Greg Smith and Goldman Sachs

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/15/148654762/when-a-normal-job-resignation-wont-do


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?pagewanted=all



To NPR Morning Edition:



As a loyal listener for almost a decade, I have never been more upset at your organization than after hearing the March 15th story on the Goldman Sachs whistle-blower Greg Smith. Chris Arnold portrayed Mr. Smith as some caricatured whack-job burn-out, who was fulfilling a selfish fantasy (that many of us share) of publicly flaming a former employer. He even dared to compare Mr. Smith to the infamous JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater, as well as a person who wrote his resignation letter in Cheese Whiz. Needless to say, Mr. Smith's situation bears absolutely zero resemblance.



This depiction is outrageous, and denigrates the brave and dignified actions of Mr. Smith. This is not NPR-worthy material, and you owe Mr. Smith and your listeners an apology. He is not doing this for 15 minutes of fame, or because he just "lost it" one bad day. I do not know Mr. Smith's background, but after reading his thoughtful letter to the New York Times, I believe that he has sincere love for the institution of Goldman Sachs, his peers/clients, and the important profession of financial advising, which is why he was so dismayed to watch his firm degenerate into the unfortunately all-too-typical paradigm of greedy, disrespectful Wall Street behavior that is anathema to its stated cultural values. If his allegations are accurate, the ramifications are profound.



Mr. Smith has nothing to gain from this bold action and much to lose. But I believe that his goal is to spread awareness, and get firms like Goldman Sachs to sober up and turn things around before it is too late. Goldman Sachs is too important of a global economic player to allow its ranks to engage in the type of dysfunctional behaviors described by Mr. Smith and others. It is bad for the firm, its clients, and society. I am sure that many Goldman Sachs business units are well respected, performing professionally, and delivering excellent customer service, but after several shocking revelations and a multimillion-dollar fine, the writing is on the wall that there is something fundamentally wrong at Goldman Sachs.



As we barely survived an historic financial crisis, and are just starting to dig ourselves out of the Great Recession, we can't afford to tolerate continued brazen financial services hubris, conflict of interest, and misconduct. That is what Mr. Smith was trying to advocate, and he should be commended for it, not mocked. Especially from a supposedly populist and progressive news organization like NPR.
 
---------
 
A good take on the Smith-Goldman controversy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/03/14/the-real-problem-at-goldman-sachs-you-the-muppet-client/




It's like the 1% vs. the 99%. A smart friend told me that we 99% are mostly to blame, because we continue to let the 1% abuse us. Maybe because we hope to join their ranks some day, or simply that we selfishly need them to put food on our table. But despite our structural disadvantages, we can and should be able to take down the 1% if we really wanted to. But we don't, because we're incredulous, ignorant, lazy, apathetic, selfish, scared, or something. Even the illiterate, unarmed peasants during the Russian and French revolutions took out their oppressive aristocrats. What is our problem?



Yes the Goldmans of the world are "bad" for abusing their position and scamming others. But we are also to blame for letting them get away with it. Even if they are protected by gov't forces and biased laws, we can crush them if we really want to - simply by taking our business elsewhere. But we are greedy too, and we entrust our wealth to them, even if we don't really trust them to put our interests first. I guess a Goldman that does us wrong now and then is still better than no Goldman to hold our hand and help us navigate the ridiculously complex world of modern finance that they helped create for their own advantage.

"We can live with a nuclear Iran"

Economist Daniel Kahneman's Nobel-winning cumulative prospect theory (or my crude interpretation of it): humans irrationally tend to overly fear unlikely events and "worst-case" losses, and will take unreasonable measures to avoid them




http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril_2012/features/we_can_live_with_a_nuclear_ira035772.php

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/daily-show-jon-stewart-takes-iran-war-drums-210908399.html



Isn't it funny that we only freak out about Iran's nuclear program during election years (McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran" and now the 3 GOP stooges talking tough)? The difference now is that Obama and others have convinced the UN to issue the toughest round of sanctions ever against Iran, but they are only a few months old. Yes Iran has made progress on its program since 2008 (though still years away from a functional bomb, and a primitive one at that), but their regime is weakened economically and due to heavier internal protests against their legitimacy. We and our proxies have also whacked some Iranian scientists and corrupted their computer systems, setting their program back a while.



During the recent AIPAC conference, Israeli leader Netanyahu was a broken record: "Imagine an Iranian ICBM heading towards a US city." Well Iran doesn't have ICBMs, and won't for several years at least. If they're lucky, their crappy rockets may reach London. "We are you and you are us... To Iran, the US is the 'great Satan' and Israel is the 'little Satan'... This is a regime that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map." If we are you and you are us, then why do you keep building illegal settlements when our leaders tell you not to? Why do you keep taking our money and giving us nothing in return but diplomatic headaches?



Yes, it's true that Iranian bluster has threatened to destroy Israel, and maybe America too. They clearly aren't friendly. But the Soviet Union (the 2nd strongest military empire the world has ever seen, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert) threatened to bury the West too, and did they ever come close? Did they ever even try? The same stereotypes and accusations were levied against them for decades: the Soviets are irrational, bloodthirsty, fanatical, can't be reasoned with, hate what we stand for, and hell-bent on world war. But in the end they chose to holster their nukes EVERY SINGLE TIME, even when war seemed inevitable in Cuba and as their regime collapsed (supposedly when they had nothing to lose). And some would argue that the Soviets have more of a penchant for suicidal behavior than the Iranians, considering Stalin's purges and whatnot. So is Iran somehow worse than the Evil Empire, despite being much smaller, poorer, and weaker? Yes they are a theocracy with too much centralized, abusive power, and have done some "crazy" things in the past. But in general, their regime has a rational track record (i.e. they are not suicidal). Launching a tiny nuke against Israel (with no guarantee of it "wiping them off the map") would be suicide. Finito. Why would a regime whose only petty desire is to retain power (by hook or by crook) suddenly decide to self-destruct? That is, unless they were prodded and provoked by warmongering opponents.



The hawks' rhetoric is illogical, and I doubt that they even believe it 100%. If Iran is truly the crazy monster than the Israelis and GOP portray, then it would be irrational for us to NOT attack them. If it's only a matter of time, and a total certainty, that they nuclearlize their "global terrorism", then why have we sat on our hands all these years? What are we waiting for!?! Shouldn't we take them out like we did to Saddam and Qaddafi? Our leaders should be FIRED for being so negligent, even hardliners Bush and Netanyahu! So I guess the truth of the matter is that Iran is not such a threat. Former CIA veteran Paul Pillar thinks so in his recent article, and so do the current and former heads of Mossad (the Israeli spy agency entrusted with protecting their tiny nation against all threats before they materialize). All nuclear nations use their warheads primarly as deterrent and bargaining leverage, and only the US has launched them against others in malice. But that was to ostensibly END a war (and signal to the Soviets that East Asia was ours), not start one.



Say that all of what I said is wrong, and we have no choice but to pre-emptively strike. Iranian air defenses are strong, so we would either absorb heavy losses, or need to resort to cruise missiles and even tactical nukes. But those weapons may not be effective against facilities buried under a lot of rock. So how do we penetrate - a ground invasion? We've seen how fanatically Iranians defended their homeland against Iraq, and we know America now has a lower tolerance to sacrifice our sons and daughters overseas vs. a non-imminent danger. And all that would definitely trigger Jihad 3.0 and oil to spike to at least $150/barrel (which would in turn cause fragile recovering markets to plunge into another global recession). Our attack would paradoxically lead to the bloodshed and misery that we supposedly want to prevent by striking Iran! So if it is unfeasible to stop Iran from getting nukes by force, what choice do we have but to "talk and talk" as Gingrich mocked? Talking does not automatically mean appeasement and defeat. But all that macho, ideological crap doesn't matter if we have no other choice. If you don't have a good hand to play, why go all-in with your cash? We can either fight a bloody war with no guarantee of success, nuke Iran pre-emptively to global outcry and Muslim rage, or talk (with the caveat of a remote risk that Iran will betray us and nuke Israel later). Which one of those is least painful? Yes the situation stinks and everyone wishes that Iran would just be more peaceful and give up their nukes. But a lot of people around the world wish that the US and Israel would do the same, and we refuse almost every time.

French parenting vs. Tiger/helicopter parenting

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201203071000




I know before we discussed the merits and pitfalls of obsessive, micromanaging "Tiger" or "helicopter" parents in the US, but here is the opposite extreme: the "laissez-faire" French method. I have never been a parent, but the French method seems likely to reduce overall family stress with little to no harm to the kid (and in fact may teach beneficial habits like patience, self-control, and self-sufficiency). But in general, the kids are not the center of the family, they are the "supporting cast." The couples' marriage is still the top priority. So the adults may maintain higher satisfaction, and the kids are less likely to become egocentric, spoiled brats. They learn that when they cry or mess up, there aren't frantic, doting parents/grandparents immediately racing to their aid. I guess Americans fear that if they don't come running, their kid will end up scarred for life, or they look like negligent deadbeats? And despite all this attention, the kid will probably resent, rebel, and drift apart later anyway, whereas French kids grow up and happily continue to spend time with their parents. Of course these are all generalizations, and no one knows how much parenting techniques actually affect a child's future.



Of course there is a spectrum of behaviors, but the French model is not about being "perfect parents" to give their "precious darlings" every possible joy and opportunity in life. That's impossible anyway, so why run yourself ragged trying? French parents are not obsessed with consuming "parenting paraphernalia," nutrition, and tutoring, yet French kids end up better educated, more law-abiding, and healthier than Americans on average (and middle-class birth rates are higher in France). Of course French society is a lot more mature and adult-centric than ours, and there are many more social services available to make parenting easier on the French. So for Americans, our gov't provides very little help, and our parents put more pressure on themselves to engage in nonstop parenting, so it's a recipe for disaster. Also, schools in France are for education, not for babysitting and learning bad social habits, like they are here.



Another difference is how self-expression is encouraged/managed. Americans, despite being micromanaging, also tend to go easy on the discipline and limits, for fear of damaging self-esteem, creativity, or something. I guess that's why we always hear at the malls, "Mommy I want, I want, I want!" But what is the value of a creative, confident, expressive kid who expects a level of attention that is probably impossible to sustain when they're older? The French philosophy is that unreasonable desire leads to an unhappy and imbalanced kid, so they need to learn limits or that will hurt their self-esteem, creativity, etc. 2 means to the same end I guess. Boredom is also a tolerated and even encouraged part of childhood. Instead of staring at a screen or having an adult entertain them 24-7, maybe kids should learn to sit quiety and imagine/contemplate the world.



A caller on the program: "American parents think their little darlings are gifts to the world, and expect that the rest of us should adore them too." That's probably some sort of psychosis associated with the parents' own inferiority and vicarious ego issues, as well as our cultural values.



FYI, British parenting resembles the American model more than the French

Michigan GOP changes rules at the last minute to give Romney win over Santorum

Not that I'm a RS supporter, but I will pounce on any opportunity to badmouth Romney.




http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/01/michigan-state-gop-awards-romney-at-large-delegates

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10425254-santorum-romney-allies-going-all-in-in-michigan

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147787317/santorum-upset-by-mich-delegate-decision



We all know that it's a major shame if a politician can't even win his or her own state (e.g. Gore in 2000). So despite Romney et al.'s much more formidable and organized campaigning machine outspending Santorum's at least 3-to-1 in his birth state of Michigan, the polls were neck-and-neck, and some even had RS ahead by double-digits a couple weeks ago before he botched the AZ debate. I have little idea how the stupid delegates system in the US works, but apparently the 2 candidates had earned 14/30 MI delegates each, with the party awarding the final 2 at-large delegates. Party rules stipulated that each candidate would get one, since the voting was so close, so MI would be declared a tie. But the MI GOP changed the rules at the last minute to award Romney both. The reasoning for this change is unclear. Santorum's camp is of course crying foul, and he's not the only one. MI's former Atty. General compared this move to a "banana republic". It stinks of corruption, even if it was done honestly and ethically.



Romney also "stole" a perceived Iowa win even though a recount showed RS barely won (or the 2 tied). But the headlines got out that Romney won, so that is the story. Again here, the press says that Romney won MI, so now he gets the momentum and the publicity, while RS looks like a complainer if he doesn't let it go. But despite all of Romney's advantages, the fact that MI was so close should send his campaign and the country a message on his viability as a candidate.



To me, it's just scary that some careless volunteers in Iowa and some un-elected party bosses in Michigan can literally determine who the next presidential challenger will be.