That's not what "experience" means

Thanks, Harvard Business School, for clearly signalling what your Executive MBA is worth. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to prep for surgery; I had a discussion about appendectomies with some surgeons the other night, and I'm ready to go.

This guy got a Nobel Prize?

Quick hit on Paul Krugman's article on the Euro (emphasis mine):

Back in the ’90s, people who were present told me that staff members at the European Commission were initially instructed to prepare reports on the costs and benefits of a single currency — but that after their superiors got a look at some preliminary work, those instructions were altered: they were told to prepare reports just on the benefits. To be fair, when I’ve told that story to others who were senior officials at the time, they’ve disputed that — but whoever’s version is right, the fact that some people were making such a claim captures the spirit of the time.

What an idiot. Some people remotely connected make a claim, so the claim must be considered valid, no matter whether it's actually right (as long as it supports his point). I don't know if it makes it better or worse that it's barely relevant to his overall point.

Can we depopulate her?

That’s what I believe. I am not an expert. I have no case worth presenting in a court of law. There are hundreds of hours of research on the swine flu and related vaccines that I have not done and I am not going to do. It is just what I believe, listening to the people I respect, and in no small part because if you map out all the financial ecosystems around the issue and people and incentives involved, it seems to me to be the logical conclusion.

Just what we need, more people who "believe" things without a shred of basis. If you don't know anything, and you know you don't know anything, how about shutting up? I know what the response would be. "These are just my beliefs and feelings, and I have a right to them." Translation: "I see no problem with being an idiot."

Source

Opposing Obama's Socialist Agenda

The whole thing about Obama's so-called socialist agenda is stupid. That's inarguable. He's about as centrist as one could expect a Democratic president to be. I've figured out what's really going on.

There are a lot of people who are going to dislike Barack Obama because of the color of his (father's) skin. They're never going to admit it, though, often not even to themselves. Nonetheless, they're going to be biased against him. The ridiculous "socialist agenda" attacks give them a channel for these feelings. It's stupid, it's factually incorrect, and makes them look like a bunch of idiots. But it's not racist, at least on its surface, which is all they're looking for.

Wrong on so many levels

 

Financial responsibility

I saw a flashing sign at the Austin Telco Federal Credit Union advertising: "Get away with a vacation loan!"

Wow. Just.... wow. Silly me, I assumed credit unions were good and places like check cashers were rapacious villains. Turns out I had it backwards.

Stupid political reactions to high oil prices

Eliminate "speculators." Restrict futures trading. Levy windfall taxes on oil companies. Open up more areas for drilling. They're all dumb ideas that might actually get implemented as Capitol Hill tries to fix a problem they should stay out of. None of those will work.

Eliminating speculators reduces the liquidity of the energy market. That increases risk. Ditto for restricting futures trading. Both make oil prices more volatile and less predictable. When the outlook is risky, people tend to reduce their exposure, i.e., produce less oil.

The same applies to windfall taxes. Why should Exxon invest in more production and refining capacity, if the profits of those investments will just get taken away from by the federal government? It's hardly an incentive for them to do something that would really increase oil supplies and cut prices.

Then there's increasing drilling in places like the California coast and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the best of scenarios, those supplies will reduce oil prices by a couple percentage points in a decade, but more likely in 15-20 years. If it's going to take that long, we might as well just build nuclear plants.

I'm starting to see a silver lining here, though. Oil prices are not a concern for me at this time. What is a concern is oil use. If Congress wants to waste its time pursuing measures that are ineffective or counter-productive, that's actually not a problem. It means less production at higher prices, and thus lower use. That means less pollution and a bigger market for alternative energy sources.

As such, I'm less worried about Congress doing something stupid, and more worried about them doing something stupid that has broader costs. Any policy that directly or indirectly encourages using more coal, for example, is a net loss. Drilling in environmentally sensitive areas is also a no-go. I certainly don't want to expand subsidies, either on the producer side or the consumer side.

There's certainly going to be a cost to some people of the "acceptable" stupid policies. I don't mean to overlook that. Realistically, though, they'll be fine. Wall Street will find other places to play, and the oil companies will adapt their financial models. Congress may end up inadvertently hastening the end of the oil era.