Soft landing or hard landing, it's an achievable mark

This week at a conference, I listened to featured speaker, Austan Goolsbee, who is President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, a noted Economist and frequent contributor to the financial press.  He's also likeable. 

Official Portrait

One day I'll post on entertaining economists because there are several on both sides of the aisle and Dr. Goolsbee, an Obama cabinet appointee and acolyte, will definately be part of that post.

An amusing story Mr. Goolsbee told about a pleasant sense of wonder he experienced while attending a meeting in the Oval Office with President Obama and Larry Summers (the pleasant part ended abruptly) made the audience roar.  

Afterward, during the Q and A period, I anxiously awaited my turn with the microphone.  When prompted, I found the "on" switch with only minor assistance.  My question to Mr. Goolsbee, which I'll paraphrase, was...

We hear much debate from economists and financial journalists about the likelihood of a so-called soft landing.  Some say the pace of rate hikes was too slow, others say the risk will come from cutting rates too slowly.  Whether the outcome will be soft or hard, what exactly constitutes "a landing".  In other words, how will we know who was correct? 

I watched Dr. Goolsbee as I asked my question and witnessed his nodding head.  Then he gave a relatively lengthy answer.  His central points were:

• yes, nailing down the definition of a landing is a fuzzy area but...
• given where we've been, if you consider the Fed's dual mandate and see employment levels at desired level X and you also see inflation levels at desired level Y, then you've pretty much landed softly.

Again, I'm paraphrasing his response, but those were my key takeaways.  I guess there's no final buzzer to signal the end of the game; so if one waits long enough for conditions to change, most any economic seer can claim to be at least partially vindicated.

Have they forgotten Reagan's 11th Commandment?

Official portrait, 1981

Having grown weary of internecine clashes within the Republican Party, I recently had an exchange with a local GOP leader.  Here's what I wrote....

"Thanks for your response.  You mention I should share my thoughts with the State GOP.  Fair point.  Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment” applies to all Republicans. 

I’m approaching retirement which will free up my time to learn, but right now, I won’t pretend to be steeped in state politics.  I know Vos is controversial to say the least and I have much to learn about the influences of the lobbies in your message.  I have no reason to doubt the veracity of your claims about who’s ruling the roost and those special interests concern me. 

Now, for added context on where I’m coming from, bear with me…. 

I’m a lifelong Wisconsinite who’s voted Republican at state and federal levels for 42 years.  That’s right.  I’ve not cast a single vote for a Democrat and never regretted it -- but these days -- my party is at war with itself and we’re fighting Dems with one arm tied behind our backs.  Two Republicans at odds with each other often forget they both have more in common with each other, than either person will ever have with Democrats. 

I’m a pragmatist because without victory in key elections, we improve little.  You write about good quality candidates vs. establishment types.  I’m not sure what constitutes an establishment candidate, but I’ve seen GOP candidates, who say the right things, but prove to be ineffective campaigners:  Tim Michels for Governor (Rebecca Kleefisch would’ve been better), Tommy Thompson (as much as I admire all that he did in his prime as Governor, his effort for a US Senate seat against Baldwin was miserable), Sarah Palin (she almost single-handedly sunk McCain) etc.  Were these candidates establishment, or non-establishment types?  I’m not sure the label matters.  They all lost. 

Either way, we need to allow room for debate within the GOP without destroying each other.  For example, I’ve long admired Paul Ryan for his fiscal sanity and unflappable temperament in the DC cesspool, but I totally disagree with him about his choice to not vote for Trump.  It’s a binary choice in November.  If one does NOT vote for Trump, one is by definition helping Harris. 

On the other hand, Trump’s ridiculous remarks about Ryan being the worst Speaker of the House in American history and all the compost Trump hurls at other decent Republicans needs to be countered and freely debated within the party.  If it isn’t, then Ryan becomes correct about Trump being a Non-Conservative Populist requiring total fealty from the rest of us. 

There’s a common theme here--I see few conservative voices on college campuses, little balance in the mainstream media, and little to no tolerance for disagreement within Republican caucuses whenever Trump comes up.  Conservatives must get together, allow reasoned debate among us and run GOP candidates who can win in Madison and up ballot.

 Respectfully,

John J. Maddente"

They say life is a journey

They say life is a journey not a destination, but I want a destination.  Written while in a somewhat foul mood, what follows are 25 randomly itemized 'things' I don't care for (Mother taught me that it's better to put it that way instead of saying, "I hate" such and such).  

Some of these items are mere dislikes, others indeed border on hatred.  You decide which is which. 😇

THINGS I DON'T CARE FOR:

1. Merging traffic.

2. Political posturing at non-political events I pay to attend.

3.  Any sort of fruit placed on a pizza.

4.  Reality TV shows.

5.  Shiny, spherical lawn ornaments placed on pedestals in front of a home.

6.  People who prey on the weak or disadvantaged.

7.  People who covet criminal rights over victim rights.    

8.  MSNBC.

9.  The short-lived customer satisfaction from driveway sealing services.

10. Small plates dining.

11.  Diet Coke.

12.  Insects and cats.

13.  Aggressive, unleashed animals.

14.  Our southern border controls (or lack thereof).

15.  More than 3 consecutive days without sunshine.

16.  Lawn and garden weeds.

17.  Loud bars or restaurants where one can't hear a companion's voice.

18.  Approximately 66% of all elected Democrats.

19.  Potholes.

20.  School bullies, car jackers, muggers, rapists and the lot.

21.  Indifferent customer service representatives.

22.  Marshmallows.

23.  Dirty public restrooms.

24.  Drivers who don't use their directionals.

25.  Bunker shots.

        

Baseball is already for everyone

Image by Racool_studio</a> on Freepik

Take me out to the ballgame....

Attending a major league baseball game is a thoroughly American experience.  It's also a unique game where the defense has the ball and that ball is often hurled at 100 mph.  

That crack of the bat, the ball going up, up, up and the outfielder craning his head to the sky as he backsteps on the warning track while fans brace to see if he'll crash into the wall.  

It's a classic sport with something to delight everyone.  As spectators, we usually can forget about problems for a few innings.  Or, at least we could.

Now, the MLB, its franchise owners, the players union, or some combination thereof, have joined the ranks of those in the NFL who thought it was a great idea to radiate political messages in giant letters in the endzone.

I hadn't noticed anything similar in professional baseball until recently.  Just beyond the center field wall at Target Field in Minneapolis, one can see, actually one must see, a large sign blaring two words: "END RACISM". 

Who are proponents of the Target Field signage going to influence?  Put another way, who besides actual racists, would advocate for preserving racism?  The intersection of sports and politics raises concerns.  

For example, this practice could beckon all comers for equal expression opportunities.  One day will we see a large "END WOKEISM" or "BACK THE BADGE" sign in the right field bleachers?  I hope not, because overt political posturing -- whether Conservative or Progressive -- does not belong at sporting events.

All forms of injustice, including racism, are abhorrent.  I salute those who fight injustice, but I also strongly believe that every citizen has a right to pay for and receive the pleasurable escapism of attendance at a sporting event (or a "Hamilton" performance) without intrusive political messaging.  

Now, other recent changes to the game of baseball have been welcome and they involve no political expression whatever, so let's go there baseball fans....  

Many games were simply too long, but by adding the pitch clock, limiting trips to the mound for pitcher chats and implementing other measures for extra inning play, the MLB has effectively shortened the average game time, while preserving the experience for fans.  

Most unnecessary delays involve pitchers in some way, shape, or form.  Relief pitchers warm up in the bullpen, so why not reduce the amount of time they can burn after taking the mound before they face their first batter?  

If the manager is going to call for that relief pitcher, why can't he just signal that from the dugout.  His walk to the mound followed by on field discussion with the manager, catcher and a friendly pat on the back for the outgoing pitcher--which is followed by more mound chat--is unnecessary.  Just zip Joe Reliever in a golf cart directly to the mound and play ball! 

Finally, let's keep home plate umpires, but use technology to perfectly call balls and strikes.  Way too many strikes are called balls and vise versa.  This change would avoid disputes over poor calls and limit fan and player aggravation over truly God awful calls that follow so many pitches. 

Baseball fans vigorously debate changes like these, but they do so in the context of what's good for this sport that's lasted over 180 years.  Such debates don't involve ideology or political party affiliation.  Let's hope they never do. 

Democrats five new strict requirements for next presidential debate

1. President Biden's staff, in their sole discretion, will frame each debate question in advance of the debate

2. President Biden can view a Teleprompter live wired to his staff during and after the debate, until he's off camera

3. President Biden shall be allowed unfettered use of stimulants before, during and after the debate 

4. President Biden shall not appear on split screen while watching opponent speak, nor shall opponent appear on split screen while President Biden speaks

5. President Biden, at the teleprompting of his staff, will start and end the debate at a time of his choosing

The Net Promoter Score (NPS) and other superficial consumer research

Check out my latest  post on LinkedIn if you are interested in that common question designed to tell an organization something useful about customer satisfaction and loyalty.  

Aside from leading marketers to specious conclusions, singular use of the NPS question is annoying to the consumer.  For many of us, it's simply not the question we want to answer, nor do we want our views confined to a Likert Scale for marketing purposes.  They just don't want to deal with unstructured data, which could tell them so much more...

Image by upklyak on Freepik

Priceless clips from 5 of the funniest films ever made

Image by freepik

 

Film titles appear below in alphabetical order...

• Airplane! (1980) clip here.

• It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963) clip here.

• Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) clip here.

• My Favorite Year (1982) clip here.

• Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987) clip here.

Reviewing products and services online

Image by freepik

Who doesn't read consumer reviews on the Internet?  I take them seriously when making purchase decisions and while drafting them after my own experiences.

Many of my reactions as a consumer come in oral rather than written form.  For example, a couple of months ago I left a voice message for a service manager about outstanding service I received from one of his auto technicians.  While traveling last month, I spoke directly with the chef of a restaurant to compliment his dish, after telling the manager about it.

In essence, the majority of my reactions as a consumer -- whether published online, or spoken, are positive.  This past week was abnormal in that I published two reviews of healthcare professionals: one an Orthodontist (positive) and the other an Optometrist (negative).  

The hyperlink to the Orthodontist will take you to the website associated with this business that dispenses superb care and service; in my view.  I issued a glowing, albeit brief, "5 star" , Google review for them.  

The hyperlink to the Optometrist, will take you to a one star review I wrote on Yelp, which reveals my poor experience.

Note to the gentleman in the Philippines emailing me about online safety and a shared desire to root out fake reviews: thanks for your messages, but I haven't been able to confirm your identity and your website is not yet functional.

   

A post about nothing

If Seinfeld became a hit TV program as a show about "nothing," then this post is a nod to that empty theme of everyday life.  Here are two items about nothing in particular... 

By George Webb Corporation - http://www.georgewebb.com







1. For three consecutive mornings, I've happily eaten breakfast at George Webb, a Wisconsin chain of some 30+ counter and booth style restaurants which first opened for business in 1948.  I've been enjoying them -- and particularly their cheese hash browns -- since the Seventies.  However, I'm ordering their free water as my beverage for the foreseeable future.  I recognize the ill effects of that silent thief we call inflation, but $3.30 for their small size glass of institutional orange juice?  Ridiculous.  

John Maddente photo

2. I'm guessing few of my seven readers are familiar with Luckbox magazine.  Its stated focus on "Life, Money, Probability" is geared toward Traders and other professional investors.  I do not belong to that group, but a copy of this magazine at an airport lounge with snappy graphics and offbeat topics, caused me to subscribe.  

The latest issue has an interesting article on the high stakes fight to preserve, or slowly kill, AM radio.  Spoiler alert:  The piece reminds readers that AM radio remains relevant to 82 million American listeners and also government officials that rely upon it as a medium for public emergency alerts.  What's more, AM radio defenders in Congress are remarkably bipartisan.  

Today I close with a friendly jab at the Luckbox editor of this article.  Dear Madam or Sir, Re: the copy under "Night Radio" --  I believe your columnist intended to cite the laws of physics not "psychics".   Your oversight reminded me of a M*A*S*H episode when Col. Potter exclaims, "We order rectal thermometers, we get spark plugs. Both useful articles, but hardly interchangeable."

Cum On Feel the Noize

Image By freepik

Slade was a 1970s British band that could wake up any audience.  As a teen, I was mesmerized by Noddy Holder's raspy voice, his onstage penguin steps with mirrored stove pipe hat and the sound of Slades' instruments.  One track called, "Cum On Feel the Noize" (yes, they had a penchant for deliberate misspellings with song titles like, "Look Wot You Dun") still warms my nostalgic heart.  I thought of that song today while listening to an NPR podcast about Trump's recent NATO comments.

There were two parts to Trump's NATO invective.  The first should be ignored as "noise" and the other should be heeded as a "signal".  First, the ridiculous assertion that he'd invite Putin to invade NATO countries that don't pay their bills should be ignored, but the second one about NATO members not paying their "bills" requires closer examination as a signal.

One problem with the American Left, is that they fail to understand why Trump was elected in 2016 and instead they focus on Trump's hyperbolic noise which, to be fair, is often preposterous or dangerous.  However, I believe that most Trump barbs and threats are designed to agitate others, fire up the base and keep him in the headlines.  

In this case, I heard a podcast commentator -- obsessed with Trump's use of the noun "bills" --  remind listeners that NATO "is not a country club" with its members getting billed.  That observation is noise.  Of course, no administrative entity issues invoices to 31 member nations, but members have agreed to fund a minimum of 2% of their GDP to pay for their own defense.  

In the last report by the NATO Secretary General  (the 2022 report was issued before Finland became a member in 2023) just 7 of the 30 NATO member nations met their minimum 2% of GDP military spend commitment.  That's the signal.  

Most NATO countries are not paying their share.  The rest is just noise.