Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Christmas Bomber and Miranda

Bad timing for David Rivkin, who used Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal for one of his monthly attacks on some Obama policy. This time it was about the Christmas Day bomber, with Rivkin saying that not immediately sending the bomber into military detention was “an intelligence failure of massive proportions.” Too bad that the very next day, today, the exact same newspaper reported that the Christmas bomber is again talking to the FBI, providing “valuable intelligence.” This also damages the arguments of this guy and this woman. Look, there are valid reasons to say that terrorists should be viewed as wartime combatants rather than criminals. But claiming that we won’t get good information from terrorists held in the civilian legal system is clearly not a valid reason. And there is at least one good reason not to throw them in military brigs: it creates an appearance of the US being at war with Islam, which appearance seems to generate more terrorists. Finally, I would like to note, again, that George W. Bush also tried terrorists in civilian courts. For Republicans to now claim that this approach is terribly weak is to be hypocrites of the worst sort. Which is, I supposed, to be expected from politicians.

I Agree With WSJ Op-Ed — Amazing!

This is truly a miracle! For the first time in memory, there is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with which I actually agree. Mostly. And it’s by Holman Jenkins, who is usually such a tax-cutting, market-loving, poor person-hating cretin that I am often amazed he is even literate. But here we are on the same page. He expresses his views in his usual caustic and hyperbolic fashion, but I’m on board with his analysis.

The issue is net neutrality, and the possibility of FCC regulations on the matter. Jenkins points out that while there is a theoretical possibility of carriers favoring their own content over 3rd party content, this has yet to actually happen. He also notes that carriers invest billions in the infrastructure needed to carry ever more data, and that they need to recoup that investment. Finally, he points out that if carriers do not charge differential rates to content suppliers, the obvious solution is to charge differential rates to content users, namely charging more for heavy bandwidth users, which is clearly an equitable solution. In all cases, I agree with Jenkins.

This is also rare for the Journal, but the first two letters to the editor regarding Jenkins’ column, which can be found here, are also quite reasonable.

Is Sub-prime the New Dot-com?

I recently came across an article that I wrote in 2001, right after the dot-com bubble had burst in the San Francisco area, and I was struck by how similar the themes were to articles that are being written now in the wake of the mortgage meltdown. In fact, replace “dot-com” with “sub-prime” and I could nearly publish the article as is. But I would never be so lazy with Thoughtbasket, so instead I’m going to point out some parallels between then and now. I would like to do this in table format, but my friends at WordPress haven’t added that technology yet, so I’m going to use paragraphs (very Gutenberg, I know (no, not Guttenberg)) instead.

The first, and most obvious, parallel is that of income and spending. During the dot-com boom folks in the Bay Area were making tons of money, and spending it freely. Salaries were high, and nobody bothered saving because their options were all going to be worth zillions. Every fancy restaurant in SF was packed, and there were waiting lists at the BMW and Mercedes dealerships. Audi too, but that’s an SF thing. This is remarkably similar to the mortgage and hedge fund frenzy of the past few years, including my paradigmatic example of the Cristal-swilling mortgage-writing meathead.

A second, and much less obvious, parallel is that both bubbles had specious intellectual theories trying to justify what were obviously market failures. The dot-com’s sham theory was the “new economy,” in which economic cycles were banished, cast into the dustbin of history by the ever-increasing productivity that computer technology would drive forevermore. As the recession of 2002 clearly demonstrated, the new economy was a fairy tale. The mortgage meltdown was fueled by the theory that financial firms could, using mathematical models, split up and quantify the risks in a basket of securities and then sell off the pieces to parties who had corresponding risk appetites, as calculated by their own mathematical models. As the recession of now is clearly demonstrating, the efficient market for risk is a fairy tale. Sound familiar?

The last parallel is the aftermath of the bubbles, the hangovers resulting from what were really drunken bacchanalia of faux-mastery of the universe, with the lucky few guzzling goblets of their own press and in their dizzy haze thinking themselves geniuses. Ex post partyo, of course, there is a period of regret and soul-searching (“I’m never going to drink again”), as people are humbled and their bank accounts flushed, and they try to make sense of their sudden fall from grace. In the case of the dot-com, this period lasted a few years. For a while, VCs lived by their stumbling home mantra (“I’ll never again invest in a company without a business model”), until they saw Twitter. Wall Street remains chastened, still debating whether it should stay in bed or go out for a greasy breakfast, but how long will that last? Wall Street spinmeisters are already pumping out stories about how they have to pay fat bonuses to retain good people. My prediction: by the fall of this year, we’ll see Wall Street reaching again for their beloved goblet.

The CEO President

I’m a little late in writing this, but let’s at least get the thought down on paper (screen?) while Bush is still in office.

During his 2000 campaign and since, much attention has been paid to President Bush’s MBA from Harvard , and the fact that he would be our first “executive president.” This attention focused on the president as CEO, and on Bush’s time in business; in short, it focused on executive competence.

This is a fine idea in theory: management skills are nice in an executive, and it would be good for the president to manage and lead effectively. And it’s not unreasonable to assume that a CEO who is great in the board room might also be great in the White House. I imagine that many Americans would welcome Jack Welch as president.

But the thing is, not all CEOs are actually good at their job. Some are excellent and some suck. Some are terrible managers, or lack vision or strategic skills, or are simply not that bright. Anyone who has spent time in business has seen CEOs who probably shouldn’t have been in that role, but were promoted because they were great salesmen or played politics well or had the right connections.

I knew a bad CEO once. He was in over his head – too young, without enough experience to legitimately be in his position. He wasn’t able to manage the company’s fast-growing organization, let alone lead it. He didn’t have vision, and was unable to develop a strategy that made sense in a dynamic competitive environment.

He actually knew he was in over his head, but refused to admit it. Instead, he got defensive, digging in his heels and refusing any advice or suggestions, whether from employees or from outsiders. The company was essentially paralyzed by the CEO’s inability to manage it. We were unable to develop new products and eventually went bankrupt.

The parallels to President Bush are clear. He too is in over his head, and is defensive and dug in. He seems utterly immune to outside opinion and is making bad decisions as a result. Strategy appears beyond his capability, as does the ability to learn from mistakes. Even his reputed executive competence is a fiction, as Katrina and Iraq have demonstrated.

Using the term “CEO president” is meaningless. What matters in the White House is leadership and vision and competence, not whether someone has been a CEO or has an MBA.

Flip-flops and Long Pants

I was driving the other day and saw a woman waiting to cross the street wearing work pants – slacks, or trousers, or whatever you want to call them – with flip-flops.

Her pants were long, so they dragged on the ground as she walked. This is not an uncommon sight; I see a woman similarly dressed several times a day here in downtown San Francisco. I asked my friend Lisa, who was in the car, to explain. “Well, long pants are very stylish for women right now. Of course, they need to be worn with high heels to look right. But high heels usually hurt like hell, so we wear flip-flops to and from work.”

That seemed logical, and Lisa is my definitive source on such matters. “But,” I queried Lisa, “I see that all the time, and it totally frays the pants. What do women do about that?” Lisa looked at me as if I were a moron (not the first time she gave me that pitying look, by the way) and declared “they get new pants.”

I had always been annoyed by the flip-flop with long pant look, but never really knew why. Maybe it was the discordance of combining beach wear with work wear. Maybe I’m just compulsive enough that the dragging hems vexed me. But during my conversation with Lisa, distaste crystallized into theory. I began to see this look as emblematic of something more than just fashion; I saw it embodying a troubling aspect of our society.

Allow me to explain. The woman I saw crossing the street – let’s call her Sarah – wants to be fashionable, so she wears long pants. But long pants demand high heels, which hurt. Yet Sarah wants to be comfortable too, so she switches out the high heels for flip-flops whenever possible. She wants fashion AND comfort. There is a cost to Sarah having her cake and eating it too: frayed pants. But that cost doesn’t faze Sarah, since she can always buy new pants.

Sarah is like America: she wants to look good and feel good, and damn the consequences of having it all. She refuses to suffer even a modicum of discomfort for her style, and solves her dilemma by overspending, throwing away pants that cost more than the entire wardrobe of much of the world.

In many ways beyond fashion, America wants to have it all. We want to drive giant SUVs yet not pay much for gas. We want our taxes cut yet our services increased. We want cheap and easy mortgages yet our bank deposits to be safe. I personally want to date supermodels who are also nuclear physicists. But in each case the reality is that we can’t have it all.

As a final little fillip to this flip-flop entry, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an article on a California legislator who is trying to ban helium-filled mylar balloons because they float away and can short out power lines or kill sea animals who swallow them. The party planning industry is fighting the ban. Says one party planner of her clients: “everybody wants something high-end and glitzy.” Exactly. They want their 10-year old’s birthday party to look like a celebrity wedding, even if it kills a sea otter or two.