Here’s The Thing: Dick Cavett

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 13th, 2012, 7:00AM

>

Alec Baldwin does a great job on these interviews, has a great voice, and really gets people speaking:

Alec visits with Dick Cavett at his house on Long Island – a place called Tick Hall. They survey the view: stunning. Meet Riley the dog: cute, if “neurotic,” says Cavett. Then go inside to drink iced tea and hear about Cavett’s career in television.

Cavett shares some of his memories with Alec: meeting Orson Welles in the lobby of the Plaza; talking with Marlon Brando by phone — “I was told he would [call] at a certain time and we talked with the sun about 15 degrees above the horizon until well after the moon had risen;” and interviewing Laurence Olivier in the Wyndham Hotel when, Cavett says, he was feeling so depressed “I just want[ed] to go home and get under the rug.” Dick Cavett is the master of talk, a television legend; in this conversation, he shows Alec why his career has spanned nearly five decades..

>

click for audio

26:36

A Parody About China

Email this post Print this post
By Guest Author - April 6th, 2012, 6:00AM

An Imaginary Press Conference by President Obama:
A Parody about China

(This is not a parody about American politics or the Obama Administration; the characters and setting were chosen solely to dramatize the arguments pertaining to China.)

Good afternoon. Late last night I received a call from Senator Paul, congratulating me on being reelected President of the United States. I would like to thank Senator Paul for his continued service to our nation, and for running a distinguished campaign. I believe the American people were well served by the honest debate he and I engaged in.

Starting today, my Administration will be making some significant political and economic changes. The aim of these changes will be to accelerate our economic growth. I will first explain each of the key changes, and will then elaborate upon the larger rationale for emulating China.

Let me begin with three key political changes:

First: The executive branch will now exercise complete authority and control over all other parts of the federal government, including the legislative branch, the judicial branch and the Federal Reserve. This will streamline all decision-making and implementation processes, enabling my Administration to formulate and enact policy as effectively as possible for the good of all citizens.

Second: Our financial system will be nationalized. No outright ownership changes will take place, and all the publicly listed securities will continue to trade. However, my Administration will now issue directives to the management of our banks regarding all business and financial decisions. In short, the banks are now a de facto arm of the government; this will enable us to finance some of our new economic priorities, which I will elaborate upon shortly. (We have not yet determined whether other industries will also be nationalized, but will continue to study the matter carefully.)

Third: We will be rewriting the Constitution. Among the changes to be made, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of free association will be interpreted, and in many cases curt tailed. Since my Administration has the best interests of the American people in mind at all times, the radical freedoms articulated in the Constitution are no longer necessary. In addition, there will be no more elections, as my successor will be selected via a secret process that serves the best interests of the nation.

These political changes will enable us to implement the following economic policies:

First: It will now be the policy of the United States to exercise strict control over the value of the dollar. In the near term, this will help us eliminate our trade deficit; more broadly, we will henceforth manage all capital flows to suit our economic aims. We realize that the economy of the e United States is larger than China’s, so we will take account of our impact on other nations inn managing our capital flows. But the days of allowing the world to take advantage of our open capital markets are over.

Second: In order to spur economic growth, we will be embarking upon a massive and sustained program of infrastructure investment. This investment will be financed by the banks, which (as noted above) are now under government control. As part of our new policy of managing capital flows, the ability of citizens to invest outside the country will be restricted; this should result in significant growth of bank deposits that will fund the increased lending by our banks. Also, the increased savings from our new economic program should result in a current account surplus, thus eliminating the need to borrow money from abroad going forward.

Third: Once our infrastructure program takes effect and economic growth accelerates, we expect inflation to increase. At that point, our new monetary policy will be to maintain negative real interest rates indefinitely in order to maximize lending and investment. Although we believe this policy is in the nation’s best economic interest overall, we do recognize the potential for inflation to inflict harm on some citizens. For that reason, we will implement price controls and subsidies of key commodities as appropriate. For those rare times when it is necessary to tighten monetary policy, this will be done by strategically curtailing lending rather than allowing real interest rates to become positive.

Fourth: We will begin too issue five-year economic plans in order to address all structural deficiencies in our economy on an ongoing basis. Secretary Geithner will be publishing our first Five Year Plan within a few weeks. The design and implementation of these plans will both enable income to be redirected where it is needed in the present, and also ensure that the economy develops the capabilities that will be needed in the future; we will no longer rely upon the invisible hand of the market for such important tasks.

Before I explain the larger rationale for emulating China, I want to reassure you that this new system will not eliminate the role off entrepreneurialism. China has correctly recognized the need for the innovation that entrepreneurialism provides, and America has the world’s best entrepreneurs. We want people to continue getting rich by creating and running new businesses. What is needed is simply a harmonization where the entrepreneurial elements off capitalism are combined with the benefits of an all-powerful and benevolent Central Government.

Let me now discuss the larger rationale for emulating China’s economic and political systems.

Our goal is to achieve a similar rate off economic growth that China enjoys. At first, we considered simply emulating China’s economic system while leaving our political system unchanged. But as we thought about it more deeply, we realized that the two are inextricably intertwined, and that there was no way to change our economic system in such a fundamental way without also fundamentally changing our government.

Why emulate China? Quite simply, because China is widely considered the world’s greatest economic success over the past three and a half decades, and because most analysts believe its growth will moderate only slightly in the coming years.

Now, I know that many people think China’s situation is an exception. According to this view, China’s lack of human freedoms, its opaque government and its state-dominated economy have only facilitated – or at least not hindered – its economic growth due to special circumstances. Specifically, this view states that China is in a special situation partly because its level of urbanization is only 500% (compared to 70-80% for developed nations), and partly because it has invested so much less capital per person than developed nations. According to this view, it does not matter that the economic and political reform unleashed in China more than thirty years ago has slowed markedly over the last decade and a half. All Chine – and only China – needs to do is to keep moving its citizens to the cities and keep investing on a massive scale.

This was also my view at first, but when my Administration thought about it more deeply, we realized that this made no sense. Because if this view is correct, then the true, underlying return on investment should have declined throughout the last fifteen years during which economic and political reforms appear to have stalled. After all, the more China grows, the less “catch-up” that remains, and therefore the more such investment should be wasteful and ineffective: if China ultimately needs to adopt Western reforms to succeed, then all the years of investment without reform should have created more and more misallocated capital. The natural end state to this process would be a bubble, and as we know from our own recent experience, growth and prosperity can look their best just as the bubble is about to break. If the majority of China’s economic growth for many years has been powered by wasteful and corrupt investment, then the inevitable bursting of its bubble should be a cataclysmic event that would fundamentally alter its future economic prospects.

Yet this is not what most financial analysts believe. Our best and brightest feel that China’s system is working wonderfully, and that it faces only a modest reduction in its future growth rate as it continues indefinitely to grow faster than the rest of the world. If this is true, then China’s economic and political system must not be a hindrance to its growth, and it should be a system that others can emulate if they so choose.

For all those who doubt whether America could make such radical changes, I say: Yes, we can! We can and we will reinvigorate our economy. We are the change we have been waiting for. When America puts its mind to something, nothing can stop us.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Source:
by Patick Wolff, Grandmaster Capital
April 2, 2012

Greece For Sale!

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 5th, 2012, 2:30PM

Please make your bid……

>

Clarke & Dawe: Political Power, A User’s Manual

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 5th, 2012, 6:07AM

Wealthy donors damaging the government in the UK as well . . .


Originally aired on ABC TV’s 7.30: 29/03/2012

~~~
Bill Shorten: Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.

http://www.mrjohnclarke.com

Google Exodus: What if Moses had the Web ?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 3rd, 2012, 10:00AM

An oldie but goodie:

I Quit

Email this post Print this post
By Bob Lefsetz - April 1st, 2012, 8:30AM

I guess it all started when Taylor Swift wrote that damn song about me. I mean I’m just a middle-aged blogger, why did the biggest star in America have to pick on ME? She’s beautiful, talented, rich and possesses one hell of a singing voice. Everybody has a bad day, just because hers was on the Grammys doesn’t mean I have a right to excoriate her. Then again, I was stupid enough to admit I was the protagonist of the song, unlike John Mayer, but did she have to go on Jay Leno and out me? That hurts. And everybody knows I’m thin-skinned. My dad died, my wife left me, doesn’t she know if I don’t see my psychiatrist I’m gonna commit suicide?

But what’s worse is my readers. It doesn’t matter what I say or do, they still believe I fly on the Spotify jet, that Irving Azoff writes me a check every month, that I wrote good words about Jimmy Iovine because he sent me a case of Beats to fence on the black market. In a country where everybody’s on the take, where politicians are indicted on a regular basis, it doesn’t pay to be honest.

So I’m stopping. Giving up. Going over to the dark side.

No, I’m not going to work for Doug Morris, hell, I’m not even going to work for Live Nation, there’s just not enough money involved. Irving’s busy chasing billionaires, but you just can’t make it in music, you’ve got to go where the money is, finance.

Oh, it’s been done before. Check the CVs of Bruce Wasserstein and Steve Rattner. They woke up, chucked aside their journalistic aspirations and went where the real power was, investment banking.

And why not. Everybody thinks I’m wealthy anyway. I make a facetious comment about being rich and my inbox blows up with people castigating me for being a one percenter. You’d have thought I was giving away Facebook stock. I’m sick of being poor, now I truly am going to be rich.

No, I turned down Lloyd Blankfein. We may look similar, we may both be follically challenged, but do you think I still want to be in the public eye after what I’ve been through?

No, I’m going to work for a hedge fund in Greenwich. My mother’s getting older by the minute, I’ve rented a condo in Westport, Connecticut, halfway between her and work, until I get my bearings, get some cash and buy a house.

No, I’m not going to tell you the name of the firm. You wouldn’t know it anyway.

They made me an offer I couldn’t refuse. I brought in my black book. I’m tapping every relationship I have for cash. Everybody from Paul McGuinness to Don Henley. Even Donnie Ienner and Tommy Mottola. If you’re wealthy, expect to hear from me.

As for the rest of you…it’s payback time.

I’ve sold my list to so many marketers I can afford a year in the Maldives. You’re gonna be spammed to high heaven. You always think I’m selling my list anyway, so why not do it?

I’m all about the cash now baby. I gave you all that information for free and all you did was bust my balls. I can’t even say something negative about Groupon. The stock tanks after I write, but you’re so busy drinking at the trough of your insignificant income, proud to be poor, that you can’t see that you’ve been sold a bill of goods.

So I’m leaving you behind.

Music’s done anyway.

You ruined it. You stole those MP3s and now music executives are homeless and even Bruce Springsteen has to go to SXSW to shill his new album. There’s no money left. Jay-Z and Dre make more money off of non-music ventures and all you’ve got left in music is wannabes. Blecch.

If you’re smart, you’ll follow me. Thinking you can make a living in music is like believing you can win the lottery. And you think it takes just as much skill. Nada. I went to college, I went to law school, I’m done with you, I’m going behind the gate and throwing away the key, only flying private from now on.

Look, I get it. You can’t have people like Lefsetz writing whatever he wants, pissing off teenagers like Taylor Swift. If you let him loose he’ll ruin radio, television, newspapers…who knows what’s next. He’s got way too much power. Otherwise why would you bother to read the words of this idiot who never signed a hit act and never ran a major record label. That would be like saying Bob Costas is qualified to call baseball or host the Olympics, even though he never even batted in the MLB, never mind hit 300, and he’s too wimpy to even throw the hammer.

People like Lefsetz need to be shut up. I mean who does he think he is? There’s nobody he hasn’t written negative stuff about. He’s just a crybaby loser who is desperate to be close to fame. He’s been doing it for twenty five years already. He’s put in 10,000 hours and he’s not as talented as, never mind famous as, Paula Abdul.

Good riddance.

I hear you. I’m done.

The Walrus and The Carpenter

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - April 1st, 2012, 6:00AM

One of my all time favorite poems . . . perfect for today

>

Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There
by Lewis Carroll, (1872) (free online text U.Virginia)

>

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright–
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done–
“It’s very rude of him,” she said,
“To come and spoil the fun!”

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead–
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
“If this were only cleared away,”
They said, “it would be grand!”

“If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose,” the Walrus said,
“That they could get it clear?”
“I doubt it,” said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

“O Oysters, come and walk with us!”
The Walrus did beseech.
“A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each.”

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head–
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

Read the rest of this entry »

HangOut: Kevin Smith on Creating Collaboratively vs Alone

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - March 31st, 2012, 2:36PM

MyFoxLA Google+ Hangouts On Air w/ Kevin Smith & Maria Quiban

hat tip boingboing

Mary Matlin’s Economics

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - March 31st, 2012, 2:30PM

Paul Kasriel will be retiring from The Northern Trust Company on April 30. In the last month of his tenure, he plans to share some of his parting thoughts on economics.

He begins with this humdinger:

“Now, on to Mary Matalin. I saw her on one of the cable news shows on Wednesday defending Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s planned car “elevator” in his new La Jolla home in terms of job creation. Ms. Matalin argued that by installing this elevator, Romney would be creating new jobs for the economy. How might Bastiat, the 19th century French political economist, have reacted to Ms. Matalin’s argument? My suspicion is that he would have made a distinction between what Ms. Matalin “sees” and what is “unseen.” Ms. Matalin sees the additional workers manufacturing and installing the elevator. What she apparently does not see are the workers who otherwise would have been hired for some other unrelated project had Mr. Romney forgone the installation of the elevator and rather invested, or saved, these “elevator” funds. Ms. Matalin, a Republican partisan, appears to have bought into the Keynesian fallacy often trumpeted by Democratic (or is it Democrat?) partisans that an increase in saving implies less total spending in the economy and diminished job creation. If Mr. Romney chooses to forgo the installation of a car elevator in favor of, say, purchasing some additional financial assets, in effect, he is transferring some of his purchasing power to another entity – a business, another household or a governmental body – that has a greater urgency to spend currently than does Mr. Romney. So, although Mr. Romney would be hiring fewer workers to manufacture and install a car elevator, the recipient of Mr. Romney’s investment funds would be hiring additional workers to produce whatever they were purchasing. (This concept of transfer credit comes from the Austrian school of economics, whose pupils greatly admire Bastiat.)The only way Mr. Romney’s decision to forgo the installation of a car elevator would not lead to a creation of jobs is if Mr. Romney chose to increase his saving by holding more bank deposits and/or currency, in which case would result in a decline in the velocity of money.

So, boys and girls, like Bastiat, keep your eyes open. Try to see everything when analyzing economic issues. Ms. Matalin was not incorrect to argue that Mr. Romney’s decision to install a car elevator in his new abode would create new jobs. But what she apparently failed to see is that new jobs would have also been created if Mr. Romney had chosen to forgo the purchase of the car elevator and instead invested those funds. Increased saving in general does not result in decreased aggregate spending. Rather, it merely changes the composition of who is engaging in the new spending.”

Rather intriquing . . .

>

Source:
Kasriel’s Parting Thoughts – Mary Matlin’s Economics
Paul Kasriel
The Northern Trust Company March 29, 2012
http://bit.ly/H49XEs

March Badness

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - March 31st, 2012, 7:33AM

This is hilarious!

March Badness rules are simple: the biggest scandal wins. Will Jon Corzine take down Jimmy Cayne? Will John Thain pull out an upset over Greg Smith, like Lehigh did over Duke?

>

Full article at Dealbook

51 queries. 0.472 seconds.