Quote of the Day
If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?
Lily Tomlin
Excerpt of the Day:
Vedran Vuk: "Some Thoughts on the 2008 Crash"
I have said the exact same thing in my own posts:
The Left often blamed the crisis on “the policies of the last eight years.” This always makes me think, “Well, what policies specifically?”...The “last eight years of policy” quote shows how ignorant the Democrats really are about business cycles. It’s essentially like saying “Some stuff from the past eight years caused this, but we’re really not sure what the actual problem is.”
What policies? Is the emperor wearing clothes? How many times have the mainstream media let Obama and other Dems' preposterous, nebulous talking point go unchallenged? Did Bush do something to keep the accountants from doing their job? State bank regulators? Credit bureaus? The Fed? Did Bush propose or sign follow-up deregulation legislation? No, our vacuous Chief Executive is simply dismissive ("last 8 years of policy"), as if we should readily accept his scapegoating as "self-evident truths" instead of intellectual laziness.
Vuk points out that illusory, artificially low interest rates were the province of Greenspan/Bernanke, not Bush. (Obviously, Presidents aren't going to look gift horses, like low interest rates, in the mouth.) The GOP did not encourage the growth of the government-sponsored duopoly (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac), implicitly putting taxpayers on the hook, and it wasn't responsible for the CRA, encouraging home loans to more risky applicants; Bush didn't pass 1999 financial deregulation (re: derivatives and swaps).
Does that mean the Bush Administration is beyond criticism? No. It was passive, not proactive. Perhaps it's easy to do Monday morning quarterbacking. We should have been more skeptical of wealth being created from money versus real growth in products and services.We were clearly in the late stages of the real estate cycle, speculation in the market was rampant, the quality of loans was deteriorating, and government policies were counterproductive, transferring risk from the private to public sector. Bush did make a half-hearted effort at reforming the GSE's (after the accounting issues), but he didn't do enough to mitigate public risks or streamline and/or reform morally hazardous regulations.
But I think the Dems protest too much: for one thing, one or both chambers of Congress were controlled by Democrats for 4 of Bush's 8 years in office and hence had the opportunity to investigate relevant agencies, entities and the Fed. The fact that the Dems assume that the American people will overlook the indisputable fact they shared power with Bush is audacious.
Bing West: Obama's Mubarak Overreach: Thumbs UP!
This short article does an excellent job analyzing Obama's diplomatic blunder in prematurely throwing Mubarak under the bus after the Egyptian President had just announced that he would not run for reelection. I had mentioned similar and other points (e.g., the protesters would view it as too little, too late); West also mentions recent history of Democratic Presidents bungling coups: Kennedy in South Vietnam and Carter in Iran. However, it's West's pithy critique of Obama's "what were you thinking" moment that drew my attention:
Obama’s peremptory command of dismissal to a ruler who has been America’s staunch ally for 30 years was a geostrategic blunder on three levels. First, it signaled American arrogance; the White House presumed to tell another country’s leader what to do. Second, it guaranteed that Mubarak and his government, for however long they endure, will be less cooperative with us. Third, it unsettled our non-democratic allies throughout the Middle East. Since Israel is the only established democracy in that region, Obama’s command has unsettled the leadership in Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
Biggs & Richwine, "Yes, They're [Federal Employees] Overpaid": Thumbs UP!
This note gets a bit into the weeds, discussing some of studies and certain methodological distinctions. I've written a number of segments on this topic in past posts. But there are a couple of points in this article which I would like to highlight. First, there was a discussion of the structure of compensation. The basic idea is, all things being equal, risk-weighted compensation in the public sector is less than in the private sector, we should see the government finding it hard to staff positions and government workers jumping ship to join the private sector. Clearly that's not true in general. We also have the circumstance where the federal government in the 1980's transitioned from a defined-benefit retirement plan (an old-fashioned pension) to a defined-contribution retirement plan (e.g., 401K/403B). Defined-contribution plans limit organizations' exposure to soaring baby-boomer retirement costs. So if we buy the idea that federal pay is artificially low because the real compensation is in retirement and you lower the contribution of the government, then we should have seen retention rates worsen (but, in fact, they went up).
Second, there was an interesting little study where new hires (e.g., postal workers) were asked to report prior compensation--and the private sector compensation was roughly 25% lower. It's intuitively obvious why the application rates are so high and turnover is lower, relative to the private sector.
I personally know 5 people (if not more) whom joined civil service--and almost all of them waited some period of time before they were finally accepted. Three of them have not earned college degrees (and at least one of those has migrated to a more white-collar/managerial role). I don't have a problem with people taking advantage of the employment opportunities available to them; it's the American way and demonstrates initiative. On the other hand, as a taxpayer, I have no doubt, except at some very high levels, generous compensation is pushing on a string, and in many (if not most) cases, you would have a strong supply of applicants even at compensation rates 20% lower.
Congratulations to the New Nation of South Sudan!
The referendum was overwhelmingly in favor of independence; the principal issue now is negotiation of revenue split from the oil reserves, primarily in the south. This is subsequent to a 2005 peace agreement following a civil war that claimed two million casualties. (Note: the disputed region of Darfur is in the west of Sudan). President Obama indicated that the US will recognize the new nation by July; the US government is looking at removing Sudan from its blacklist of terrorist-supporting states. Southern Sudan is desperately poor, with many people living on under $1/day.
Small Brazilian Boy Personally Greets Pope Benedict XVI
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matthew 19:14)
Very charming! Viva il Papa!
Done Too Soon: A Canadian Life Well-Lived
Maddie Babineau: Beliefnet's Most Inspirational Person of 2010
Political Humor
A few originals:
- New Egyptian finance minister Samir Radman insists that the 15% pay raise promised to Egyptian government workers is not "bribery". He is correct; bribery is what the workers have to pay in order to enter government buildings...
- Some anti-Mubarak protesters were heard shouting "Down with America" after the US backed off from immediate transition.of the Egyptian government. It seems like there are birthers among the protesters, demanding Mubarak's birth certificate and claiming as an alleged American, Mubarak never had a right to be elected Egyptian president in the first place....
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Bee Gees, "The Edge of the Universe". In the aftermath of Peter Frampton's monster live LP, the Bee Gees released their own, and this was their single off the album, a classic taste of their signature fusion of melodic hook and brilliant harmony.
