Wednesday, November 26, 2008

A primer on the economy

Anyone like me, whose mind glazes over in trying to understand what has happened to our economy, could do no better than to read the clear and concise series on The Depression and on Deregulation by my friend Michey Nardo on his blog at http://1boringoldman.com/

I gleaned a couple of lessons from thinking about this:

1. Any system that lets people get rich by investing in loss is ultimately going to fail. It should be self-evident: if you can get rich by investing in others’ loss without taking any risk yourself, then it’s going to encourage loss in the system rather than success.

2. The ultimate result of deregulation and de-firewall-ization is the creation of financial institutions that become “too big to fail.” Then the taxpayers have to bail them out in order to keep the whole economy from collapsing (i.e., where we are now). Without these enabling measures, the market would punish smaller lenders when they take too much risk, some small institutions would fail, and others would learn the lesson

Instead, the loss-swap measures and the conglomeration of financial institutions kept the market from working to self-correct. I’m not advocating total free markets, like Ayn Rand does, because I think that ignores humanistic values that a humane society wants to insure.

Instead of a really free market or an effectively managed economy, we created a hybrid monster that pretended to be freeing up the markets, while also protecting them both from regulation and from self-correcting forces that would operate in a real free market.

So both governmental regulation and free-market self-correction were eliminated, while encouraging rampant piling up of "assets" that had no real value, only trading value.

I don’t need a PhD in economics to know that’s a formula for ultimate disaster.

Ralph

Monday, November 24, 2008

Humor for the Holidays, and Obama the Buddhist

With Thanksgiving coming up, I decided to forego my usual rant and just pass along two long pieces - one a humor wrap-up from late night TV, the other a discussion of Obama from a Buddhist perspective.

"Pres-elect Obama's looking for a new White House dog. The search is on.
He's spent more time selecting a dog than McCain did selecting a running
mate."
- Jay Leno


"Pres-elect Obama met w/ former political rival McCain.
Both men said it's a relief to put their differences aside, sit down, &
make fun of Palin."
- Conan O'Brien


"According to the NY Post, Palin may appear in the season finale of
Desperate Housewives.
Palin said she's seen the show several times, which qualifies her as an
actress."
- Jay Leno


"Sen. McCain & Pres-elect Obama met, got together & had a nice visit.
Obama thanked McCain for choosing that nutty Alaskan chick.
And Obama said to McCain, 'I'm catching up with you. I just got a 2nd
home.'"
- David Letterman


"Obama agreed to sit down & talk to McCain without preconditions.
When Palin heard about McCain meeting w/ Obama, she accused McCain of
palling around w/ terrorists."
- Jay Leno


"There was a big meeting today btwn. Vice Pres-elect Biden & Vice Pres.
Cheney, or as they're calling it, plugged hair meets plugged arteries.
That does seem cruel.
I prefer to call them foot-in-mouth meets shoot-in-face."
- Jay Leno


"Cheney gave Biden tour of the vice president's living quarters.
Biden said he loves the house, & he'll probably turn the dungeon back
into a rec room."
- Conan O'Brien


"According to MSNBC, Palin could get $7 million when she signs her book
deal.
You know who's really excited about this? Neiman Marcus."
- Jay Leno


"Rumor is that General Motors will run out of money soon, unless the
govt. helps them w/ a bailout.
Isn't that amazing?
All those times a car salesman told you he was losing money on the deal,
he wasn't lying."
- Jay Leno


"Pres-elect Obama's meeting every day w/ his transition team, or in
Beltway lingo, his trannies.
They're helping him pick who'll be in his new govt.
7,000 presidential appts. are up for grabs. The Obama administration's
making history again, by being the only place in America that's
currently hiring."
- Stephen Colbert



THE MINDFUL CANDIDATE
Seeing Barack Obama's historic campaign in a Buddhist light

NASH SIAMWALLA
Barack Obama himself stressed throughout his campaign that he himself was not perfect and that he expected to make mistakes as president. This is a fundamental understanding of human nature and of dhamma.

It is my belief that Barack Obama's successful presidential campaign, which was based on the concept of "change we can believe in," and its underlying message are synonymous with Buddhist self-transformation. In Buddhism, people who are transformed become selfless and dedicated to serving others. This is what many people felt when they watched the broadcast of Obama giving his somber, determined victory speech in Chicago on election night. Something in the back of our minds said that we were witnessing history, and that we seemed to have arrived at the dawn of another chapter in a more principled humanity. In the candidate himself, there is a powerful lesson that we can learn from. It is not just for politicians who dream of running a successful campaign=2 0and a landslide victory; the lesson is equally valuable for the rest of us. It would be ideal, though, if the world's politicians could learn the underlying message that Obama delivers, and the values that drove him and shaped his character. As we now know, the global following of Obama's campaign was unprecedented. The American press attributed it to their country's position as the leader of the consumer economy: whatever America decides, the repercussions will be felt by the world. This is straightforward enough, but Lord Buddha also taught that every being and phenomenon in this world is interconnected, hence the need for us to always have good will and act accordingly towards one another for continuous peaceful co-existence. But in addition to that, a Buddhist view offers another explanation for the Obama phenomenon; it was not merely the result of economic dependence on America. For those who believe that what are important in this world are power and money, we beg you to consider the following facts and think again, as there are more profound things that Obama offers. Let's first admit, there was something about Obama that we were drawn to, and it was not just his charisma or his inspired oratory. What was it? Mindful candidates always stand out Looking at Obama's historic campaign, what strikes us most is how consistently mindful this candidate has been. By mindfulness, Buddhism refers to the ability to be totally aware of the nature of things as they are, in the present moment, without pre-formed judgment or emotional partiality. Obama, as we saw, was always able to remain calm and composed in any situation. He was always mindful of his thoughts, his words and his deeds. He never showed hate or anger. The only time he allowed himself to show his human side is only when he talked passionately about the well-being of his family. Even when the political process got heated with the opponent's campaign throwing aggressive comments at him, Obama refused to retaliate in a similar manner. Repeatedly, he made it clear he would not take, in his own words, "the low road." Mindfulness leads to clean politics By being constantly mindful, Obama was able to look at issues objectively. The result is a proof that human beings feel more comfortable with objectivity than with mud-slinging, name-calling politics. For example, Obama preferred to refer to the current problems as resulting from "failed policies" rather than "failed individuals." This brings to mind a Christian saying, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." Buddhism has a similar teaching which encourages us to address the mental defilements as separate, conquerable entities from beings, who, in fact, suffer from unknowingly harbouring such defilements. Obama also went out of his way to show his constant respect for fellow human beings, even when he has been the target of disappointing or harmful words and actions by some of them. In other words, we know that he values forgiveness and unity because he actually practices them. Accepting the congratulatory phone call from McCain, Obama was able to say, "I need your help. You are such a great leader in many areas." Obama also praised McCain for waging such a tough campaign, and he did not lie: McCain did deliver a tough campaign, which probably forced Obama to try harder to sharpen his own thinking. McCain must have felt exactly the same. McCain's sincere, heartfelt and gracious concession speech on election night, despite more than a year of gruelling campaigning as a political foe, is a testament to how Obama's mindful leadership and humility won over McCain's tough, war-veteran heart. Obama's values in a Buddhist perspective Obama was able to achieve this formidable feat simply because he believed in the virtues and capability of every human. How could a politician achieve such an ethical outcome? From a Buddhist point of view, it is because Obama has a firm grasp on the fundamentals of dhamma, the nature of things, as well as karma, the law of cause and effect of action. Obama himself stressed throughout his campaign that he himself was not perfect and that he expected to make mistakes as president. This is a fundamental understanding of human nature and of dhamma. And how did he plan to address this common-man drawback? In Obama's=2 0own words: by being humble and listening to advice and criticism of others. Humility is another admirable trait of this mindful candidate, stemming from his encompassing awareness of how things are. For example, in his victory speech, Obama appeared somber rather than self-satisfied, arrogant and triumphalist. He told the hyped-up Democrat crowd that they should accept this victory humbly, especially so because he simply followed the footsteps of one great Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. That reference to Lincoln alone is enough to make people realise that what really matters is the shared humanitarian values and not antagonistic divisions along party lines. Another important aspect we can learn from Obama's campaign is how he could inspire people. He could easily have taken advantage of the poor condition of the US economy to rev up the negative emotions of the crowd towards the current US administration, but he refused to do so. Instead, he inspired people to sacrifice themselves, to do more together and for each other so that they all would be lifted out of this troubled time together, Democrats or otherwise. This is the understanding of the law of karma. Everything in life is related to what we do now in the present moment. Lamenting and blaming each other for things past would not help us out of current suffering. The American press also gave Obama lavish praise regarding his steadfast refusal to run a "negative campaign" agai nst his opponents, even sometimes at his own cost. Lesson learned: mindful leaders who set their minds solely on the benefits of the people sacrifice themselves and bravely sustain the low blows while continuing to hold on firmly, never losing sight of their original purpose. Obama's call is not just idealistic, but an earnest call for action. By performing good deeds, good karma, together for society, Obama believes that good effects would naturally follow. What breeds mindful leaders? How could a relatively young presidential candidate have so much wisdom on life? A wisdom, we may add, that is usually associated with respected old sages. Looking at his formative years through a Buddhist lens, we understand why. Despite growing up with a loving family, Obama has experienced hardship at first hand. There were times when his mother had to rely on food stamps to feed the family. Obama himself recalled in a voice stirred with emotion how she had to spend the last few months of her life studying health insurance forms to make sure her medical expenses were covered. This is why the young Obama is so driven to provide affordable healthcare to all. Hardship, or, in Buddhist terms, suffering, apparently drove Obama to strive to work hard in all areas for the underprivileged. He apparently turned down offers from prestigious law firms and to go into politics because he wanted to work for the benefit of others rather than for himself. 0A In Buddhism, understanding suffering is the first requirement towards acquiring wisdom. Having goodwill to all and living life to serve others mindfully is integral to Buddhist Enlightenment. In Thailand, HM the King exemplifies such virtues. Elsewhere, Mahatma Gandhi gives us the example. Want to be like Obama? It's not beyond our human capacity. To be able to achieve this level of maha sati, Great Mindfulness, Buddhism prescribes vipassana practice with a detailed step-by-step guidance for anyone who cares to learn. Mindful leaders are transformational leaders Academically, Obama's type of leadership is known as transformational leadership. It is when the leader and followers inspire each other to rise to a higher moral level by sacrificing themselves for society, for a cause higher than themselves. In practice, transformational leaders are mindful people who transform themselves before going on to transform the life of others. By being constantly mindful, research shows that transformational leaders function better than other leadership models in time of change or crisis. The author had the privilege of being at Harvard Law School at the same time as Barack Obama, although Obama was a year ahead and we were in different programmes. We might have occupied adjacent cubicles in the library or even taken the same international law classes together. Certainly, we went through similar "suffering" for a period of time. Gruelling study aside, the author also recalled how classes were cancelled as students staged sit-in protests, demanding that a tenure position be given to an African-American female faculty. It was a cause Obama was known to support. Although we do not have evidence if Obama indeed had some mindfulness training at Harvard Law, we do know that mindfulness meditation is now a regular fixture at the school. The initial workshop was so successful it has grown into a full-fledged programme called Harvard Negotiation Insight Initiative, aiming, among others, to train people to listen mindfully to others, which is doubtlessly the required basis of successful negotiations. If a predominantly Christian country can incorporate this Buddhist wisdom into its top law school's curriculum and in effect producing great leaders, so can we. Yes, we can. (Sorry, couldn't resist it!) Wakeup call for world leaders It may seem incredible that a person with such a humble beginning as Obama could have made it this far. Yet, when looking through the lens of Buddhism, it should not come as a surprise. This is a mindful and humble candidate with a deep understanding of dhamma running a thoughtful and honourable campaign, encouraging people to be selfless and join forces to create good karma for the purpose of lifting others out of suffering. It is precisely because of this that people all over the world were drawn to this campaign. It is not only about the economy, but also because the human mind responds naturally to inspiring virtue. The world cannot have enough of transformational leaders. Mindfulness, non-aggression, the understanding of true nature of things, recognition of the Buddha-nature in every human and tangible, action-based selflessness for the benefit of others, the campaign could not have been more Zen-like than this. As a Buddhist country, we should be happy to see mindfulness in action on a global scale, and Obama's embodiment of Buddhist values should be a wakeup call to us. A mindful candidate can surely achieve great things for society. This, inevitably, brings us to ask ourselves if this kind of clean, honourable campaign and mindful, selfless and focussed politician who enters politics to serve others is too much to ask for in a traditional Buddhist country like ours. Where and how should we start? How about some wise words from Obama himself as quoted in Time magazine, "We need to start over," he said, "speak gently, listen carefully, find solutions and keep our words." Mindful advice is always context-free. Surely, Obama's insightful advice can be applied everywhere and anywhere, not just to the current American political and economical mess. The answer depends on how soon we could say, "Yes, we can!" To make sure we reach that day sooner than later, perhaps it would help to at least mindfully refrain ourselves from the usual politics of, "No, we20can't!" The author is currently writing a dissertation on the role of mindfulness in transformational leadership development. Questions, comments and recommendations are welcome at http://zen-sense.blogspot.com

HolyJoe's diminishment

As our readers know from my past blogs, I have an intense dislike of Joe Lieberman. One reason is his sanctimoniousness; hence, "HolyJoe."

I was outraged that the Senate Dems let him keep his chairmanship of Homeland Security, which I saw as kowtowing to HolyJoe's threat to have a temper tantrum and go join the Repubs if they didn't. I know the importance of the 6o vote filibuster-proof majority; but my rage was such that I was willing to let that go. Call his bluff. Just say No, and force him to decide if he really wants to join the losing side.

Yes, I know that Obama let it be known that he wanted HolyJoe to stay in the Dem Caucus, altho he didn't say (at least not publicly) that he should be allowed to keep his chair. I had about come to terms with that, thinking that Obama is a bigger man than I am and, quite properly, more interested in getting his agenda passed than in racking up vengeance.

A blog by Bob Cesca on Huffington Post a couple of days ago gave me a new perspective on it, however. He excoriates HolyJoe for his negative campaigning against Obama, especially questioning his patriotism. To me, that was unforgivable.

But then Cesca addresses HolyJoe directly, saying "you think you got away with it, right?":

Not so fast.

I submit to you, Senator Lieberman, that you were punished yesterday more than you realize. . .

In sharp contrast to your behavior, President-elect Obama hasn't shown any predilection for pettiness or disloyalty, nor has he undermined his allies for the sake of political expedience. He's proved himself to be a man of great character. . . .

You, on the other hand, have shown an unapologetic contempt for the party that once nominated you for the vice presidency -- . . . . You've betrayed your fellow liberals to settle a political score, Senator. . . .

This is behavior President-elect Obama doesn't appear to be capable of. Because he's clearly better than you. In fact, it's not difficult to hypothesize that had you possessed a fraction of his political instincts or any small measure of his morality, you would absolutely not be in this position, Senator.

See, by allowing you to keep your precious chairmanship -- by letting you off the hook -- President-elect Obama, through his political bigness, punished you without punishing you. He beat you yesterday, Senator. He beat you because he let you be you, and underscored it with his demonstrably better angels and strength of character.

In the final analysis, the hard reality is that by not choosing retribution, he made you look...

...small.

And that, Senator, is good enough for me.

Cheers!
Bob Cesca

Now that almost makes it tolerable for me. When you add that this also gives the Dems the upper hand for making demands on him for votes or for actually doing something useful with his committee -- maybe it is tolerable. Just as long as they keep him away from TV cameras. I don't want to have to look at HolyJoe's kewpie doll face ever again.

Ralph

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Stop Blaming the Unions

Predictably, the right wingers are blaming workers, not management for the US auto industry problems. The problem with that is that it isn't true.

The Detroit Free press ran this article disputing the allegation that unioin wages are out of line for American carmakers.


The UAW is losing its edge in pay compared with non-unionized U.S. assembly plant workers for foreign companies, even as Detroit automakers aim for deeper benefit cuts to trim their losses.

In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies.

In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year. Toyota would not provide a U.S. average, but said its 7,000-worker Georgetown plant is representative of its U.S. operations.

Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. are not far behind Toyota and UAW pay levels. Comparable wages have long been one way foreign companies fight off UAW organizing efforts.

But Toyota workers' pay topping that of UAW members comes as the union faces contract negotiations this year with struggling Detroit companies that will seek billions in concessions, partly because they face higher costs for retiree health care and pensions than their foreign-owned competitors.

Who's to blame?

UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel said if Toyota workers were paid more than union workers last year, the blame lies with Detroit's auto executives. The companies have lost market share because of past mistakes, which have translated into fewer bonuses for workers, said Casteel, who is on the union's executive board.

"Our profit-sharing formula, I know, is better than theirs -- if our vehicles are selling," Casteel said.

Ron Lare, a 59-year-old Ford employee on pre-retirement leave, said Toyota workers shouldn't get too excited about their wages because bonuses fluctuate. The only thing consistent, Lare said, is union protection.

"The floor beneath their feet is basically what the UAW has won," said Lare of Detroit, who has worked at Ford for 28 1/2 years. "If the UAW gets beaten down, their pay is going to come down. You let there be a real recession in the auto industry -- that bonus won't be there for Toyota, either."

Union perks vs. nonunion perks

The pay comparisons reflect the relative profitability of the foreign and domestic companies more than shortcomings of the UAW. But the situation chips at the argument that workers united in solidarity can get better wages, benefits and job security -- especially as the UAW shrinks and growing foreign companies continue to ward off organizing efforts.

"How do you convince someone you're better off with the protection of a union when they're making more money than the union employee?" asked Alfred McLean, a 66-year-old hourly UAW member at General Motors Corp.'s Warren Tech Center. He has 28 years of experience.

Workers for foreign automakers don't pay union dues, but they do share the costs of insurance and retirement plans. UAW-represented autoworkers get health insurance and a full pension after 30 years -- valuable perks they will fight to keep during contract negotiations this year.

But even accounting for Toyota employees' health care spending -- $700 per year on average, according to the company -- the Georgetown workers still made more in 2006.

General Motors Corp., which lost $10.6 billion in 2005 and didn't issue profit-sharing checks last year, paid its production workers an average of $27 an hour, GM spokesman Daniel Flores said. That would be a base of about $54,000 a year, based on a 2,000-hour work year. The $30 average at Toyota's Georgetown plant, which includes a bonus, equals $60,000 a year.

Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group representatives said GM's base pay figures are similar to theirs. Only Chrysler, which had a 2005 profit, paid a bonus last year. The $650 bonus was not enough to surpass Toyota's pay.


For years consumers have been asking for fuel efficient vehicles. What has been the response from US carmakers? Build more trucks and SUVs because the profit margin is larger. Unfortunately management failed to provide American consumers with the high mileage vehicles they wanted- which is why Toyota and Honda sold out in the US.


But American carmakers did build them for Europe.

Here are some links to wonderful, fuel efficient cars GM is building in Europe. These would've sold in the US.


http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/european-car-of-the-year-goes-to-general-motors/

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/07/gms-new-europea.html

So enough of the BS about union wages destroying the car industry.


I sail bail out the carmakers - only if their entire management teams step down, or agree to work for free until profitability is restored.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Out with the old -- an update

Well, yes, out with the old Bush administration, in with Obama's team. But there's the rub. By offering Hillary the Secretary of State position (if Bill gets a clean bill), Obama is flirting with keeping too much of the old.

The old team of rivals idea is great, and some say bringing in Hillary shows Obama's confidence that he can still be in charge. With anyone else, I'd agree. But Bill and Hillary are in another class altogether when it comes to dramatically using the media to stir up controversy and cause trouble.

But SoS would put her as the administration's leading voice and policy person in the very area in which they differed most in the primaries. Not only on the Iraq war but in her more hawkish position vis a vis meeting with our enemies and her hardline stance generally internationally. Disagree in private, yes. But will she then be a team player and accept his decisions? Or will she undermine him and subtly push her own views.

But even that concerns me less than the Clintons' affinity for drama and for using the media to promote their view and undermine the administration. And if (when) that happens, it would be a huge political risk for Obama to fire her. That's scenario is playing out even now. Look how they're talking to the media, making it seem inevitable even before Bill has been vetted, thus making it difficult for Obama not to give it to her.

Maybe it's worth it. In some ways, it would be brilliant. And I guess if Obama can forgive her for the primary negativity, I can. But I worry about her and Bill being able to accept being #2.

Ralph

Monday, November 17, 2008

Hillary for Sec. of State??

My first reaction to news that Obama had offered the Secretary of State position to Hillary Clinton was negative. He's already surrounding himself with more people from the Clinton administration than seems consistent with "change." And then there's the over-riding problem of Bill -- his larger than life presence, his foundation contributors, and most troubling of all some of his financial dealings with important figures in other countries that might prove to be conflicts of interest with his wife as SoS (like the Khazakhstan uranium deal, or one with a Chinese internet company, and contributions to his library from several middle east Arab governments).

On the other hand, choosing Hillary suggests that Obama is not afraid of strong opposing voices in his cabinet -- in fact, he is embracing Lincoln's idea of a "team of rivals," in which he brought his political enemies into the cabinet. The Clinton name would definitely be an asset internationally, and Hillary would probably do a great job rebuilding our reputation.

On yet another hand, the messy, barely competent way her campaign was run does not bode well for Hillary as the administrator of the huge State Department organization, which is said to be rather demoralized after eight years of political ideology trumping career service.

Then there is the matter of Hillary's hawkish stance on the Iraq war. How well would that mesh with Obama's diplomacy and withdrawal stance?

Aside from the merits of the appointment (Kissinger has called it "outstanding"), how does it play out politically? Hillary supporters would be delighted. But what about Obama's netroot supporters, for whom Hillary is still something of a pariah after her negative campaign against him?

And what's in it for Hillary? She's still too junior in the Senate for a major committee chairmanship, and she's not likely to become majority leader in the foreseeable future. Ted Kennedy turned down her request for a new subcommittee on health care, which would have shifted the leadership on that issue from him to her. Although she's said she just wants to be the best senator for the people of NY, will she be satisfied to end her political career there? If she has any idea of another run for president, might SoS be a better launching platform for 2016 than the Senate? Obama may not be thinking this way, but if things don't go well for him in the next 4 years, it would make it more difficult for her to run against him in 2012 if she has a major cabinet position.

I'm puzzled by the undenied reports that Obama has offered it to her and that she asked for time to consider it -- alongside reports that he's also interviewing Bill Richardson. Now I read online that Richardson was interviewed on Friday, which is definitely after the leaks that Obama had offered it to Hillary. That seems strange. Either he didn't offer it yet but just discussed it, or maybe they both know she can't take it (because of Bill) and the offer is a gesture.

I'm eager to see how this plays out. I'm ambivalent about it myself, seeing both positive and negative factors.

Ralph

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Obama's First Mistake

I hope Howard Dean will have an important role in the Obama Administration, otherwise it's a big mistake not to reappoint him to lead the DNC. Without Dean's visionary ideas about politics, Obama would never have been elected. Dean was the first candidate to develop a plan for recruitng volunteers and raising money via the internet. He was the architect of the 50-state strategy, which most Democrats fought.

I don't know where we're headed in future elections, but I would hate to see a visionary removed from a position where he can guide the party where it needs to go. Especially if the pundits are right, Obama wants to replace him with Claire McCaskill of Missouri - a move which harkens back to the traditional notion of appointing people who might win you a state you lost.

Here's hoping Dean is stepping down to lead the push for National Health Care, and not just leaving as part of a traditional political shuffle.