Well, the NH primary was discouraging. Clinton won and Guiliani wasn't buried by Ron Paul so the dread Clinton-Guiliani race is still a possibility.
If that occurs we need an independent ticket and I have a better idea than Mike Bloomberg.
The 2008 Dream Team
President - Colin Powell, VP - Bill Bradley
They announce the following choices for their cabinet.
Secretary of Defense - John McCain
Secretary of State - Al Gore
Secretary of Treasury - Mike Bloomfield
Attorney General - John Edwards
Head of Homeland Security - Mitt Romney
Head of EPA - Ralph Nadar
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
We Didn't Start the Fire
Goose Gossage into the Hall of Fame, finally.
Boys and girls back before the days of the closer, back before Lee Smith, Dennis Eckersley, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman; baseball teams had relief pitchers who were Fireman. They came into the game - not in the beginning of the 9th inning, no on, no out, with their team ahead. They came into the game in the 7th, 8th or 9th with men on base and good hitters up and their job was to prevent not merely the batter at the plate from scoring, their job was to prevent the runners at 2nd and 3rd from scoring. They were call Firemen. They doused opposition rallies.
In this role no one was better than Goose Gossage.
In the beginning, pitchers pitched the entire game. Babe Ruth pitched 107 complete gamesi in 5+ seasons; Greg Maddux has completed 109 games in 22 seasons. Relievers were not that important before the 1960's.
There were a couple of successful relievers for a season or two but the first star reliever was Hoyt Wilhelm. He changed the game. He was a knuckleball pitcher and a relief specialist. He set the example for relief specialists who had one or two dominant pitches. In the 1960's the firemen role was established by guys like Roy Face, Ron Perranoski and Dick "the Monster" Radatz. This was the role that Gossage assumed in the 70's and 80's.
He came to the Yankees in 1978. In the previous year, 1977, Sparky Lyle was the Yankee fireman and won the Cy Young award. But everyone knew that Gossage was much, much better. Craig Nettles offered a famous and brilliant line that Lyle went from Cy Young to Syanora when the Yankees signed Goose.
He was that good. And, certainly better than Bruce Sutter who was elected into the Hall of Fame last year.
Boys and girls back before the days of the closer, back before Lee Smith, Dennis Eckersley, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman; baseball teams had relief pitchers who were Fireman. They came into the game - not in the beginning of the 9th inning, no on, no out, with their team ahead. They came into the game in the 7th, 8th or 9th with men on base and good hitters up and their job was to prevent not merely the batter at the plate from scoring, their job was to prevent the runners at 2nd and 3rd from scoring. They were call Firemen. They doused opposition rallies.
In this role no one was better than Goose Gossage.
In the beginning, pitchers pitched the entire game. Babe Ruth pitched 107 complete gamesi in 5+ seasons; Greg Maddux has completed 109 games in 22 seasons. Relievers were not that important before the 1960's.
There were a couple of successful relievers for a season or two but the first star reliever was Hoyt Wilhelm. He changed the game. He was a knuckleball pitcher and a relief specialist. He set the example for relief specialists who had one or two dominant pitches. In the 1960's the firemen role was established by guys like Roy Face, Ron Perranoski and Dick "the Monster" Radatz. This was the role that Gossage assumed in the 70's and 80's.
He came to the Yankees in 1978. In the previous year, 1977, Sparky Lyle was the Yankee fireman and won the Cy Young award. But everyone knew that Gossage was much, much better. Craig Nettles offered a famous and brilliant line that Lyle went from Cy Young to Syanora when the Yankees signed Goose.
He was that good. And, certainly better than Bruce Sutter who was elected into the Hall of Fame last year.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Rocket Man
So what do we make of Mike Wallace's interview of Roger Clemens?
Not much I think.
First, I do not trust anything I see on 60 Minutes. The interviews are edited. It seems to me that the story lines are always one-sided. It is not journalism, it is a TV entertainment show.
Putting that aside, at least Clemens directly and vehemently denied the allegations. So it really comes down to who is lying? Brian McNamee or Roger Clemens? I don't think we will ever a final answer to this unless one of these two change their stories, or this is a third party with corroborating evidence - one way or another.
NcNamee's claim is bolstered by the Mitchell report which states that McNamee made the following deal with that prosecutors.
"No truthful statements can be used against McNamee in any federal
prosecution by that Office; if, however, he should be untruthful in any statements made pursuant to that agreement, he may be charged with criminal violations, including making false statements, which is a felony."
This suggests, and apparently Mitchell believed this, that McNamee had no reason to lie and a very good reason to tell the truth. Additionally McNamee's story about Andy Pettitte was confirmed by Pettitte.
On the other hand, McNamee claimed he started giving Clemens steroids during the summer of 1998 and Clemens showed immediate improvement. My understanding is that steroids does not work this way. It only works over time.
Clemen's version is bolstered by (a) his agreement to testify before Congress, (b) his slander suit, and (c) most importantly, his performance and his body.
Unlike Bonds, Clemens did not get better after 1998. True, his performance at that stage of his career was historic. He won two Cy Young Awards after 1998 but neither year matched his early years with the Red Sox. He stopped pitching complete games after 1998. His last good year was 2005 at age 43. His ability to sustain his performance is similar to Nolan Ryan who also pitched effectively into his mid-40's.
So bottom line, Clemens is innocent till proven guilty. Assuming that his performance was not improved by PED, then you have to say that he is easily the greatest pitcher since WWII. Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove and Clemens are the three best pitchers in history.
Not much I think.
First, I do not trust anything I see on 60 Minutes. The interviews are edited. It seems to me that the story lines are always one-sided. It is not journalism, it is a TV entertainment show.
Putting that aside, at least Clemens directly and vehemently denied the allegations. So it really comes down to who is lying? Brian McNamee or Roger Clemens? I don't think we will ever a final answer to this unless one of these two change their stories, or this is a third party with corroborating evidence - one way or another.
NcNamee's claim is bolstered by the Mitchell report which states that McNamee made the following deal with that prosecutors.
"No truthful statements can be used against McNamee in any federal
prosecution by that Office; if, however, he should be untruthful in any statements made pursuant to that agreement, he may be charged with criminal violations, including making false statements, which is a felony."
This suggests, and apparently Mitchell believed this, that McNamee had no reason to lie and a very good reason to tell the truth. Additionally McNamee's story about Andy Pettitte was confirmed by Pettitte.
On the other hand, McNamee claimed he started giving Clemens steroids during the summer of 1998 and Clemens showed immediate improvement. My understanding is that steroids does not work this way. It only works over time.
Clemen's version is bolstered by (a) his agreement to testify before Congress, (b) his slander suit, and (c) most importantly, his performance and his body.
Unlike Bonds, Clemens did not get better after 1998. True, his performance at that stage of his career was historic. He won two Cy Young Awards after 1998 but neither year matched his early years with the Red Sox. He stopped pitching complete games after 1998. His last good year was 2005 at age 43. His ability to sustain his performance is similar to Nolan Ryan who also pitched effectively into his mid-40's.
So bottom line, Clemens is innocent till proven guilty. Assuming that his performance was not improved by PED, then you have to say that he is easily the greatest pitcher since WWII. Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove and Clemens are the three best pitchers in history.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Dr. Robert
So what are we to make of the Mitchell Report on steroids and performance enhancement drugs(PED)?.
Not much I think.
The report affirms what we all believed which is that the use of PED was widespread and that baseball managers, general managers, owners, trainers, players, agents, players union and the commissioner's office were all aware of this fact and did nothing.
Why was nothing done? I'm not sure. Who was being hurt by the use of PED? Not the owners, general managers, managers or the players who were using PED. I think the only potential agents for fixing the problem were the commissioners office and the player's union. The primary victims were the clean players who were at a competitive disadvantage to the users.
The reasons for using PED were and are compelling. Take the example of a marginal catcher. If you play at AAA level you would make less than $100,000. The minimum salary for the major leagues is about $400,000. If a marginal catcher can sustain a career as a backup catcher the salary would grow to $400,000 - $700,000 a year. If a marginal catcher could land a starter's job even for a year or two the salary would probably exceed $1,000,000.
The difference is ability of a AAA-catcher and a backup catcher (e.g. OPS .630) and a marginal starting catcher (e.g. OPS .700) is indeed thin. But the difference is salary is enormous.
The same salary disparity combined with ability similarity exists for marginal relief pitchers.
So it was not too surprising to see that many of the players named in the Mitchell Report were marginal players. They had a lot to gain and little to lose by taking PED. And since there is no testing for HGH, I would suspect that there are many players in these categories still using HGH.
What should we think about the players named in the report?
Not much I think.
Mitchell had very few sources. There was a concentration of players named that were associated with the Mets trainer and Yankees conditioning coach. I suspect that other teams had as many players involved as the Mets and Yankees. My guess is that many of the players named were users but the evidence in the report was not corroborated by second sources. As my son pointed out, a newspaper, even the NY News or Post would not have printed these names based on only one source.
The one issue that remains open is how should serious baseball analysts evaluate the records of players in this era in general, and how should we evaluate the records or known PED users such as Bonds and McGwire? Note I leave Clemens off the list of "known users" for now.
That's a difficult question that I leave for another time.
Not much I think.
The report affirms what we all believed which is that the use of PED was widespread and that baseball managers, general managers, owners, trainers, players, agents, players union and the commissioner's office were all aware of this fact and did nothing.
Why was nothing done? I'm not sure. Who was being hurt by the use of PED? Not the owners, general managers, managers or the players who were using PED. I think the only potential agents for fixing the problem were the commissioners office and the player's union. The primary victims were the clean players who were at a competitive disadvantage to the users.
The reasons for using PED were and are compelling. Take the example of a marginal catcher. If you play at AAA level you would make less than $100,000. The minimum salary for the major leagues is about $400,000. If a marginal catcher can sustain a career as a backup catcher the salary would grow to $400,000 - $700,000 a year. If a marginal catcher could land a starter's job even for a year or two the salary would probably exceed $1,000,000.
The difference is ability of a AAA-catcher and a backup catcher (e.g. OPS .630) and a marginal starting catcher (e.g. OPS .700) is indeed thin. But the difference is salary is enormous.
The same salary disparity combined with ability similarity exists for marginal relief pitchers.
So it was not too surprising to see that many of the players named in the Mitchell Report were marginal players. They had a lot to gain and little to lose by taking PED. And since there is no testing for HGH, I would suspect that there are many players in these categories still using HGH.
What should we think about the players named in the report?
Not much I think.
Mitchell had very few sources. There was a concentration of players named that were associated with the Mets trainer and Yankees conditioning coach. I suspect that other teams had as many players involved as the Mets and Yankees. My guess is that many of the players named were users but the evidence in the report was not corroborated by second sources. As my son pointed out, a newspaper, even the NY News or Post would not have printed these names based on only one source.
The one issue that remains open is how should serious baseball analysts evaluate the records of players in this era in general, and how should we evaluate the records or known PED users such as Bonds and McGwire? Note I leave Clemens off the list of "known users" for now.
That's a difficult question that I leave for another time.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Mrs Robinson
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon,
Going to the candidates debate ...
A presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani would give us a choice between two candidates completely unqualified to be president based on their experience and personal integrity. This would be the ultimate "lessor of two evils" election. Maybe our worst option since Nixon-Kennedy.
Here's a look at some of the other possible elections.
The polar opposite of this would be a race between two "nice" guys - Obama vs. Huckabee. They also lack experience but at least we would not have to listen to Hillary and Rudy shriek at each other for months.
If somehow Iraq becomes the central issue and we want to elect a president that actually has some ideas regarding Irag and some foreign policy experience then the choice could be McCain vs. Biden. Both of these candidates at least thought about what to do next in Iraq.
If the election becomes a choice between management and leadership skills and experience then Mitt Romney becomes the obvious Republican choice. For the Dems the choice is less obvious. If you were an investor in a Fortune 500 company which one of the Democratic candidates would you want to run that company? The answer may be Bill Richardson or perhaps John Edwards.
If each party was most concerned about electability then they would each choice a white, male, Protestant that was either a sitting president, governor, former vice president or war hero and was not from the north-east. Did you know that there since World War 2 we have elected only one senator, only one North-Easterner and only one person who was not a Protestant? All three exceptions were JFK, 1960.
This 'electability' eliminates all of the Senators and Guiliani. It also eliminates Romney. That leaves Bill Richardson vs. Mick Huckabee. I could live with that choice.
Going to the candidates debate ...
A presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani would give us a choice between two candidates completely unqualified to be president based on their experience and personal integrity. This would be the ultimate "lessor of two evils" election. Maybe our worst option since Nixon-Kennedy.
Here's a look at some of the other possible elections.
The polar opposite of this would be a race between two "nice" guys - Obama vs. Huckabee. They also lack experience but at least we would not have to listen to Hillary and Rudy shriek at each other for months.
If somehow Iraq becomes the central issue and we want to elect a president that actually has some ideas regarding Irag and some foreign policy experience then the choice could be McCain vs. Biden. Both of these candidates at least thought about what to do next in Iraq.
If the election becomes a choice between management and leadership skills and experience then Mitt Romney becomes the obvious Republican choice. For the Dems the choice is less obvious. If you were an investor in a Fortune 500 company which one of the Democratic candidates would you want to run that company? The answer may be Bill Richardson or perhaps John Edwards.
If each party was most concerned about electability then they would each choice a white, male, Protestant that was either a sitting president, governor, former vice president or war hero and was not from the north-east. Did you know that there since World War 2 we have elected only one senator, only one North-Easterner and only one person who was not a Protestant? All three exceptions were JFK, 1960.
This 'electability' eliminates all of the Senators and Guiliani. It also eliminates Romney. That leaves Bill Richardson vs. Mick Huckabee. I could live with that choice.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Here Comes The Sun
It seems that the dialog about global warming and climate change is very different than it was a year ago.
No longer is there a serious disagreement or debate on (1) the earth is getting progressively warmer, (2) there is a statistical correlation between green house gasses and the earth's temperature, (3) there is a causal relationship between burning fossil fuels and green house gasses, (4) therefore the earth's rising temperature is caused by the action of humans over the last 50 years, and (5) the trend will continue unbated at least in the short term, probably for 5-10 years.
Now the conversation is about medium term adaptations and longer term solutions.
It seems to me that some of the news (again medium to long term) is positive. Alternative energy solutions abound and as the direct cost of oil increases and the indirect costs of burning oil and coal become more objectionable then these other alternative sources will become economically viable. For example, I would not be surprised to see solar panels as a routine addition to residential housing or average car efficiency exceeding 50 mpg.
Someone once posited that in time George Harrison would be remembered as one of the major figures in bringing eastern religion and philosophy to the attention of the West and ,oh, by the way, he was also a musician.
Perhaps Al Gore will be chiefly remembered as one of the main figures who changed perceptions about climate change and ,oh, by the way, he was once close to being the president of the US.
No longer is there a serious disagreement or debate on (1) the earth is getting progressively warmer, (2) there is a statistical correlation between green house gasses and the earth's temperature, (3) there is a causal relationship between burning fossil fuels and green house gasses, (4) therefore the earth's rising temperature is caused by the action of humans over the last 50 years, and (5) the trend will continue unbated at least in the short term, probably for 5-10 years.
Now the conversation is about medium term adaptations and longer term solutions.
It seems to me that some of the news (again medium to long term) is positive. Alternative energy solutions abound and as the direct cost of oil increases and the indirect costs of burning oil and coal become more objectionable then these other alternative sources will become economically viable. For example, I would not be surprised to see solar panels as a routine addition to residential housing or average car efficiency exceeding 50 mpg.
Someone once posited that in time George Harrison would be remembered as one of the major figures in bringing eastern religion and philosophy to the attention of the West and ,oh, by the way, he was also a musician.
Perhaps Al Gore will be chiefly remembered as one of the main figures who changed perceptions about climate change and ,oh, by the way, he was once close to being the president of the US.
Friday, November 9, 2007
What's Going On
Some ideas about the economy and markets. I have been thinking about the macro trends in the economy and have wondered how we can maintain these trends:
The US government spends more money than it raises each year.
As a nation we import more than we export each year.
As a nation we consume more than we produce each year.
As a nation individual house-holders spend more than they make.
Some individuals borrow more than they can repay.
So he have a huge and growing national debt. Living it up ..
The concern of foreclosures is leading to a tightening of credit and leading financial losses for the financial services companies and a slowdown in home-building.
And, lastly, a huge and growing deficit in the balance of payments. Let's start there.
The trade imbalance means that China ends up with lots of US dollars that they do not spend on US goods and services. What happens to the money? It goes into savings and investment accounts denominated not in Chinese Yuan but in US dollars. So the money has to be invested in either US dollar financial assets, e.g. stocks or bonds, or the Chinese investor can exchange the US dollar for some other currency. Since China has so many USD they primarily invest in US Treasury bonds, e.g. they are buying the bonds the US government has to issue each year since the US government spends more than it collects in taxes, fees, etc. So China is lending the US government money to finance the war in Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, and bridges to nowhere.
When the Fed reduces interest rates, short term T-Bills will pay less in interest and and inflation may grow. If we get inflation the value of long term bonds will decrease. Both of these make buying USD financial assets less attractive. So holders of USD trade them for more "stable" currencies such as the Euro, British pound, etc and then buy financial assets dominated in these currencies.
For this currency trading, if someone is selling Euro for USD they will play less for the USD as the number of sellers increases. This is just basic supply and demand combined with the financial risk of owning USD. So what happens, the USD gets cheaper in relationship to other currencies, the price of imported goods and services increases. The price of oil may exceed $100 a barrel before I finish writing this.
So what does this all mean?
The bond market is worried about inflation.
The stock market is jittery.
Stuff, especially imported stuff will cost more. Since we import oil this means the cost of energy will go up so the cost of US produced goods will also increase. In a word, inflation will increase and eventually interest rates will go up.
We will have to buy less stuff. This means a "reduction in the standard of living". I put that in quotes because it does not mean a reduction in the quality of life for most of us. It just means less stuff.
This could be a good thing. We spend less on imported stuff and maybe more on local goods and services. We use less energy. We create less waste. We buy only what we can afford because of the increase in the cost of borrowing. Maybe we save a little money from time to time. We visit the Blue Ridge or Rocky Mtns instead of the Apennines. Maybe we ask Dad for some money.
Maybe the Chinese economy slows down and they slow down a little in the pollution of the planet. Maybe the US government balances the budget.
In the meantime if you are an investor, invest in stocks not bonds especially not bonds in USD. Invest in natural resources as a hedge against the USD continuing to getting weaker.
Lastly and most importantly, Don't Panic.
It's just stuff and mostly harmless.
The US government spends more money than it raises each year.
As a nation we import more than we export each year.
As a nation we consume more than we produce each year.
As a nation individual house-holders spend more than they make.
Some individuals borrow more than they can repay.
So he have a huge and growing national debt. Living it up ..
The concern of foreclosures is leading to a tightening of credit and leading financial losses for the financial services companies and a slowdown in home-building.
And, lastly, a huge and growing deficit in the balance of payments. Let's start there.
The trade imbalance means that China ends up with lots of US dollars that they do not spend on US goods and services. What happens to the money? It goes into savings and investment accounts denominated not in Chinese Yuan but in US dollars. So the money has to be invested in either US dollar financial assets, e.g. stocks or bonds, or the Chinese investor can exchange the US dollar for some other currency. Since China has so many USD they primarily invest in US Treasury bonds, e.g. they are buying the bonds the US government has to issue each year since the US government spends more than it collects in taxes, fees, etc. So China is lending the US government money to finance the war in Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, and bridges to nowhere.
When the Fed reduces interest rates, short term T-Bills will pay less in interest and and inflation may grow. If we get inflation the value of long term bonds will decrease. Both of these make buying USD financial assets less attractive. So holders of USD trade them for more "stable" currencies such as the Euro, British pound, etc and then buy financial assets dominated in these currencies.
For this currency trading, if someone is selling Euro for USD they will play less for the USD as the number of sellers increases. This is just basic supply and demand combined with the financial risk of owning USD. So what happens, the USD gets cheaper in relationship to other currencies, the price of imported goods and services increases. The price of oil may exceed $100 a barrel before I finish writing this.
So what does this all mean?
The bond market is worried about inflation.
The stock market is jittery.
Stuff, especially imported stuff will cost more. Since we import oil this means the cost of energy will go up so the cost of US produced goods will also increase. In a word, inflation will increase and eventually interest rates will go up.
We will have to buy less stuff. This means a "reduction in the standard of living". I put that in quotes because it does not mean a reduction in the quality of life for most of us. It just means less stuff.
This could be a good thing. We spend less on imported stuff and maybe more on local goods and services. We use less energy. We create less waste. We buy only what we can afford because of the increase in the cost of borrowing. Maybe we save a little money from time to time. We visit the Blue Ridge or Rocky Mtns instead of the Apennines. Maybe we ask Dad for some money.
Maybe the Chinese economy slows down and they slow down a little in the pollution of the planet. Maybe the US government balances the budget.
In the meantime if you are an investor, invest in stocks not bonds especially not bonds in USD. Invest in natural resources as a hedge against the USD continuing to getting weaker.
Lastly and most importantly, Don't Panic.
It's just stuff and mostly harmless.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Nowhere Man
I inadvertently blocked all comments. You would think that someone who has worked with computers for 30 years would be able to figure this out. Thanks Tom for the heads-up.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Money for Nothing
You all knew I would post something about baseball and with the end of the season it seems a good time to reflect on the Yankee's situation.
It has not been fun being a Yankee fan the last few years. It's not about the results. I don't expect them to win the World Series every year or even be in the World Series every year. For most baseball fans and for most teams the Yankees recent results would be more than satisfactory. They have been in the playoffs every year since 1996 and they have won 10 division championships, 6 AL pennants and 4 World Series. In addition the team is exciting to watch. Attending a game at Yankee stadium recalls the atmosphere at a rock concert.
It has not been fun being a Yankee fan the last few years. It's not about the results. I don't expect them to win the World Series every year or even be in the World Series every year. For most baseball fans and for most teams the Yankees recent results would be more than satisfactory. They have been in the playoffs every year since 1996 and they have won 10 division championships, 6 AL pennants and 4 World Series. In addition the team is exciting to watch. Attending a game at Yankee stadium recalls the atmosphere at a rock concert.
We have also had some continuity - what my friend Barry calls "real Yankees" - players so familiar we only need to use their first names; e.g Bernie, Derek, Andy, Mariano and Jorge.
So what's the complaint?
It's hard to have fun routing for a team that is stupid.
The Yankees have more resources and spend way more than anyone else. I don't have the exact numbers (maybe Dave will do the research) but I estimate that they spend $40 million more than the #2 the Red Sox. That's an enormous advantage. Ir is equivalent to replacing Jeter and A-Rod with minor leaguers. Their advantage over the other teams such as the Indians, Tigers, Angels, Marlins, D-Backs is even more striking. In some case, the Yankee spending advantage was over $100 million. BTW - those are the other teams the Yankees have lost in the post-season this decade.
To me with an advantage that large the team should be odds-on favorites every year to win the World Series. They may not win every year but if the lose it would be considered an upset. That's not what we are getting. The 2007 and 2004 Red Sox, 2007 Indians, 2006 Tigers, 2005 Angels have been as good as the Yankees. And it is clear now that the Red Sox are better. They were favored to win this year and they avoided their former habit as a team that folds in the second-half.
So my peeve is that the Yankees throw away this advantage because they make stupid decisions. We have to hold Cashman responsible. He's the problem not Torre. I have played in a Rotiss league for about 20 years. In this league each team has equal resources and you gain advantage by using your resources effectively. Csshman and the Yankees throw away their enormous advantage by consistently overpaying for players. The most typical examples are paying for players past their prime, e.g. John Damon, Mike Mussina, Bobby Abreu, Randy Johnson, Matsui, etc. This clogs the roster with untradeable players if their performance slips as can be expected. This is compounded by the inability to evaluate talent. The moves that Cashman made before the 2005 season may represent the worse off-season by any GM in memory. That was the year Cashman brought in Pavano, Wright, Tino Martinez and Tony Womack. Money for Nothing.
And nothing is being learned. The Clemens deal proved Cashman is hapless. It was evident that if they were lucky they would get a mid-level starter who was a 6-inning pitcher and who had a huge downside due to injury risk.
Last year the Yankees added the useless-Igawa while the Red Sox acquired Dice-K and Okajima. And that is symbolic of the main worry. The Red Sox will also spend but they may have a clue. They had the Rookie of the Year, the best Rookie starting pitcher and the best Rookie setup man. They are better than the Yankees and they are younger.
My only conciliation is that I don't have the YES network.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Pity the Poor Immigrant
It disappoints me that the debate over immigration lacks some fundamental aspects.
1) Facts seems to me to be missing.
Some of the economic data surrounding the impacts of illegal immigration will be incomplete and some will be based on estimates. Estimates could easily be subjective - economic models are complex. I find it difficult to understand any estimate unless the study tells me specifically the assumptions included in the study.
But can we agree on this?
- Illegal immigrants provide cheap labor.
- Consumers and Employers of the good and services produced by cheap labor are both potential beneficiaries. If the illegal immigrant labor was supplied by US citizens and/or legal immigrants the costs of the labor would rise since the supply of labor would be reduced. But it is not clear to me how much the consumer benefits and how much the employer benefits.
- This supply of cheap labor dampens the salaries of legal workers especially low-skilled workers who compete with illegals.
So there is an impact on labor rates, costs of goods and services and probably unemployment. But who benefits and who does it hurt? How much of the cost savings are passed on to the consumer? For low-skilled workers does the cost savings compensate for lower wages?
The other economic impacts are really difficult to estimate. How much public money is spent providing services to illegals for education, health care, etc.? How much money is lost due to crime or uncollected taxes? How much is paid in taxes by illegals who end up with no legal claim to the public services paid by those taxes? I have no idea but shouldn't this be an integral part of the debate?
2) Assumptions are not verified.
We can't deport 12 million people. We hear this all of the time. Is that true?
If we had a policy of finding and deporting all illegal immigrants how would we do it? Some steps could be that for anyone who gets a parking or traffic ticket they must present a valid driver's license. If one can't be produced than there is a second charge and the person must provide some identification.
Likewise anyone charged with a crime must provide some identification.
If the person cannot provide identification that are held in jail without bail (due to flight risk). If the person is convicted and still has no identification they are deported and anything property they own is confiscated. Their employer is also notified and may be subject to an investigation about hiring illegals. Remember that hiring illegals is also against the law.
Wouldn't measures like this have the impact of (a) reducing the stream of illegals and (b) convincing some to go home? I am sure that there are any number of measures that would change the risk-reward profile for employers and workers.
Now I am not arguing for any specific measures but I am questioning the assumption that we cannot deport illegals. This would do more to stem illegal immigration than a fence. As T. always tells me, you need to deal with the problem on the demand side and the supply side.
3) Desired outcomes are not expressed.
On each side of the debate, what is the desired outcome or end state? Shouldn't an immigration policy be based on goals about population growth, goals on the composition of annual immigration based on skills, education, age, and nationality? The issue of fairness and nationality is central to the debate. Should we favor Mexicans and our brothers from Latin America over Asians, Europeans and Africans?
If there are resources that deal with the debate in a realistic way - let me know - since I am still undecided about a "comprehensive" immigration bill.
1) Facts seems to me to be missing.
Some of the economic data surrounding the impacts of illegal immigration will be incomplete and some will be based on estimates. Estimates could easily be subjective - economic models are complex. I find it difficult to understand any estimate unless the study tells me specifically the assumptions included in the study.
But can we agree on this?
- Illegal immigrants provide cheap labor.
- Consumers and Employers of the good and services produced by cheap labor are both potential beneficiaries. If the illegal immigrant labor was supplied by US citizens and/or legal immigrants the costs of the labor would rise since the supply of labor would be reduced. But it is not clear to me how much the consumer benefits and how much the employer benefits.
- This supply of cheap labor dampens the salaries of legal workers especially low-skilled workers who compete with illegals.
So there is an impact on labor rates, costs of goods and services and probably unemployment. But who benefits and who does it hurt? How much of the cost savings are passed on to the consumer? For low-skilled workers does the cost savings compensate for lower wages?
The other economic impacts are really difficult to estimate. How much public money is spent providing services to illegals for education, health care, etc.? How much money is lost due to crime or uncollected taxes? How much is paid in taxes by illegals who end up with no legal claim to the public services paid by those taxes? I have no idea but shouldn't this be an integral part of the debate?
2) Assumptions are not verified.
We can't deport 12 million people. We hear this all of the time. Is that true?
If we had a policy of finding and deporting all illegal immigrants how would we do it? Some steps could be that for anyone who gets a parking or traffic ticket they must present a valid driver's license. If one can't be produced than there is a second charge and the person must provide some identification.
Likewise anyone charged with a crime must provide some identification.
If the person cannot provide identification that are held in jail without bail (due to flight risk). If the person is convicted and still has no identification they are deported and anything property they own is confiscated. Their employer is also notified and may be subject to an investigation about hiring illegals. Remember that hiring illegals is also against the law.
Wouldn't measures like this have the impact of (a) reducing the stream of illegals and (b) convincing some to go home? I am sure that there are any number of measures that would change the risk-reward profile for employers and workers.
Now I am not arguing for any specific measures but I am questioning the assumption that we cannot deport illegals. This would do more to stem illegal immigration than a fence. As T. always tells me, you need to deal with the problem on the demand side and the supply side.
3) Desired outcomes are not expressed.
On each side of the debate, what is the desired outcome or end state? Shouldn't an immigration policy be based on goals about population growth, goals on the composition of annual immigration based on skills, education, age, and nationality? The issue of fairness and nationality is central to the debate. Should we favor Mexicans and our brothers from Latin America over Asians, Europeans and Africans?
If there are resources that deal with the debate in a realistic way - let me know - since I am still undecided about a "comprehensive" immigration bill.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Forever Young
K and I went to see Steve Forbert in concert in downtown Hendersonville. Back in the day Steve Forbert was part of the "next Bob Dylan" conversation. Which really meant the "Voice of the Next Generation". Also in the conversation were John Prine, Loudon Wainwright, and yikes Joni Mitchell and Leonard Cohen.
We now know that Dylan was not the voice of a generation but just a singer/songwriter looking for Essence. We also know now that Leonard Cohen is a poet and Joni Mitchell a mystic. Performers like Steve Forbert moved in the penumbra, still visible behind the shadow of their early hope and promise.
Back to the present, he sang a song called Middle Age and one of the keeper ideas in the song was that we will never be younger again than we are right now.
So right now we have more experience than we have had before.
So right now we will never again be as young as we are this moment.
So right now we are all at the best point in our lives - balancing youth and experience. And, as we move through the vector of time this will remain true.
We now know that Dylan was not the voice of a generation but just a singer/songwriter looking for Essence. We also know now that Leonard Cohen is a poet and Joni Mitchell a mystic. Performers like Steve Forbert moved in the penumbra, still visible behind the shadow of their early hope and promise.
Back to the present, he sang a song called Middle Age and one of the keeper ideas in the song was that we will never be younger again than we are right now.
So right now we have more experience than we have had before.
So right now we will never again be as young as we are this moment.
So right now we are all at the best point in our lives - balancing youth and experience. And, as we move through the vector of time this will remain true.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Across the Universe
We have seen this movie three times so far. This film is getting some mixed reviews and I can understand that. I think you will find that it is either the best movie of all time or maybe just in the top 10.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Don't Let Me Down: Presidents and Character
This started with a dialog on where I stand on issues and how my views compare to the current presidential candidates. My answers to the questions on issues suggested that I was a Populist-Liberal and that none of the candidates agreed with me on the majority of the issues presented.
I made a comment that issues were not the only factor in deciding who to support and maybe less important then management and leadership skills, experience and character. And that raised the issue of character.
Is it important? And, can we make judgements about the character of the candidates?
I think the answer is sometimes and I'd like to look at some examples.
On the positive side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to favorably judge the character of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I think we knew enough about them when they ran for President. Both men served with integrity and honesty.
On the other side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to suspect the characters of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In 1968 we knew Nixon was mean-spirited, quick to anger, ruthless and overly ambitious. In 1992 we had strong evidence that Clinton was personally dishonest in his relationships. Basically both men were liars.
Interesting parallel - Nixon and Clinton. There may be a book here. In contrast to the men of high character mentioned above they were re-elected! But in their second term Nixon's ruthlessness and ambition led to his forced resignation and Clinton became only the second president in our history that was impeached by Congress. Now, I know that Clinton supporters think that his lying under oath to a grand jury was not impeachable in accordance with the constitution. That may be so. But it was a disgrace related to his basic character faults. So both Presidencies were spoiled by their respective character faults.
Infamous quotes:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton.
"I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon
Nicknames:
Tricky Dick
Slick Willie
Last Nixon-Clinton parallel. Despite the second term failures both men have followers to this day who think that on balance they were good presidents! The idea that anyone could consider Nixon a good President baffles me. For Clinton we need more evidence. For example, how much focus of terrorism was lost due to the impeachment.
So for me, character matters. Agreed sometimes it is hard to judge but when you have evidence it should be a factor.
I made a comment that issues were not the only factor in deciding who to support and maybe less important then management and leadership skills, experience and character. And that raised the issue of character.
Is it important? And, can we make judgements about the character of the candidates?
I think the answer is sometimes and I'd like to look at some examples.
On the positive side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to favorably judge the character of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I think we knew enough about them when they ran for President. Both men served with integrity and honesty.
On the other side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to suspect the characters of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In 1968 we knew Nixon was mean-spirited, quick to anger, ruthless and overly ambitious. In 1992 we had strong evidence that Clinton was personally dishonest in his relationships. Basically both men were liars.
Interesting parallel - Nixon and Clinton. There may be a book here. In contrast to the men of high character mentioned above they were re-elected! But in their second term Nixon's ruthlessness and ambition led to his forced resignation and Clinton became only the second president in our history that was impeached by Congress. Now, I know that Clinton supporters think that his lying under oath to a grand jury was not impeachable in accordance with the constitution. That may be so. But it was a disgrace related to his basic character faults. So both Presidencies were spoiled by their respective character faults.
Infamous quotes:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton.
"I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon
Nicknames:
Tricky Dick
Slick Willie
Last Nixon-Clinton parallel. Despite the second term failures both men have followers to this day who think that on balance they were good presidents! The idea that anyone could consider Nixon a good President baffles me. For Clinton we need more evidence. For example, how much focus of terrorism was lost due to the impeachment.
So for me, character matters. Agreed sometimes it is hard to judge but when you have evidence it should be a factor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
