A late summer rant and a rave

1. Let's start with a new movie called, "Dumb Money".  After watching the trailer for Dumb Money and seeing a couple of ads, the experience raised a question in my mind....is it OK to criticize a film one has never seen?  Logic dictates that the answer is no.  Call me illogical.

What turned me off initially was the commercial touting how the film"...gives a riotous middle finger to the capitalist swine on Wall Street."  How deliciously Populist.  The film creators have obviously positioned Dumb Money as a paean to the little guy fighting against the evil asset managers, punctuated with an F-bomb per minute, until the digitally-wired counter culture decks the big money guys holding a large short position.  

In this case, people will make a lot of money by trashing Capitalism and its adherents.  Quite a paradox.

2. Let's end with a positive take on American Express's new method to redeem cardmember reward points.  In the old days, if you wanted to cover a portion of your card charges with points; you had to go through this ritual of scrolling through transactions and applying points individually by transaction, in order to obtain the credit against your balance of charges.  Not anymore!  

One click and the entire value of your points is credited against your next bill.  No more trolling and scrolling through your transactions and applying points by transaction to obtain the credit.  Stupendous.  

 (Image above by macrovector on Freepik)

A real estate CEO moves to TX

.  

rex.com

Last Saturday, a CEO named Peter Rex published an opinion piece in the WSJ that attracted a fair amount of attention on LinkedIn.  The article is entitled, "I'm Leaving Seattle for Texas So My Employees Can Be Free"  . 

I believe you'll find the views expressed in this piece reasonable and factual -- but unfortunately -- not widely promulgated by traditional media.  

Read more about Mr. Rex here.  

Economics 101 for the rest of us

Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn are famous investors but fewer people may know Ray Dalio.  Mr. Dalio founded an investment firm 40 years ago called Bridgewater Associates.  With $160 billion under management, Bridgewater runs one of the largest hedge funds in the world.

Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio, Bridgewater website

I recently discovered (among 3 million other people) a thirty minute YouTube video that Mr. Dalio produced to explain fundamentals of what he calls the economic machine. 

This video, which he narrates has been translated into several languages and viewed over 3,200,000 times.  The content begins slowly with basic concepts but progresses to explain the primary levers that policy-makers use to manage and stimulate the economy.  You can find it here.  

There are numerous lessons cleverly and clearly explained here.  Example: I hadn't appreciated why economists seem obsessed with Wage Growth until I watched this simple animated video.  The importance of wage growth has less to do with the oft-used and politically-charged phrase, "income inequality" and more to do with our collective ability to consume and deflate credit bubbles.

Also explained, is the concept of Credit, which Mr. Dalio asserts, "...is the most important part of the economy and probably the least understood". Other explanatory notes...

• "A beautiful deleveraging" of our massive debt and deficits is the catalyst for a soft landing we all pray for in order to avert "social disorder" and societal collapse.  
• Spending cuts are generally what people think of when they hear about "austerity" measures exercised by government, individuals and businesses to lower spending on goods and services.  
• Wealth redistribution occurs primarily through higher taxation on upper income Americans.  
• Money-printing refers to Federal Reserve purchases of government bonds and other financial assets ($2T since the Great Recession alone).

So what's the correct mix and emphasis of lever-pulling required for a soft landing?  Perhaps Mr. Dalio will address that question -- and what exactly is meant by a soft landing -- on this same platform at http://www.economicprinciples.org.

The Fed's listening session

The Fed always inspires debates among stakeholders like institutional investors, economists, politicians, financial journalists and industry leaders.

Now the Fed has received an activist group at its annual Jackson Hole symposium to hear their views on monetary policy.  This week, a movement called “Fed Up” sponsored by The Center for Popular Democracy met with Federal Reserve officials including Bill Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 

The Fed Up team merits an A grade for inventiveness.  Such groups often petition the legislative and executive branches of government that control spending and tax policy, but now one has successfully lobbied the The Federal Reserve within spitting distance.  To be fair, the group had some trained economists in their midst and they did nothing disruptive; but do political organizations belong at this annual forum?

http://whatrecovery.org/ website 

Yes, economics and politics are inextricably linked, but Fed actions are logically debated on the long view of what’s good for the economy as a whole.  

The Fed's annual meeting shouldn't become a town hall with listening sessions like one conducted by your local Congressman.  

I haven't seen any reporting of the Fed Up attendees causing problems at Jackson Hole, but Fed officials' willingness to receive them in the first place is unsettling.  

After all, if Fed "independence" is advanced by the number of constituencies it receives in public, they must receive all comers.  Ultra low interest rates and massive bond buying by the Fed have juiced the stock market, but also crushed returns for elderly people living on payments from fixed income investments and cash.  Therefore, should the AARP or another group representing retirees have been granted equal time at Jackson Hole to advocate for monetary tightening?  

How slander goes unpunished

As a teen, I once scraped together enough money to buy a hamburger at a diner, then sat down at a table and waited and waited.  I watched waitresses serving customers around me and after a long period, I caught the attention of one waitress.  I asked her if someone could take my order.  She replied that another waitress had seen me steal a tip and that's why nobody would wait on me.  The charge was bogus.  I had taken nothing.  I protested the charge and left the diner with emotions that affected me decades later and even as I write these words.  I never learned the identity of my accuser.

The point of the story is that if one is going to charge another of being a thief, one must be able to back up the accusation, or there ought to be consequences for the accuser.  

Slanderous or libelous commentary is allowed in America's political environment because it's accepted as free speech and there are no rules for fair play

freepik image

when public policy fights occur.  

Unfortunately, class warfare is one avenue that works well for the accuser to smear someone.  Frequently, the one doing the smearing advocates for a populist cause.  Too often, without evidence, one can accuse another of holding depraved motives like "voter suppression" or "racism" and get away with it.  Want examples?   

Do you recall when Sen. Harry Reid likened the GOP to slavery sympathizers because he couldn't handle Obamacare criticisms?  (See my Examiner column published here).  His disgraceful comparison is largely forgotten today.  

Consider Vice President Joe Biden's spoken gem on the campaign trail, telling an African American audience that Republicans are "...going to put y'all back in chains."  Many pundits dismissed the remark as just one more bone-headed comment by Biden.  Now contrast that sorry episode with how Mitt Romney got crucified for citing an accurate statistic about the extent of government transfer payments. 

Romney's utterance wasn't populist, so the opposition could vilify him as a contemptible elitist, yet Biden's reprehensible remarks about the GOP left him unscathed.  

Political slander often occurs after Conservatives disclose ideas to reform the welfare state, curtail federal spending, or simplify the tax system.  Some ideas are better than others, but there's always a number of character assassins that will cry "Racism!"  And advocates trying to reduce voter fraud often attract a full-scale tar job, replete with charges of "voter suppression".    

freepik image

Most Conservatives encounter this sort of thing sooner or later.  What if it happens to you?  My advice is to expose your character assassins fully, fairly and early.  Fight with facts, but fight no less.  

If you have a better remedy; please let me know.

Fast food and class warfare

CAUTION: The fast food wage debate is heating up.  Consider recent actions undertaken by labor unions and community organizers against McDonald's and then...

Big Mac
Wikipedia image

read Al Lewis' WSJ column, ("Let Them Eat Burgers" September 1, 2013).  Mr. Lewis concludes that a super-sized minimum wage increase is justified on the basis of a single data point (average age of minimum wage workers has increased) and comparison to an Australian business model.  

Mr. Lewis' account of a recent protest demonstration reminds me of the danger I've been talking about since 2008.  Here's the story...

A vocal group is demanding a doubling of the minimum wage to $15 an hour in front of a Denver-area McDonald's which had to shut down because of the ruckus.  Lewis interviews a twenty-six year old man working at McDonald's who's protesting and had this to say about his employer, 

"They'd rather line their own pockets, than take care of us." 

A little perspective is in order.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there are over four million workers employed at fast food establishments in the U.S. and half of them work part time. Turnover is high and this job pool is expected to narrow as new technologies become cost efficient alternatives to tasks currently performed by humans.

The education level required to perform most of these jobs is less than a high-school education.  Such jobs were not conceived as self-sustaining careers.  They are typically temporary positions for which the market pays a correspondingly low wage.  Nothing wrong with the work of course.  Many of us have performed such jobs -- I have -- and I take Lewis' point that if the average age of minimum wage workers is increasing, it says something troubling about our employment picture.  I never said that no wage increase is warranted or that all is sunny.  

However, should McDonald’s have a primary responsibility to "take care of us" or instead should they strive to satisfy customers, franchisees and shareholders?  What are the implications to our system if a corporation like McDonald's is pressured to act less like a business and more like a social safety net that also sells fast food?

Why is the implication that employees are "owed" more by McDonald's Corporation?  Most McDonald's restaurants are not even owned by McDonald's Corporation -- they are franchised to individuals or small businesses that pay royalties and franchise fees to McDonald's. This fact might not matter to one protester that Lewis interviewed who added,

"The corporation makes billions of dollars every year -- they can afford to pay us $15".

Piling on, Mr. Lewis writes, "Companies have paid the lowest wages they could, for as many years as they could".  Of course.  We call that a market economy.  Either way, can't we dial back the shame-mongering and instead focus upon additional training and education of the workforce? 

Microsoft Clip Art

Election loss and an unpopular explanation

This post by a Rabbi in Teaneck, NJ is a stark reminder why America is in trouble and how polarized we've become as a nation.  Rabbi Pruzansky obviously feels the frustration many of us feel about this election outcome.  I've added blue italics for emphasis of key passages. By Rabbi Steven Pruzansky   "The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.  And fewer people voted.     But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle. Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.  That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues – of  liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.  The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote.  The lure of free stuff is irresistible. The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future. It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.     That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.     Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.     Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won. Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises. It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents.  Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.       Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.  The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.     If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back." (Image above from Microsoft Clip Art)

The yoke of two Americas

It became clearer after President Obama’s re-election that we're two Americas.  Has our country been this divided since the Vietnam War, or perhaps the Civil War?  Mr. Obama captured just fifty-one percent of the popular vote.  

Last November, I anticipated more reaction from voters in the Center, due in part to the now infamous, “You didn’t build that” quip.  I believed it validated deep concerns held by many Americans that President Obama remains anti-business and anti-free market.  I also believed there was no way to take such a gaffe out of context (as claimed by the President and his defenders) and that the ripple effect would devastate the President's campaign.  I was obviously wrong about the fallout as far fewer swing voters in the Center cared about the issue than I'd imagined.  Setting aside the unpredictable American Center, the two Americas of Blue and Red remain far apart in their belief systems.

Icon by Flat-icons-com at freepik

Much of Blue America believes that since car tires rolled on public pavement while building businesses, or since career success came after attending public universities --- government funding enabled positive economic outcomes.   

Red America concedes that of course, some large scale public works projects and excellent public universities influenced America's growth and as our population grew, a corresponding increase in the size of federal government was necessary.  

However, Red America doesn't believe our nation flourished exclusively, or even principally, for these reasons.  Red America believes, it was limited government, free markets and personal freedom that enabled growth and prosperity in the first place coupled with initiative, smart risk-taking and hard work. Red America points to history that suggests the inevitable outcome of unchecked deficit-spending and taxation courts disaster and that we're already witnessing our decline.

Red America remains convinced that one of the most perilous problems faced by our nation today is federal spending and that added taxation, by any other name or game, is more of an enabler to the fiscal problem, than a cure.  For this view, Red America is often labeled by Blue as extremists.

Leaders of Blue America welcome new tax increases like the 2% payroll hike on all taxable wages up to $113,700 (which Blue dismisses as end of a tax "holiday") and the new Medicare adder of 0.9%.  

Class warfare and the politics of envy are often used to justify tax increases.  This historically has been Blue America's mantra to increase taxes.  Paying one's "fair share" is whatever they want it to mean.

And on the spending side, a reduction in the rate of increase to any budget item, is still decried as a spending cut by Blue America.  By contrast, Red America welcomes the prospect of a nominal $85 billion spending reduction from a government that spent over $3.5 trillion last year. 

Sadly, the yoke of two Americas remains firmly in place.

White House Fiscal Adviser?
Wikimedia Commons

The Romney tax policy

Conceptually, it's not more regressive than what we have but it's being labeled as such by Obama supporters who conflate marginal tax rates with effective tax rates.

Lower marginal rates on a broader base of income is a step toward real tax reform.  Reduce the mountain of deductions, credits and incentives -- apply lower marginal rates to a greater aggregate of taxable income and in the process remain revenue neutral while simplifying the tax code.  What's wrong with that?

Perhaps the problem for Mr. Obama's supporters is that remaining revenue neutral might help curb run away government spending.

(This is a CEO, not a Community Organizer)

'Tis but a scratch

When the bills come due, nations that have fallen prey to the entitlement vortex can foster street violence and class warfare when the coffers are empty.  Some leaders can also breed denial once they run out of money.   

That's the reaction of some Greek politicians who don't appreciate the futility of their fiscal situation.  A year and a half ago, German officials averred that part of a Greek bailout plan could involve the sale or lease of state-owned assets, as well as, other austerity measures. 

This proposal did not amount to a wholesale transfer of Greece's sovereignty as its opponents claimed.  Rather, it was part of a larger plan to lift a struggling debtor out of its self-induced mess through privatization of government assets including some Greek islands.  

In response one Greek government official said, if such asset transfers came to pass, it will result in a Greek boycott of German goods.  This threat seems to ring hollow.  They're broke, they can't borrow and they threaten not to buy products.  I'm reminded of the Black Knight from Monty Python and The Holy Grail.  After being drawn and quartered, the dismembered knight vowed to attack his foe (who didn't want to fight in the first place).  

                                                                 YouTube Video

Above is the clip.  Watch King Arthur's reply to the Black Knight, which could be Germany's reply to the aforementioned Greek official, "What are you going to do, bleed on me?"  

I'm sympathetic to the suffering in Greece, but it's hard to abide politicians who want to perpetuate the irresponsible government spending and market meddling that caused their mess.  

At the end of a 99 year lease, the British honored their treaty with China and transferred sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. Life went on.  Perhaps a multi-year lease of Mykonos would help matters. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
October 2, 2011 - NEWS UPDATE - Reuters just released this report on the Greek financial crisis...

"The Greek cabinet is expected to approve a contentious plan Sunday to lay off state workers, and sign off on a draft of next year's budget, in a race to slash spending, free up bailout loans and stave off bankruptcy.

Without the release of an 8 billion euro ($10.7 billion) tranche of an EU bailout, massively indebted Greece could run out of money to pay state wage bills within weeks.  European officials are scrambling to avert a Greek debt default, which could wreck the balance sheets of European banks, damage the prospects of the euro single currency and possibly plunge the world into a new global financial crisis."

Class struggles, debt and happiness

Credit-related causes of the Great Recession included: lax underwriting standards (abetted by government programs and the GSEs), overuse of ARMs (because the borrower couldn't qualify for a fixed rate note), too much cash-out financing and artificially low interest rates.  Yet, the Wall Street factor (i.e. securitization of those obligations and excessive risk-taking) always seems to dominate the debate.  I disagree with that emphasis because:

1) the Wall Street factor already gets most of the attention in the press,
2) regulatory reform for banks is a foregone conclusion,
3) Wall Street's culpability came during and after credit issuance to subpar borrowers, not beforehand. 

It's the third point that is lost on some who look only at the Wall Street role in this unmitigated disaster.  The destruction could only have been possible with easy credit extended to in-over-their-heads borrowers, like our federal government -- that operates the same way -- in the red. 

Even today many journalists treat sympathetically, those homeowners who walk away from their mortgages when the principal amount owed, exceeds the current market value of a property.  That's disturbing.  (Experts say, that between 20 and 25 percent of all outstanding mortgages in this country are under water.)

Author User: Brendel at en.wikipedia.org

Excessive consumer debt and government debt affect the rest of us who keep our promises and pay our obligations.  Yet some debtors and their advocates continue to ply us with excuses.  I have given you examples, but here's another one, which I'll call the Jon Stewart excuse:  You can't fault them because they were just "optimistic" about the future.  (If you're an optimistic borrower with bad credit and thus in need of an empathetic co-signer; please seek out Mr. Stewart.)  I'm genuinely sympathetic to people who suffered tremendous misfortune that led their financial problems.  Examples may include catastrophic medical issues, sudden job loss or sudden death of a primary wage maker.  Their pain was not self-induced.  My belief, however, is that people in those unfortunate circumstances constitute a smaller percentage of the people defaulting on their obligations, than what's portrayed by Left-leaning observers. 

A new book by Arthur C. Brooks called, The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government will Shape America's Future may add some perspective.  The book is reviewed by Matthew Continetti in the June 21 issue of National Review.  Mr. Continetti, an associate editor at The Weekly Standard in his article titled, "The Happiness of Pursuit" notes that Dr. Brooks thinks 30% of the American public believes "...free enterprise is unfair and the government ought to do more to ensure equal outcomes" and that wealth redistribution is a justifiable anecdote.  

Continetti notes that conservatives believe "redistribution is inefficient, or unfair to those from whom the money is taken, or a recipe for unlimited government".  He notes that Arthur Brooks has additional reasoning why redistribution fails in practice.  Based upon what Continetti calls an "abundance of empirical data" Brooks believes feelings of low self-worth, not inequality, actually make people unhappy and giving a man a fish not only won't help him fish, it won't help him feel good about himself either.  Brooks believes that earned success which he defines as, "the ability to create value honestly" is a proven prescription for happiness.

According to Brooks, 30% of Americans believe that wealth redistribution is justified.  That figure stuns me.  Apparently 30% of us do not realize (or care) that continuing down this slope could have apocalyptic repercussions for our current way of life -- a way of life that enabled America to flourish in the first place.  Perhaps despair and envy are the birth parents of all Socialist states.

Blessed again!

Wikipedia image

Another Progressive I've known as long as Mortimer (since childhood) read my last post - I'll call him "Cameron" - and he takes issue with my claim, "Wealth re-distribution is the Excalibur sword of most Progressives."  Cameron feels it is only reconciliation for "30 to 40 years" of growing disparity between the wealthy and the less fortunate.  Cameron's beef is summed up thus: "So John, I have a question for everyone out there that talks about this so called wealth redistribution. Based upon the facts I have cited, why was it okay for that wealth redistribution to go on during the 80's, 90's and into the 2000's, but now it's not when it goes the other way around?"

"Cameron,

Thanks for taking the time to read my last post and share your views.  I appreciate it.

Regarding CEO pay at the S&P 500; I don't feel it's a useful benchmark for a public policy discussion, because by definition, you are citing 500 companies to represent a national employment landscape that comprises over six million private employer companies.  That's hardly a reasonable sample, but let's talk about it anyway. 

(On a side note, I hear large public company CEO criticism often and find it interesting that few care about celebrity compensation like that paid to Oprah Winfrey or Alex Rodriguez - even though their pay dwarfs the average CEO paycheck and they don't create many jobs). 

Vastly undeserved executive compensation occurs to be sure, but it's really a matter for shareholders to deal with, isn't it?  After all, they own the company.  They can sell their shares, vote out the board, start a proxy fight, file lawsuits and do any number of things - and many do. 

Similar to any employee that just can't stand his/her Boss; vote with your feet, sue the bastard, etc. but again, let's not make policy for 300 million people based upon a handful of public company executives, lax boards, or apathetic stockholders.

I want to comment on two other items related to prosperity: housing and taxes.

More of our discretionary dollar goes to housing than anywhere else.  We were hardly raised in wealthy homesteads, Cam.  Our parents worked hard, but lived modestly by today's standards.  Perhaps a 1500 square foot bungalow on a postage stamp-sized lot, with two bedrooms, maybe three.  Can we agree on this description?  How do we live today?  More importantly, what has happened to American home sizes over this period you are pointing to? 

Researcher Moya Mason notes in a recent paper that while family sizes have decreased almost 25% over the last 30 years, the size of new houses actually increased over 50%.  This is consistent with my view of Americans in general.  Few of us are able to consume too little and the living standard has improved among all groups, since our childhood.

America has grown primarily through free markets, hard work and innovation - not government intervention.  I recognize this is traditional conservative orthodoxy and some don't like it, but it goes to the core of our disagreement.  You sound as though lower and middle third America have actually been exploited by the "top third."  How so, Cameron?  Think about income taxes (we can talk about taxes on property and consumption another day).

A column in the Wall Street Journal (April 14, 2010, `Spreading The Wealth Isn't Fair') by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute alerts readers that last year, 38% of all Americans were expected to have zero tax liability.  They paid nothing in federal income taxes.  Under Mr. Obama's budget and other expected tax changes, this group of Americans that pay zip to federal coffers, is expected to grow to 46% in 2011 while the federal government continues to expand. 

Dr. Brooks also notes that according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a full 60% of all Americans "consume more in government services than they pay in taxes."  And what about that top 5% of Americans earning more than the other 95%? These are the folks everyone loves to hate.  Well, they pay over half of all federal income taxes paid.  Yes, 5% of the tax paying public, pays over 50% of all federal income tax collected.

I understand the worry over a concentration of assets, but whether we advocate for the top third, bottom third, or middle third of America - we cannot tax our way to prosperity, or make transfer payments to reverse perceived inequities, unless we want to unwind the very system that facilitated America's rise. 

I'm going to close with part of that Arthur Brooks column:

"...our system is the envy of the world and should be a source of pride.  Generation after generation, it has rewarded hard work and good values, education and street smarts.  It has offered the world's most disadvantaged not government redistribution but a chance to earn their success."   (Words in bold my emphasis, not Brooks'). 

I can't improve on that statement, so I'll leave it there. 

Cam, I know we haven't resolved our debate, but I am excited about your visit this summer after not having seen you for so many years.  Please let me know your expected day(s) in town, so we can block the time and I can make the sauce.

Best,

John"

Julie & Julia reviewed

Julie & Julia is a new film starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. I watched the film yesterday alongside sixty or so other theater goers.

For anyone who loves Julia Child (as I do) the film is worth watching. Meryl Streep's depiction of the late great gourmand, is stunningly good. It's easy to replicate the oft parodied high-pitch voice, but Ms. Streep's cadence and accent on choice syllables is so faithful to the real deal, it's almost unsettling. It was a great performance.

The screen writer of this movie is Nora Ephron whose style I didn't care for before the film.  Before seeing the film, I listened to two separate Nora Ephron interviews. Her tone and lack of enthusiasm during both interviews left me with the distinct impression she felt she was doing us a favor by sitting for them. At least, that's how she sounded. However, while viewing the film yesterday I realized something else -- she takes cheap shots.

Example: In this movie, Amy Adams plays a character that works in a call center to help 911 survivors and takes a "sick" day to cook a Julia Child dish.  She then blogs about the experience to the dismay of her boss who calls her into his office to beseech her for writing the post. He ends his rant by saying, "a Republican would have fired you."

In my case, the theater audience was silent after hearing that little gem.  (Perhaps they cheered on the coast). Could Ms. Ephron have had any purpose other than to slam Republicans or Conservatives? Doing so is hardly unusual for Hollywood and inconsistent with the memory of Julia Child who was publicly apolitical. 

Finally, there is the weak ending to the film (which I won't disclose here) that leaves one wondering if Ms. Ephron was tired and decided to finish the script too quickly, or whether something else crippled her imagination before limping over the writer's finish line.

All this notwithstanding, the film succeeds on the strength of Meryl Streep's affectionate performance and the unique legacy of the woman she portrayed. On a five star scale, this blogger gives Julie & Julia three stars and a pinch of salt for the screen writer.