main page
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
|
click here for a bigger sunset
One small voice in the proud tradition of FreeBlogging*
Friday, February 08, 2002
posted by gbarto at 2:16 PM:
Let me add to the post below that O'Neill's comments on the Lilliputians are right on target. On the same point, Dan Henninger is writing in today's WSJ about Enron and the next steps being discussed - still more rules, just in case anybody should ever again try to make a judgment on their own. Henninger's concerns about proceduralism match exactly O'Neill's complaints about piling rules upon rules: Individuals are no longer trusted to make their own judgments; there's a regulation for everything and the real-world foul-up, rough as it is, is not often substantially more troublesome than getting caught with your paperwork filled out wrong. It is therefore less in one's interest to do what is right than to check the Policies and Procedures manual for what is prescribed (and proscribed). It's time that we made of Enron what it is - fraud, bad judgment, and a heap of wishful thinking. The wishful thinking is manifold; it runs from execs who thought they could get things fixed before they were found out to analysts who thought making projections was seeing them fulfilled, from workers thinking that getting set up for a better retirement required no effort or investigation to politicians who thought they could manage capitalism out of the economy and still reap its benefits. It's this last group that is even more pernicious than Ken Lay; Lay only mucked up one company. But as we speak Congress is looking for new ways to claim it is doing something about the Enron debacle, and if that means tying the hands of every CEO in America - lest there be one more Ken Lay among them - so be it. We don't need to go down this road.In the wake of Enron, we know that putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea (they could make a saying out of that!) because whether Enron was a fraud, a mistake or bad luck matters not to its shareholders, what matters is that it is now worthless. But putting all your eggs in the government basket is equally idiotic: Do we really think Robert Byrd is going to solve the problems of the free market that have confounded so many before him? If you think so, you probably think you can retire on just your social security.
Let us respond the right way to Enron: Let us acknowledge that when choosing a broker, picking a stock, setting up a 401K or doing whatever else we may do to ameliorate our financial position, we are balancing risks and opportunities and must recognize that as the one increases, so does the other. Let us therefore shun new rules and regulations, renounce the pipe dream that Robert Byrd et al can be our guardians and saviors, freeing us of want, need and responsibility, and with open eyes take our own decisions in pursuit of the opportunities America offers while admitting of the risks.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:29 PM:
Let us sing the praises of Paul O'Neill, a treasury secretary for the people. Glenn Reynolds notes this Washington Post article on a dust-up between the treasury secretary and the perpetually self-impressed Robert Byrd. O'Neill's comment about rules is right on target, and reminds us what happens when the folks (this seems to be my favorite word) get too self-important about the work they're doing. I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's "Now I've got to get back to the work for the American people" comment (right after the Lewinsky denial). I think when you give up your millions-of-dollars-a-year job so you can get lectured by senators-for-life, you've shown a far greater committment to the American people than Mr. Byrd.* * *
Thursday, February 07, 2002
posted by gbarto at 3:24 PM:
Added a few links. You should still stick to Glenn Reynold's list. It has all the quality people (no, the TurkeyBlog isn't one of them). Those added are Matt Welch, Ken Layne and Natalie Solent (just in time for her to go on vacation).* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:36 PM:
TurkeyBlog faces a tough challenge. Joanne Jacobs has referred to this (passim) as the site for Victor Hugo analysis. I'm not prepared to make such a lofty boast, but there is at least some Victor Hugo commentary lurking in this domain. You'll find a few notes below. And you can find some poems and my appraisals here.* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:21 PM:
About the post below; any serious Marxists with hairs to split should know that the Marx/value-added question is one of my favorite straw-men; no need to enlighten me on the fine points.* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:14 PM:
John Derbyshire has a harsh but interesting piece on free enterprise in NR Online. His main point is on target - you can have the risks of capitalism or you can have... well, not much at all. Unfortunately, neither merchandise nor good ideas spontaneously appear for the taking; someone has to come up with the idea, make it into a product and sell it. Those that come up with good ideas and make them into good products make money. Those who need such products spend money. It's not as complicated as the econ textbooks make it out to be.One thing in the Derbyshire article disturbed me though:
Capitalism consists of me making or buying something for X dollars, then persuading you to buy it off me for X + Y dollars.
I know I'm nit-picking, but I can just hear some neo-Marxist chuckling darkly about that Y and think it should be accounted for. So, a little accounting, for the people who wonder where profits come from:
When you buy something, you're paying for:
(Marx's stuff first; this is the X:)
- the materials to make it.
- the labor to make it.
- the equipment to make it (including the land, the facility, the lights, etc.)
(and here's some of they Y, the stuff Marx didn't really get into:)
- the ingenuity of its creator: The guy who thunk it up spent time, just as did the guy who put it together.
- opportunity cost: The owner could have just vacationed in Bermuda; he needs something to justify using his money for non-fun stuff.
- acceptance of risk: The owner won't ever get that trip to Bermuda if the business doesn't work out.
(and my favorite part of the Y:)
- planning: Somebody had to figure out how to bring this stuff to market.
- promotion: If you don't know where it is, you can't buy it.
- place: We don't drive across the country to buy a new chair; the chairs are delivered to a furniture store near you (or widgets or whatever).
The last part of this comes from an old marketing class where we learned the four Ps that sell goods: Product, Price, Place and Promotion. It was a real revelation; I'd always thought of marketing as an expense for business, not a value-added for consumers. But it is, and the web shows this. In the old days, people trudged to local stores and bought what they had to offer. With the web, the place is home, the promotion is there for the clicking and the price is the same or a little lower to have it delivered right to your door. Those who like the old way still shop mostly in stores, but for a good many people, there are at least some goods (computer stuff and books especially) whose value is enhanced enough by the ease of buying on-line that that's where they do the buying.
The main thing I was getting at before I got lost in this digression, though, is so simple I should have just said it: While the Y is sometimes a rip-off, it's usually compensation well-deserved for the people who took the time and trouble to make a product we needed and do the work to make it possible for us to get it. Capitalism is not exploitation; it is individuals and corporations providing goods to consumers at prices that allow consumers to procure the goods and producers to stay in business and justify to themselves the worthwhileness of doing so.
* * *
Wednesday, February 06, 2002
posted by gbarto at 6:40 PM:
Too much NapoleonLame joke from my childhood: Did you hear about the bakery explosion? They had a Napoleon BlownApart.
I bring this up because this morning I found myself again looking at those lines:
Ce siècle avait deux ans, Rome remplaçait Sparte,
Déja Napoléon perçait sous Bonaparte...
(The century in its second year, Rome replacing Sparta,
Already Napoleon was emerging from Bonaparte...)
The lines are from a Victor Hugo poem that entwines Hugo's birth and the rise of Napoleon, and with Hugo's characteristic modesty (sarcasm) confer equal status upon the two. Hugo, of course, was all messed up where Napoleon was concerned. His father had been the Emperor's last general - he didn't surrender the village where he was holed up until two weeks after Napoleon's fall. And while Hugo's early childhood memories of Bonaparte mostly involved family turmoil, by 1830 he was - like a lot of other Frenchman - pining for the glory Napoleon was supposed to have brought to France. I think this has a lot to do with why Hugo pressed for Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's readmission to France in 1847 - he wanted to see if the name could bring back the glory. Others disagree, but their theories tend to assume Hugo had more political savvy than his usual politicking would indicate. In any case, the Emperor's nephew, Emperor himself with the title Napoleon III booted Hugo out of France, and out Hugo stayed until 1870 when the Prussians came into Paris after capturing Napoleon III at Sedan. The above is not not only oversimplified but not particularly interesting unless you're doing something foolish like trying to write a dissertation on the political career of Hugo, which, hélas, I am. But it would seem like there would be some escape. So I went to the web, and there was Matt Welch talking about Napoleon (see specific link below). And the front page of the journal had an article about a tailor for short men whose stores bear Napoleon's name. So I decided since Napoleon seemed to be on other minds as well, I'd put in my two cents. There it is.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 2:49 PM:
Have just run across Natalie Solent's regrets at mocking the French. Having contributed to the pile-on with my commentary on cheese-eating surrender monkeys, I thought I'd add my voice to the later lamentations.Truth be told, I lived in France for about five months when I was in college - one of the study abroad deals - and thoroughly enjoyed myself. That was back in '93. I've been back twice since then for shorter periods. The first thing I'd say about the French is that they really aren't that rude, at least not in the presence of people who, having shown up in their country don't insist that they speak English so that their interlocutors can be spared the trouble of learning French. There are, of course, quirks; every society has them. But on getting a feel for the way the French face life, things don't grate so much.
One thing that did really grate on my nerves - back in '93 - was the frustration of commerce. I lived in Rennes (out in the middle of Britanny, not too far from where Arthur met Merlin) so don't know much about daily life in Paris at the time. But in Rennes, in any case, every day at noon, there would be hundreds staring in shop windows as they wasted away their lunch hour (and a half). Some of the poor folks looked so lonely; I'm convinced the velocity of money in the city would have doubled, had they, for the price of a small purchase, been able to get a shop clerk or cashier to wish them a nice day. And in Britanny, the shopkeeps would have done so, had the poor folks been able to get in their doors. But of course the elites knew that what the average Frenchman wanted was not an extra half hour's pay but to have that much more time to kill eating their sandwiches or bread since you need that extra half-hour to munch on a Camembert while wishing you could afford the more expensive restaurants. And so the law mandated that employees get that hour and a half and that the people who weren't in the food business would get theirs all at the same time. Ridiculous. Incidentally, it was kind of handy for us French students to have these people milling around; you could engage them in exactly the kinds of short conversations we'd all been learning to handle in class and it was excellent practice. But if governments are going to organize their people's business, better arrangements would seem to be in order.
The last two times I've been in France, it seemed a little easier to spend a few francs if you so desired. And I'm delighted to report that in all three places, if you pick a small neighborhood and stick to it, you'll be greeted warmly all over. The general friendliness that I knew in Britanny was just as present in Tours, and even in Paris, though in both places (dare we say this) the Arab shopkeeps were far more friendly and helpful than the native French. Still, even the French were generally pleasant; as much so as their American counterparts anyway. And so I think those who mock the cheese-eating surrender monkeys (mea maxima culpa) need to remember that in the Hexagon there lives a proud and hearty people with whom we can do business, at least as individuals. Which brings me to my last point.
The French are an insular people (and small wonder, considering that the rest of Europe did unto them as Napoleon did unto the rest of Europe until relatively recently). Kind and thoughtful in person, they are timid as a country, bravely taunting those they know will not hit back while shying away from the sort of conflicts that might remind that France is not the power she once was. Part of this is just what happens to elites running a country - witness the behavior of senatorial aids at airline checkpoints and congressional bloviating about air safety while the rest of us just wish the security lines would speed up. In a country where government is as all-encompassing as France, too many people get the idea that the way the government behaves is the way the people are. Fortunately, this is not the case. Let us therefore say for France what President Bush said about Iran - our quarrel is with their leaders, not with this good and worthy people.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 12:12 PM:
Matt Welch writes about Larry Ellison's praise for Napoleon here, and notes that Perry de Havilland isn't so sure about him. I won't really get into this debate except to note that it is fitting that the man who wanted to catalog each and every one of us would be an admirer of the Napoleonic superstate.Speaking of superstates, Welch also notes here that some are dubious about whether a free society can be made perfectly safe. Of course it can't. There's a reason why Bush and company have special security details. Lest I be misinterpreted, I do not begrudge them this. Bush is a lot more likely to be threatened by a nutcase than I am and if something happens to him, there are a lot greater consequences for the country. That said, if Bush can't be guaranteed safety out in the open, it's foolish to think any of the rest of us will be.
At the moment, what's called for is perspective. If you're stepping off the curb, you're a lot better off watching the traffic than checking buildings overhead for snipers. We're a big country, and that makes for a lot of targets. But that has advantages as well as disadvantages. The U.S. was deeply wounded by 9/11, but it was not gravely wounded. If Paris gets taken over, France is done for (as happened in the Franco-Prussian War and both world wars, just to name three conflicts). If Washington gets taken over, there are 50 governors with 50 national guards to walk us through. And, in case anyone missed it, we are 260 million plus free individuals who are in the habit of making their own decisions about how to deal with whatever we encounter. Instead of treating our free open society as a problem, we ought to be celebrating it. Think of it: 50 leaders with small armies at their disposal; 260 million plus armies of one, to use the marketing phrase. And all of them in a society that - for all the diversity squabbles - shares enough common ground that we raised billions of dollars and millions of volunteers in a matter of days when 9/11 hit. I think we'll make it.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 11:21 AM:
CNBC says that AT&T is going to offer unlimited long distance connections to other AT&T customers (.07/minute to call non-AT&T customers) for $20/month. I wonder how long the plan will last if it catches on. Holman Jenkins (WSJ) noted ages ago that long distance was becoming a commodity and the telcos were going to have to find a better way to make a living. Could this be the way? The economics only make sense to me in one regard. While I used to pay a lot more than $20 to AT&T on a monthly basis - and do still pay more for my long distance - I don't pay them anything anymore. Will they get enough volume from people willing to give AT&T another chance to make up for the low rates? I doubt it, but we'll see.* * *
Tuesday, February 05, 2002
posted by gbarto at 12:07 PM:
Dickens said it better (see four articles down) in introducing The Pickwick Papers.Lest there should be any well-intentioned persons who do not perceive the difference ... between religion and the cant of religion, piety and the pretense of piety, a humble reverence for the great truths of Scripture, and an audacious and offensive obtrusion of its letter and not its spirit in the commonest dimensions and meanest affairs of life, to the extraordinary confusion of ignorant minds, let them understand that it is always the latter, and never the former, which is satirized here. Further, that the latter is here satirized as being, according to all experience, inconsistent with the former, impossible of union with it, and one of the most evil and mischievous falsehoods existent in society... It may appear unnecessary to offer a word of observation on so plain a head. But, it is never out of season to protest against that coarse familiarity with sacred things, which is busy on the lip, and idle in the heart; or against the confounding of Christianity with any class of persons who, in the words of Swift, have just enough religion to make them hate, and not enough to make them love, one another.
This is what I was trying to get to below: Those with religion "busy on the lip" too rarely have time to practice their faith after they get done preaching it. When I lived on a college campus, I would often walk by self-appointed evangelists screaming at the mass of students that they were all going to Hell. At the end of the day, they'd walk off muttering about what all us rotten bastards had in store for us because we were so far from God. Ah, the devil's gonna get ya, they'd cry. But they didn't do the real work: They didn't offer the love and compassion and understanding; they didn't show the beauty of redemption. They didn't go up to the young woman crying, to offer consolation; they didn't stop the young man who looked troubled to let him know God loved him and had good things in store. They were too busy making sure they were saved - and that anybody who cared knew it - to risk serious closeness with those who were weak of faith, to show them what Christianity had to offer other than being spared from the fire.
There was another group on campus with a different approach: Every Easter season, they'd appear with plastic eggs with a candy inside, and a message about how their faith had in store an inner richness that surpassed even a Hershey's kiss. There was an invitation to attend their church to learn about God's love for us and the world. So, so different. Imagine that, wanting to share your good fortune in faith, not guard it! It would be nice to see more of this simple piety, and less of the pretense of piety.
* * *
Monday, February 04, 2002
posted by gbarto at 9:26 PM:
Over the weekend, read Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress by Dai Sijie. (Click the link to by it and even send a nickel my way.) In the book, West meets East in a delightful way: Balzac "corrupts" two Chinese youths sent into the mountains for re-education in the midst of Mao's Cultural Revolution. As a student of French literature, I've seen plenty of East meets West, with Paul Claudel being only the most obvious name to throw out (his poetry had strong Eastern influences and he himself was the French ambassador to China for a time). But the portrayal of the West's influence on the rest of the world always seems to focus on Coca Cola, McDonald's and blue jeans. This is foolish: The Russians, eg, didn't want blue jeans for blue jeans, but because they represented American cowboy culture with its focus on freedom and individualism. And the French aren't trashing McDonald's because they don't like Big Mac sauce but because of a post-modern anti-West drive for the glory of an earlier society (that like our idealized '50s) didn't ever really exist. Given this, it is a delight to see this Chinese author - himself once re-educated - showing what it is about the West that really moves man: a focus on individuals pursuing dreams and living lives of their own choosing (even if Balzac was at times criticizing the way this liberal society was going and the choices some were making).* * *
posted by gbarto at 7:19 PM:
One note in the midst of the Enron fallout, and now the latest Tyco mess: In the era of reg FD, how are companies supposed to gradually let the air out of their stock? Holman Jenkins mentioned this in the WSJ, but there's one other problem lurking in the mess, namely shareholder lawsuits. These are a little less widely reported than last season, but it seems companies are nonetheless damned if they do, damned if they don't. When a stock gets run up and it turns out that it really shouldn't have been - not because the CEO was a fraud or the accountants lied, but because the CEO was as overly optimistic as the market - there needs to be a way for everyone to acknowledge their collective stupidity without a sacrificial lamb to help us all pretend that the markets are risk-free and investors don't need to think through where they're investing.If anyone has a refutation, they can pass along how I can sue Cisco.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 7:09 PM:
Late note on the Super Bowl: Yay Patriots!Though the Rabbit is correct that games in the snow are more interesting.
* * *
French Elections, 1st round
Second round special page
Second Round Results Map
The TurkeyBlog main page contains only the 20 most recent entries.
To go further back, check the archive in the right hand bar.
