I read 3 papers a day, the Economist weekly and The New Republic bi-weekly. Today, I found myself incapable of reading anything political. There were of course seriously written articles by reporters who are seriously proud of their content, but all they are for the most part is a component of the total paradigm of conjecture. The real world events they observed are in process of playing out however they will and I don't need to read them to have an understanding of why things are the way they are. Perhaps, I am burned out on politics or at least the unending anger that is in our politics, but I think, rather than that, nothing written today added value to my understanding of the world or challenged any premise of mine in a worthwhile way.
But then I got to the sports pages and amidst the drivel of yesterday's sports news was an article on two Met's pitching prospects. The Met's somehow know how to draft and develop pitchers. They do it consistently while the Yankees fail to do it at all.
In most American sports, the aspiring player's fortunes are determined by the college that recruits them, how they develop in college and then the draft is the be-all-to-end-all and they are major leaguers at that point. That point comes about swiftly and pointedly.
Baseball, on the other hand, requires consistent application of the youthful spirit in the minor leagues that we former little leaguers had when we took to the field and dreamed of being professionals. Of course, most of us found out this was never going to happen for one valid reason or another. Every young player goes through the minor leagues to continue to work on improving, avoid career ending injury, and see what their ceiling is. It is a cruel process but it plays out over time and no one who fails to make it can ever say they didn't get a chance because they either performed or they didn't.
But what joy when a young player achieves his dream and makes the major league. And we fans can share in his joy because we identify with our own youthful dreams and know how happy each young player is to make the major leagues. Spring is when hope is eternal.
So, here's to Rafael Montero and Noah Syndergaard. These 2 Met's pitching prospects still need to prove themselves at the AAA level, but they are getting their chance to show their stuff at the major league level this spring and that must be a lot of fun. It lifted my spirits.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
Neo-Conservatism Needs Balance
My thought process today started with a piece by John Bolton, George Bush II's UN Ambassador, and a complete believer that the U.S.A. should use military force to intervene in foreign countries to get them to support the policies of the U.S.A.
He looks at the horrors going on in the Ukraine and Venezuela and sees a weakness in U.S. policy that he cannot stomach. He believes that the U.S. could have done something positive to influence these situations. As a sovereign risk analyst, I beg to differ. There is little that the U.S. could have done because these are domestic political situations and there is no role for U.S. military action in domestic political situations.
See my earlier postings on the outlook for EM investing and the political challenges developing democracy has when cronyism generates enormous wealth for the corrupt (e.g. Russia, China, Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States, Pakistan, Indonesia, Koch Industries and possibly Turkey). There is no U.S. military solution for this unless we are attacked.
John Bolton was widely seen as being crazy with military fever when he was in the government and nothing about the aftermath of the Great Recession seems to have balanced his belief in military action and fiscal conservatism. In the abstract, Neo-conservatives always want to reduce social welfare spending and cut taxes but they never want to cut the defense budget and they usually want to use military force to accomplish something. These are guys that brought us the War in Iraq and failed to raise the revenues to pay for it (or to pay for the War on Terror in Afghanistan).
You would think that neo-conservatives would want to make sure they pay for their wars and that the U.S. maintains a strong economy with everyone working at good jobs. I was much more comfortable describing myself as a Scoop Jackson or Sam Stratton Democrat when they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic Party in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Thankfully, the American Enterprise Institute is endeavoring to challenge the Republican Party to stop focusing on defending capitalism on material grounds (i.e. you have the opportunity to become rich and if you fail to do so, it is because you are a failure so just suffer!!!!!!!) and move the defense of capitalism to moral grounds. The moral support for capitalism is that it is the best system for moving people out of poverty and keeping people out of poverty. It also provides the strongest financial support for a strong military defense posture because people have a personal stake in the economy and political system. They want a strong country.
Someone named Joel Kotkin has argued that the popular support for capitalism is in decline because "the middle class is being proletarianized, and the uneducated class is being left behind" by the growing income inequality. The share of GDP going to the middle 60% has fallen from 53% to 45% since 1970.
I have argued and believe that there is little government policy can do about globalization and technology beyond encouraging people to become educated and work hard. But this decline in middle class participation and stake in the economy has given rise to both the Tea Party and hard-line liberals pushing partisan positions without room for compromise. Witness the failure of the GOP to come forward with the President on the Grand Bargain and now the one critical thing I think makes sense to help fix Social Security (changing the CPI measure) has fallen victim to the AARP's campaign for removal.
I believe this shows how off the mark the political process is on the real issues. The country needs entitlement reform that makes the safety net sustainable. There is no safety net without a strong economy. And we cannot pay for the War on Terror through entitlement reform. That is not fair to the people who paid into entitlements their whole working career. Wars need to be paid for with revenues and revenues should be increased to reduce the debt associated with the War on Terror. David Brooks column this morning showed me that there is a focus in the AEI (a conservative think tank) on pushing the political discussion in a positive direction. And one would think neo-conservatives would see the need for revenues to pay for wars.
Link to David Brooks column
Lastly, a summary of how the economic policies from 2009 to today have been entirely appropriate and mostly successful given the constraints on potential, but have lost the battle of political perception.
Link to Paul Krugman on reality vs perception
He looks at the horrors going on in the Ukraine and Venezuela and sees a weakness in U.S. policy that he cannot stomach. He believes that the U.S. could have done something positive to influence these situations. As a sovereign risk analyst, I beg to differ. There is little that the U.S. could have done because these are domestic political situations and there is no role for U.S. military action in domestic political situations.
See my earlier postings on the outlook for EM investing and the political challenges developing democracy has when cronyism generates enormous wealth for the corrupt (e.g. Russia, China, Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States, Pakistan, Indonesia, Koch Industries and possibly Turkey). There is no U.S. military solution for this unless we are attacked.
John Bolton was widely seen as being crazy with military fever when he was in the government and nothing about the aftermath of the Great Recession seems to have balanced his belief in military action and fiscal conservatism. In the abstract, Neo-conservatives always want to reduce social welfare spending and cut taxes but they never want to cut the defense budget and they usually want to use military force to accomplish something. These are guys that brought us the War in Iraq and failed to raise the revenues to pay for it (or to pay for the War on Terror in Afghanistan).
You would think that neo-conservatives would want to make sure they pay for their wars and that the U.S. maintains a strong economy with everyone working at good jobs. I was much more comfortable describing myself as a Scoop Jackson or Sam Stratton Democrat when they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic Party in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Thankfully, the American Enterprise Institute is endeavoring to challenge the Republican Party to stop focusing on defending capitalism on material grounds (i.e. you have the opportunity to become rich and if you fail to do so, it is because you are a failure so just suffer!!!!!!!) and move the defense of capitalism to moral grounds. The moral support for capitalism is that it is the best system for moving people out of poverty and keeping people out of poverty. It also provides the strongest financial support for a strong military defense posture because people have a personal stake in the economy and political system. They want a strong country.
Someone named Joel Kotkin has argued that the popular support for capitalism is in decline because "the middle class is being proletarianized, and the uneducated class is being left behind" by the growing income inequality. The share of GDP going to the middle 60% has fallen from 53% to 45% since 1970.
I have argued and believe that there is little government policy can do about globalization and technology beyond encouraging people to become educated and work hard. But this decline in middle class participation and stake in the economy has given rise to both the Tea Party and hard-line liberals pushing partisan positions without room for compromise. Witness the failure of the GOP to come forward with the President on the Grand Bargain and now the one critical thing I think makes sense to help fix Social Security (changing the CPI measure) has fallen victim to the AARP's campaign for removal.
I believe this shows how off the mark the political process is on the real issues. The country needs entitlement reform that makes the safety net sustainable. There is no safety net without a strong economy. And we cannot pay for the War on Terror through entitlement reform. That is not fair to the people who paid into entitlements their whole working career. Wars need to be paid for with revenues and revenues should be increased to reduce the debt associated with the War on Terror. David Brooks column this morning showed me that there is a focus in the AEI (a conservative think tank) on pushing the political discussion in a positive direction. And one would think neo-conservatives would see the need for revenues to pay for wars.
Link to David Brooks column
Lastly, a summary of how the economic policies from 2009 to today have been entirely appropriate and mostly successful given the constraints on potential, but have lost the battle of political perception.
Link to Paul Krugman on reality vs perception
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Olympic Commentary
Beyond the wonder of watching these young people perform athletic feats that I could never dream of doing (OK, I have done my best to imitate the downhill skiers, but not on the ice that they rocket down on), the one thing that I am struck by is how close 1st and 10th place can be in any number of sports. Hundreths of seconds are determining who finishes where.
And then the commentators or newspaper writers who have to come up with something to fill their space with, discuss the disappointment or failure to perform by the losers who were expected to be competitive (i.e. win a medal).
Well, if you finish 5th or 10th in the world by a second or two spread over a mile, two or 4 times down a course, or were somehow judged qualitatively to be a point or two lower on some subjective scale, you are certainly a world class competitor who deserves accolades for your accomplishments. Yes, you came up a bit short in this competition, but you are worthy of respect by all.
I am frustrated by the media who seem to ridicule those who don't win a medal.
And my only political comment today, is I don't understand the point of supermajority votes in legislatures. It seems designed to prevent majority rule. I know this is to ostensibly protect minority points of view, but the Arkansas Legislature needed 75 votes out of 97 voters to continue to fund a variation on Obamacare Medicaid expansion that uses the private sector (rather than Medicaid) to provide health insurance to lower paid people without employer provided health insurance. This system has been working for a year now giving these people in Arkansas access to affordable health insurance. The bill received only 70 votes in the affirmative sending its continuation down to defeat so these people will lose their health insurance in June (perhaps they should quit their jobs and go on welfare and Medicaid if they are going to die anyway). But 70 affirmative votes out of 97 is a 72% approval rate. That is certainly more than a majority and makes me wonder how Arkansas passes any bills. And it does not make for a fair or seamless public health policy.
And then the commentators or newspaper writers who have to come up with something to fill their space with, discuss the disappointment or failure to perform by the losers who were expected to be competitive (i.e. win a medal).
Well, if you finish 5th or 10th in the world by a second or two spread over a mile, two or 4 times down a course, or were somehow judged qualitatively to be a point or two lower on some subjective scale, you are certainly a world class competitor who deserves accolades for your accomplishments. Yes, you came up a bit short in this competition, but you are worthy of respect by all.
I am frustrated by the media who seem to ridicule those who don't win a medal.
And my only political comment today, is I don't understand the point of supermajority votes in legislatures. It seems designed to prevent majority rule. I know this is to ostensibly protect minority points of view, but the Arkansas Legislature needed 75 votes out of 97 voters to continue to fund a variation on Obamacare Medicaid expansion that uses the private sector (rather than Medicaid) to provide health insurance to lower paid people without employer provided health insurance. This system has been working for a year now giving these people in Arkansas access to affordable health insurance. The bill received only 70 votes in the affirmative sending its continuation down to defeat so these people will lose their health insurance in June (perhaps they should quit their jobs and go on welfare and Medicaid if they are going to die anyway). But 70 affirmative votes out of 97 is a 72% approval rate. That is certainly more than a majority and makes me wonder how Arkansas passes any bills. And it does not make for a fair or seamless public health policy.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Why Do the Libertarian Republicans Support Traitors?
I just don't get it. Ron and Rand Paul want Edward Snowden to be allowed back into the U.S.A. without being prosecuted for what he did.
No one's rights are being infringed upon by the NSA gathering in a computer that one phone number called another phone number. This information is not even looked at until somehow one phone number is found to be a terrorist's phone and then they look to see what telephone numbers that phone called or called it.
I don't know about you, but after the horror of 9/11 and any other number of efforts to blow up US citizens of any age, race, and religion, I am all for any way we can prevent terrorism without putting members of the U.S. military in harms way.
And make no mistake about it, we are still in a War on Terror. There are plenty of jaded jihadists out there that want to kill U.S. citizens as well as Russian citizens, British citizens, Spanish citizens, Kenyan citizens, India's citizens, Indonesian citizens, and citizens of any other place they want to set a bomb off in.
I don't understand how Rand Paul intends to win the Presidency catering to Edward Snowden. Most voters who vote for President understand the need for the best defense the government can organize and want that defense.
And thank you for asking, the skiing was great. 2 powders days and the rest was very hard packed on some fun mountains in northern New England. Now back to my return to education and working on my career reinvention.
No one's rights are being infringed upon by the NSA gathering in a computer that one phone number called another phone number. This information is not even looked at until somehow one phone number is found to be a terrorist's phone and then they look to see what telephone numbers that phone called or called it.
I don't know about you, but after the horror of 9/11 and any other number of efforts to blow up US citizens of any age, race, and religion, I am all for any way we can prevent terrorism without putting members of the U.S. military in harms way.
And make no mistake about it, we are still in a War on Terror. There are plenty of jaded jihadists out there that want to kill U.S. citizens as well as Russian citizens, British citizens, Spanish citizens, Kenyan citizens, India's citizens, Indonesian citizens, and citizens of any other place they want to set a bomb off in.
I don't understand how Rand Paul intends to win the Presidency catering to Edward Snowden. Most voters who vote for President understand the need for the best defense the government can organize and want that defense.
And thank you for asking, the skiing was great. 2 powders days and the rest was very hard packed on some fun mountains in northern New England. Now back to my return to education and working on my career reinvention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)