| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Friday, April 30, 2010
Obama is taking flak from the right for his comment that "I think at some point you have made enough money".
Much of the criticism is from the perspective that Obama feels he is qualified to make the determination of just how much is enough... but I think this argument is a mistake as it implicitly accepts that there is a point but that Obama isn't the one to set determine where it is. Like the old joke, once you accept that there is a point, all you're left to argue is where the point is. I don't accept that there is a point, and for a reason I haven't yet seen advanced. Nobody makes money unless someone else is willing to give to them, per the cliche, 'it takes two to tango'. For someone to make a ton of money there has to be someone else (or lots of someone elses) willing to hand over a ton of money in return for whatever good or service is being offered. Bill Gates became a billionaire only because millions of people were willing to pay for the shrink-wrapped boxes Bill Gates was selling. Derek Jeter makes $20+ million a year only because George Steinbrenner was willing to pay Jeter $20+ million a year. Capping the amount of money a person can make denies the person on the other end of the transaction the right to do with their money as they deem appropriate. Under what standard do you prohibit George Steinbrenner from paying Derek Jeter as much money as Steinbrenner wants to pay him? It's Steinbrenner's money, how do you justify telling Steinbrenner he can't spend it the way he wants to? Likewise, after Bill Gates has made a billion or so dollars, do you tell people they can't spend their money buying something from Microsoft because Bill Gates already has enough money? Or from Apple or from Oracle because Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison already have enough money? Or that U2 fans have to buy albums from some other group, they can't buy any more U2 albums because the guys in U2 already have enough money? In a free society, people have the right to spend their money on what makes them happy... and if they want to spend their money for something that in turn makes someone extremely rich, so be it. Nor is it right to limit what someone makes by confiscating their 'excess earnings' in the form of higher taxes. If someone is providing a service that is worth $XX on the free market, taking away everything they make in excess of $X denies them the right to be compensated for whatever it is they are providing. Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Jeffrey Lord goes after Jon Stewart for Stewart's pretty lame response to Comedy Central censoring South Park... and rightly so, but in doing so, Lord botches the 'I am Spartacus' analogy...
In the movie, the slaves were facing certain death and claiming 'I am Spartacus' was their declaration that they would rather accept that fate than live by ratting out the real Spartacus. On Flight 93, while the passengers were trying to save their own lives as much as they were trying to keep the plane from being flown into the Capitol. They weren't choosing death over life; sitting still, they were doomed, it was only by standing up that they had a chance of living. No 'I am Spartacus' moment here. As for Jon Stewart, unlike the passengers on Flight 93, he wasn't facing imminent death, nor unlike the slaves, was he offered a way of avoiding that fate. Standing up and declaring 'I am Spartacus' would have been risky... unlike the slaves for whom standing up was no different than sitting down and doing nothing. The better analogy is that Stewart botched his opportunity to be a hero. He could have, like a fireman, left the safety of the sidewalk and gone up into the fire to be with and rescue the people trapped by the flames. He could have, like a soldier in combat, left the relative safety of cover to try to save civilians caught in a crossfire. Stewart could have left the safety of his anchor chair and aligned himself with Parker and Stone... but he didn't. This doesn't mean Stewart is a coward... but it shows that, as his critics claim, he ain't such a hero either. Monday, April 26, 2010
In the category of kill your parents then plead for mercy because you're an orphan...
A woman who sued Wal-Mart back in 2001 for alleged discrimination bemoans the fact that it is taking so long for her to 'get her day in court'. Yet she would have had her day in court a LONG LONG LONG time ago but for her acquiescence in letting her attorney pursue the matter as a class action (which, totally coincidentally, greatly increases the potential payout for the attorneys). The nine years since she filed has been taken up arguing the legitimacy of certifying the claim as a class action. Assuming she is in the right, that WalMart did discriminate against her, had she insisted on pursing the matter on an individual basis, she would already be spending her award money.
Instapundit's never been a fan of red-light cameras and thus he can be counted on to pass along claims that these cameras are a bad idea...
... but, seriously, knocking red-light cameras because they help insurance companies jack up rates for drivers who get tickets for driving through red-lights? Where's the problem? Are insurance companies supposed to charge people who drive through red lights the same rates they charge those of us who don't? Or are insurance companies supposed to ignore data that indicates which drivers are more likely to cause an accident? I would have thought that he would welcome the use of technology that allows insurance companies to better establish risk pools... I know I like not having to help subsidize the lower-than-otherwise would be the case insurance premiums for higher-risk drivers. And, preemptively anticipating his possible response, if he doesn't like that the cameras only capture the license plate and don't show the driver, remember that auto insurance covers the car... and whether you're driving or loaning to someone else, a car that goes through red lights is a car that is probably more likely to get into an accident than a car that doesn't go through red lights... so there's nothing wrong with charging the 'car' more for insurance than a car that behaves itself. Tuesday, April 20, 2010
And just when the GOP gets on a roll, they revert to form...
Screaming that the White House and the SEC had some form of improper communication or coordination regarding the Goldman Sachs complaint is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. The public isn't going to care if the White House instructed the SEC to take action against Goldman. They're not going to care if the White House forced the SEC to take action against Goldman. The public does NOT have, as Issa puts it, "serious questions about the commission’s independence and impartiality". The public thinks of the SEC as somewhat of a cop... and cops that report - in some way - to the President in the same way their local cops report to their Mayor. What the public is going to see is that one of the (alleged) villains in the Wall Street mess is being chased by the cops, the supposed good guys. Whether or not Goldman actually did anything illegal or even unethical is an issue that 99% of the public is NOT going to have... or care about. All they're going to hear is something along the lines of the bad guys finally being called to task for their role in making everybody's lives so miserable for the past couple of years. And if the White House is seen by the public as being instrumental in making this happen? Well... that's good for the White House. So why is anybody in the GOP going after the White House on an issue that CAN NOT end well for the GOP?
Other than the 'gotcha', do people really want to be touting that Obama took far more in contributions from Goldman Sachs workers than Bush did from Enron employees?
Bush was spooked by the criticism and unfounded allegations that he was in Ken Lay's back pocket into supporting (or, at a minimum, kept from opposing) all sorts of stupid regulations and laws, chief among them the Sarbanes-Oxley abomination. How many billions of dollars have been wasted because Bush felt he had no choice but to back the anti-business hysteria that was sweeping Washington? How much better would the economy be right now if Bush had the guts to defend the status quo? (it's interesting that Bush stood his ground on opposing hate laws as there were already sufficient laws in place to punish criminals... but he wouldn't do the same with Enron). Not that he needs any encouragement to push through an anti-business agenda, but do we want to give Obama the excuse to show just how tough he is on Wall Street firms? Especially, as Washington prefers to use a blunderbuss rather than a rifle, since the result will be regulations that are even more expensive and cumbersome for ALL business, and not just for the evil Wall Street firms? And while it may be good politics to tout returning political contributions from Goldman employees, it isn't right. Haven't we had enough of stigmatizing and demonizing the individuals who work for Wall Street firms? How is it right to tar every one of Goldman's thousands of employees with the same brush used to go after a relative handful of employees? Monday, April 19, 2010
Notwithstanding his inability to use TurboTax, Treasury Secretary Geithner is supposedly a smart guy... which makes his comments today all the more troubling as an indication of just how stupid he and the rest of the Obama Administration thinks we are...
From his comments, he seems to think that the Tea Partiers ought to be happy with Obama, given that "the Obama administration is paying more attention to deficit and spending concerns than the Bush administration did". Just how are they paying attention to spending concerns? Raising spending is funny way of showing that one is concerned about spending. And to the extent they're paying attention to the deficit, it is only to justify raising taxes. Does Geithner really think the Tea Partiers are going to be happy with that? Friday, April 16, 2010
Having read a good deal of stuff about what can call the mortgage meltdown, I am lukewarm in the SEC going after Goldman Sachs for alleged fraud in the its involvement in the market for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)...
First, the alleged victims weren't 'investors' in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., Mom and Pop investing their respective IRAs). The people on the losing end of these trades were all sophisticated players in the bond market. Now, some might argue that even sophisticated players have the right to not get lied to by those they do business with... but a key characteristic of a sophisticated player on Wall Street is knowing that the person on the other end of a transaction is trying to screw you. You may not know just how they're trying to do it, but since you're confident they are trying, you discount much, if not everything, the guy on the trading desk who is trying to unload something is telling you. Second, the losers thought they were making sure thing bets; they felt the people on the other end of the trade were the idiots. They thought they were screwing the likes of Goldman Sachs only to find out that Goldman screwed them. To me, you play this game, you live or die on how good you are, and you don't get to call in the feds to rescue you from your own stupidity. Third, the losers did nothing of what the legal community calls 'mitigation'. They didn't look into the particulars of what they were buying, they conducted no due diligence... and as with the above, if these losers didn't care enough to conduct even a cursory due diligence, they shouldn't have the feds rescue them from their own stupidity. Goldman Sachs doesn't do business the way that I would like... and neither do the firms that trade with Goldman. But that's the way they've chosen to play, they are fully aware of how it works... and they don't get to cry for Uncle Sam to save them when things go bad for them. Wednesday, April 14, 2010
I once blasted Bill Clinton for what I referred to as his 'because I can' attitude to wringing as much out of his position as he could. He held up air traffic at LAX to get a haircut... 'because he could'. He screwed around with Monica Lewinsky... 'because he could'. He set his wife up as a Senator... 'because he could'.
And now I'll blast Sarah Palin for doing the same thing... using her position to wring as much as she can our of her position... 'because she can'. Charging $100,000 to go somewhere and speak? Yes, there are groups that are willing to pay that amount but that doesn't mean she needs to take advantage of their stupidity... or give them hope that their 'investment' will reap them rewards down the road. But somehow she's got the idea that the words that come out of her mouth are of such value that she should be paid six figures for doing what she's been probably doing for free for years around her family dinner table (mouthing off about what she likes and doesn't like). Sorry to rain on the parade of those who think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but there's nothing she has to say that is worth that kind of money.... and it's a sign that she's forgotten where she's come from that she has no problem taking the money being thrown her way (in my world, getting offered that kind of money to do something usually evokes a response of 'what's the catch'). And to demand first class air travel if she's not provided with a large enough private jet? To insist on bendable straws at the podium? Suites at deluxe hotels? This is behavior associated with a pampered, spoiled diva (i.e., Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston).... and not something that a 'regular American' ought to be doing. People want you to come to speak to them? Fine, charge them a reasonable fee for your time and hassle. Sit in the back of the plane with the rest of us regular Americans. Bring your own bottle of water and your own bendable straw. She should remember where she come from. The American dream is to succeed by working hard, by providing good value for the money you get paid.... and not to capitalize on one's notoriety... like the clowns from Jersey Shore. Tell me, what is Sarah Palin doing that is any different from what Snooki is doing?
A number of Obama's critics have likened him to 'Chance the Gardener' from the Peter Sellers movie, Being There... in which a 'special' gardener wows the Washington elite with what they think are deep and insightful pronouncements... when in fact he was simply talking about his garden.
But there's a big difference... Chance didn't think he was anything special, he didn't take his words as anything more than what they were, the simple musings of a simple guy who liked to garden. Obama, on the other hand, does believe that he is special, that he has an ability to do what mere mortals have never been able to accomplish. Make the Palestinians and Israelis live together in peace? No problem, Obama knows best, he'll simply dictate the terms. Persuade China and Russia to go against what they deem to be their national interests by backing us against Iran? No problem, Obama can do that. Using diplomacy to persuade a rogue nation to give up what it believes to be in its national interest, in this case Iran pursuing nuclear weapons? No problem, Obama can succeed where no one ever has been able to. And I don't know who to be more amazed by - and disappointed in... Obama, for his arrogance... or the public (at least the 47% or so who still think he is doing a good job). Monday, April 12, 2010
Trillion dollar deficits... Iran on its way to nuclear weapons... unemployment at close to 10%, with 'underemployment' nearing 20%... and Democratic Senator Charles Schumer thinks a good use of his time is to pressure Spirit Airlines to drop their plan to charge passengers for their carry on baggage?
It may be a stupid business decision... but nobody is forced to buy a ticket on any airline that charges a fee for carry on bags. And this illustrates the extreme arrogance of our elected officials. They think NOTHING is off limits to their power. If they don't like something, by definition, it becomes the basis for passing a law (or in this case, pressuring the Transportation Department) to outlaw whatever it is that they don't like. Sunday, April 11, 2010
Another day, another liberal complaining that taxes aren't high enough... this time with a twist, it's a liberal claiming that he pays too little in taxes. Of course, there's nothing that prevents him from sending the state of Virginia a check for whatever amount he thinks represents a 'fair' tax, is there? Not that I'd agree with him as I think taxes are high enough, but he'd have more credibility if he was willing to put his money where his mouth was.
BusinessWeek declares Obamanomics to be 'working' as evidenced by the rise in the stock market. Funny, a few short years ago, I remember the likes of BusinessWeek arguing that the (then) rising stock market should not be taken as a sign of growth, that there were all sorts of problems in the economy. In the 'if all you have is hammer' department, big-fan-of-government regulation BusinessWeek argues that more regulation is necessary to keep 'too big to fail' financial firms from causing more trouble. Not surprising is how proponents of big government don't realize that the best way to keep these firms from causing all sorts of havoc is not with more government regulation but rather to stand back and let the market itself keep these firms from getting too big. The only reason a firm can get that big is because its customers and trading partners know the federal government is not going to let these firms fail. Take away the government backing and both customers and trading partners will immediately hedge their risk by moving their money to smaller firms. Just as investors are encouraged to diversify their holdings to keep any single bad debt from killing their portfolio, financial firms would spread their money around to keep from taking too big a hit if a single (or even a few) firms went under. Thursday, April 08, 2010
Ann Coulter blasts the kooks who protest outside the funerals for Americans killed in combat and claims that they ought to be found guilty of 'intentional infliction of emotional distress'.
And she ought to be careful about getting what she wishes for. While she suggests that her commentary would be safe, those on the receiving end of her commentary might not agree that making comments on TV is somehow that different from protesting outside a funeral home... there's nothing to prevent them from claiming that her comments were just as hurtful to them as the kooks protests were to the families of the dead servicemen. I don't really expect a lot of consistency from politicians... and Coulter is who I would call a politician without office. They all pretty much go with whatever seems to provide them with a partisan edge... even if it is wildly at odds with their previous statements... or even if the not-so-slippery slope leaves them exposed.
|