Wired reports on Darpa – that agency which built the internet, now wants a new mathematical language to describe everything (here):

The very first step? Create a unified mathematical language for everything the military sees or hears.

The armed forces are overwhelmed by all the data its various sensors are sniffing out. They want a single data stream that combines drone video feeds, cell phone intercepts, and targeting radar. Darpa’s solution, found in the brand-new Mathematics of Sensing, Exploitation, and Execution program is to design an algorithm that teaches the sensors how to interpret the world — how to think, how to learn and what data, accordingly to collect.

The Economist debates: This house believes that restricting the growth of cities will improve quality of life (here).  An interesting topic, with the debate revolving around whether size is a problem and if so, forcing a certain size or giving individuals freedom to choose.  Research, not (yet at least) discussed,  has been attempted in the past to find the perfect size for a city; meaning how large does a city get before standard city services such as garbage collection or policing become less effective with the addition or each new citizen.

Either way, I’m still for free choice.

SCOTUS Blog on an upcoming Supreme Court arguments about corporate “person hood” (here):

At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument on a government appeal arguing that business corporations do not have a right of of “personal privacy” that shields from compelled public disclosure the records they turn over to federal agencies.

From Stratfor, especially needed in light of gun control regulation based upon a single incident, Separating Terror from Terrorism. The piece concludes with this:

Recognizing that terrorist attacks, like car crashes and cancer and natural disasters, are a part of the human condition permits individuals and families to practice situational awareness and take prudent measures to prepare for such contingencies without becoming vicarious victims. This separation will help deny the practitioners of terrorism and terror the ability to magnify their reach and power.

]]> http://detailedabstractions.com/2011/01/19/infinite-monkey-theorems/feed/ 0 http://detailedabstractions.com/2011/01/18/obama-calls-for-regulations-review-is-this-some-kind-of-a-joke/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obama-calls-for-regulations-review-is-this-some-kind-of-a-joke http://detailedabstractions.com/2011/01/18/obama-calls-for-regulations-review-is-this-some-kind-of-a-joke/#comments Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:39:54 +0000 Michael S. Langston http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=1881 President Obama is planning to sign an executive order to review business regulations (via LA Times here):

WASHINGTON (AP) — Taking another step toward mending his relationship with the business community, President Barack Obama will order a review of federal regulations with an eye toward getting rid of those that stifle job creation and hurt economic growth.

Upon hearing this news, I was immediately reminded of the Simpsons’ episode.  The episode is about NASA, who having problems with funding, decides to put an average man in space for marketing purposes.  The press conference (here):

Scientist: Ladies and gentlemen and members of the press.  I’d like to
           present the new generation of NASA astronauts: the average
           American.
            [Curtain rises to show Homer wearing a "Hail to the Chef"
           apron and Barney dressed as a golfer]
Reporter: Jim Wallace, Associated Press.  [clears throat] Is this a
           joke?
Scientist: [cheery] Far from it, Jim.  One of these men will prove space
           travel is within the reach of the common man.
Reporter: Toby Hunter, Minneapolis Star.  No really, is this a joke?
Scientist: No, Toby, and no more questions about whether this is a joke.
            [Everyone lowers their hand, dejected]

Please don’t misunderstand – I’m hoping, like a lot of people, that the President is serious about this.  However, almost every single action taken by this administration shows an absolute love of controlling by regulations, even when no obvious reason for doing so exists.

This is after all the same President who gave us an executive order which prevented anyone from drilling for oil offshore due to one oil spill on a platform owned by BP (DA post here). 

This was all prior to the government report released late last year, which held BP accountable, but even after blaming BP for the entirety of the incident, they announced a month later continued blanket regulations against an all of the industry.

Even the President’s own fact finding commission is wondering what many others questioned before – what is this continued ban is supposed to fix?  They plan to press the administration on the issue soon.

And that’s just regulations for a small part of the energy industry.  This is also the same administration who pushed for financial reform.  Financial reform which as pushed before they had anyone had any idea what took place.  The reform which included controls on market segments which are known to have little to no impact on the financial crisis like hedge funds, derivatives, executive compensation and more (here & here).  The reform which has now been passed, but will fail to do one of the most crucial elements of any reform claiming to prevent “too big too fail” – (here):

The Act does not deal with the mispricing of pervasive government guarantees throughout the financial sector. This will allow many financial firms to finance their activities at below-market rates and take on excessive risk.

Which is all outside of the elephant in the room, health care reform.   Which, as far as I’m aware, is the first attempt by any US administration to purposefully regulate an American citizen while they do absolutely nothing.

Which is also outside of them spending 1 trillion dollars to regulate economic activity towards job growth (fail), outside of trying to regulate buying habits of  car buyers and home buyers.  This is even without discussing government ownership GM.

So…. Mr. President, with all due respect, is this a joke?

The website of MasterCard has been hacked and partially paralysed in apparent revenge for the international credit card’s decision to cease taking donations to WikiLeaks….

Though not very inventive nor innovative, they used an old and mostly discarded technique by anyone claiming the title “hacker” known as DOS (Denial of Service) – continued:

…A group of online activists calling themselves Anonymous appear to have orchestrated a DDOS (“distributed denial of service”) attack on the site, bringing its service at www.mastercard.com to a halt for many users….

& if that weren’t enough to prove a bunch of third graders have too much computer time on their hands, they decided to name their playground bullying an “operation”:

…”Operation: Payback” is the latest salvo in the increasingly febrile technological war over WikiLeaks. MasterCard announced on Monday that it would no longer process donations to the whistleblowing site, claiming it was engaged in illegal activity….

Irregardless, the truth is oppression by government or oppression by mob rule, is still oppression and by covertly attacking private business to try and punish specific policies or to try and force a change in policies is little better than taking your money forcefully at gunpoint.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending all the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the total 2018 debt. The single biggest step our government could take this year to address the structural deficit would be to let the tax cuts expire. Such a credible commitment to long-term fiscal sustainability should reduce interest rates today, helping to stimulate the economy….

According to Mr. Johnson, even though critics say letting the tax cuts expire would retard growth, that money could be used more effectively (he continues):

…If the goal is to boost growth and employment immediately, it would be better to let the tax cuts expire and dedicate some of the increased revenue to real stimulus programs…

You mean, stimulus programs like “Cash for Clunkers” (NBER working paper here)?

…Our empirical strategy exploits variation across U.S. cities in ex-ante exposure to the program as measured by the number of “clunkers” in the city as of the summer of 2008. We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended….

Or how about the stimulus plan we were told would keep unemployment rates to 8% (DA Post here), while they currently hover around 10% (here):

…in August, and the unemployment rate was about unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Or…maybe the government takeover/purchase of GM (post here):

…in reality, the US Treasury through pressure by the Obama administration spent $50 billion dollars to own 61% of the shares.  With roughly 500 million shares available, this means the US government current owns 305 million shares.  At the current stock price today of .375 dollars, their 50 billion dollar investment is worth roughly 115 million dollars….

Or maybe controlling healthcare costs by passing a bill no one understands…. which has already started failing as insurers have already started raising rates more than goverment predictions (post here):

…The economics and logic of these required rate increases are undeniable.  If someone, in this case the government through force of law, tells a private business that they must increase their spending, under force of law, some, if not all, of those new expenditures will be passed on to consumers…

So to sum up Mr. Johnson, even though evidence, extremely recent evidence, demonstrates what economic thinkers have told us for centuries:  government can not create jobs – the problem doesn’t lie with government spending, but instead in allowing people to keep their own money.

I don’t know when we start understanding what Albert Einstein expressed so eloquently so many years ago, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” but let’s hope it’s soon.

For more, excellent Cato article The Stimulus: The Government Job Creation Myth

Via the Economist (here subtitled: An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not):

AMERICANS expect much from their president, but they do not think he should run car companies. Fortunately, Barack Obama agrees. This week the American government moved closer to getting rid of its stake in General Motors (GM) when the recently ex-bankrupt firm filed to offer its shares once more to the public…

Which sounds nice in theory, but in reality, the US Treasury through pressure by the Obama administration spent $50 billion dollars to own 61% of the shares.  With roughly 500 million shares available, this means the US government current owns 305 million shares.  At the current stock price today of .375 dollars, their 50 billion dollar investment is worth roughly 115 million dollars.

So even if a theoretical IPO that generates excitement were to happen, in order for the government to recoup $50 billion dollars the stock price will have to increase to $163 dollars a share or by more than 400 times it’s current price.

But of course when it’s not your money you lost, but taxpayers money, I guess that changes the calculus….

The Economist continues:

…Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy….

& here’s where it gets more confusing.  After stating the obvious concerns one would normally have when any business starts making decisions based upon politics instead of what’s best for the company (& also what they are legally bound to do, their fiduciary responsibility), they tell us those fears are wrong:

…Mr Obama has been tough from the start. GM had to promise to slim down dramatically—cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands—to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside….

While simultaneously explaining to us how they did in fact make tons of political decisions:

Unions did win some special favours: when Chrysler was divided among its creditors, for example, a union health fund did far better than secured bondholders whose claims should have been senior….

DA posted about how the Obama administration used their leverage and power to bend the law to help the Unions over other creditors who should’ve legally be first in line for any monies (here).

But of course, that wasn’t the only political meddling in GM (the Economist):

Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends….

Then why does the Economist think it’s a good idea?

[President Obama] his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold….

& there we have it.  So long as there wasn’t a huge amount of political intervention and there’s a possibility that the government might recoup all their money…. Thing are good for The Economist.

Of course “good” is being defined by potential future results.  The truth is, the US government buying up private businesses creates far more implications that whether the stock prices rise enough to recoup the money they were given.

Enter Harvard Law School on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.  Instead of asserting some win based upon theoretical future value, they asked the more important question (here):

In our paper When the Government Is the Controlling Shareholder, recently made publicly available on SSRN, we analyze the ways in which existing corporate law structures of accountability change when the government is the controlling shareholder, and the extent to which federal “public law” structures substitute for displaced state “private law” norms.

& the implications are vast.  In their full research paper (here), they ask a much more serious and long term question.  Which is, what rights do other shareholders have when the government owns a controlling interest and is forcing companies to make decisions that will not benefit shareholders in the long term?

Normally, shareholders have legal rights at the state level where officers of any company are held legally liable to their fiduciary responsibility:

In the handling of money and when one acts as a corporate or individual trustee, there is a fiduciary responsibility owed to the principal party. It is defined as a relationship imposed by law where someone has voluntarily agreed to act in the capacity of a “caretaker” of another’s rights, assets and/or well being. The fiduciary owes an obligation to carry out the responsibilities with the utmost degree of “good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty and undivided service of the beneficiaries interest.” The good faith has been interpreted to impose an obligation to act reasonably in order to avoid negligent handling of the beneficiary’s interests as well the duty not to favor ANYONE ELSE’S INTEREST (INCLUDING THE TRUSTEES OWN INTEREST) over that of the beneficiary. Further, if the agent should find him/herself in a position of conflicting interests, the agent must disclose the dual agency (acting for two parties at the same time) or risk being accused of constructive fraud in regards to both or either principals….

What this is for, is so shareholders can be protected.  If a company you own shares in decides to willfully make decisions which are counter to this responsibility, shareholders can sue for compensatory damages.

But what if the main decision maker is the federal government?  Even though the Economist seems to be ok with this, though recent history shows this is an incredibly naive position to take (from the full report):

Even though government investment started less than three years ago, there are already troubling anecdotes….

For instance, after the government purchased 71% of AIG and AIG gave 165 million dollars in bonuses which were contractually guaranteed, the “owners” responded with threats.  Senators and Congressmembers bemoaned this.  Told us it was unethical for AIG to follow their contractual obligations because the government owns them.  Even President Obama:

….urged Congress to draft legislation that sends “a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”

As if Senators, Congressmen, and the President have any idea what pay should be in the first place… (DA post here), but they went further (from the full report):

Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee pushed the idea of suing AIG….

Since they have majority ownership:

[Barney Frank] “I still believe that we have a right legally to recover this, because we can assert our ownership rights and say, yes, you may have a contractual right to a bonus but your rotten performance means you should forfeit it”…

Additionally:

…”senior Treasury officials have been meeting several times a week all spring to review, one by one, the payments to the company’s executives. But the time-consuming discussions have never been resolved whether any of the executives should get paid.”  Now, even routine bonuses are pre-cleared with Kenneth Feinberg, the “compensation czar.”

& what of the bank bailouts?

…bailout recipients faced mounting pressure from the President and Congress to increase lending.  President Obama said he would “hold banks ‘fully accountable’ for the assistance they recieved and that they ‘will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer’”…

What about foreclosures, from people who can’t pay their mortgages?

Rep. Barney Frank “acknowledged that struggling homeowners [weren't] getting help as fast as many in Congress had hoped”, and urged bank executives to put in place a foreclosure moratorium until the government could implement mitigation programs.

These same people who also went after GM & Chrysler for closing too many dealerships.  And then there’s Citigroup, Bank of America, etc, etc, etc. (DA post here).

But this is Harvard, so they talk about ways other countries have handled this.  For instance, the UK started another government agency.  Theoretically it’s independent of politics, with a sole goal to find businesses which need to be saved and to save them.

Which of course is an entire other conversation…. why anyone believes the government can make the bad decision of buying a failing private company and solve the conflict of interest by simply building another government agency is…. well, it’s stupid.

It would be like having an entire corrupt police force arguing that the solution to the corruption is to merely hire more cops.

& therein lies the true problem.  When the press, politicians, and us normal voters, refuse to look into the future to see the true implications of such actions, we end up with answers like “since our [government's] original plan didn’t work, it must only be because we didn’t go far enough.”

I would submit to those willing to critically contemplate, that the decision itself was wrong & all these implications were obvious, known, and serve as further proof that politics and business don’t mix.

More importantly however, they fail in their analysis on a fundamental level.  True critical thinking can never rely on results as proof of anything.  Because it’s always possible to make a bad decision, and have positive results in spite of it.  It’s also completely possible that you make the most perfect decision ever, but it still fails.

So no – the question isn’t really whether the government made a good investment, whether taxpayers will actually recoup the $50 billion spent, or whether GM ultimately succeeds in the long run.

The question should be- should we have done it regardless of the answer to any of those questions?

& I would proffer the answer is easy: no.  The long range implications of such dangerous behavior isn’t worth saving one single car company.

Of course, that’s just my two synapses firing…. they could always be misfiring

]]> http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/08/26/should-the-us-government-own-government-motors-i-mean-gm/feed/ 1