The public courtesy award goes to Ricky Gervais

A few winners at the Golden Globe Awards on January 5th decided to espouse their personal political views to the public, even after host Ricky Gervais admonished them not to do so.

Freepik image 

The majority of us don't tune in to the Golden Globes to watch Stars advocate for a cause celebre.  It's not a free speech issue; it's a public courtesy issue.  Want to speak out about Abortion?  How about Gun Rights or Gun Control?  OK; but please choose an appropriate forum.  Actor Charlton Heston spoke out about protecting Second Amendment rights in 2012 but he made his Gun Rights remarks at an NRA convention, not the Golden Globe Awards.  Big difference.

There's no shortage of outlets to express one's political opinions on one's own time.  Golden Globe Award viewers deserve to hear from invited artists about their art and not by using that forum as polarizing crusaders.

Mr. Gervais is an intellectually honest Progressive who was speaking to his peers that evening because some of them insist on pontificating about matters having nothing to do with why they are being recognized.  He told them...

"So, if you do win an award tonight; don't use it as a platform to make a political speech."  

Then Mr. Gervais added....

"You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything," 

Bravo Ricky! 

  

**********************************************************************

On 2/4/2025 Ricky Gervais posted this picture on X with a caption, "They're still not listening".  How right he is.

A new book from Jonathan Hoenig

This coming November, Capitalist Pig Hedge Fund manager and business media figure, Jonathan Hoenig will release A New Textbook of Americanism: The Politics of Ayn Rand.  The book, edited by Mr. Hoenig, contains a collection of essays from notable writers in the Objectivist school, including one from Mr. Hoenig himself ("On Property Rights").  

Cover page image courtesy of J. Hoenig

Public Twitter Image - Jonathan Hoenig

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.

"We're all on a journey in this life"

Interesting people and teachable moments are often nearby.  I'm more open some days than others, but at conference in Chicago some three years ago, I made an unlikely acquaintance whose words resonate with me this morning.

The subject is an industrial psychologist who practices in the financial services space.  Before his clients extend lucrative offers to hire C-level executives, candidates must pass his curated assessment.

So I plied this man, named Grant, with questions to learn what he looks for and who ultimately receives his endorsement.  Grant told me a little about his trade at a technical level, but when he got to the part about who fails his assessments, I was struck by his answer.  

It turned out that an outsized ego is the kiss of death for candidates seeking his seal of approval.  He explained that an executive that pretends to have all the answers often has a high probability of sub-par performance at his clients' businesses.  

To summarize his point, he said, 

"We're all on a journey in this life and those who don't understand that..." are going to fail.  

He suggested that humility and intellectual openness are key attributes of senior executives with sustainable records of success.  Maybe his principle doesn't apply to all interviewers, but his filter works for him and his clients.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspired by Dr. Grant, it is with humble hat in hand that I recite my incorrect 2015 Halloween projection.  I believed Sen. Rubio would become our GOP presidential nominee.  Did I know his campaign was over after he collapsed under pressure from Chris Christie?  No, but it was clearly downhill from there.  He'll try again and probably be stronger the next time he encounters smash mouth moments at a debate.  

Carly_Fiorina_by_Gage_Skidmore_3

At present, I'm sticking with my dark-horse Halloween projection for the VP running mate -- Carly Fiorina -- if either Ted Cruz or John Kasich should capture the nomination. Either ticket would make a formidable team and one infinitely preferable to the prospect of a Clinton or Sanders presidency. 

A book: All The Devils Are Here

Back in 2007 while waves of defaults occurred after sub-prime loans "reset" (an adjustable rate mortgage payment that increases after the prime interest rate increases) I asked one Loan Officer,  "Why did lenders write variable rate notes when they knew many borrowers had little capacity to make higher payments down the road?"

What I heard in reply was that as risky as these credit bets were, if conventional higher fixed-interest rates were used, the borrower could not have qualified for as much of a loan.   My reaction?  Exactly.

I'm reading a book by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera - All The Devils Are Here - The Hidden Story Of The Financial Crisis (Portfolio/Penguin).  I'm learning more about the origin of sub-prime lending and the players behind it, but I'm struck by a rhetorical question the authors pose in Chapter Six, concerning the line between predatory lending and what I have called predatory borrowing:

"But in the larger scheme of things, did it really matter who was at fault?"

Yes.  It matters.  Attention to causality (i.e. fault) is important because sweeping policies are being hatched to curb systemic risks for the future.  If they get it wrong, we'll over-regulate mortgage originators -- possibly choking off  liquidity for many qualified, low income borrowers.  My biggest fear is that we'll fail to transfer liability from the American taxpayer to future borrowers-lenders-investors (where it belongs).

'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.

Torinus & Geanakoplos

Today, while viewing old e-mail on a frosty Sunday, I came upon a message I sent August 16, 2009 to Milwaukee columnist and entrepreneur, John Torinus.  Mr. Torinus has some terrific ideas about creating fiscal health and opportunity here in the Badger state.  However, I was piqued by something in his column last summer and I wrote to him:

"John,

While I agree with 95% of the column, the notion – apparently advanced by John Geanakoplos -- that the government ought to force “a write-down of principal on sub-prime home loans that are under water” is wrong. 

I recall hearing one of your presentations on healthcare and the insurance plans of yesteryear which offered no incentive to control costs (as opposed to high deductible plans many of us now have). You likened the situation to a 10 cent Martini night that you observed as a young Marine. Such arrangements, you reminded the audience, just might lead one to be “over-served.”

Well that’s precisely, the story of most sub-prime borrowers – they were over-served and just as no one forced you to drain too many martinis, no lender could force someone to buy more home than they could afford.

Of course, the rest of us who behave responsibly with our health and wealth, pay the price for those who don’t, but that’s fodder for another column.

To keep sub-prime borrowers in "their" homes - the ones with jobs anyway who may just need a little time - there are better options like converting them to renter status, interest only payment extensions, etc. But write down the principle? No. Doing so abets irresponsible behavior instead of suppressing it.

Tougher mortgage underwriting standards have already taken hold because far too many people, left to their own devices, will drink from the trough until they burst."

When will we reward the savers?

This week, the author of a Barron's cover story posits that it's time for the Fed to raise interest rates.  The macro debate for and against doing so, I'll leave for economists.  The argument in favor of raising rates, however has advocates at Barron's.  The Barron's article titled, "C'mon Ben!" is accompanied by a reminder that keeping rates so low "hurts savers." 

The policy notion of incenting savers to save more, seems to fall on deaf ears.  The Fed keeps the cheap money flowing, but they also hamper returns from savings accounts, money markets, CDs, etc. to remain at paltry levels.  When will we reward citizens who save and invest conservatively, instead of the masses who borrow only to consume?

freepik image

French lessons

We are fortunate to have a young student from France living with us these days. It is her first visit to the US and we are learning as much (or more) from her, as she is learning from us.

Here's an example. After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions of class here in America. She told us that students here strike her as more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.

Where are our children learning how to behave this way?  Oh, that's right -- it's us.

The individual and our economic crisis

If you had never met Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, you'd be hard pressed to spot him in a crowded room.  Mr. Walker is an average-looking man, with plain features and an unassuming demeanor. Even his name is common. He looks like millions of other guys. I made his acquaintance last year after he introduced himself before a debate with his election opponent, Ms. Lena Taylor.


Scott Walker
Wikipedia image

Yes, a common guy he is, but don't be fooled -- Mr. Walker packs a wallop and his piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Why I'm Not Lining Up for Stimulus Handouts" defines his fiscal moorings and shows why he has drawn acclaim among conservatives and scorn from progressives.

Mr. Walker mentioned what other politicians know -- but often fail to highlight -- which is that our current fiscal calamities, were abetted by individuals -- not just banks, not just regulators, not just mortgage brokers, not just government. Those were all culpable parties to be sure, but what Walker reminds us today, is that our current turmoil began,

"...when millions of people were allowed (or encouraged) to spend borrowed money on homes they couldn't afford and were later forced into foreclosure." 

Amen.  I've been dismayed by the lack of discussion about individual responsibility and reckless borrowing.  In due course, we'll see more acrimony coming from the public, or at least the part of it that still believes in living within one's means.

There are two arguments currently offered to defend bailouts for homeowners who bought too much house, or who should have remained renters until their income and assets warranted otherwise, or who foolishly sucked all the equity out of their homes to buy stuff they couldn't afford. Here are those arguments:

Argument #1) "This is no time to teach people a lesson."

Who said anything about teaching? This isn't about vengeance either. Those who advocate for mortgage bailouts are appropriating money from responsible Americans to pay for the mistakes of others. Bailouts simply perpetuate that pattern.

The only way to help a heroin addict is to take away his opiate (in this case easy money), then encourage him or her to live healthfully. I see no reason why the responsible many should pay the freight of the irresponsible few, simply because the irresponsible few no longer meet their obligations. And in the cases I reference, we're discussing a self-induced foreclosure on a house, not a death sentence visited upon the falsely accused.

Many foreclosure so-called "victims" are personally responsible for their circumstances. There was too much predatory borrowing going on that is now being characterized, as predatory lending.  Yes, I know there were exceptions, people who were truly duped, lost their jobs, became seriously ill, or were improperly foreclosed upon -- but do you think that those cases constitute the majority of borrowers who suffered a foreclosure (I ask rhetorically)?  

Argument #2) "If we don't have mortgage bailouts to stem foreclosures, housing prices will continue to fall precipitously, including yours, so you should support this plan."

Markets work if we let them work. If housing prices continue to fall, they'll only be receding to a current level of value. The continuing collapse of our financial system and our way of life, which appears to be careening toward Euro-Socialism, is as disturbing as the trajectory of home values.

However, if we allow the eggs to break and take our necessary economic pain, the values of our homes could appreciate again one day. Things get better after the hangover. The reality that too few wish to acknowledge is this: we can't have a painless hangover.

Although the thrust of Mr. Walker's piece today is not about individual responsibility, it's about government's financial stewardship -- he gets it. We cannot, individually, or as a society, continue to kick the debt can down the road. It's immoral and stupid.

Our current state Governor, unfortunately, wants to leverage our future, reward his supporters like public teachers' unions and expand government programs we don't need and can ill-afford.  It's widely speculated that Mr. Walker will run for Governor in the next election. If he does run, I intend to support him. I hope like-minded voters in this state will do the same, unless a stronger candidate emerges.

Right now, I don't see a stronger one.

Media images and our kids

Published 1.19.2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Why should we care what children watch or read? Are we simply riding a high horse when complaining about parental indifference and the deluge of sex and violence surrounding our kids? Does it border on censorship?

I called a local radio talk show once to comment on the ever-increasing flow of sex and violence polluting our airwaves, and the host's predictable response was something like, "Well, if you don't like it, just change the channel."

Of course I can change the channel, pal. What I worry about is the impact on young people who won't change the channel.

In many communities and particularly in our inner city, teen sex and pregnancy rates are beyond crisis proportions. It helps when Bill Cosby comes to Milwaukee to discuss personal responsibility for part of the population, but the problem is funded by people across all racial lines and economic strata.

Can anyone make a movie targeted at younger people without the perfunctory scenes of two people chewing on one another? (Sorry, I forgot about the artistic value of those scenes and their importance to plot development.)

We know that media images absorbed by youths affect their behavior. It isn't even worth debating. So why do gratuitous images of sex and violence continue to proliferate?

Part of the answer could be analogous to why some of us are overweight. Creators of junk stay in business by appealing to our worst instincts like a craving for delicious and fattening food. And you can't eat just one. So we watch, and our kids watch again and again.

For example, I like boxing, but it is no longer enough to satisfy those who want full contact. We now have mixed martial arts fights where you can flout the "rules" and beat your opponent to a bloody pulp even after the guy lies helplessly. It's unfortunate all that testosterone can't be usefully directed at fighting terrorists abroad and out of sight.

But you still think that what we watch has no impact on our children's behavior?

Nebraska sociologist Mike Hendricks wrote about the impact of the popular 1999 movie "Fight Club." He notes on his Web log that the movie "depicted disaffected young adults competing in bare-knuckle boxing matches in underground clubs" and that since the movie's release, "real fight clubs have been popping up all over the country."

He continues, "Arrests have been made in large cities such as Seattle, Provo and Milwaukee." Hendricks concludes, "There is no record of any fight clubs being in existence before the movie was made. Now it is an activity that is sweeping the nation."

When NBA player Ron Artest vaulted into the stands in 2004 to beat up some ignoramus who tossed a beer at him, the lasting damage wasn't that a game was disrupted. The harm extended to youths who idolize Artest and infer from the incident that this is how real men settle scores.

One way to reduce a growing tumor is to cut off its blood supply. If we discourage others from using their cash to patronize print, video and audio businesses of people we disagree with, like a blood-starved tumor, these "products" will also begin to wither.

One can also support political leaders committed to restoring cultural sanity, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), or we can align ourselves with national organizations found at Web sites such as http://www.parentstv.org/

Either way, it's up to us. Then again (pass the dip, please), we can always leave it to someone else.

How do you rate on the phone etiquette meter?

Wikipedia photo

I have fumed about this issue for years. It’s called phone etiquette. 

When one calls someone else, one is invading their office, their home, or their peace. One is an invader, perhaps a friendly one, but nonetheless an invader in the strict sense of the word. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon the invader, to identify himself/herself first.  Key point: callers should identify themselves first.

As a boy, I was raised to answer our home phone thus:

“Maddentes’ residence, John speaking, may I ask who is calling please?"

OK, I don’t answer the phone that way any longer; and I don’t ask my children to do that either, however, I still identify myself first whenever I am calling someone else. It is the minimum courtesy one ought to expect. 

This issue applies to work or home life. My daughters get phone calls from school mates and as soon as I answer, the caller usually begins by saying something like “Hi is (insert name) there?”  Sometimes, there is not even a greeting, it’s just, “Is (insert name) there?”

Whoa.  You are asking me to function as a switchboard operator and just turn the phone over to my daughter without the courtesy of even knowing who you are?

I suspect it’s generally how one's parents used the phone that affects the way one practices (or chooses not to practice) phone etiquette. I just penned this post after taking a call from an adult who after hearing me answer said simply, “Hi is (insert name), there?”

Now I immediately responded with “I’m sorry, you must have the wrong number.” As it turns out, my daughter got on an extension in the nick of time and said “Dad, hold it, she’s here!” I knew my daughter had a guest over, but I know her as “Katy” not “Caitlin.”  Had her Mother began the phone conversation by saying, “Hi, this is Caitlin's Mother calling…” I would have made the connection and spared us both the embarrassment.

My wife gets calls from a neighborhood friend (whom I really like) and I have a little unspoken game with her. The woman calls, doesn’t identify herself and simply says “Is Mary there?” I answer knowing full well who she is because of her familiar voice - and I reply - “May I ask who is calling, please?”

We both know how the game is played and we both never change our lines. Once she says, “Its Gladys Pickover" (name changed) I immediately respond with something like, “Hello Gladys, good to hear from you!”

That’s how we play the game.  When I answer, she knows she’s going to get “the question” from me, but instead of beginning with a simple “Hi, it’s Gladys” she puts us both through the paces and I stick to my part of the game by asking who is calling.  It bugs my wife, but I won’t change (and I doubt Gladys will either).

Again, this principle applies equally well to home or work. Yesterday, with our office assistant on vacation, a few of us were trying to figure out how to work the postage meter. One employee, while trying to solve the problem, received a call at her desk. To make myself useful (and keep her focused on the postage problem) I answered the phone for her.  It was an internal call from another office, but before turning the call over to the employee, I asked the caller, “Could I tell her who is calling, please?” 

I wouldn’t think of doing less.