a manner which was different from everyone else. He took computing from the realm of technology and moved it into culture and fashion. He did this without moving out of forward thinking technology. This kind of transformative behavior is unusual. Very few entrepreneurs are able to retain a firm hold on massive corporate structures. Even fewer can hold on and maintain a sharp entrepreneurial vision.
Now that Jobs is gone, Apple will be left to see if Jobs' vision was his alone or if someone else can pick up the slack at the company. However, in terms of personalities which society perceives as 'transformative', we are left with a gaping hole. There doesn't appear to be anyone quite like Steve Jobs.
I read this article recently, suggesting Jeff Bezos could be the "next Steve Jobs". I think he's definitely in the running. Jeff has changed the way people think about buying things. Like Jobs, I'm sure he's got flaws and faults, but I'm curious to see if he can be transformative. Even today, mom and pop shops in towns across the US are cursing firms like Amazon and Wal-Mart. But this isn't a fault of Bezos, it's simply the nature of the economy, which is one of change.
Are there other personalities out there who could be the "next Steve Jobs"? Certainly there are, and we may not have even heard of some of them yet.
This was passed along by a friend. It's long, but honest. The breakdown on health is fascinating, putting the onus on misdirected incentives and unhealthy lifestyles. Clearly these things can only be fixed by an overbearing nanny state. I'm posting it late because I figure it's useful for insomniacs or data junkies like me.
We've seen the complainers for weeks now. They infest selected streets in the US and other major countries around the world. I use the word infest because they are parasites. They add nothing, offer no solutions, and continue to claim they represent 99% of society when, in fact, more than 60% oppose them or are at least ambivalent. They do not "speak" for those they claim to represent, they are a drain on society and public spending, and are frauds.
Rants against OWS are tiring. If I'm going to provide a negative story, I also like to provide a positive. The OWS movement is fraudulent because it focuses on negative things while claiming to be a force for good. Negatives produce strong knee-jerk reactions, which the OWS hopes to provoke. Humans prefer positive stories and these stories have better long term benefits. I have two stories which differentiate most people from the OWS movement, and I know there are many others.
What makes these stories different? The manner in which the people involved sought to get something they wanted. By pursuing a path related to values they considered better than cash, they wound up getting more. Perhaps not as much as the market may have paid them, but more than enough to make it worthwhile.
Recently, my alma mater Syracuse University and the University of Pittsburgh applied to join the ACC. Both were accepted. I had very mixed feelings. I attended Syracuse during the halcyon days of Big East Basketball. We were one of the original 3 Big East schools. We pulled the first major upset, beating Villanova for the Big East Tournament Championship in 1982 with a very mediocre squad. The Big East placed 3 teams in the Final Four in 1985, then 2 in the Final Four in 1987. The 1987 NCAA Championship saw Syracuse lose by a point in the final seconds as Indiana' Keith Smart nailed a jumper in the final seconds. Over the years, the Georgetown/Syracuse and the University of Connecticut/Syracuse rivalries have been heated and seen many legendary games. Syracuse's 6 overtime Big East Tournament victory over UConn in 2009 was the kind of game you only hope to see, and wind up telling your children about.
Big East men's basketball has had 6 NCAA Champions in the last 27 years. Women's basketball has seen many more, as the University of Connecticut Huskies have set a new standard for the term 'Excellence' when it comes to sporting achievements. In 32 years, it has won 28 championships in 6 different sports.
On the other hand, Big East football has seen very few important moments, has never really developed a strong following, and has not helped its best teams rise. In some respects, Big East football is a bit of a joke even though programs like UConn and Rutgers have managed to revive themselves. Over the years, it has been football that drives conference alignments because of the revenues involved.
As other conferences grew and focused on their revenues, the Big East played it safe. They lost Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech in 2005. Hardliners in the conference scoffed, and I count myself among them. There was no way the move would benefit those teams (it hasn't really, but they've done better than they would have in the Big East). The Big East was clumsy. It just couldn't get the job done for those schools, nor for the two which recently left.
We all look for great deals when we buy things. Groupon has taken this concept and turned it into a phenomenon. Alas, it is an easy concept to mimic. Living Social, Facebook, and Google have all launched similar products.
Meanwhile, the Groupon idea is not always a winner for the small businessperson seeking to corral new or increased business. I recently utilized one of their offers at a local business. While it was a savings for me, it represented a loss to the business owner. This is the risk many people are willing to take to drive business, leading many to try Groupon once and abandon it. The Groupon story from a sales and income perspective is fraught with issues.
There was a time any dot com business could drive an IPO skyward. The new ideas coming out today are too easy to mimic and barriers to entry are low. Maybe someone can explain why Linked In is priced at $92, when it only earns $.07 per share and has competitors targeting it like mad?
These new businesses are not groundbreaking ideas and are being overvalued.
Groundbreaking ideas are what will drive the economy forward. Not IPOs for coupon books.
The book remains a staple of children's literature. While the movie went through a remake in 2005, the original remains a classic. It has lines that are familiar to all who have seen it, and its songs still resonate.
An interesting side note about the author, Roald Dahl. He was a spy for Britain in the United States during World War II (along with several other well known personalities such as David Ogilvy). He spent quite a bit of time trolling the social circles of Washington and New York City, collecting information. During his time here, Dahl began writing and found his calling.
One hopes Charlie Bucket has managed his global empire properly and treats his Oompa-Loompas well. I haven't seen any in Zucotti Park.
The OWS movement embodies certain qualities which we don't seem to fully understand. It's neither a generational or an issue-driven movement. It lacks solutions. It has no direction or focus. There is a reason for this, defined many years ago by Eric Hoffer.
Hoffer was skeptical of mass movements, feeling they epitomized juvenile behaviors. He was able to determine why, pointing to a lack of self-esteem which the protesters exhibited. Hoffer felt self-esteem was critical in the development of adult behaviors. He outlined how widespread affluence and the rapid changes in modern society lead to a desire to attain adulthood more quickly, but with certain rites of puberty being shortchanged, particularly with regard to work and endeavor.
In his view an extended adolescence led many to seek outlets for their inability to define themselves. These people, lacking in self-identity, defined themselves as they saw themselves described by others. There was an intense self-loathing and guilt regarding position and place. This was a direct result of low self-esteem. Self-esteem was not being cultivated as many of those in protest movements didn't work, and were incapable of understanding their responsibilities. From this perspective, all mass movements were interchangeable, regardless of what they sought to promote.
Self-esteem and self-contempt have specific odors; they can be smelled. ~Eric Hoffer
The idea that we need more entrepreneurs to help improve the economy (a theme I've been thumping) is not lost on the government. However, their solution is to use taxpayer money to invest in areas they deem worthy. Most venture capitalists look for profitable businesses with a high potential return. Or at least some kind of return. The government has the luxury of being able to borrow as much as it wants from the Fed, or taxing the citizenry to death to pursue its dreams of a greener world...and is not seeking any return.
This is not entrepreneurial behavior. This is not venture capitalist behavior. It is the kind of behavior we should all be wary of - the government picking winners and losers. It's a precarious game, particularly if you choose a market that is so small your money isn't likely to have any kind of decent return. This administration claims the GM and Chrysler bailouts "made money" (though I am sure a careful accounting will prove otherwise). Assuming this is true, and politicians are astute enough to put taxpayer money to a profitable end - why the hell are we investing in this?
At its very core, it's just wealth redistribution. They just slapped a different label on it.
Ed: A quote from that piece:
Politicians write the press releases first and worry about the taxpayer losses later.
To predict the demise of Capitalism, that is. Adam Smith did, too. So did my favorite economist, Joseph Schumpeter. Each one had different views on how it would end.
Marx foresaw the proletariat rising up and seizing the means of production. We all know how well that worked out.
Adam Smith believed an accumulative class would eventually collapse upon itself. Smith felt accumulation drove the market forward, but also felt accumulation for the sake of accumulation was wrong. He felt eventually, there would be nothing left to accumulate. Somewhat Malthusian in nature, and very unlikely based on his own concepts of markets and value.
Schumpeter went to great lengths explaining exactly why both these great minds were wrong. He felt Marx completely misunderstood the nature of markets. Schumpeter put the innovator, the entrepreneur, at the center of his economic model. It is the driving force of creativity and the desire to improve that keeps Capitalism and markets healthy. The value provided by this group of people helped offset the underlying problems of labor described by Marx.
Capitalism existed as a force for change, not a static system which was essential for Marx's system. Schumpeter was unabashed in his support for, and love of, markets and capitalism. He sought to destroy Marx's arguments, and did so in impressive manner.
My wife had knee surgery recently, and our medical group has a wonderful facility nearby. We arrived at 6:30 AM, checked in, she was brought into surgery at 7, and I went home. The drive being only 15 minutes, I was able to return, get something to eat, do some work, and return in time to pick her up. We left at 9:00AM.
It was only arthroscopic surgery, something I've had several times over the last 12 years (anyone playing sports is likely to have had it at least once). But it amazes me how quick these have become, showing the huge productivity gains in the medical community.
I've had my knee, my elbow, and my back all scoped. The amazing thing is all of these were done at ambulatory care centers. In 1985 I had work done on my knee which today would have been done utilizing arthroscopy. The work was done in a hospital, requiring an overnight stay.
It's amazing so many of these surgeries, which at one time required opening up a good portion of the joint, are now barely invasive. It's also incredible that you can literally walk away from many of them. My wife is already limping slightly, and should be moving fairly well by Monday (Friday surgery).
When we talk about the rising costs of medicine, we never talk about the improvements that have accompanied the price increases.
Anyone who is familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement knows that it has more or less 'settled' Zucotti Park. This is a very small area (roughly 33,300 square feet) down by the World Trade Center. It's a private park owned by Brookfield Partners. It has no habitable area, but the squatters are creating their own living conditions. They claim they will stay for as long as they have to.
Most of us doubt this is true. I'm willing to bet the minute the TV cameras leave, or the first large snowstorm blows through, most of them will leave. What if they don't, though? Could they stay forever?
It's possible. The potential is there. In fact, there is history supporting this kind of thing. So let's take a look at what might happen if these people never leave.
If you've ever been to Denmark, or Copenhagen specifically, you might be familiar with Freetown Christiana. Christiana is an old military barracks/base which was abandoned by 1970. In 1971, local residents broke down the fence to create a playground, and eventually many people began living in the facilities because housing in Copenhagen was hard to come by. It became a relatively autonomous commune. I found out about it as a teen, when I visited Copenhagen in 1976. At the time, I was deemed "too young" to see it. Seven years later, as a college student living abroad, I visited Copenhagen and this time I made three trips to Christiana. I will admit, it was a great party. But even then I realized it was no place to live. I was alternately impressed and repulsed. With each visit, I was less and less impressed.
There have been plenty of tributes to Steve Jobs' life. The man was a visionary and radically altered the world of computing several times. He also completely changed the world of animation.
What many people miss, however, is that he was not only a great inventor and leader, but an inspirational force that could help pull us out of the current mess we are in. Rather than whining and crying and asking for more from others, Jobs set a standard which all of us should follow.
The first political systems, from an institutional standpoint, were monarchies. Monarchs either considered themselves gods, chosen by 'the gods', or "Chosen by God". In almost every sense, the political system was tied somehow to the spiritual beliefs of the nation.
During a college course on Democracy, my professor spent the better part of an hour and a half discussing the implications of this concept. He pointed out that God Himself chose Israel's first king, and approved of their choosing a king. I immediately raised my hand and asked "But God didn't want Israel to have a king, did He? He considered Himself their king and allowed them to have Judges which acted as their spiritual and moral guides on earth."
Baseball? Football? No - they are based on foreign sports. Both are quintessentially American, but neither can actually claim North American roots. Cricket, Rounders and Rugby are all British.
Volleyball? Basketball? No - both were invented here in the United States, but they are basically 20th Century pastimes.
When I joined Maggie's recently, I was told it was a voluntary collective. "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities. Just be eclectic with your topics." I decided this would be interesting and fun.
After watching the Occupy Wall Street movement, however, I've come to realize that Maggie's is just another corporate entity keeping me down, and I am being shortchanged by The System. I've decided to visit some of the Wall Street protesters and get them to join me here. We can complain about how Maggie is keeping us from enjoying the well-deserved fruits of our labor. After all, Maggie's Farm takes advantage of a public good (the internet), so just as people like Elizabeth Warren point out Maggie should, in all fairness, be giving back.
The Wall Street protesters agree and feel that if Maggie won't share, then perhaps the government should step in and make things fair. After all, I went to college. I have debts. I'm putting into The System. Where are my goodies? I want my Dunkin' Donuts! It's time to redistribute!
I call on other writers to join me in creating a list of demands that can be endless. Not having one demand makes us stronger. If we have more, and make the demands go on and on forever, we show strength.
Now I'm going to go take a nap, play some hacky sack, blog on my Mac about how I'm looking out for the best interests of other Maggie's Farmers, have compassion for others, feel good about myself, and engage in many other unproductive activities until I get something for nothing.
(I really hope Maggie has a sense of humor.)
Editor, to Bulldog: We would gladly surrender to the armed occupiers below the fold, but I am afraid most of today's Occupier chicks do not meet Maggie's Farm standards - to say the least. Furthermore, the $5 million Dunkin Donuts pays me each year is all mine! Be a big dog and suck it up! You get a free megaphone out of it!
Anyone who is familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement knows that it has more or less 'settled' Zucotti Park. This is a very small area (
After watching the Occupy Wall Street movement, however, I've come to realize that Maggie's is just another corporate entity keeping me down, and I am being shortchanged by 