One of my four readers asked if I'd considered writing a post on health care reform in the U.S. I don't know that I will say anything that hasn't been said elsewhere, but here we go ... et voilà:
The health care issue in the U.S. is so difficult for four reasons.
The first reason is economic, and really a no brainer: The real costs of health care are hidden. People wrongly think (because it seems that way day-to-day) that they are getting something for nothing. Because the costs are hidden, the system generates services that are constrained by normal cost considerations. This was driven home to me two Sundays ago when I picked up a prescription for my son, who has bad acne. The clerk at the pharmacy handed me the prescription and said, "That'll be twelve hundred dollars...." before realizing he had been reading the "actual cost" information rather than the co-pay information. Incredible but true -- the actual cost of a one-month supply of this stuff was $1,217. My co-pay was $10. I rather think, as much as I love my son, that if I had to pay the actual cost, he would be using over-the-counter acne medicine, or some cheaper medical treatment. But if, God forbid, the insurance company refused to pay, I'd go off cursing the evil, profit-mongering health care companies. Demand will always go up for services seemingly priced so very much below actual cost. Hence the reason health-care premiums have skyrocketed over the past 15 years. Even when employers off-load more of the cost to workers (thus making the impact of health costs more directly felt), without some day-to-day, service-to-service price signals, people will just want, and take, more and more health care, even if, like my son's acne medicine, some of it can probably be done without.
The second reason has to do with the unique nature of what's being "consumed" by "customers" of health care. Being badly sick or wounded is horribly frightening. Death petrifies most people. Next to money, our physical well-being is so critical to our overall sense of happiness that it overwhelms most rationality. The power of modern medicine seems closed to magical or mystical, and how much would we pay for magic? I was going to die, and now I'm going to live -- how much is that worth, anyway. The intensely emotional nature of decisions about our health care would skew our rational economic behavior even if the system itself could send accurate price signals.
The third reason is political, the subject, really, of a full week of lectures when I teach my intro Political Science class. By virtue of the weak party system; the fact that legislators are elected on a local, not national, basis; increasingly "safe" districts and thus increasing powerful incumbents; the primacy of the committee and sub-committee system in Congress; and the increased importance of special-interest funding in Congressional elections, those same special-interests are able to exert an oversized influence on legislative outcomes. Since there's big, big money to be made in the health care industry, and many existing parties with an interest on seeing the present system continue, the odds of Congress ever enacting a truly effective health care reform bill is practically non-existent.
The fourth reason is sort-of political, but really beyond that: The massive distrust of government that has engulfed the right wing and, less obviously, subtly infiltrated the center and left as well. The federal government is inexorably involved in the health care system today, and any effective reform requires the federal government (or the state governments under a program of federal design) taking on a larger role. But because a solid minority of citizens believes the government is a dishonest, corrupt, self-serving, power-mad meddler that wants nothing more than to stomp out all individual freedoms, any "government" program for health care starts at a huge disadvantage. The reason we're at that point deserves another post, which hopefully I'll get to some day, but for now let's leave it there.
So there you have it -- it's a big, ugly, multifaceted mess. The economics are screwed up, people's emotions get involved, huge moneyed interests want to keep their piece of the pie, and many are distrustful of the government's competence and motives.
Could Obama have done anything differently that might have made things go better? Some have suggested that he should not have been so willing to work with Congress, or so willing to compromise with the Republicans. But these criticisms ignore the respective flip sides: Obama can't pass legislation alone, only Congress can, so working with Congress was a necessary evil. And Obama came to office believing that he should try to change the nasty, vitriolic awfulness that passes for discourse in Washington, D.C. He wasn't wrong, in my opinion, for trying to compromise, for even though he's reaped the wrath of Republicans on this issue (and may ultimately have to assemble his party and push something through), he has managed to stay above the nastiness fray in a way that's refreshing.
My one criticism would be that his plan is not bold enough. If you are going to address this issue, and have such a huge prolonged fight about it, do something big. From what I can tell, the current plan just nibbles around the edges. It doesn't really do much to contain costs (and, disappointingly, does almost nothing to further medical malpractice reform which, I believe, could have swayed moderate Republicans to support the bill). In fairness, Obama had a tough, tough road, and his pragmatism may, in the end, have been the best path. But we won't have a real solution until, unfortunately, the system starts to collapse around the heads of the middle class. The current plan, in my view, just puts that day off a few years.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Bonne Citation Politique
C'est à Alain Minc, dans Le Point le 6 aout: "Etre un libéral de gauche, c'est posseder un mauvaise chromosome, atypique dans l'ADN politique; c'est croire que l'intérêt général existe en dehors le marché, mais que l'Etat n'est pas l'expression naturelle et exclusive de cet intérêt général."
Je le crois aussi.
Rough translation: To be a conservative leftist is to possess a bad chromosome, unusual in political DNA; it's believing that the public interest exists outside the market, but that the State is not the natural and exclusive expression of that public interest.
Bien dit.
Je le crois aussi.
Rough translation: To be a conservative leftist is to possess a bad chromosome, unusual in political DNA; it's believing that the public interest exists outside the market, but that the State is not the natural and exclusive expression of that public interest.
Bien dit.
Monday, August 10, 2009
A Brief Film Review -- Séraphine
Those who know me know I'm not a huge movie fan, but I do watch movies in French (some from Netflix, but mostly on TV5 Monde). This weekend Suzie and I went to the Rialto to see a French movie called Séraphine. Based on the remarkable and true story of the French artist Séraphine Louis (also known as Séraphine de Senlis), the movie slowly absorbs you into the mind and life of the central character. Winner of 7 César awards (the French equivalent of the Oscars), including Best Picture and Best Actress, the movie includes a one-in-a-lifetime performance by Yolande Moreau, who brings the difficult character of Séraphine to life in a way that is both utterly realistic and yet somehow mythical. It is a story about struggle, creativity, religion, human decency, money, class, nature, and madness, beautifully filmed and directed. One of those few films that stays in your mind afterwards; one of those films that you leave thinking, "That could not have been more perfectly made." For you non-Francophones, fear not -- the story moves as much through pictures and scenes as through words, making the subtitles tolerable. A definite recommend very highly.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0b6c0f65-8d3a-4f5d-8622-43f604b4917d)
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Mordu par un Serpent
Il y a une expression en Anglais -- "to be snakebitten" -- qui veut dire mot à mot "être mordu par un serpent," mais veut dire figurativement "avoir de malchance." Moi, je suis "snakebitten" cette semaine. Ca commence par mon accident à velo. Puis hier soir, notre chienne Elsie, la plus mignon chienne du monde (regardez), a été mordue par un serpent à sonnette, qui est très dangereux à cause de son venim, qui peut tuer des animaux et des hommes. Elsie a été mordue à sa bouche, qui a commencé à saigner. J'ai dû la emmener à la clinique vétérinaire à vingt-deux heures; nous avons eu peur qu'elle puisse mourir. Elle est restée à la clinique vétérinaire jusqu'à ce soir. Sa bouche est très enflée, mais la vétérinaire m'a dit qu'elle serait meilleure après deux ou trois jours. Mais le traitement a couté plus de mille dollars, parce que le "anti-venim" est très cher.
Je ne voudrais pas penser à ce que peut être se passera demain!
Je ne voudrais pas penser à ce que peut être se passera demain!
Sunday, July 05, 2009
The Short Version
Friday was a beautiful day for a ride. I rode into Santa Rosa, stopped downtown for a soda, then started home. I was riding up Old Redwood Highway, wanting to get to my son's Geometry class (the last of his difficult summer school session) before it ended, so I could surprise him. I started to make a right-hand turn onto Angela Drive, but realized at the last second that I was going too fast. I tried to brake and turn to avoid a decorative rock pillar on the left side of the road, but was unable to, and crashed directly into it, leading with my left forearm: a hard, sickening crash that threw me onto the pavement and left me stunned. A very kind couple took me to Kaiser. These pictures are not for the squeemish; I was probably going 25 mph and stopped all of my momentum with my forearm:
I needed surgery immediately, and ended up with a steel plate and 9 screws in my arm. Yesterday all the pain medicine made me sick; today all the other non-arm bruised and battered parts of my body are aching.
The staff at Kaiser were fantastic, and some very funny things happened during the experience, which I will post later, but all in all it was not at all fun.
I needed surgery immediately, and ended up with a steel plate and 9 screws in my arm. Yesterday all the pain medicine made me sick; today all the other non-arm bruised and battered parts of my body are aching.
The staff at Kaiser were fantastic, and some very funny things happened during the experience, which I will post later, but all in all it was not at all fun.
Monday, June 29, 2009
More Than 160 Characters
It occurs to me that lately I've been Twitter-ized, or Facebook-ed, shoehorning my thoughts into small bits of text, rather than actually writing anything. Not that the public's been out there clamoring for SSSBlog posts (no one seems to care), but I'm afraid that my brain will become unable to think of anything longer than a demi-paragraph.
Ironic, given that technology has opened up a huge pipeline of information, that our writing has reverted to the days of the telegram: "Arrived London. Deal on. Return tomorrow."
So today, something a bit longer, a whole 20 minutes, perhaps, on Albania.
When I was younger, Albania -- a small country on the Adriatic Sea lying between Greece and Macedonia -- was in the grip of a dictatorship that originally was aligned with the former USSR but later formed strong ties with China. As a result, I always thought of it as a sinister and threatening place, a nest of oppressive communist evildoers, even though, in fact, I really knew nothing about it.
My view of Albania changed last year when met and became friends with a young woman from Albania at the Alliance Francaise in Paris. To the extent I had a mental image of Albanians, she was the antithesis of it: smart, funny, informed, interesting, engaging, open, friendly, pretty (perhaps even beautiful), and sweet, with a big, generous heart. She was studying French because she wanted more than anything to be an architect, and that path wasn't open to her in Albania, so she came to Paris, 18 years old (though she seems much more mature than that) to study French and enroll in a university.
On the face of it, we were unlikely friends, this bright young Albanian woman and me, an older fairly stodgy American, but we became friends, and we'd sometimes we'd sit in the cafeteria and she'd tell me stories of her family in Albania. Times were hard sometimes; political changes would impact them in a way that wouldn't happen in the U.S. But it became clear that Albania, like many other Eastern European countries, was now on its way to becoming more free, more open, more a part of the rest of Europe. And although she didn't perhaps recognize it, my friend -- and the rest of her Albanian friends in Paris -- were part of the vanguard of that change.
Sunday Albanians voted in parlementary elections, an election that seems to have been conducted peacefully, openly, and fairly. My friend's Facebook posts were election-related; I wished her country courage and good luck.
Albania joined NATO last year and is hoping to join the European Union soon. I hope it succeeds. Amidst all the crises we are facing, there is good news out there. My young Albanian friend has given me a peculiar interest in that country. I know it continues to have problems (the countryside, I think, remains backwards and very poor), but if it has many young people in it like my friend, its future is bright.
Ironic, given that technology has opened up a huge pipeline of information, that our writing has reverted to the days of the telegram: "Arrived London. Deal on. Return tomorrow."
So today, something a bit longer, a whole 20 minutes, perhaps, on Albania.
When I was younger, Albania -- a small country on the Adriatic Sea lying between Greece and Macedonia -- was in the grip of a dictatorship that originally was aligned with the former USSR but later formed strong ties with China. As a result, I always thought of it as a sinister and threatening place, a nest of oppressive communist evildoers, even though, in fact, I really knew nothing about it.
My view of Albania changed last year when met and became friends with a young woman from Albania at the Alliance Francaise in Paris. To the extent I had a mental image of Albanians, she was the antithesis of it: smart, funny, informed, interesting, engaging, open, friendly, pretty (perhaps even beautiful), and sweet, with a big, generous heart. She was studying French because she wanted more than anything to be an architect, and that path wasn't open to her in Albania, so she came to Paris, 18 years old (though she seems much more mature than that) to study French and enroll in a university.
On the face of it, we were unlikely friends, this bright young Albanian woman and me, an older fairly stodgy American, but we became friends, and we'd sometimes we'd sit in the cafeteria and she'd tell me stories of her family in Albania. Times were hard sometimes; political changes would impact them in a way that wouldn't happen in the U.S. But it became clear that Albania, like many other Eastern European countries, was now on its way to becoming more free, more open, more a part of the rest of Europe. And although she didn't perhaps recognize it, my friend -- and the rest of her Albanian friends in Paris -- were part of the vanguard of that change.
Sunday Albanians voted in parlementary elections, an election that seems to have been conducted peacefully, openly, and fairly. My friend's Facebook posts were election-related; I wished her country courage and good luck.
Albania joined NATO last year and is hoping to join the European Union soon. I hope it succeeds. Amidst all the crises we are facing, there is good news out there. My young Albanian friend has given me a peculiar interest in that country. I know it continues to have problems (the countryside, I think, remains backwards and very poor), but if it has many young people in it like my friend, its future is bright.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Cost of Fear
Even the world’s best pros are so consumed with avoiding bogeys that they make putts for birdie discernibly less often than identical-length putts for par, according to a coming paper by two professors at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. After analyzing laser-precise data on more than 1.6 million Tour putts, they estimated that this preference for avoiding a negative (bogey) more than gaining an equal positive (birdie) — known in economics as loss aversion — costs the average pro about one stroke per 72-hole tournament, and the top 20 golfers about $1.2 million in prize money a year.
via nytimes.com
A fascinating study in the New York Times this week (which should have been somewhere other than the sports section) on the cost of fear. We think by being cautious we hold on to our gains, but in fact fear costs us long-term. I confess I'm like this; a loss seems bigger to me than the same-sized gain. Or more precisely, perhaps, the pain of a loss is considerably more than the sense of joy or satisfaction at the same-sized gain. This is why politicians run negative ads, and why people hold on to stocks they've taken a loss on. We know this intuitively, but it is remarkable to see it demonstrated so clearly.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Un Petit Podcast Pour Mes Amis en Europe
Deux versions -- le premier en français, le deuxième (le même chose) en anglais.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Friday, June 05, 2009
Mozilo Charged with Fraud
In 1997, I almost went to work for this man and his company. Some of my colleagues did go to work there. Now the company's gone under, and he's charged with fraud by the SEC. After my visit to his operation, I can't say that I'm surprised. It was a testosterone-infused money-money-money operation that left me feeling ill at ease. One time in my life when my gut instincts steered me in the right direction....
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13805607Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Social Networking Out of Control?
I'm I sucker for new sites, so now I have a new one to add to Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, my Wordpress blog, and Tumblr. It's called Posterous,and it supposedly lets you send one post to all of those sites. This is a test, we'll see how well it works.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
On Lawyers and Torture
There's been much commentary the past weeks over the legal memos released by the Obama administration, in which lawyers for the Bush administration were asked to give an opinion as to the legality of certain so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques (which were of sufficient severity and cruelty that most people would call them "torture"). I've read the memos (which are available here), albeit not word-for-word, and find myself disagreeing with those who are calling for criminal prosecutions of the lawyers who wrote them. Why? Three reasons.
First, it ignores the difference between advice and action, between saying that something can be done and actually doing it. The memos did not say, after all, "you must torture these people." The decision to engage in torture and the execution of that decision were taken by others.
Second, it misperceives the role of a lawyer. When I read the memos, what I see happening is what happens all the time: A lawyer gives an analysis of the law that permits his client to take an action that the client wants to take. The lawyer gets there by using the same process lawyers use all the time, parsing down words and subjecting them to a hot gaze for long enough to make them melt. This is the trade secret every good lawyer knows: Detached from the real world, words have no meaning. Or more accurately, they have any meaning. So Bybee can say in his memo that waterboarding doesn't cause "severe pain or suffering" within the meaning of the statute, because even though it may inflict "fear or panic," it doesn't actually cause any physical harm and therefore can't cause "pain," and because "suffering" requires some element of duration, and "the waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering." Thus waterboarding causes no pain or suffering. An analysis horribly contrary to common sense and utterly lacking in humanity and wisdom, to be sure, but not irrational; you can read more ridiculous legal analysis daily in the decisions of courts all over the country. The intellectual nature of their work drives lawyers and judges away from reality, into a place where you don't really think about the realm of the living, where words do have -- are supposed to have -- some real, defined meaning. The intellectual nature of their work drives lawyers and judges into a realm where it is easy to forget that it is an actual human being strapped to the board.
(A footnote here: I would like to think that lawyers in public service have some more heightened sense of justice with a capital "J" when they do their work. I know that I do. I try always try to remember that although I do my work directly for staff who may want a certain outcome, or for a board who may want a certain outcome, that there is beyond those folks an entity and, beyond that, a public, to whom I owe a duty as well. I've been fortunate that the two almost never conflict, but I hope in a pinch that my advice is tempered by that recollection, and by common sense. And to this extent, the memos are disappointing, if unsurprising. But then I've never been in Bybee's place.)
Third, expecting lawyers to act as firewalls for the protection of our liberties, or our values, is foolhardy. At the limit, neither lawyers, nor judges, will stand in the way if the passion, the fear, the panic, the contempt is great enough. The finely-honed reams of opinions and opinions and opinions of courts and judges disecting and analyzing constitutional rights finer and finer won't hold up for one instant if the wave is high enough. It hasn't in the past, it won't in the future. God help us if we are relying on lawyers to save us from the truly unthinkable. Read Bybee's memo if you have any doubt about this.
The truth is that it wasn't lawyers who planned and carried out torture. It was our government, directed by our elected officials. Prosecuting lawyers for failing to preempt our government's moral mistake would be wrong. They are not supposed to be our conscience, they are not there to save us from our own responsibility, and ultimately they can't save us from ourselves.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0f47159a-7d0d-49e1-a718-5446f50dc29d)
First, it ignores the difference between advice and action, between saying that something can be done and actually doing it. The memos did not say, after all, "you must torture these people." The decision to engage in torture and the execution of that decision were taken by others.
Second, it misperceives the role of a lawyer. When I read the memos, what I see happening is what happens all the time: A lawyer gives an analysis of the law that permits his client to take an action that the client wants to take. The lawyer gets there by using the same process lawyers use all the time, parsing down words and subjecting them to a hot gaze for long enough to make them melt. This is the trade secret every good lawyer knows: Detached from the real world, words have no meaning. Or more accurately, they have any meaning. So Bybee can say in his memo that waterboarding doesn't cause "severe pain or suffering" within the meaning of the statute, because even though it may inflict "fear or panic," it doesn't actually cause any physical harm and therefore can't cause "pain," and because "suffering" requires some element of duration, and "the waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering." Thus waterboarding causes no pain or suffering. An analysis horribly contrary to common sense and utterly lacking in humanity and wisdom, to be sure, but not irrational; you can read more ridiculous legal analysis daily in the decisions of courts all over the country. The intellectual nature of their work drives lawyers and judges away from reality, into a place where you don't really think about the realm of the living, where words do have -- are supposed to have -- some real, defined meaning. The intellectual nature of their work drives lawyers and judges into a realm where it is easy to forget that it is an actual human being strapped to the board.
(A footnote here: I would like to think that lawyers in public service have some more heightened sense of justice with a capital "J" when they do their work. I know that I do. I try always try to remember that although I do my work directly for staff who may want a certain outcome, or for a board who may want a certain outcome, that there is beyond those folks an entity and, beyond that, a public, to whom I owe a duty as well. I've been fortunate that the two almost never conflict, but I hope in a pinch that my advice is tempered by that recollection, and by common sense. And to this extent, the memos are disappointing, if unsurprising. But then I've never been in Bybee's place.)
Third, expecting lawyers to act as firewalls for the protection of our liberties, or our values, is foolhardy. At the limit, neither lawyers, nor judges, will stand in the way if the passion, the fear, the panic, the contempt is great enough. The finely-honed reams of opinions and opinions and opinions of courts and judges disecting and analyzing constitutional rights finer and finer won't hold up for one instant if the wave is high enough. It hasn't in the past, it won't in the future. God help us if we are relying on lawyers to save us from the truly unthinkable. Read Bybee's memo if you have any doubt about this.
The truth is that it wasn't lawyers who planned and carried out torture. It was our government, directed by our elected officials. Prosecuting lawyers for failing to preempt our government's moral mistake would be wrong. They are not supposed to be our conscience, they are not there to save us from our own responsibility, and ultimately they can't save us from ourselves.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Poisson d'Avril Excellent!
Sur France 2, cette émission m'a bien eu! Je l'ai regardé le premier avril et je l'ai dit, "je me demandais souvent si les éoliennes pourraient ralentir la rotation de la terre." J'ai vraiment cru cette emission! Mais aujourd'hui je découvre qu'elle était un "poisson d'avril." Heursement, je ne suis pas seul ... regardez le 114 commentaires ici.
Bien fait France 2!
[Dailymotion id=x8ulhv_eoliennes-vs-horloges_news&related=1]
This report on France 2 (scroll down for the video) totally fooled me on April 1. It's a news report about studies showing that windmills have the unintended effect of slowing down the Earth's rotation. Presented in a completely straight-faced style, it apparently fooled many more people than me, as evidenced by the 114 commentaries to this post. When I saw the report, I said to my wife, "I've always wondered whether windmills would slow down the Earth's rotation," and I kept looking in the press for stories about this ... until today, when I finally did a search on Google, only to discover, to my horror, that I'd been duped.
Well done, France 2!
Bien fait France 2!
[Dailymotion id=x8ulhv_eoliennes-vs-horloges_news&related=1]
This report on France 2 (scroll down for the video) totally fooled me on April 1. It's a news report about studies showing that windmills have the unintended effect of slowing down the Earth's rotation. Presented in a completely straight-faced style, it apparently fooled many more people than me, as evidenced by the 114 commentaries to this post. When I saw the report, I said to my wife, "I've always wondered whether windmills would slow down the Earth's rotation," and I kept looking in the press for stories about this ... until today, when I finally did a search on Google, only to discover, to my horror, that I'd been duped.
Well done, France 2!
Monday, March 30, 2009
This Drives Me Crazy
You may have seen the letter that appeared in the New York Times from Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, announcing his resignation because ... let's all get out our hankies here ... he was criticized for being paid a bonus of "$742,006.40, after taxes." In the letter, he expresses his view of the unfairness of it all: He stayed on after AIG's collapse, he had nothing to do with the trades that brought the company down, he was working "10, 12, 14 hours a day away from [his] family" for $1 salary per year, just like AIG's CEO, trying to do the right thing for AIG and the American taxpayers.
Apart from sad laughter at the incredible disconnect between this man's whining, self-absorbed rant and the position he still retains in American society (as others have pointed out, he is in a position to give all of his bonus to charity and yet go on living comfortably), the thing that really drives me crazy in his letter is this:
MIT?!? I thought students who were fortunate enough to be accepted to MIT would do something constructive with their lives -- if not engage in basic research for a university or a government, then at least go out and do research for a private corporation and, well ... create something. But no. This man took his degree from MIT and became ... an "equity trader," someone who pushes ownership units from one rich person to another rich person, taking a little bit for himself out of each transaction. Then he became a commodity trader, doing the same thing with little pieces of paper representing interests (or future contingent interests) in raw materials, taking, again, a little piece from each transaction and, no doubt, making a ton of dough by leveraging tiny, tiny movements in the commodities market.
So in return for the hard work of his two school-teacher parents, and to repay the "generous financial aid" given to him by MIT to allow him to attend, Mr. DeSantis has accomplished ... what exactly? Unlike someone who manages an enterprise that actually produces something, all of Mr. DeSantis' efforts throughout his whole life have created, net-net, absolutely nothing. He skimmed off tiny pieces of the products of others' efforts -- the miners who mined the copper he traded, the executives who managed the company who mined the copper, the drivers of the trucks who deliver the copper, the workers and executives of the companies who actually provide a market for the (real) copper by using it in things they produce. These latter members of the capitalist, free-enterprise system earn their keep, in my view, because they really do something, unlike Mr. DeSantis, with his MIT degree and his trading programs.
When I hear people say that the present crisis is an indictment of capitalism or of the free-enterprise system, I have do disagree. The structures of the free-enterprise system are imperfect, but basically sound. The problem with the system over the past 15 years is that we have come to believe that the economy can be sustained by people, like Mr. DeSantis, whose efforts don't actually produce anything; traders and analysts and deal-makers. Mr. DeSantis may tell himself over and over again that "the profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation," but I suspect in his heart of hearts he knows that's a lie, I suspect that he knows that his empty activity has contributed to the decline of the American economy even as it made him ... and I'm going to use an intentionally loaded word here ... unjustly rich. Or maybe that escapes him. Wisdom seems to be a characteristic that disqualifies someone from working as a trader at AIG, or Bear Stearns, or Lehman Brothers.
Perhaps Mr. DeSantis will be able some day to be retrained and do something productive with his life.
Apart from sad laughter at the incredible disconnect between this man's whining, self-absorbed rant and the position he still retains in American society (as others have pointed out, he is in a position to give all of his bonus to charity and yet go on living comfortably), the thing that really drives me crazy in his letter is this:
You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.
I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.
The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation.
MIT?!? I thought students who were fortunate enough to be accepted to MIT would do something constructive with their lives -- if not engage in basic research for a university or a government, then at least go out and do research for a private corporation and, well ... create something. But no. This man took his degree from MIT and became ... an "equity trader," someone who pushes ownership units from one rich person to another rich person, taking a little bit for himself out of each transaction. Then he became a commodity trader, doing the same thing with little pieces of paper representing interests (or future contingent interests) in raw materials, taking, again, a little piece from each transaction and, no doubt, making a ton of dough by leveraging tiny, tiny movements in the commodities market.
So in return for the hard work of his two school-teacher parents, and to repay the "generous financial aid" given to him by MIT to allow him to attend, Mr. DeSantis has accomplished ... what exactly? Unlike someone who manages an enterprise that actually produces something, all of Mr. DeSantis' efforts throughout his whole life have created, net-net, absolutely nothing. He skimmed off tiny pieces of the products of others' efforts -- the miners who mined the copper he traded, the executives who managed the company who mined the copper, the drivers of the trucks who deliver the copper, the workers and executives of the companies who actually provide a market for the (real) copper by using it in things they produce. These latter members of the capitalist, free-enterprise system earn their keep, in my view, because they really do something, unlike Mr. DeSantis, with his MIT degree and his trading programs.
When I hear people say that the present crisis is an indictment of capitalism or of the free-enterprise system, I have do disagree. The structures of the free-enterprise system are imperfect, but basically sound. The problem with the system over the past 15 years is that we have come to believe that the economy can be sustained by people, like Mr. DeSantis, whose efforts don't actually produce anything; traders and analysts and deal-makers. Mr. DeSantis may tell himself over and over again that "the profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation," but I suspect in his heart of hearts he knows that's a lie, I suspect that he knows that his empty activity has contributed to the decline of the American economy even as it made him ... and I'm going to use an intentionally loaded word here ... unjustly rich. Or maybe that escapes him. Wisdom seems to be a characteristic that disqualifies someone from working as a trader at AIG, or Bear Stearns, or Lehman Brothers.
Perhaps Mr. DeSantis will be able some day to be retrained and do something productive with his life.
Monday, March 16, 2009
15 (Plus) Albums
My sister-in-law Yvette posted this challenge on Facebook:
Think of 15 albums that had such a profound effect on you they changed your life or the way you looked at it. They sucked you in and took you over for days, weeks, months, years. These are the albums that you can use to identify time, places, people, emotions. They might not be what you listen to now, but these are the albums that shaped your world.
I tried, but there was no way I could limit the list to fifteen. The best I could do was to try to winnow down the list to 15 groups related to 15 specific periods in my life, but even then I couldn't keep it to 15. I'm a little hesitant to post this because I realize my selections are repetitive and somewhat ... hmmm, how do I want to say this ... well, perhaps boring is the right word, but then consider the source. Here goes:
1. R.E.M. – Reckoning (1984) and Murmur (1983). I bought these two albums on cassette tape before making a driving trip from Portland, Oregon to the Midwest during 1984. That trip was memorable in many ways, none more so than being introduced, during long stretches of lonely interstates, to what was to become my favorite band. I still can’t hear Seven Chinese Brothers without being taken back to a hot August day driving on I-80 across the Great Salt Flats.
2. Jackson Browne – Saturate Before Using (1972) and For Everyman (1973). Emotional music for an emotional time. “There is a dance we do in silence….”
3. Neil Young – After the Gold Rush (1970). Gets on the list because it was a Christmas gift in 1970 from my first real girlfriend, Jeannie. Neither our relationship nor, over the long term, her attraction to men, endured, but my attachment to Neil Young did.
4. Stephen Stills – Manassas (1972). Odd choice, I know, but I loved this album when I was a kid. Underappreciated, in my view.
5. Eagles – On the Border (1974). I know, I know, don’t say it. I never listen to the Eagles nowadays, but I loved this album when I was in college, and to this day I think it is by far their best.
6. Bonnie Raitt – Bonnie Raitt (1971), Give it Up (1972), Takin’ My Time (1973), Home Plate (1975), Sweet Forgiveness (1977). Country and soul. Soundtrack to my entire time of misspent youth in Iowa City.
7. Jackson Browne – Running on Empty (1977). Soundtrack for my final two years of misspent youth in Iowa City.
8. Rolling Stones – Some Girls (1978). Sha doo bee, shat-tered shat-tered, sha doo bee. Oh, yeah, and all the other Stones’ albums, too.
9. Neil Young – Tonight’s the Night (1975), Zuma (1975), and American Stars and Bars (1977). Along with Some Girls, soundtrack to my law school days in Ithaca. Not exactly happy and uplifting, but consider the circumstances.
10. R.E.M. – Fables of the Reconstruction (1985). REMers debate the merits of this album (some love it, some hate it) but it hooked me on REM for good. Stuck in my mind forever with two others on my list, Life’s Rich Pageant (1986) and Document (1987).
11. Replacements – All Shook Down (1989) and Don’t Tell a Soul (1990). An odd sidetrip.
12. R.E.M. – Green (1989) and Monster (1994). These albums spanned the gap between my old life and my new life. I know most people say two other REM albums released during the same period (Out of Time (1991) and Automatic for the People (1992)) are better, but Green and Monster combine volume (lots of volume), playfulness, and creativity in a completely satisfying way. I’ve probably played Green more times than any other CD I’ve ever owned.
13. Jayhawks – Blue Earth (1989), Hollywood Town Hall (1992), and Tomorrow the Green Grass (1995). Quirky but emotional and satisfying.
14. Pavement – Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain (1994) and Brighten the Corners (1997). Another odd sidetrip. Eclectic, simple, odd, creative, artistic, and often moving, especially the latter.
15. Green Day – Dookie (1995). Don’t ask about this one. I’m not a particularly big Green Day fan, but I loved this album when it first came out, for its pure pop simplicity.
16. Indigo Girls – Indigo Girls (1989) and Nomads Indians Saints (1990). Expressive, unique, moving.
17. Uncle Tupelo – No Depression (1990) and Anodyne (1993). Rock and country and folk perfectly combined.
18. Son Volt – Trace (1995), Straightaways (1997), and Okemah and the Melody of Riot (2005). An offshoot of Uncle Tupelo, it’s a mystery to me why this band is not more popular.
19. Jay Farrar -- Sebastopol (2001), Terroir Blues (2003), and Stone, Bright Lights & Steel (2004). Excellent solo albums by the creative force behind Son Volt.
20. Gerald de Palmas -- La dernière année (1994), Marcher dans le sable (2000), and Un homme sans racines (2004). Creative and listen-able, en francais.
21. Others I really loved at the time, in no particular order: Beatles, A Hard Day’s Night (1965), Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Damn the Torpedos (1979), Flying Burrito Brothers, Close up the Honky-Tonks (1974), 10000 Maniacs, Our Time in Eden (1992), Pretenders, Learning to Crawl (1984), Creedence Clearwater Revival, Cosmos Factory (1970), Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Déjà Vu (1970), Stills-Young Band, Long May You Run (1976), Neil Young, Ragged Glory (1990), Fleetwood Mac, Fleetwood Mac (1975) and Rumours (1977).
I'm sure I've missed some, but these stick in my mind (or maybe more accurately, under my skin).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=026a9548-5f37-4758-9499-135234a97f94)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Parasitic Professionals Retraining Act
The bankers and the big dog finance guys are taking a huge hit in the press and in Congress right now, the large bonuses being paid to people who don’t seem to have done a lot of good for their companies recently being fodder for a thorough bashing. It’s hard to feel much sympathy for those on the wrong end of things right now; these are, after all, people who’ve pocketed large amounts of money over the “good” years for activities that, in retrospect, don’t seem to have had much efficacy.
But once past the pure joyous schadenfreude of watching the ‘Masters of the Universe’ get a well-deserved whack upside their collective heads, it’s less clear what can, or should, be done to change a situation that’s clearly gotten out of hand. It’s not just that some people are making (or have made in the past) a lot of money. People will, of course, always be more or less envious of those better off than themselves, but the current public outcry over excessive compensation goes beyond that. It’s not run-of-the-mill class warfare we’re dealing with, but with something deeper and more troubling, which I can illustrate with:
A personal story, about a Saturday afternoon in May 1988: At that time, I was a senior associate at a large prestigious law firm in San Francisco. I got to that position by having extremely high college entrance exam scores, by getting high grades in college, by graduating Phi Beta Kappa, by getting high LSAT scores, and by finishing second or third in my class at an Ivy League law school. I say that not to be arrogant (those who know me will confirm that I’m no genius, and that I am generally distrustful of intellectuals and academics, excepting my father-in-law), but to make the point that I was one of the more able and successful individuals churned out by the (at that time, anyway) excellent system of education in the U.S. I had intellectual ability, a work ethic, and outstanding training.
So what was I doing on this particular Saturday afternoon in May? I was sitting in a conference room on the 30th floor of an office building, sifting through copies of old insurance policies of the client, finding particular provisions in those policies, then using scissors to cut the provisions out and past them into the appropriate place in a large series of binders that came to be called The Tome. The client was involved in a large insurance dispute, having sued numerous companies who had insured it over a 40-plus year period. The judge in his wisdom had decided that he needed all of the relevant policy provisions placed in binders, so he could see on a year-by-year, provision by provision basis what the policies said. So on this Saturday in May I sat in one of my firm’s conference rooms, cutting and pasting, just like I’d learned in Kindergarten.
But it wasn’t just me. All around the Bay Area on this Saturday in May, other mid- to senior-level associates, representing the insurance companies, were sitting in their conference rooms, checking my cutting and pasting and, if necessary, calling me on my mistakes and cutting and pasting themselves.
At one point I was taking a break, looking out at the fog creeping through the Golden Gate past Alcatraz, when it hit me – what an incredible, incredible waste of intellectual talent and effort. Me and my opposing counsel, the cream of the American educational system, sitting in conference rooms doing … what? Conducting experiments to find new renewable sources of energy? No. Seeking new cures for cancer, or lupus, or diabetes, or alzheimers? No. Discovering the workings of that most remarkable of organs, the human brain? No. Furthering man’s understanding of genetics? No. Exploring the new world of nanotechnology? No. Teaching a child, or an adult, to read? No. Researching ways to make traffic flow better, or to make the economy, or society, function better? No. We were cutting and pasting. Cutting and pasting. Cutting and pasting so that money might flow (or not flow) from one giant company to another giant company. And being paid ridiculous sums for our trouble.
The real problem with the big dog bankers and lawyers and financiers and brokers is not just that they get paid too much. The real problem is that their work inherently wastes human intellectual capital and effort by siphoning off many of our best and brightest into difficult, all-consuming work that ultimately does not create anything. Because what they do – “deals” and “transactions” and “cases” – are almost always zero-sum games at best, serial rearrangements of assets or companies or money, or all three, from one owner/pot to another owner/pot, a continuous churning whose ultimate beneficiaries are the very bankers and lawyers and financiers and brokers who suggest them. And who, it must be noted, profit handsomely from the churn, taking increasing larger portions of what Tom Wolfe in Bonfire of the Vanities called the “golden crumbs” that fall from the constant slicing and re-slicing of the corporate cakes.
I know the counterargument: That facilitating mergers and acquisitions and filing lawsuits and conjuring up new financing arrangements increases economic efficiency, thus ultimately decreasing costs and increasing productivity. Perhaps in a few cases this is true, but in most cases it seems the only sure winners are the deal-makers, with the other parties to the transaction – shareholders, employees, and all management except those at the tip-top – actually worse off after the transaction/deal/case is over than before.
Even if we were to posit some marginal benefit to the economy from the churn, I do not believe the benefit is worth the effort, particularly when “opportunity costs” are factored in. When you take many of the best and brightest and hardest-working products of our educational system, and put them into jobs where their day-to-day work is the intellectual equivalent of digging ditches, that is a huge loss to society, because not only are they not accomplishing much of real social benefit doing what they are doing, but that are distracted from applying their talents to problems and work that could produce real social value. I spend a Saturday cutting and pasting insurance policies into a binder, instead of researching … well, anything else. Each of the 12 other associates “opposing” me on our mindless case do likewise. Wasted minds, wasted work.
So what’s the solution? Here’s an idea I’ve had for some time: Congress should adopt “The Parasitic Professionals Retraining Act.” It would provide money for any professional now working in a parasitic profession (attorneys, bankers, financiers, stockbrokers, etc.) to return to school to obtain a degree in a science (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.) If the recipient then works for four years in a research position or for a public entity, the money is considered a grant and forgiven. The program would be funded (God I love this part) by a supplementary, highly-progressive tax on any attorney, financier, etc. making more than $150,000 per year. A carrot and a stick, designed to provide incentives to make sure our brainpower and our efforts are more properly targeted.
The results could be amazing. We can take third-year associates who spend 60 hour weeks researching arcane legal issues or mindlessly reviewing documents and change them into third year engineers who spend 60 hour weeks researching how to increase the efficiency of photovoltaic cells, or into third year biologists researching new genetic therapies for diseases, or into third year chemists researching new materials that are less harmful to the environment. We can focus again on producing, rather than just rearranging.
All we need now is some language for the bill. I’ll start drafting, if you will. Post your drafts in the comments section, and I’ll take a shot at combining them. The Parasitic Professionals Retraining Act – change we can believe in (although … we might need a kinder, gentler name)
Sunday, February 08, 2009
The Last Thing in Common?
We went to San Francisco yesterday, on a beautiful, clear, fresh, sunny day, to celebrate Suzie's and Will's birthdays, and to attend the "Giants Fan Fest" at AT&T Park.
(Pour mes amis étrangers, les Giants sont l'équipe de baseball de San Francisco.) We were able to walk on the field, go into the dugout (le endroit dans lequel l'équipe reste pendant le match), and watch a presentation by the Giants' TV announcers and coaches.
Afterwards, outside the stadium, while waiting for Will to purchase his latest Giant's paraphenelia, I walked down to the statute of Juan Marichel. Juan Marichel was one of the greatest pitchers in Giants' history, a Hall of Famer noted for his exaggerated leg kick during his delivery, which the statute highlights.
While looking at the statute, an elderly African-American gentleman who was selling souvenirs struck up a conversation with me, which started with a discussion of Juan Marichel, and wound for the next five minutes through various baseball subjects such as pitch counts and the likely impact of the Giants' acquisition of Randy Johnson on Barry Zito's performance next year. We agreed on some things, disagreed on other things, but always with a feeling of connection, of warmth almost, two strangers sharing a common love of baseball.
Driving home, I recognized again that baseball is one of the few things ... and perhaps the one last thing ... that various diverse groups of Americans share in common. Our culture has been fractured, by a surfeit of diversity. Instead of three TV networks, we now have 500 cable channels, each aimed at satisfying smaller and smaller groups. Instead of a few national magazines that are widely read, we have hundreds of thousands of websites and tens of millions of blogs, which allow us to read only those ideas we want to read. But baseball remains a common ground for us. Baseball games remain one of the few places where Americans from all walks of life assemble to cheer (and groan) together. And because the pace of the game is slow, it is one of the few places where Americans from all walks of life still talk to one another.
I would never have spoken with my friend the souvenir salesman in another context. We spoke only because we shared the common culture of baseball. It fear it may be one of the last things we all have in common.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2ccde8b4-7e22-4827-beaf-b91c3d475d27)
(Pour mes amis étrangers, les Giants sont l'équipe de baseball de San Francisco.) We were able to walk on the field, go into the dugout (le endroit dans lequel l'équipe reste pendant le match), and watch a presentation by the Giants' TV announcers and coaches.
Afterwards, outside the stadium, while waiting for Will to purchase his latest Giant's paraphenelia, I walked down to the statute of Juan Marichel. Juan Marichel was one of the greatest pitchers in Giants' history, a Hall of Famer noted for his exaggerated leg kick during his delivery, which the statute highlights.
While looking at the statute, an elderly African-American gentleman who was selling souvenirs struck up a conversation with me, which started with a discussion of Juan Marichel, and wound for the next five minutes through various baseball subjects such as pitch counts and the likely impact of the Giants' acquisition of Randy Johnson on Barry Zito's performance next year. We agreed on some things, disagreed on other things, but always with a feeling of connection, of warmth almost, two strangers sharing a common love of baseball.
Driving home, I recognized again that baseball is one of the few things ... and perhaps the one last thing ... that various diverse groups of Americans share in common. Our culture has been fractured, by a surfeit of diversity. Instead of three TV networks, we now have 500 cable channels, each aimed at satisfying smaller and smaller groups. Instead of a few national magazines that are widely read, we have hundreds of thousands of websites and tens of millions of blogs, which allow us to read only those ideas we want to read. But baseball remains a common ground for us. Baseball games remain one of the few places where Americans from all walks of life assemble to cheer (and groan) together. And because the pace of the game is slow, it is one of the few places where Americans from all walks of life still talk to one another.
I would never have spoken with my friend the souvenir salesman in another context. We spoke only because we shared the common culture of baseball. It fear it may be one of the last things we all have in common.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Bonne Chance et Bon Courage Obama!
Domain mon pays aura un nouveau Président. Après huit ans de Bush, nous avons beaucoup d'espoir pour l'avenir. J'espere que Obama sera un centriste, parce que il faut rassembler les americains. Bush et ses conseillers ont essayé de gagner des élections par diviser les americains. Malheursement, la gauche fait le même chose. Je crains que le plus grand probléme pour Obama soit sa propre partie. Beaucoup de 'democrats' a déjà demandé que Obama fasse une politique très à gauche. Si Obama le fait, il ne réussira pas. Ayant voté pour Obama, les americains ne veulent pas, a mon avis, les batailles entre la gauche et la droit. Nous veulent un Président qui travaille pour tous.
Donc bonne chance et bon courage Barack. Nous avons cru que le change est possible. Nous sommes très fier de vous. Et maintenant, il faut agir. Ensemble.
Donc bonne chance et bon courage Barack. Nous avons cru que le change est possible. Nous sommes très fier de vous. Et maintenant, il faut agir. Ensemble.
Friday, January 09, 2009
C'est Difficile à Revenir
Je suis revenu en Californie il y a une semaine. La rentrée est difficile. La France me manque, et Paris me manque. Mes amis à Santa Rosa me demandent pourquoi, mais je ne peux pas facilement m'expliquer. Un jour, je regardais un match de football americain à la télévision, et il y a eu la pub pour une camionette. Dans cette pub, la musique était forte, tous les hommes étaient grossiers et se comportaient comme les enfants, il y avait beaucoup de feu et beaucoup de bruit. J'ai la vu et je me dit, 'Cela est la partie de la culture americaine que je n'aime pas.' La culture de la stupidité. La culture du machisme. Je ne suis pas particulièrement raffiné, et je me méfie parfois les intellectuels, mais je deteste les gens dans mon pays qui ont la tendance à embrasser volontairement la bêtise. Et ça arrive beaucoup plus souvent aux Etats-Unies qu'en la France.
Mais j'ai constaté aussi cette semaine une chose qué j'avait oublié. Les americains sont vraiment amicaux. Dans les magasins, tous les vendeurs m'ont parlé. D'habitude, je préfére ne pas parler, mais cette semaine, j'ai parlé beaucoup dans les magasins, parce que je peux parler, facilement, en anglais. Et mes amis dans mon bureau sont très heureux de me voir encore. Mon travail n'a pas beaucoup changé; il est comme un vieux jean, très confortable. Mais cela me gêne aussi; après Paris, j'ai peur que mon travail -- et les politiques de ma petite region -- ne soit pas assez interressant maintenant.
Le pire est que mes amis à Paris me manquent. Aujourd'hui, j'ai regardé un photo de ma classe à l'Alliance Française, et j'étais triste, parce que je crains que je ne puisse jamais revoir mes amis. Mais on verra....
J'espere que je peux plus ecrire en français. Et bien sûr, mes lecteurs francophones pourraient corriger...soit par email, soit par une 'reply.' Merci.
Mais j'ai constaté aussi cette semaine une chose qué j'avait oublié. Les americains sont vraiment amicaux. Dans les magasins, tous les vendeurs m'ont parlé. D'habitude, je préfére ne pas parler, mais cette semaine, j'ai parlé beaucoup dans les magasins, parce que je peux parler, facilement, en anglais. Et mes amis dans mon bureau sont très heureux de me voir encore. Mon travail n'a pas beaucoup changé; il est comme un vieux jean, très confortable. Mais cela me gêne aussi; après Paris, j'ai peur que mon travail -- et les politiques de ma petite region -- ne soit pas assez interressant maintenant.
Le pire est que mes amis à Paris me manquent. Aujourd'hui, j'ai regardé un photo de ma classe à l'Alliance Française, et j'étais triste, parce que je crains que je ne puisse jamais revoir mes amis. Mais on verra....
J'espere que je peux plus ecrire en français. Et bien sûr, mes lecteurs francophones pourraient corriger...soit par email, soit par une 'reply.' Merci.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
