5/30/08
On CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning, kindred spirit Mark Haines, who, like yours truly, has watched the financial markets, and generally been around, a long time and thus usually has the presence and the knowledge to step back and call nonsense what it is, was discussing the issue of the economic books’ being cooked, if you will. For example, a few weeks ago, we were told that the price of gasoline was down in April because of the idiosyncrasies of seasonal adjustment. This morning, we were told that inflation was well under control as measured by the personal consumption expenditures index. I’ve written on government statistics, especially the inflation statistics, on numerous occasions. The gist of my argument is that the books must be being cooked because of the government’s tremendous conflict of interest that arises from its both measuring inflation (in this case the CPI) and being on the hook to social security recipients for the adjustments to their checks for those very same CPI numbers. A less quantitatively tremendous conflict arises from the government’s measurement of the CPI and its having to adjust the principal value of its Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (“TIPS,” which are currently, and have been for some time, my favorite investment, but that is another topic). My conclusion is that either the government is cooking the books or that those who come up with such whoppers as a currently relatively stable CPI and the Wall Street wunderkinds who so glibly depend on those fantasies are so insulated from the real world that they haven’t the slightest hope for accuracy in generating such quantitative fairy tales. For example, if “transportation” means getting around New York or Washington in a price controlled cab and “food” meant eating in restaurants at which the actual price of the food itself is an almost immeasurable percentage of the cost of the “dining experience,” well, then, I guess that one could say with a straight face that the prices of gasoline and food don’t really matter and that, therefore, inflation is under control as long as the prices of, say, jewelry, luxury cars, and yachts remain stable, but I digress.
However, this entry is not about the substance of the discussion Mr. Haines was having with economists Steve Liesman and Michele Girard (both of whom I respect), another economist whose name I didn’t catch, and his co-host, the comely, witty, and well informed Erin Burnett. What made me want to stand up and cheer for Mark Haines was his rhetorical question in response to Ms. Burnett’s, and the other panelists’, contention that he is a curmudgeon:
“Why is it that when I get fed up with stupidity, I’m a curmudgeon?”
This statement so perfectly encapsulates my approach to life that even I, with all my skills with the written and spoken word, could not possibly improve on it.
Mr. Haines went on to utter a statement only slightly less profound:
“Standing up and saying something makes no sense is not curmudgeonly, it’s common sensical.” (sic)
As someone who still trades relatively actively, I am tuned into CNBC, albeit usually with the sound muted, throughout the day and, like most watchers, have come to, in a sense, know and like many of the hosts on its shows. (They are, by the way, quite an accomplished lot with, in most cases, considerable experience and genuinely useful books under figuratively under their belts. While one can see, judging from the appearance of most of the hosts (Messrs. Haines and Liesman excluded) how people can argue that one gets a job on CNBC from physical attractiveness alone, a look at the background of its on the air personnel quickly dispels that notion. But I digress.) I have, except for years ago when I first started watching CNBC (and was much younger), always liked the way Mr. Haines thinks. I’ve always gotten the sense that his approach to nonsense and snake oil was similar to mine. I also have long had the idea that his frustration with cheerleading and groundless, gormless optimism passing for thought and insight was, like mine, growing on a daily basis. But his observations today were so perfect that I felt compelled to break my long absence from these pages to draw your attention to them.
One more thing: I don’t mind being tagged with monikers like “curmudgeon” and don’t even mind “misanthrope” occasionally, even when such descriptives not preceded by adjectives like “lovable.” I take them as badges of honor in today’s world that is characterized mostly by silliness and idiocy being accepted, indeed celebrated, as long as enough people engage in such silliness and idiocy I suspect, but have no means of knowing, that Mr. Haines feels the same way.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A CURMUDGEONLY COMMENT ON ONE OF MY FAVORITE SUBJECTS
5/11/08
Below is a letter I sent to Jim Mateja at the Chicago Tribune, one of the nation’s foremost auto writers. The original letter from P.O. in Montgomery, IL can be found at Tribune.com. I rarely comment on cars or the car business in the Insightful Pontificator. Both were popular subjects in the IP’s progenitors, the Insightful Weekly Commentary and the Insightful Irregular Commentary, and are missed by many of the readers of those seminal publications. So, when I get the chance, I like to comment on what remain two of my favorite subjects.
I know that automatic transmissions are convenient and easy and can sometimes make sense if one drives in heavy traffic regularly (With today’s soft clutches and easy throw shifters, however, the latter argument has largely been rendered moot.), but until my left leg is no longer functional or they stop making real transmissions, I will drive a manual, thank you:
5/11/08
Hi Jim,
I haven’t written in awhile, but you had to know you’d hear from me in response to today’s letter from P.O. in Montgomery.
Who would buy a Cadillac without automatic? Anyone who likes to drive, rather than merely steer or, given the way people drive today, aim a car would not only buy, but insist on, a Cadillac, or any car, with a manual transmission.
Apparently, however, there aren’t many of us who still like to drive, rather than pretend we are driving. While the standard transmission in the Cadillac CTS, which advertises itself as a domestic alternative to European sports sedans, is indeed a 6 speed manual (a real manual with a clutch, not one with “F1 type” buttons on the rear of the wheel so yuppies can fantasize about taking laps at Monte Carlo while they negotiate Grosse Pointe Road), finding a CTS with such a transmission on a dealer lot is akin to finding an honest man who has chosen a career in politics. To be fair to Cadillac, it is almost as hard to find a BMW or an Audi sedan with a driver’s transmission. Unfortunately, driving seems to have taken a back seat to yakking on the celphone, eating, watching “nav” screens, preening, or the myriad other activities people find compelled to do in their cars, so the manual has gone the way of the Oldsmobile.
Thanks, Jim.
Mark Quinn
Naperville
Below is a letter I sent to Jim Mateja at the Chicago Tribune, one of the nation’s foremost auto writers. The original letter from P.O. in Montgomery, IL can be found at Tribune.com. I rarely comment on cars or the car business in the Insightful Pontificator. Both were popular subjects in the IP’s progenitors, the Insightful Weekly Commentary and the Insightful Irregular Commentary, and are missed by many of the readers of those seminal publications. So, when I get the chance, I like to comment on what remain two of my favorite subjects.
I know that automatic transmissions are convenient and easy and can sometimes make sense if one drives in heavy traffic regularly (With today’s soft clutches and easy throw shifters, however, the latter argument has largely been rendered moot.), but until my left leg is no longer functional or they stop making real transmissions, I will drive a manual, thank you:
5/11/08
Hi Jim,
I haven’t written in awhile, but you had to know you’d hear from me in response to today’s letter from P.O. in Montgomery.
Who would buy a Cadillac without automatic? Anyone who likes to drive, rather than merely steer or, given the way people drive today, aim a car would not only buy, but insist on, a Cadillac, or any car, with a manual transmission.
Apparently, however, there aren’t many of us who still like to drive, rather than pretend we are driving. While the standard transmission in the Cadillac CTS, which advertises itself as a domestic alternative to European sports sedans, is indeed a 6 speed manual (a real manual with a clutch, not one with “F1 type” buttons on the rear of the wheel so yuppies can fantasize about taking laps at Monte Carlo while they negotiate Grosse Pointe Road), finding a CTS with such a transmission on a dealer lot is akin to finding an honest man who has chosen a career in politics. To be fair to Cadillac, it is almost as hard to find a BMW or an Audi sedan with a driver’s transmission. Unfortunately, driving seems to have taken a back seat to yakking on the celphone, eating, watching “nav” screens, preening, or the myriad other activities people find compelled to do in their cars, so the manual has gone the way of the Oldsmobile.
Thanks, Jim.
Mark Quinn
Naperville
Friday, May 9, 2008
NOBODY HERE BUT US RUTABAGAS
5/9/08
Page A2 of today’s Wall Street Journal was headlined by another article making the seemingly anodyne argument that recent leaps in the prices of food and fuel are not inflationary because they are demand driven, the result of market fundamentals.
The layperson might say that whether the highbrows on Wall Street want to call this inflation or whether they want to call it Clyde, the prices of most things, and certainly those of the things that we buy most frequently, are going up, and hence the pain is real. This is perhaps the most legitimate and compelling argument against yet another apparently eupeptic contention from a myopic Wall Street that seems fatuous when examined the light of the logic of Main Street.
A slightly more sophisticated argument might contend that, yes, increases in the prices of food and fuel might will not lead to a generalized inflation (just a generalized recession…or worse) unless those increases are monetized by the Fed because, after all, as Professor Friedman argued, inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. But there is little doubt that the Fed is indeed monetizing the increasing prices of food and fuel, whether or not that is the stated reason for such monetization. Whether one looks at the bargain basement fed funds rate, the rapid growth in MZM, the weakness in the FX value of the dollar, or the price of gold, one cannot help but conclude that the Fed is indeed monetizing surging food and fuel prices and the consequence can only be generalized inflation.
Page A2 of today’s Wall Street Journal was headlined by another article making the seemingly anodyne argument that recent leaps in the prices of food and fuel are not inflationary because they are demand driven, the result of market fundamentals.
The layperson might say that whether the highbrows on Wall Street want to call this inflation or whether they want to call it Clyde, the prices of most things, and certainly those of the things that we buy most frequently, are going up, and hence the pain is real. This is perhaps the most legitimate and compelling argument against yet another apparently eupeptic contention from a myopic Wall Street that seems fatuous when examined the light of the logic of Main Street.
A slightly more sophisticated argument might contend that, yes, increases in the prices of food and fuel might will not lead to a generalized inflation (just a generalized recession…or worse) unless those increases are monetized by the Fed because, after all, as Professor Friedman argued, inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. But there is little doubt that the Fed is indeed monetizing the increasing prices of food and fuel, whether or not that is the stated reason for such monetization. Whether one looks at the bargain basement fed funds rate, the rapid growth in MZM, the weakness in the FX value of the dollar, or the price of gold, one cannot help but conclude that the Fed is indeed monetizing surging food and fuel prices and the consequence can only be generalized inflation.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
COTTON CANDY FOR THE MIND
5/7/08
Below is a letter I sent to our local paper, the Naperville Sun:
5/7/08
Page 3 of today’s Sun listed “Five Things You Need to Know Today.” Three items dealt with celebrity gossip, one with the death of the co-founder of Basking-Robbins, and the last one with the withdrawal of 3,500 American troops from Iraq. Not listed on the need to know list were the assumption of the Russian presidency by Dmitry Medvedev, the aftermath of the cyclone in Myanmar, food riots in Somalia, the disruption of Nigerian oil supplies by fighting between the Lagos government and rebels, or even the results of yesterday’s primary elections.
Assuming that the “Five Things You Need to Know Today” column is not a joke, this startled reader is left with two questions and an observation:
· Precisely why do I need to know about the engagement of Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson, the conviction of Uma Thurman’s stalker, or Vanessa Williams’s finally getting a college degree?
· While I have some vague idea who Uma Thurman and Vanessa Williams are (one of the stars of “Pulp Fiction,” a passable movie by modern standards, and a former Miss America whose role in some racy pictures led to her immediate demise and ultimate success, right?), who in the world are Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson, and why should I, or anyone outside their immediate circles of friends and families, give a rat’s hindquarters?
· The next time you hear some head in the sand chest thumper tell us that the American people are the most enlightened and best educated in the world, fully prepared for self-government, and that our best days are ahead of us, remember what is considered vital, need to know, news.
Mark Quinn
Naperville
Below is a letter I sent to our local paper, the Naperville Sun:
5/7/08
Page 3 of today’s Sun listed “Five Things You Need to Know Today.” Three items dealt with celebrity gossip, one with the death of the co-founder of Basking-Robbins, and the last one with the withdrawal of 3,500 American troops from Iraq. Not listed on the need to know list were the assumption of the Russian presidency by Dmitry Medvedev, the aftermath of the cyclone in Myanmar, food riots in Somalia, the disruption of Nigerian oil supplies by fighting between the Lagos government and rebels, or even the results of yesterday’s primary elections.
Assuming that the “Five Things You Need to Know Today” column is not a joke, this startled reader is left with two questions and an observation:
· Precisely why do I need to know about the engagement of Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson, the conviction of Uma Thurman’s stalker, or Vanessa Williams’s finally getting a college degree?
· While I have some vague idea who Uma Thurman and Vanessa Williams are (one of the stars of “Pulp Fiction,” a passable movie by modern standards, and a former Miss America whose role in some racy pictures led to her immediate demise and ultimate success, right?), who in the world are Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson, and why should I, or anyone outside their immediate circles of friends and families, give a rat’s hindquarters?
· The next time you hear some head in the sand chest thumper tell us that the American people are the most enlightened and best educated in the world, fully prepared for self-government, and that our best days are ahead of us, remember what is considered vital, need to know, news.
Mark Quinn
Naperville
Monday, May 5, 2008
“EDUCATION IS THE THING THAT YOU NEED TO COMPETE, ‘CUZ WITHOUT IT, SON, LIFE AIN’T TOO SWEET”
Below is a letter I sent to the Chicago Sun-Times on a topic that is among the nearest and dearest to my heart:
5/5/08
It is a reflection of our times that the 5/5/08 Sun-Times article on the value of a college education focused on the economic value of such matriculation. Fortunately, the Sun-Times chose as its lead example in the article a young man who truly understands that education transcends the merely monetary; in reflecting on his college experience, recent Loyola graduate Karnell Black said “I expanded my knowledge about the world, I found my calling.” Fortunately for young Mr. Black, and for our society, at least the Jesuits at Loyola continue to educate, rather than merely train, our nation’s young learners.
Career preparation is necessary, and indeed admirable. But we have gotten into the habit of calling what would have been called “apprenticeship” in a more enlightened time “education.” Education has to do not with job training, but with examination of the world and one’s self in the context of that world. Education, properly understood, is designed to prepare us for the burdens, long seemingly forgotten, that go with self-government on both the personal and societal levels. Education, as we used to say, has as its goal making the whole person, not merely manufacturing another cog in the economic machine.
In our modern mess of a world, in which solipsism is the dominant philosophy, life’s goals are enumerated in terms of dollars and cents, rap music, banausic “action” movies, and gormless situation comedies are considered high cultural achievements, and “awesome” is the only adjective anyone seems to know, it is easy to see why the Sun-Times fell into the trap of examining “education” almost solely on the basis of what going to school can do for one’s earning power. Further, as the holder of two of the most utilitarian degrees possible, a BS in Accountancy and an MBA, I perhaps am in no position to criticize our society’s inability to distinguish training from education. However, it is difficult to escape the notion that our society is somehow poorer for having lost the true meaning of education. One yearns for the days when scientia gratia scientiae was widely understood…in more ways than one.
Mark Quinn
Naperville
5/5/08
It is a reflection of our times that the 5/5/08 Sun-Times article on the value of a college education focused on the economic value of such matriculation. Fortunately, the Sun-Times chose as its lead example in the article a young man who truly understands that education transcends the merely monetary; in reflecting on his college experience, recent Loyola graduate Karnell Black said “I expanded my knowledge about the world, I found my calling.” Fortunately for young Mr. Black, and for our society, at least the Jesuits at Loyola continue to educate, rather than merely train, our nation’s young learners.
Career preparation is necessary, and indeed admirable. But we have gotten into the habit of calling what would have been called “apprenticeship” in a more enlightened time “education.” Education has to do not with job training, but with examination of the world and one’s self in the context of that world. Education, properly understood, is designed to prepare us for the burdens, long seemingly forgotten, that go with self-government on both the personal and societal levels. Education, as we used to say, has as its goal making the whole person, not merely manufacturing another cog in the economic machine.
In our modern mess of a world, in which solipsism is the dominant philosophy, life’s goals are enumerated in terms of dollars and cents, rap music, banausic “action” movies, and gormless situation comedies are considered high cultural achievements, and “awesome” is the only adjective anyone seems to know, it is easy to see why the Sun-Times fell into the trap of examining “education” almost solely on the basis of what going to school can do for one’s earning power. Further, as the holder of two of the most utilitarian degrees possible, a BS in Accountancy and an MBA, I perhaps am in no position to criticize our society’s inability to distinguish training from education. However, it is difficult to escape the notion that our society is somehow poorer for having lost the true meaning of education. One yearns for the days when scientia gratia scientiae was widely understood…in more ways than one.
Mark Quinn
Naperville
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
