Chinese investors and techies inflating global real estate

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201510271000

I know we're probably tired of the cliched lamenting over "the good old days", but this NYT piece by a CA author describes the boom-and-bust cycle of "CA dreaming" since the Gold Rush. One generation feels like the prevailing dream is dead, but then a new dream comes to take its place.

But what about now, as our state is more constrained than ever (economically, environmentally, maybe culturally)? The inclusive middle class, environmentally-sustainable (if it ever was) CA dream seems to be in jeopardy now, replaced by the "tech dream" that only a small subset of wealthy folks can enjoy, and constant environmental crises (that the rich can mostly insulate themselves from). Of course the top earners in medicine, entertainment, finance, etc. can still partake in the dream; contrary to media hype, tech is only like 10-15% of CA's workforce and GDP. But we don't need CA to be a bunch of high-end condos, yoga studios, "$20 burger" foodie joints, plus the old suburban infrastructure (golf courses, Costcos, 5BR McMansions) grandfathered in - when the tech yuppies want to leave SF to get more space. There's more to CA than that, otherwise what's the point of paying the high prices to experience it?

Top schools ostensibly lead to top salaries, which lets your kids afford to live in the top school districts later and continue your legacy. But why is there such inequality in public schools that creates real estate bubbles in the neighborhoods near the best schools? What kind of "free society" do we have when some schools have metal detectors and 1990s computers, and some schools are like this?

I don't mean to be like "woe is me, my life is so hard." I'm not happy with some aspects of my situation, but I'm trying to keep perspective. What's scary is a big % of Americans have it much tougher, in CA and elsewhere. So what is the solution? Clearly it doesn't have to be this way, and there are many "mid-cap" cities that have a great rep for affordability, quality of life, and good jobs/schools (SLC, Raleigh-Durham, Denver, etc.). They make it work without being socialist. But it's just a shame that CA, the most populous and most economically important state, is becoming an exclusive country club with an entrance fee of $300K household income. "This land is your/my land," remember? Can't we do a better job sharing and making things easier for those with fewer resources (especially as our resources are further strained by environmental problems and gov't failures)?

---

I foresee housing and land as a large problem in the future, more so than now.  People want to live near where they work.  And culture and food and art follows the places where people live and have money.  So desirable living areas will always be clumpy.  California just happens to be very desirable for a variety of reasons so I can't see a way to get these problems resolved.  And ultimately there will be a distribution of incomes available to people in these areas.  People have a very hard time voting in poor people into their neighborhoods by mandate and capitalism won't provide for them when demand exceeds supply.  Not sure I have any solutions but to say that your (and my) situation is in some objective sense terrific.  To be able to, but not easily, afford to live in a world city, raise a family, take vacations, you are a global elite.  But as you noted, locally you are a B- so it is hard to feel as good as you should.  I think if you consider only asian households you are more like a C+ haha.

----

Yeah that is true, but I think a common complaint is that the high prices are forcing out the "traditional" artists and culturalists from SF, so all you have left are the wealthy consumers and capitalists.

An over the top documentary about it from Pelosi's daughter: Alexandra Pelosi on RT w Bill Maher -- Destructio…: http://youtu.be/ksTRKwCDCLM

Haha in Asian households, B- = whipping and C+ = sent to foster care!

More consequences of SF's economic changes: http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/24/san-francisco-could-be-a-lot-whiter-in-25-years-predicts-a-new-profile-of-bay-area 

---

http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Million-Dollar-Shack-documentary-Bay-Area-housing-6582122.php

First time I heard of the "ghost house" term referring to empty homes
that investors just bought to park their cash, but didn't bother to
rent out. You can guess where most of the investors are from. I wonder
what % of prime BA cities' housing stocks are affected. Probably
small, but enough to affect prices.

----

This apparently has been going on in certain neighborhoods in London and other world cities for a while.  A product of Chinese money disallowed from buying stocks and the poor bond returns.  Can't blame them for finding the opportunity but it is hurting the locals.

---

Agreed, it's legal, but it's making the median home price in Vancouver rise to $1.5MM (c'mon, Vanc. is nice but not that nice). According to that video, it's happening all over the Pac. Rim (NZ, AUS, SEA, SoCal), and I guess the desirable parts of Europe too (I guess Russians, Saudis, Emiratis, etc. are doing the same, but there are fewer such buyers).

This seems to be another global consequence of China's social-economic policies. Unlike the US, where ~50% of households own some stock (which is still way too low considering the ROI), for China it's like under 20% - maybe this is driven by the unproven (some might say corrupt) nature of their markets, and the cultural tendencies of Chinese to put their savings in cash or physical assets. So if retirement was more secure in China (better kids:parent ratio, more functional equities markets, gov't safety net), maybe there would be less demand for foreign property. And if Chinese are using illicit funds to buy real estate, then I also fault Beijing for not enforcing the laws and regs to make that harder to pull off. And I also fault parties in the US for not checking where the foreign buyers' funds came from. As you know, to get approved for a mortgage we practically have to sacrifice our firstborn, but it's all-cash home purchase, no questions asked.

But I assume that only the wealthiest 10% of Chinese have the funds to buy overseas real estate anyway - though 10% of China is still a shitload of buyers. This is offensive and I'm just joking, but sometimes I miss the '80s when the US and Western Europe were the only rich nations, and Japan was the only rising economic power to worry about. :)

----

I think in China the basic idea is that land is something you can physically own and see with your own eyes. Chinese people (well people everywhere, but maybe moreso in China) feel that it isn't too hard to be an amateur expert in property prices - that you can beat the market basically. Finally, property prices are perceived to be relatively stable compared to other forms of investment.

Compare that with stocks, where who knows how to value anything. Stock markets in China are basically thought of as gambling markets (actually not too far off....), whereas property investment is the slow and steady, tried and true investment strategy. Everyone understands (or thinks they understand) real estate markets. Understanding stock markets is not something that the average Chinese person has much experience in.

Additionally, for very wealthy Chinese there is the idea that you want a property (or perhaps multiple) overseas where you can escape if things get bad in China. The Chinese don't like pollution any more than we do and most realize that overseas places are a lot nicer than most cities in China.

Finally, getting permission to convert money into foreign currency is a lot easier if you're buying property than if you're buying stocks.

Of course, the smart strategy would be to invest in low-cost index funds in a Vanguard coop account, but I guess Vanguard's marketing team hasn't made too many inroads in China yet :-P

---

These days it seems that very little in the Chinese economy is slow and steady :P - they had a major RE bubble too with levels of speculation likely exceeding those of US-CAN. I could sympathize if the average Chinese person doesn't have a lot of good options for capital gains to save for their retirement, but I assume that it's the top 10% who are the ones buying most of the foreign property (i.e. the average Chinese can't pay $1.5MM cash for a CA condo).

I don't know if funds/pensions are very popular in China, but that overcomes the investor ignorance problem. Most Westerners have no idea about equities too, but at least they leave it in the hands of pros and pay them a commission (this strategy only screws them every decade or so with a widespread financial crisis :). And as you said, you can lower risk by diversifying (equities tend to outperform REITs and most single properties in the long term).

So there is a difference between a justifiable need for financial security, and greed. I am not sure what category most Chinese overseas RE buyers are, maybe both, but probably skews towards greed. That is legal but unfortunate in my book. And of course the same can be said of domestic speculators.

There is some harm in speculators manipulating the price of securities or silver. But then again, most people aren't paid directly from capital gains (except pensioners and rich fund mgrs). But if people are inflating the prices of life necessities, like oil, water, and housing - then it's a bigger deal. Like when oil rose to $120+ a barrel, some were saying that this wasn't the speculators' fault - it was just normal supply and demand. Maybe so, but it's pretty hard to precisely pin down causality in market price, which is of course an aggregation of many factors. But huge inflation in inelastic goods tends to hurt many but only benefit few.

Bottom line, I wish people would at least buy homes with the intent to use them, or make them available to those who need them. I understand that not all of us are "entitled" to an affordable picket-fence place with a 5 mile commute. It would be nice, but there is always going to be inequality in housing. Though I think we are at pretty bad levels in most of the economic centers of the world.

BTW - if you made it to the end of that YT video, you saw that horrendous quote from the real estate mogul d-bag with the Rolls. Something like, "I think a Googler working hard is more deserving of a home in Si Valley than someone who happened to grow up here. Just get more education if you want it." Yeah, as if the issue is that cut and dried. Hard work and edu is all you need to be a millionaire in CA, sure. It doesn't need further comment - but you are all welcome to vent. :)

How can we expect the "ungovernable House" to govern the US?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-gop-speaker-struggle-clintons-trade-deal-dismissal/

Maybe you guys have been following the brouhaha, but basically Boehner stepped down as Speaker, Majority Leader (and heir apparent) McCarthy withdrew his candidacy, and now no one (who is capable of getting the 200+ votes to pass) wants to step up. The GOP is asking Paul Ryan to step up to the plate, but he hasn't committed yet.

Speaker is "2 bullets" away from the presidency; you'd think that our most promising legislators would be lining up to apply! But the problem is that the House is GOP majority, and a contingent of ~40 Teabaggers (the "Freedom" Caucus, or "anarchists" as Brooks called them) are basically impossible to work with unless you totally embrace the ~Norquist/Palin/Koch agenda. As Brooks said on PBS, only a "moron" would want the Speaker job now. So how did the 3rd most powerful position in US gov't become a third-rail job?

• There really isn't much benefit for a party to have a majority in the House when the other party has 40+ in the Senate and/or the White House. And it's hard to be confident that we'll have a GOP president in 2017.

• We don't live in a dictatorship where the Tea Party are the dictators, so can they espouse more reasonable and civilized goals instead? No group is ever going to get all they want, but is it so terrible to make deals to advance some of your agenda, but allow other interests to do the same (if what you have to give up is not so harmful)?

• So the GOP Speaker is caught between a rock and a hard place: he/she is expected to use the majority to advance conservatism (or at least keep the country running - pass a budget, etc.), but also find a way to get the Teabaggers to not derail the whole process (which is their stated goal if they don't get 100% of what they want, which we established is impossible).
• I don't know why the Teabaggers are so "needed"; is it because the GOP still need those 40 votes? Why not reach out to the Dems instead - can't you get 40 from them Blue Dogs? Is it just intractable polarization?

• The TP's excuse is that they are merely doing what the voters expect (obstructionism/anarchy/holding the country hostage). Well, there is no district in the US where 100% of the votes support the TP agenda. So it is wrong for them to ignore potentially 49% of their constituents (likely the % is much smaller due to gerrymandering).
• Also, this is a false pretext because polling suggest that the majority of Americans do not want gov't shutdowns and do not approve of an unproductive Congress. So why don't they just cut the crap and admit that they are serving the narrow interests of the 1% Norquist/Koch agenda?

• Should we amend job descriptions for Congress and the oath that they swear to, in order to make sure that our legislators will actually legislate in the country's interests? There are other explicit or implicit criteria like age, residency, religion, and funding - why not this? Don't we want to make sure they are qualified and able to carry out the duties of the position?
• It's like Kim Davis - she can have her beliefs, but if they're not compatible with the demands of her job, then she needs to be replaced and find a different job, right?

IMO, a dysfunctional Congress is a bigger threat to our country than ISIS. I am serious about that. Who affects our daily lives more?

Do we want less gun violence, or don't we?

980+ mass shootings (defined by 4 or more dead, non-drug/gang/war related) in the US since Newtown. That says it all. And keep in mind that the vast majority of gun deaths do not occur in mass shootings, but the less-reported suicides and "regular" homicides.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/02/445379809/stuff-happens-comment-creates-firestorm-for-jeb-bush

And the typical tone-deaf, uncompassionate, guns-before-people response from GOP leaders (in this case, my favorite guy to hate, Jeb). Basically after a national tragedy relating to guns: "shit happens." But when Muslims attack us: "Bomb them to hell!" I hope Jeb's rivals and the MSM call him out on this.

http://gawker.com/you-dont-pass-a-pool-fencing-law-after-a-child-drowns-1734383068

Jeb is saying we shouldn't rush to impulse legislation after a tragedy. But after a kid fell and drowned in a pool in FL, Jeb's gov't rushed to create a pool fence law. Was that such a bad thing? How many people and pets were saved by that knee-jerk reaction? Like Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow," sometime you want to think fast for your survival. Don't let the trauma fade away so you delude yourself into thinking that it's not a big problem and it won't happen again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html?_r=0

And for those who say it's a mental health issue and not a gun issue, I disagree. The vast majority of mentally ill or "weird loner" people are not violent. So unless you want to infringe on the rights of millions of innocents (in a Minority Report style preventative action), I don't see how this will help. Sure it's better safe than sorry to report to authorities if someone you know is concerning you, and those authorities have to respond to legit threats effectively (like how we're trying to deal with suicide prevention warning signs). Of course we as a society should pay more attention/resources to mental illness, hate ideology, and isolated youth. But it won't prevent most mass shootings.

Only locking up guns will do that. Some would say that the Oregon shooter purchased his guns legally and no bkgd. check would have blocked him. So maybe that's the problem: properly interpret the 2nd Amend. (how the courts did pre-NRA) and strictly limit private ownership of guns (or ammo, or both). Maybe people can still buy them, but must store them with 3rd party highly regulated gun locker companies (so it's not the evil gov't controlling our guns). In order to check out the guns, the owner has to be lojacked and have a witness legally vouch for their mental/emotional state. Maybe critics would say that such a system would leave us vulnerable to criminal attacks. Then buy a dog or mace, or support leaders/laws that address the root causes of crime like poverty, education, and racism.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Alternatively, some people think that the gun culture in SUI "works" because of a deep tradition of safety and personal responsibility (hard to measure). Like how strongly Americans feel about personal freedoms (and football), if we placed a similar or larger emphasis on gun safety, peaceful conflict resolution, and accident prevention, then maybe we could have our guns but not the tragedies (but we have a long way to go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBIOJJkEQT4). Keep in mind that SUI's gun deaths per capita are still one of the highest in the 1st world too.

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

What does a wave of immigrants do to an economy? It was fine for Florida in 1980

There is little to no hard data showing that immigrants hurt a local economy, but there are some cases where their benefits (or lack of harm) were clearly documented: http://www.npr.org/2015/10/01/444912593/when-cuban-migrants-flooded-miami-what-did-it-do-to-the-local-economy

In the case of the "Scarface" sudden influx of 125K Cubans to South FL in 1980 (incl. 25K former criminals according to the film), there was no economic evidence of negative impact. Many were processed and enrolled in jobs/school quickly, so their need for gov't services was minor. Also they served to "grow the pie" by creating more economic demand (125K refugees = 125K consumers), which resulted in more jobs and sales for Americans. Local wages did not fall. And eventually many of them got education and contributed intellectual capital to the US. Europe, with an aging population and plummeting birth rate, actually NEEDS a lot more productive young people who are willing to work manual/unskilled jobs.

I know 1980 was a different time, and many Cubans benefited from previously-migrated relatives and a familiar culture in FL. But clearly the US will not take in 100K people from the Mideast, and they won't be concentrated in one state. As we discussed before, many Syrian refugees are educated and may also speak English, so it's not like the typical Latin American migrant profile. Detractors will come up with all sorts of excuses to oppose refugee resettlement (cost, security, culture clash), but the bottom line is they have no evidence to back up those suspicions, and as a UN member we have an obligation to act. There will always been some criminals and deadbeats among any group of people, but refugees are no worse than a random sampling of Americans (in fact they're likely better).  

VW's diesel scandal and Shkreli's drug price-gouging

More of the same - this week was not exactly ethical capitalism's (if such a thing exists) finest hour:

VW may have to pay fines in the billions for deceiving pollution monitors and violating the Clean Air Act with their TDI "clean diesel" vehicles (stock plunged 20% in response). Apparently it's not so easy for a diesel engine to be both clean burning AND great mileage.

There is a new (and sick) trend in biopharma (link1, link2) where shell companies buy up the rights to "below market price" drugs and then jack up the prices by orders of magnitude to make a ROI. Well, at least those firms aren't deluding themselves that they're trying to help patients - they're explicit in their pure pursuit of profit, and it doesn't matter if needy patients are priced out.

----

Following up on VW and drug prices:

How an academic lab at UWV (an ironically similar acronym) detected VW's diesel cheating: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9383663/vw-emissions-scandal-photo. I just wonder why VW's diesel rivals didn't question how VW could get superior mileage/torque while still keeping pollution low (the diesel engine is kind of zero-sum for these performance metrics). Like wouldn't they say, "Wow, in our lab we can only get 25 mpg if we stay under the NOx limit - I wonder how VW gets 40 mpg?" (numbers are fictional) Other auto makers are professing that their vehicles don't cheat, but we'll see. Even though very few light cars in the US are diesel, we of course have plenty of semi-trucks and heavier vehicles spewing particulates and carcinogens every day (but at least in CA, these vehicles now have to adhere to tighter limits). Not sure how big the impact will be in Europe, where ~half their light cars are diesel (but they have fewer cars per capita and drive fewer miles per capita vs. the US).

This article has an interesting viewpoint on the Shkreli drug prices scandal: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/9/23/9383899/martin-shkreli-daraprim-price. He's been such an a-hole and unapologetic capitalist re: his company's actions that he's garnered a ton of negative publicity. That actually helps to shed light on the drug price-gouging issue that Big Pharma has been engaging in for decades (BS loopholes to extend patents, buying the rights to generics or cheaper rival drugs to keep them off the market, etc.). Hopefully the increased attention and outrage will motivate lawmakers to consider new rules for the industry, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd prefer Trump over Jeb

Because the latter just keeps proving that he is the biggest tool in the world! At least Trump is right about money in politics, taxing the 1%, and women's health.

Some highlights from last night:

Rand calls out Jeb for "getting away with" smoking pot as a kid because he's privileged, but plenty of dark skinned poor people get their lives ruined by a drug conviction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZgYLo-89vg

Bush "faulted" Trump for inviting Hillary to his wedding, and Trump said that everyone on the stage was beholden to their donors but him, who has refused millions. Of course Jeb tried to deny this.

https://youtu.be/ZSsKGBIuFW8?t=137

Trump also alleged that Dubya's failures is the reason why Obama became the next president. Then Jeb totally pivoted and said, "At least my brother kept us safe," to thunderous applause. Kept us safe!?! Didn't 9/11 happen under his watch? How many Americans and our friends died in Iraq and Afghanistan on his watch? How many vets committed suicide and/or got addicted to drugs, and how many military families were impacted by divorces, disabilities, etc.? How much did public health suffer due to panic/hardships from the financial crisis? And of course - Katrina. His terrible grasp of historical context is mind-blowing. Yes, Trump sucks about facts and policy. But he's a CEO and manages his own brand, so at least he gets big picture stuff better than those other bureaucrats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT0ZFolQWqY

It's kind of funny how it was everyone-vs-Trump now. He's not used to getting called out and attacked (more than he's dishing out) I'm sure. But it might backfire and make Trump look more sympathetic/righteous. Of course every front-runner has to deal with more scrutiny, but the roles dynamic is interesting here. To his supporters, the DC establishment is trying to sink Trump because he's a legit threat now an would really shake things up if he got power. But that is why Trump is popular, so I doubt his fans would prefer to support guys like Jeb or Rubio just because they seem to know more about policy. I guess his fans would prefer that he not utter so many apish insults, but he fires them up, which is more than the other hopefuls can claim. Can we please have at least 6 of those losers bow out this week!?!

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/16/440718361/the-1-passage-you-need-to-read-to-understand-donald-trump-s-appeal

And sorry I forgot to add Jeb's most pathetic move of the night: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/422637-jeb-bush-pulled-this-hilarious-power-move-when-standing-next-to-trump/

Have some self-respect, man. Dubya is twice the man Jeb is (for better or worse).

J&J: America's "most admired unlawful company"

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/chapter-1.html

Here's a multi-chapter story (2 parts published so far) about J&J, the company we know (and love) for no-tears baby shampoo, Band-Aids, Tylenol, etc. They make us feel better and healthier. But their low-margin consumer products division is only 9% of their profits, and their pharma/devices division is where most of the money (and controversies) are.

I interned at a J&J acquisition last decade, and of the 3 pharma companies I've worked at, I felt that J&J emphasized ethics the most. This is probably due to their "Creedo culture". Remember the 1982 Tylenol crisis where some guy in Chicago was opening up bottles and putting cyanide in them? That led to 7 customer deaths, and the voluntary development of tamper-proof drug containers by J&J that became the industry standard. That tragedy could have sunk the company (Tylenol's market share of analgesics initially fell from 35% to 7%... haha who were those crazy 7%, very loyal employees or people without TVs?), but J&J's leader at the time, James Burke, held the ship together and eventually restored their brand image. It is now a celebrated crisis mgmt. business case, and Burke won the Medal of Freedom in 2000 (I don't know if it was fully merited or not).

Part of their brand recovery plan was the drafting of the Creedo (written in stone like the 10 Commandments, and next to the Stars & Stripes), or guiding principles for what kind of company they should be. On paper is sounds very good and even inspirational (it was for a 23 year old): their order of priorities are customers/users, business partners, employees, communities, and lastly shareholders. Of course that challenged their fiduciary duty as a publicly-owned company, but the Board must have approved it. Maybe the thinking is that these stakeholders are not zero-sum; if you are good to patients and others, the money will also flow to shareholders (Merck says something similar). They drove these points home during new hire orientation, and also recognize employees each year who are especially faithful to the Creedo.

But apparently the "thought leaders" and businessmen (corporate criminals are overwhelmingly male) in the pharma/device divisions didn't really live it out on multiple occasions. I don't know how much "Creedo compliance" actually takes place - like are employees rated and comped for how ethical they are (how Google partly evaluates employees on their "Googleyness")? Doubt it. But maybe all of this lofty Creedo stuff is just a smoke screen to get patients, employees, and gov't to believe that medical companies are somehow more trustworthy and admirable than "regular companies" that just make widgets, because their higher mission is to save lives.

The record indicates that medical companies/providers are no more ethical than the rest of us, and are in fact also responsible for millions of deaths, billions in fraud, and countless injuries over the years (some preventable or willful). Sure, their net impact is probably positive, but the J&J case could be another big example why for-profit medicine does not lead to the best outcomes for society as a whole.

All the Star Wars crap of 2015 is not really Star Wars

To switch gears, since the refugee issue is too heartbreaking and Trump is still dominating the domestic agenda - let's talk art and culture:

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-coolest-new-39-star-c1249116534652982/photo-catch-phrase-game-1441389503687.html

The recent commercialization of Star Wars in preparation for Episode 7 is going way overboard, but what do you expect from Disney? Part of the SW allure is that it's retro and a bit nerdy. When it's so mainstream and ubiquitous, then it just becomes McStarWars. Maybe I'm just being a grumpy old (middle-aged) man, but Star Wars is the property of MY GENERATION (Gen X). We didn't have the internet back then and we missed the party that was the 1960s, so can we at least hold onto Star Wars?

The companies and kids of today don't get to bastardize, piggyback, and profit from it. Did my generation remake crappier versions of Gone with the Wind and The Godfather? No, those were the classics of previous eras, and they remained preserved and unaltered like the great pieces of art/history/culture they are. To be clear, I'm not a hoarder - obviously I am very open to share the magic of Star Wars with today's audience, but we shouldn't remake what Star Wars is. The prequels were bad enough (IMO they never happened).

It's quite possible that Episode 7 (and the thousand other soul-less "Star Wars universe" spinoffs that the Disney film factory is planning) could be good movies. But it's not Star Wars. And seeing how JJ Abrams totally failed at his modern rendition of Wrath of Khan, I unfortunately am expecting Episode 7 to be a lot of pandering and recycling of old Star Wars content to evoke cheap, nostalgic, Pavlovian affinity. "Let's make it look like old Star Wars, but with modern style!" R2-D2 gives way to soccer ball BB-8. Vader's red lightsaber now has stupid side lasers at the hilt. There's an X-wing that's painted black. Is that the best you can do with a $100MM plus budget? I will give JJ credit that he's using real physical sets and effects at least, rather than lazy and sterile Lucasfilm CG.

Young George Lucas and team didn't try to remake War of the Worlds - they charted their own course at great risk and difficulty. But that's how you make history (i.e. no one will remember Iron Man 3). Why don't Disney/JJ try to make a new franchise that is even better than Star Wars? Do they have the talent and audacity to try, instead of rebooting and copying like corporate hacks? And yes, I realize that original Star Wars also borrowed from (or was inspired by) previous sci-fi adventure material, but the keywords are "borrow/inspire" and not "copy." Shakespeare borrowed from Greece and Rome - that is fair game for artists. Most people agree that Star Wars was also innovative and revolutionary on many levels. I guarantee that Episode 7 will not be. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to succeed with a different, fresh concept (e.g. anyone remember the original Matrix?). If you use the Force, you can do it. :)

---

Yup, not a lot of originality and remaking original classics today in TV and movies (star wars, 21 jump street, Miami vice, a-team) etc, seems like Hollywood is running out of ideas. Or capitalizing on the fact that the generations that are solid into their careers are willing to pay money for things they are nostalgic about as kids. Like how our toys as kids are collectable and classic Nintendo games sell for a lot on ebay. That's probably because our generation grew up (and some raised via TV babysitter ) with Hollywood entertainment. As we look into our parents' and grandparents' generation, there still is a market for nostalgic things they grew up with, but the more you rewind time, the less Hollywood entertainment was involved in their upbringing. They still buy classic toys but also are willing to spend bucks on what makes them feel nostalgic : antiques, classic cars, music memorabilia, WWII memorabilia, etc. 

I was listening to a morning talk show and they were saying how most blockbusters this past summer were not original. Either re-makes, or continuation of a movie series, such as Hunger Games, Avengers, Jurassic Park. Squeezing the extra buck out of a formula that works vs coming out with something original.

We are starting to sound like the old men we rolled our eyes at when they ranted about "back in our day" and the problem with the kids these days!
---

Yeah we might be becoming those "get off my lawn you damn kids!" type soon. :) I don't have as much time to watch films anymore, but I really don't have much interest either. The attractive, quality stories are just not there. And I am so tired of super hero movies that basically have the same characters and same story arcs every time. Disney better consider "customer fatigue" too when they pump out so much Marvel and SW stuff. It's not cool or memorable anymore when it's everywhere (like Michael Kors' recent drop in sales). I can't imagine how horrible Halloween will be when 80% of the boys are either Marvel or SW characters, and all the girls are Elsa. Thanks again, Disney.

And I think the cinema trend will only persist due to the huge commercial success of reboots/sequels like "Jurassic World" and "Avengers." Some series are pretty good start-to-finish, like Harry Potter. Some don't know when to quit when they're ahead and stretch it out way too long, like Hobbit (quality definitely suffers when quantity increases). But as Hollywood becomes more corporate than artistic, of course they will go after the lower-risk, high ROI projects like cheap "found footage" horror movies, pop-culture themed rom-coms, and tentpole franchises like Marvel and Mission Impossible. I suppose the customers are partly to blame again (esp. the dumbass foreign audiences who always eat up our schlock!), since we fork over the money for copycat/formula films, and not for the riskier, original works (there are some exceptions like "Mad Max: Fury Road" which was an excellent reboot, done in a fresh style with a new story that actually moved people).

Maybe Tarantino strikes the best balance; his films obviously pay homage to his youth interests and inspirations like Blaxploitation and Spaghetti Westerns, but all his movies are of exceptional quality, with a new angle, and no pandering/cheap nostalgia. He makes movies with the thinking fan in mind, and with film school discipline in mind - to a point where he may have created his own genre that others can't copy (because no businessman can beat a passionate, skilled artist). That is obviously not Disney's style though. They even copy their own scenes.

Re: Star Wars, I have no problem with sequels if they are superior (which Empire was, though after that Jedi became too kiddie). If the prequels were somehow better films, I don't think people would have complained that they undermined the originals. The plan all along was to have Eps 4-6 in a series, because that closed the loop on the story arc. And it was executed by generally the same team, so there was respect for the original vision. Clearly they weren't remakes or spinoffs. OTOH, Eps 1-3 did not need to get made. The whole point of a "back story" is that it doesn't need to be told in as much detail as the main story. No one cares what happened during the Old Republic and the Clone Wars. It's just a setup for the status quo where there is a mean Galactic Empire and a righteous rebellion trying to defeat them.
It's quite possible that Episode 7 (TFA) will be a good movie. It will certainly be better than the prequels (though that is not a bold statement!). I will try to view it as a standalone sci-fi film. Because of my personal bias, it can't compare to the originals. So I don't "hate" it yet, I just don't consider it real Star Wars (maybe this is not a logical sentiment, but hey, "fan" is short for fanatic :). Like how horrible "Prometheus" wasn't really an "Alien" film, but a pathetic origin story attempt to ride coattails.

It's hard to successfully continue a story (that had a very clean ending) 30+ years later with a different production team, context, audience tastes. The James Bond franchise kind of makes it work because the core formula is simple, they are popcorn movies and don't take themselves too seriously (until recently when the tone got darker), and the films rarely build on each other (again, until recently). Also, Eps 4-6 progressively introduced new elements (a love story, Yoda, better effects, etc.). I don't know what will truly be novel about TFA, since the "new" characters and imagery mostly look like ripoffs of the old ones. While I would prefer TFA not get made, there is some fair rationale and hope for it. However, the spinoff side movies that Disney has planned are too much IMO (they are going to recover their $4B investment no matter what). We are going to get saturated with Star Wars to the point that it's not special anymore. Think Marvel x10. The Starbucks effect. Even if 10% of their films are great, the other mediocre/poor ones (and excessive merchandising) will detract from the overall product. That's why I think Lucas' final "F U" to his critics was selling to Disney of all buyers. They are exploiters, not custodians.
Maybe I'm being melodramatic, but one of my favorite memories of childhood was playing Darth Vader with my dad. I would make the gesture to "Force choke" him, and he would fall to the ground pretending to be in pain. It cracked me up. I am grateful that Star Wars enabled countless moments like that between fans over the years. I really doubt the prequels and new films can do that. Even my dad, just a casual movie goer, immediately noticed that it was wrong for Yoda to be in over-the-top CG lightsaber fight scenes in the prequels. "Yoda is a sage, not an action hero. He is peaceful and uses his mind." It's sad that recent Lucasfilm couldn't understand the essence of the characters they created decades ago.

Refugee crisis

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-03/5-groups-doing-important-work-help-refugees-you-may-not-have-heard
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-germany-presses-europe-into-sharing-refugees

Frankly I've been avoiding this topic because it's just too damn depressing. Being a refugee fleeing war is one of the scariest situations to me - I can't possibly imagine leaving your whole existence behind to flee to a foreign place. Because if you don't, you or your loved ones will starve/be conscripted/get raped-murdered.

The US helped many in my family who were refugees in the 1970s, but we really haven't done that recently, not since Somalia. What are the UN, US, and UK doing about the current crisis? Germany has been forced into a leadership situation and pledged to absorb 800K mostly Syrian refugees (out of a potential 4M). If we won't physically take in people, at least we can send cash and supplies to those who are.

I've already written about how the US turned its back on allies and refugees before (below). Are we complacent to hide behind our geographic isolation? The UK's excuse is that the world should focus on "improving conditions" in Syria so there isn't a need to flee. Well they aren't doing squat about that either, so what gives? I know every nations has very needy people domestically and may not be able to support many new visitors. Greece is on the front lines, and obviously is not in the best position to handle the crisis. If the US was as welcoming as Scandinavians per capita, we would be taking in 5M refugees this year. And we can, for probably the cost it takes to maintain a nuclear carrier. But we won't.

http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/08/children-fleeing-central-america.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/05/refugee-to-native-ratios.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-and-responsibility-to-protect.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/10/with-friends-like-these.html

How about China too? Aren't they the #2 economy and don't they want to be respected as a global leader? Syria is a key partner - what are they doing for their friends? Like climate change, it's someone else's problem, even if the victims are innocent and the definition of deserving help.

"Bubble boy" Bush visits NOLA for the 10th anniv. of Katrina

http://news.yahoo.com/bush-returns-orleans-10th-anniversary-katrina-110219105.html#

I refer to him as "bubble boy" because in the conservative dream world he continues to seek refuge in, he did a heck of a job during Katrina. How tone deaf and offensive; I wish the locals booed and egged him all the way to Louis Armstrong Airport. Of course he didn't visit the Superdome, Lower 9th, or his other "greatest hits". He didn't take press questions either. Maybe he still doesn't have a good answer for, "Did you make any mistakes during your presidency?"

What's next, he visits Baghdad as the conquering hero? I'm sure ISIS commanders would be happy to host him. Total a-hole. For the 5th anniv. of the Deepwater Horizons disaster this year, even BP leaders weren't dumb enough to visit the shrimping villages, not expecting the victims to shower them with appreciation for all their "restoration" work. 

Hillary lecturing Black Lives Matter that they need to help themselves more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-hillary-clinton-and-her-rivals-are-struggling-to-grasp-black-lives-matter/2015/07/22/8b5870e8-2f34-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html

Also, I don't like how Hillary kind of "lectured" some Black Lives Matter activists recently that anger won't cut it; they need to put forth concrete policy proposals to make real impact. That is a BS managerial cop-out IMO. It's like when a boss at work got his yearly upward feedback that he micromanaged too much. He asked the team to give him action items on how to improve and what to do differently. No, the team already did their job and did you a service by pointing out a failing that you should have already known about and corrected. Now you are asking them to do your job and give you the step-by-step plan on how to be a better leader? Then why does the team need you, just promote someone in the team?

Same with Hillary and BLM - African Americans have already done their civic duty of living through all the violence and racism every day, and now assembling and drawing national attention to the problem. But out-of-touch (and not really caring) white leaders like Hillary tell them that's not good enough - give America a plan on how to fix it.

Isn't that like a judge telling the rape victim to teach the rapist how to behave properly and not hurt people? No Hillary, the effective policies for police reform and social justice are already out there and have been studied & available for decades. What, does BLM have to do a literature review for you? YOU are the one who wants to be president. So show some goddam leadership and make your own platform, in consultation with BLM of course. Don't tell them what they need to do. That is a cop out and passing the buck. If you care about the issue, you take action yourself and make a difference. Otherwise I'll vote for Deez Nuts.

----

I don't think Hilary was as bad as you say.  I think that is really how Hilary is as a person and leader.  Black lives matter has shown that yup, black people live in a different america than people like Hilary.  But since many people are effectively learning this for the first time, how can they also be expected to know how to fix it?  And ultimately shouldn't the BLM movement know what they require to be successful?  The better analogy than the rape victim teaching the rapist would be the rape victim teaching the bartender how to watch out for people's drinks or something like that.

So from Hilary's view, there is a problem and the people who are affected have a lot of momentum but they aren't putting their desires into terms she can use.  Likely both sides find this frustrating but I don't think it is either one's "fault".

----

I admit that I'm a Hillary hater (IMO her potential is better than most GOPers, but she's an unauthentic, awkward, uninspiring political animal and not a president who will make big impact on inequality, climate change, global stability, etc.). However I do acknowledge that her candidacy since 2007 was handicapped by bad timing and sexism (and incompetence from her team of course).

As a "progressive" (even though she's center-left, emphasis on the center), she should not be finding out about black injustice for the first time now. That is unacceptable for a former lawyer, senator, head of State, and a generally smart/modern person. The aggressive policing and incarceration issues has been around since "broken windows" and mandatory sentencing - when Bill was president!

Bottom line, the Dems have taken the black vote for granted for decades, and the GOP have given up trying to swing the black vote. So blacks are not really represented nationally. It's not just Hillary of course, do any of the candidates really address racial crime and minority justice issues? Maybe Rand Paul at best, but he's not electable.

----

When I say "find out" i mean in the same way I found out about domestic violence in the NFL by watching a dude knock his girl out in the elevator.  Or the way you "find out" a punch to the face hurts in your first actual fight.

I have always intellectually known that black people live a whole different experience.  But all of the black people (and basically all of the people) i know are relatively well off socioecenomically.  I'm sure Hilary even more so.  So yes she "knew" that blacks have it tough.  But what I think BLM has (largely) done well is represent just how bad it is.  It isn't "I can't get a cab" bad, but people die for what appear to be no reason on an alarmingly frequent basis.  

I'll  bet that, at least topically, dems think they have been trying to help the poor and disadvantaged.  So to have a group come to you and say "help us", someone soul-less like Hilary can only resort to her executive abilities and say "give me actionable policies and I can enact them".  I think that is authentic Hilary.  I don't want her to be president necessarily but the way she responded could be read as much as a positive as a negative. 

----

Yeah that makes sense, thx for the good points. Re: Hillary's executive response - it's a tough call and there are pros/cons as you said.

She's not a technocrat or functional area leader anymore though; the president's main value IMO is inspiration/communication, constituency mgmt (both foreign and domestic), and focusing on important priorities (plus kicking butts so it gets done). Part of constituency mgmt and inspiration is empathy (even people you don't get along with or who are just a pain in your side) - something her hubby was excellent at, and she seems quite weak at. 

Virginia shooter and destructive payback psychology

https://gma.yahoo.com/virginia-shooting-suspect-vester-flanagan-did-leading-air-213449674--abc-news-topstories.html#

Like the shooting of NYC cops after Ferguson, if this violence is tied to race and Charleston, it blows my mind. I wonder what these shooters want for their legacy, or what they want the public to take away from their crimes. Maybe Flanagan's manifesto will shed some light, but his atrocious actions pretty much invalidate anything insightful he may have written.

Although racial violence is still vastly disproportionately black victims and white perpetrators, events like this may just perpetuate the stereotype that young black men are all thugs and the black people you work with are unstable and could go off on you any moment. Those perceptions of course do great daily harm to African Americans as a whole - even if it's mostly subtle aggressions that are imperceptible to non-blacks.

I suppose there is a fixation in the American psyche (or human nature in general) about getting payback and taking matters into our own hands. If others have hurt you or those you associate with, how is it is "justice" to commit violence against totally unrelated people who just happen to be of the same broad, arbitrary social category or geography? When Hamas sends some rockets into Israel, why does the IDF bomb and bulldoze homes and hospitals full of women and kids who never touched a rocket? Does that make them feel better, or feel safer? Of the 45M blacks in the US, did Roof think that killing 9 would "set things right" for Obama being president and all the other terrible things blacks have done to whites? And then Flanagan killing 2 whites 300 miles away from SC somehow settles that score too? Obviously this lunacy never ends, so such beliefs should never materialize into action in the first place.

Amazon's workplace culture doesn't bother most customers and investors

We previously talked about the questionable labor practices at AMZN's DCs, and here is the corporate/tech perspective:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html?referrer=&_r=0
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/3ce0s8/dear_amazon_interns_some_advice_from_an_old_man/

After 9/11, we empowered sociopaths in the military-industrial complex to keep us safe and didn't want to know the details - so of course abuses like torture and extra-judicial murder/snooping were bound to occur. Similarly with AMZN, I don't think we should be surprised to hear about allegations of their perverse culture/practices. Our society prioritizes ubiquitous, limitless, instant-gratification consumerism, and AMZN delivers that better than anyone else in the US. Wall Street rewards huge growth and exceeding expectations, even if AMZN never turned a profit until 2015. But we customers and investors never bothered to ask the tough questions about the details - how exactly is AMZN able to deliver such "magic" to us? Eh doesn't matter, I can get my Coach handbag with free overnight shipping! It's also not surprising that AMZN is among the best for customer sat. and brand image.

The sick culture (though it's not a horrible company for everyone, too many independent sources have corroborated it, making it highly unlikely that it was just a few "bad apples") is not unique to AMZN though. Apple is almost as rotten if you forgive the pun (you should see how they treat their vendors). The coolness of their products/brand and corporate mythos make a lot of employees/public see them with rose-colored lenses. Their amazing profits and appreciation doesn't hurt either. Like the NFL and military, Apple is now a cultural fixture, and some sins are given a pass because of the prevailing positive sentiment. Other tech companies work you to the bone too, but at least they give a lot of comp and cash-free gourmet food (AMZN's culture is "frugal"). Also, mgmt. consulting, some law/medicine, and Wall St. are just as bad if not worse - but tech is in the spotlight now and "changing the world" faster than ever before. You kind of expect Wall St. and corporate lawyers to be a-holes, but tech is ostensibly benevolent (and almost omnipotent), so shouldn't they hold themselves to a higher standard?

The scammy, cultish nature of AMZN's employee policies (heavily rear-loading equity grants, putting company over health/family) are fairly extreme... I guess like Scientology? Why don't the complainers just quit? Similar to a cult, it can be hard for some Amazonians to leave because SEA doesn't have a lot of tech employers (until recently), and maybe they are able to indoctrinate the psychology that type-A high achievers have to survive and thrive at AMZN, so they don't feel like failures. They've been winners all their lives and they won't let a few workplace challenges stop them now (even if it costs their marriage or health). Everyone else seems to handle it or even love it (survivor bias), so they can't come up short. Yes, employment is at-will, but it's not so simple in many cases. I just wonder what will be the next chapter of this opera.

The peculiar and hilarous Fox, GOP, and Trump dynamic

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9130075/Megyn-Kelly-response-Fox-Trump

I was impressed with the tough and direct questions the FNC moderators asked of the kiddie-table and prime time GOP candidates (addressing and not ignoring their glaring liabilities). That makes sense, as I suppose it's in the GOP's interests to thin the (huge) heard as early as possible so they don't waste resources/political capital for the coming war vs. Hillary.

Personally, I don't think Kelly's sexism question was journalistically or politically out of line. Trump has not held office and has not behaved like he deserved to hold office in the past (esp. vis-a-vis women who are >50% of voters), so why should America elect him now? He of course felt that question was unfair and "impolite" (teapot, kettle anyone?), but Kelly never forced Trump to say/tweet those disparaging things in the past. You make your bed, you lay in it man. Nothing is off limits when you're running for president.

Anyway, I thought that exchange would really hurt Trump and the GOP, who have already suffered from major rejection by many female demos. But strangely the opposite happened. Trump's numbers held steady or maybe even rose, and FNC got blasted with angry viewer feedback defending Trump and criticizing Kelly and her network. Trump did a "genius" thing and flipped the issue from one of his sexism/rudeness/unstatesmanship to one of media bias/political correctness (stuff that is hurting America) - the latter really resonates with his supporters and some conservatives.

He must have prepared for that, and you have to give him credit for delivering it so persuasively. His daughter Ivanka allegedly urged him to tone down the racist/sexist/offensive tone of his campaign, but he dismissed her because every time he did something outrageous (even the McCain comment that I thought was going to sink him - but it turns out a lot of conservatives don't really like establishment McCain anymore - esp. for losing to Obama), his numbers held steady or rose. I guess it's like saying, "Why should I reform and get a legal job when I'm making so much money selling dope, and not getting caught by the cops?"

The FNC base is a little weird. They hate and distrust the (elitist, liberal-leaning) mainstream media, yet still watch FNC (the top TV news property in the US by far). So Fox has to straddle that fine line of being the MSM (being part of the institute of journalism) and hating on the MSM (mocking and rebelling against the institution of journalism). This is problematic at times because from segment to segment, you never quite know what you're going to get. Certainly their opinion shows are more of the latter.

To wrap up, the business-first, politics-second Roger Ailes saw the reaction to the Trump-Kelly spat and was worried that defending Kelly (and her legitimate question) would piss off many viewers and hurt the company. This is probably why most of the other candidates (sans Paul, who is desperate to stay relevant) didn't take the opportunity to go after Trump on national TV. They talked crap at their lightly-covered campaign events, but not on the big stage because (1) more Trump feuding only seems to benefit Trump and (2) they risk a Kelly-esque backlash and don't want to be labeled as establishment cronies (the part of the GOP that Trump has called "stupid" and blamed for losing to the Dems - maybe that is accurate).

So Ailes personally talked to Trump to smooth things over, and probably invited him on the network soon (he has had many interviews in the past). Kelly had to deliver a highly sanitized closure statement and was even subtly congratulating Trump for his recent political success (gotta throw his Jupiter-sized ego a bone). That must have sucked for her. So once again, score one for money/sexism/cynicism at the expense of decency/women/journalism.

PS - it's pretty telling that on Trump's web page, there is ZERO CONTENT regarding his political platform and policy ideas (oh yeah, because they don't exist beyond his sound bites). He makes Rick Perry look like a wonk in comparison.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

Can money buy environmental and social harm?

Rich Californians don't think they should have to cut back on water (their golf courses, lawns, and pools need it): http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rich-californians-youll-have-to-pry-the-hoses-from-our-cold-dead-hands/2015/06/13/fac6f998-0e39-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

And of course everyone's favorite dentist to hate allegedly paid locals $55K to get him special access to kill Cecil the lion: http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/walter-palmer-federal-international-zimbabwe-charges-charged-crimes-federal-corrupt-practices-act-laws-zimbabwe-united-states-extradition-treaty-info/

Power is corrupting, and money is a major form of power, so stuff like this has been going on for millennia. But do you think new laws are in order, or we just have to accept money as speech and tolerate that some wealthy folks can afford to commit socially harmful actions? Surely it isn't absolute, as some laws prevent people from buying other human beings, or WMDs, or using their money for coercion (the dentist may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, even if the actual act of killing the lion off the preserve was "legal").

Some laws are already in place, as CA households that don't cut back on water sufficiently may need to pay fines/higher rates on a sliding scale (ostensibly to offset the social harm of their resource usage). But is that enough of a deterrent? Probably not considering some people's net worth - do they need to be cut off instead? They can water their lawns with Evian. That is why market pricing for water won't fully "solve" the issue for price insensitive people (it might affect businesses and farms though, which is the lion's share - no pun intended - of usage). But since water shouldn't be a luxury good like a Vuitton bag, affordability can't solely determine access.

But in the end, stricter punishments for "bad rich people behavior" are unlikely because the politicians who write the laws are rich and disproportionately represent the interests of the rich. America has ~150MM eligible voters, yet so far 400 families have accounted for 50% of the 2016 presidential campaign funding (according to Bill Maher today).

PS - environmental rant: I don't buy the BS from hunting proponents to justify killing animals - it's actually pro-environment as population control (and some species can withstand "culling" more than others). Maybe it's even pro-conservation because the $ that some hunters spend to kill a few big game are used to protect the other specimens (for future kills?). First of all, nature doesn't need us egotistical humans to control a species' population. There are natural limiting factors like food, habitat, etc. Humanity's only impacts on nature are negative, and in a huge way. Yeah we do a good thing now and then by relocating or repopulating a species under stress, but those well-intended moves can backfire too. The best we can do is have as little impact as possible, like some untouched areas of Siberia probably have the healthiest ecosystems because we don't have a footprint (apart from climate change and air pollution diffusing over). And re: the $ argument, I bet for every dollar spent on big game hunting/fishing, maybe at best 20% actually benefits the animals and the rest are just paid to various parties in the supply chain, so that claim is specious. If we love nature then we should leave it alone.

Another heartbreaking example: birds in the extreme north. Because of climate change (and humans' acceleration of it), arctic ice has receded drastically since 1980, and snows have turned to rains. Excessive rain causes fatal hypothermia for some birds, and the weather trends are too rapid/drastic for them to evolve and adapt in time. Ice gives access for birds to fish for food, and chicks are starving to death with less available ice per family (it's as if all our farms permanently lost 80% of their acreage in a generation - could we sustain our population under such conditions?). Species will naturally wax and wane (or disappear) over time, we don't have to "fix" that, but highly successful and evolved creatures like these birds and polar bears, who used to be flourishing, are now rapidly dying out because of us. If our species makes it to the 22nd-23rd Centuries, I am sure they will look back at our (in)actions and think that we were really a bunch of assholes.

All those birds wanted to do is live, and they never did us any harm (they don't even compete for resources with us, as that land is uninhabited and the fish they eat are not commercial). Yet because people want comforts and money (enabled by fossil fuel burning), benign living things have to die. And for those who don't value other species as much as humans, the same can be said of the ~3B folks who by chance were born into poverty and/or environmentally sensitive areas of the planet.

Some interesting links

How the Buffets have quietly advanced female contraception and reproductive rights: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/warren-buffett-foundation-donation-contraception_55bfc47de4b0d4f33a03a567

The EPA fails to properly investigate pollution cases in poor/minority areas: http://www.alternet.org/environment/epa-failed-investigate-environmental-racism-5-states-claims-lawsuit

Black lives matter vs. All lives matter is a false debate

I thought this piece was pretty good: http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-these-5-paragraphs/

Maybe this is a microcosm of the overall race impasse in America. Blacks and minorities want equal treatment as guaranteed by our Constitution (not to mention human decency). They are not calling for special treatment. Even the arguments in support of slavery reparations are not excessive and have plenty of precedent.

However, I think some whites dislike the race debate because (1) no one likes feeling blamed as the bad guy, or enjoying an unfair latent advantage (especially in a nation of "self-made" individualistic success), and (2) they get turned off by what they view as blacks/minorities already getting special treatment (welfare, immigration amnesty, affirmative action, political correctness, etc.) and wanting more. Of course the evidence suggests that such an attitude is misguided, and ignores the obvious facts that some minorities have worse outcomes for health/wealth/edu/incarceration/etc. vs. whites even when you control for other variables.

So "black lives matter" can be misinterpreted as "blacks are more important." Which is of course not the point of the moment, and not what the supporters believe. The whole genesis of the moment is the fact that blacks are treated as second-class (or worse) by many measures in the US, are fed up about it, and want to raise awareness. I don't think that is unreasonable. But then you get the white privilege backlash (no, only "we" are allowed to be special!), and they criticize the movement by saying "shouldn't all lives matter?" Yes, they should! But you're not doing it, and the victims are disproportionately the poor and darker skinned. So when those lives get equal respect (validated by actions and data), then the "black lives" folks will gladly disband I think.

I guess it is related to whites' "fear of blacks" again. Fear of them getting more power (even equal power is a threat), uprising, and taking over (hence no traction on slavery reparations). Obama in the WH was bad enough. Why can't they be meek and respectful like the Charleston blacks after the shooting? Well some civil rights folks have criticized the Charleston response as conditioned by decades of southern blacks' fixation with needing to please whites and be accepted by them (even though they never will).

But here is another example of the empathy deficit. Would the critics of "black lives matter" just quietly accept it when their communities get raw deal after raw deal (or unpunished murder after murder)? Of course not. Obama gets elected and you get the Tea Party movement (sure other factors contributed like the Recession, but you know what I mean). You get armed standoffs like with the supporters of Cliven Bundy in NV (but the white cops didn't send in storm troopers and tanks to break them up). So why is it OK for "marginalized" whites to stand up for their rights (even violently), but not OK when blacks do it - and do it mostly peacefully (and they have way more legit grievances to protest about)?

I guess even the ability to assemble and protest in America is not equally guaranteed and free of bias.

----

Maybe you heard that FNC wants BLM classified as a hate group (after a couple recent high-profile attacks on cops that may have been linked to anger over Ferguson/Baltimore/etc.). I know FNC doesn't speak for all of White America, and they are intentionally provocative, but their hostile overreaction to BLM kind of validates American bias and why BLM is actually needed. Good job, Fox.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153332388156130/

Let's remember that demographically, it's highly likely that more cop killers are white than minority, and not motivated by politics (I couldn't find data on cop killers' races though). And statistically, being a cop in the US is still safer than the average job. Being a cop in the US is still safer than being a young black man in the US. At least a cop can fight back against attackers, wears Kevlar, and is backed by the law.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/10/the-counted-500-people-killed-by-police-2015

Reactions to the nuclear deal in Israel and Iran

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/20/424702931/parrying-doubts-in-two-capitals-leaders-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/07/17/423484372/on-cutting-off-an-interview-subject

As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).

However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.

Views in Israel are apparently mixed, and some in the security services do not agree that the deal is bad. Also they want their leaders to remember that the nuclear deal is not the only item at play here - their relationship with the US is valuable and is it worth it to strain it further? You can tell that Obama, Kerry, and some other gov't officials are visibly irritated with Israel's reaction compared to most of the rest of the world. Instead, why not partner more with the 5+1 to make sure Iran lives up to its commitments and the deal succeeds? But like the game theory Iran-Israel-US post, our priorities are not aligned, so it might not work out.

It's possible that the extra money in Iran's coffers will exacerbate the other problems that Israel has with Iran (supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, etc.). Maybe it's justified for the US to extend the olive branch and offer enhanced cooperation/support for antiterrorism, and/or temporarily look the other way if Israel gets a little tougher on Palestine and settlements. It's like bribing a kid with a toy for him to eat his vegetables. The veggies are good for him in the long term, but he doesn't see it that way, so you have to offer a side concession?

---

I listened to the interview and Bibi was ranting.  He had talking points that he wanted to get out and the interviewer attempted multiple times to interject with a next question before doing a "rude" cutoff.  If Bibi was talking with him instead of at him that would have been easy to notice.

---

If Bibi wanted to make an uninterrupted persuasive speech, then he could have paid for TV/radio commercial time, or gone to FNC. If he agrees to an interview on NPR, he should expect to be treated like an interviewee. Listening to it again, I actually didn't think he was ranting much and there were no moments of disrespect. Green let Bibi talk a lot in the 1st half of the segment, which was maybe his bad since it led to the need to cut Bibi off later. Bibi said thank you to Green at the end, he didn't protest. Some NPR callers were maybe a little sensitive.

The NPR ombudsman seemed to be OK with Green's conduct too:

Greene was respectful to Netanyahu, apologizing for interrupting. The last question was an important one—asking Netanyahu whether he could "at some point get behind this deal"—and Greene would likely have been criticized had he not asked it. The need to cut him off was regrettable, but with the interview already eating into local station time, it was necessary. Those are the perils of live radio and the constrictions of NPR's clock, which values local news.

Hollow criticism by the right of the Iran nuclear deal

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iran-deal-obama-sees-validation-diplomatic-gamble/

And the FNC version: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-deal-much-worse-than-experts-predicted.html

As Obama said to the conservatives, "What is their alternative?" I'm sure some of them would publicly or privately call for war, or at least stronger sanctions (I'll get to why that won't work in a bit). Maybe others like Trump think that Obama's team are amateur negotiators compared to the Iranians, and only he could outsmart them to a better deal (he did ghost-write "The Art of the Deal" after all!).

The goal is not to turn Iran into a model nation and have them cease all their questionable/negative activities - that's not going to happen for decades (no matter what leverage or violence we apply). The goal and scope were always limited: to stop or ideally reverse Iran's progress towards bomb capability (i.e. right now they could possibly get a working bomb in 3 months if they go all-out; let's make some changes so that time frame gets a lot longer), and enable the int'l community to detect whether they are cheating. To address some criticisms:

• Why take our foot off the gas with sanctions, they are crippling the Iranian economy and keeping them subdued?
• The goal of the int'l sanctions was always to force Iran to the bargaining table, not to stop the bomb or make the country suffer (which is what is happening - as usual the people are hurting more than the regime).
• If the talks fell apart with no deal, faith in the sanctions would dissolve (they did not accomplish their stated goal), and most nations would pull out except the US (because sanctions hurt other nations too besides Iran - especially energy-thirsty China).
• Since the GOP doesn't understand trade and economics, they think unilateral US sanctions are great - but actually they don't do anything but create missed opportunities for us. Iran will get what they need from the hundreds of other nations. Since we have a strong role in the global fin. system - maybe we could cause some havoc there, but again - it's not going to stop Iran from getting a bomb.

• Could Iran use the sanctions relief to invest in better weapons tech and more clandestine development activities?
• Maybe, but they take on a huge risk by doing so, and the chance of success is low. If they can build a new high-tech production facility without inspectors, spies, regulators, and satellites noticing - well that is kind of our fault then.
• It's possible that they will use their increased wealth to boost their unfavorable activities in the region (supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq, propping up Assad, etc.). But frankly those pains are secondary compared to a nuclear Iran and a certain attack by Israel. 

• Did Obama's team just negotiate poorly, and a better deal was possible?
• I'd like to hear how the GOP would have achieved a better outcome:
• Vast majority of centrifuges idled (not sure if destroyed, or idled)
• Vast majority of their fissile material confiscated
• Fairly good access by int'l inspectors
• Hard caps on enrichment far below weapons-grade
• No one died
• Iran's carrot was to greatly set back their bomb production, and the 5+1's carrot was lifting economic sanctions. It was a fair swap, like a prisoner exchange.
• In the GOP dreamworld, I am sure that they would hope to get 99% of what they want, while Iran settles for 1% of what they want. But unless you have hypnotism powers or a gun to their head, how do you get them to just fold and agree to your demands? A deal has to be mutually beneficial, and even if you are worried about benefiting your enemy, you accept a deal where the net gain to you is larger than no deal at all. And as I stated above, no deal was a bad situation.
• What else did critics want, a full regime change, recognition and peace with Israel, and renouncing of terrorism? If they want those things, then they'll have to pay for it (or at least build some relationship/trust first). So far, all they have given Iran is hate.
• They think Obama is weak and America shouldn't concede anything, we should just tell the world what's up and then they obey gratefully. Well the rest of the world isn't in awe of US "authority" like the GOP is, esp. after the War on Terror.  

• The Fox op-ed claims that Iran will exchange its partially enriched uranium for "raw" uranium that they can enrich in the future. There is no evidence that this will happen or the int'l community will accept this. And if you exchange the same mass of partially enriched U with 0% raw U, that will always make you further from a bomb. Fox needs to learn some math.
• Fox brought up more canards. The deal permits Iran to have some research centrifuges which could potentially improve enrichment. But there are so few of them that it can't make up for all the normal centrifuges that they have shuttered. So again, they are reaching for reasons to complain.
• I don't know much about the ballistic missile part of the deal. Maybe Fox is on to something there, but Iran's missiles can already reach Israel, Riyadh, and maybe Berlin. What does it matter if they can reach London too? They can't hit the US in the foreseeable future.
• Critics keep saying that this deal "paves the way" for Iran to get a bomb (a Bibi-ism). I just don't see any facts that support that claim. It's not a perfect deal, but no deal in the history of the world has been. If Iran can do all the sneaky things that critics claim to make a bomb, then they can do that without a deal too (and faster). Again, their argument is as well built as Bush's plan for post-war Iraq.
• And the GOP are some to talk: they haven't brokered a meaningful and legit int'l deal since Nixon went to China. And if Nixon tried something similar today, he would get skewered by the right. 
• But all of this might not matter if Congress has a veto-proof majority to scuttle the deal anyway! 

---

It still seems early for a lot of criticism, NPR interviewee didn't know how they were eliminating currently low enriched uranium as of a couple days ago.  So I imagine new info will keep coming.

The big concern that most have is that this does pave the way to a bomb, it is just a long way.  Over the next decade or so they get increased centrifuge numbers, more low enriched uranium stockpile allowed, etc.  The presumption is at some point between now and then Iran will have money and start to cheat.  And they will cheat for some amount of time before they get caught.  And at that time will the community bring back all the sanctions?  Will Iran have enough cash to not be limited?  So now instead of poor with a bomb they are rich with a bomb and more time and money spent on delivery of the bomb.

Personally I think that isn't right and the real alternative they are arguing is hold the line until they have to be bombed.  

I also think money and access to world markets will bring about a lot of westernization to Iran.  The web, foreign investors, generic trade, all tends to make the regular people richer which leads to a desire for personal freedoms.  Same thing happening in China right now.  Iran is much younger and better educated, on average, compared to China I believe.  

Also, no chance for Congress to block it anyways.  Obama vetoes anything he doesn't like.

---

Yeah I agree that the criticism seems premature - like they're predicting a divorce during the wedding reception. They could be right, but it would be just a lucky guess at this point.

I see what you mean about "paving the way" semantics. No deal would have also paved the way, and faster as you said. At least this deal "freezes" the problem for a decade (if all goes according to plan, which rarely happens), which is hopefully enough time to broker the next deal (maybe a better deal). Kicking the can down the road is not ideal, but better than tripping over the can now.

The deal does not guarantee cover for Iran to cheat with no consequences. As you said, it's possible but difficult that they will continue to develop (under the nose of inspectors) with their new cash. But if/when that is discovered (likely before an operational bomb), the 5+1 will retaliate and take measures to severely curtail any additional progress. For example, if they are 30% to a bomb now, and later they cheat to get to 50%, then other nations will make sure it is very, very hard for them to progress any further (potentially through military means). So in a sense, it doesn't even matter that they got to 50%, because they were found out and punished. Just as long as they don't get to 90%+. I wonder if the deal has conditions though if cheating is detected - what will explicitly happen to Iran?

Of course the alternative is them developing their bomb in secret, where we are shut out and have no idea what % of the way they are at, unless we have great espionage. Remember North Korea - one day they just detonated a test device, and that's how we found out they had bombs. Obviously we don't want to repeat that, and Israel would never allow it to get that far anyway (with severe global consequences).

Also agreed on the benefits of commerce to open up Iran and make it a better global citizen. Transparency rarely is bad thing, unless you're a bad guy. Obviously with North Korea we've seen that pariah status doesn't help a nation change, hurts pro-Western reformers, and only solidifies the tyrants' grip on power. I guess that's partly why the Chinese Communist Party tries to limit external influences through their firewall and repressive policies. But as Iran opens up and their younger generation gets more power (and hopefully their secular leaders will continue to be "moderate" like Rouhani), there could be positive social changes (that hopefully lead to better foreign policy).

Obama could veto Congress' blockage, but not if they have a 2/3 majority.  

---

Follow-up discussion to Cold War 2.0 post

In reading what you wrote I agree to a certain extent but you lost me in the conclusions that you draw:

(1) NATO is a military organization... but it is a *defense* organization; insofar as one might be talking about military matters or (implicitly?) reserving the right to use force, it is not offensive in the case of NATO.

(2) Expelling the baltic nations that joined NATO would likely only lead to a liability with no recourse (i.e. the need to defend nations that have been, at that point, willfully excluded); isn't the catch-22 with respect to military force (e.g. missile defense that could be withdrawn) that you would you need it when it's no longer there (i.e. not have a motivation to remove it once you've put it in place)?

(3) Withdrawal would remove the semblance of a pretense... but only where the facts of the same are clear; it is openly speculated that, within Russia, what is reported is not consistent with what is reported in America... further, if Russia is acting out of fear then they would just be that much more likely to start WWIII given the opportunity - so how to signal the absence of hostile intent (independent of never attacking Afghanistan & Iraq in the first place) while not rewarding the Russians for flouting international norms under the guise of keeping an unaccountable U.S. in check?

(4) Russia should withdraw from Crimea... though Vladamir Putin has publicly declared, on multiple occasions, that he will not do so (and that economic sanctions can damage the country for the next couple of years without it affecting his opinion).

(5) We cannot "just let Ukraine duke it out and let the chips fall as (uh, where) they may"... Much like the people in those Baltic states that joined NATO post-2000 it is not the fault of the people but rather their leaders (and the fears/uncertainties/dependencies of those leaders) insofar as there is some problem today - statecraft is slow, steady work (kinda like email) but that is all the more reason to not putz up what we already have in the first place (a sentiment I imagine you agree with)...

PS: There are probably a handful of people out there with the game theory experience to see right through the situation to a simple solution; all I know is that compromise requires give and take (as you hinted at) and working together towards a common goal - maybe Obama's efforts at nuclear deterrence (i.e. decommissioning of nuclear weapons) should get some attention before he leaves office.

---

Thx for your reply and hope you're well.

1. I agree with you about NATO's mission, but from the Russian perspective it doesn't matter - they are hostile and potentially offensive if they are observed to keep adding Eastern member states and massing troops near Russia. It is provocative.
2. You can't really win a cold war. Detente and the USSR collapse was exceptionally fortunate for the US and the world, and I'm not sure if we can expect it again. So the alternative is to reduce tension and live with a balance. That means a demilitarized buffer zone between NATO and Russia, to reduce fear on both sides. You presume that Russia intends to invade the Baltics. We don't know that for sure, and they may only be posturing to invade now because they see NATO massing and want to be able to strike first. You see how defense/precaution on both sides can lead to aggression? That is what we need to avoid.
1. I did say that NATO leaving the Baltics is based on a guarantee that they would help if Russia invades. So it is de facto like they are still in NATO (an attack on any member is an attack on all), but without the provocative troops presence that upsets Russia.
3. I think you signal lack of hostile intent and avoid rewarding Russia for bad behavior by: 
1. NATO pulling out of the Baltics, refusing to add any new members that are Russian neighbors, and ceasing military exercises on Russia's flank
2. But also requiring Russia to give back Crimea, stop its arms buildup in the arctic and on the Western border, and cease all military assistance to the Ukrainian rebels - only then will they lift the econ. sanctions
3. And let's remember - the goal is to avoid war, so there has to be some compromise. Sometime that means relaxing principles and "appeasing", as long as you believe it won't enable future worse behavior
4. Putin has to take a hard line with public statements, but I am not sure how critical Crimea is to his defense strategy (they obviously did just fine for decades without it). Again, if NATO pulled back, I think his fixation on Crimea would also naturally wane (esp. with the carrot of lifting sanctions on the table).
5. It's not like I want to abandon Ukraine, but what choice do we have? We can't allow Ukraine to be a proxy cold war and pretext for nuclear war. If either side meddles in Ukraine, it will necessitate a tit-for-tat by the other side, and then you get the escalation spiral. Maybe someone will blink like the CMC, but sadly we can't count on Putin to be as conscientious as Khruschev. And let's remember that the rebels are still at a disadvantage, and have little chance of taking over the country. Maybe the best thing is for Eastern Ukraine to secede if it stops the killing (like in Sudan)? Of course that is not ideal for the gov't in Kiev, but peace has a price.

More black churches targeted after Charleston

Did you guys hear that 5 black churches had fires since the SC massacre? 3 are confirmed arson. So assuming it's not a one-in-a-billion coincidence, we as a nation clearly haven't put this behind us. Black people didn't do anything provocative to upset anyone since Charleston (no riots, revenge, etc.). There's no "reason" to burn churches except that racists were tired of seeing black faces and hearing about racism stuff on the media all the time. Intimidation, suppression, and fear - that is the terrorist's playbook.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/black-churches-fire_n_7681754.html

I read a black commentator write about healing after Charleston (sorry I can't find the link now). It's all well and good that whites and blacks hold hands to cry and sing together after such a tragedy. Then we return to the same society that spawned such a horrific event. America heals and achieves closure after tragedies on the white schedule. When the whites (majority) feel better and want to move on, that is what the nation does.

But what if blacks are still hurting and don't want to pretend that we're done with this? They know that they still have to live with all the same shit when the funerals are over. They know they are more likely to be murdered than whites. They know nothing has really changed after the news vans clear out. So why don't they have the right to say, "No - you don't get to have catharsis and feel normal again, because WE don't. You don't get to act like this tragedy has brought us closer together, when I am still upset with no relief in sight?" I am taking artistic license, but that is what I think he was getting at.

While the victims of SC have been exceedingly Christ-like though this tragedy, I actually wish they weren't. Don't be so nice and let the mainstream society sweep this under the rug. Keep feeling outrage and rub our face in the fact that we have a messed up country and it's unacceptable. Because as good as they are reacting and behaving now, it's not going to stop the next violent bigot (or even cop) from abusing them. Maybe a Malcolm X approach is needed (arm yourselves, or just leave America if they don't feel wanted here).

---

This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/30/bryan-stevenson-racial-tensions