Health care debate

As a former professor of constitutional law, Obama should know that the plan to transform the healthcare system in this country is a constitutional question, and should be preceded by a constitutional amendment granting government the powers that he seeks. The debate on healthcare should be a debate over a hundred word long amendment rather than competing hundred thousand word long congressional bills.

A Billy Jack moment at the beer summit

Shilling for the Jackson family Budweiser distributorship is a bit too predictable. Obama should pour some of the Red Stripe in his glass, and then mix it with the "Blue Moon".

If you think about it, a working engine is a much simpler thing than a broken one

Nobody understood the economy when it was working -- so why should they understand it better when it is broken?

If the New York Times is right, and what we are seeing is a necessary restructuring of the economy, then the high unemployment rate is indicative of out-sized opportunities. As the economy restructures, talented people are released and are now able to help the visionaries who can see the future.

If we can just silence those creeps who keep whispering about inevitable currency revaluations -- which would require a constitutional amendment anyway -- we can focus on the fact that the United States is the wealthiest country in the world, and capital's favorite haven.

But what if we are selling our sound dollars in exchange for soon-to-be-revalued foreign currencies? Currency revaluations are quite contagious.

New economic policy

Rather than having the government control the "commanding heights of capitalism", we need to structure things so there aren't any natural monopolies and no commanding heights at all. With interchangeable standards, there could be one hundred thousand different car companies rather than three.

What we need is a strong government with a deep faith in capitalism

Choose a number -- say $250,000 -- and then let each person convert up to that number from the old currency to the new currency.

There is a mad shuffle, plenty of black market opportunities -- assets switch hands and as many people as possible get the full subsidy.

However, once the currency revaluation is over, you have effectively taxed all wealth over a certain sum. Like a jubilee, but a little less frequent.

With the whiff of a currency revaluation in the air, the prices of real assets skyrocket (because, of course, they are being paid for with soon-to-be-worthless money). That should at least resuscitate the real estate market.

Once money has been reestablished and equitably distributed and the future can be clearly assessed, capitalism will do its magic -- people will organize, et cetera. Foreign countries might be marginally less willing to export to us -- but we have been very forgiving of their currency revaluations, so fairness demands that they should give us at least one pass -- and we will be forced to come up with innovative domestic solutions if they are really such sore losers to boycott us. Win win.

So why is everyone so upset about all the trillions of dollars being spent to "save" the financial system? When we fail, we will need a currency revaluation, anyway.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

So, 2 days after the assault of political robocalls that were the price of living in Illinois' fifth congressional district during the recent special primary should have ended, I received a robocall telling me "Don't hang up! You've won a fabulous Caribean vaca --". Of course I'm on the don't call list, and this is the very first time I've gotten this blatant a robocall -- it is doubtless because discount firm used by O'Connor, Fritchey or Feigenholtz for their dinner-interrupting harrassments had archived the number to sell other unscrupulous customers. Now -- as a result of their carelessness -- residents of the fifth can expect quasi-illegal phone calls for many months in the future.

Moving from a melting pot to a stew

It always confuses me when, in Holder's recent speech for example, superficial people decry the social segregation of individuals into like-minded communities by saying that those individuals have incomparable riches to offer one another. I agree with the second sentiment, but those riches are the product of the social segregation that nurtures their unique cultural perspectives, and a project of massive integration would deprive future generations of that wealth.

Frank conversation

Eric Holder wants us all to have a frank conversation about "race". But the beginning of that frank conversation would explain that most European-Americans have virtually no racial prejudice. They genuinely appreciate Africans, they respect their intelligence, admire their cultures, and appreciate their sense of family. No, their antipathy is is much more deeply rooted than something as superficial as racial prejudice -- they are irritated by African-American culture, and those feelings are vindicated when people like Bill Cosby express the same feelings, and doubly confirmed when their trusted African friends explain that they do not particularly enjoy African-American culture.

But when African-Americans process cultural biases as racial prejudice -- and respond with rage rather than self-examination or dismissal* -- a frank conversation would probably help them work through their issues. But remember, Holder said that we are a "nation of cowards" -- not that white people were cowards -- so maybe he was trying to initiate this helpful conversation in a particularly hamhanded way?

(* Just as an Indian might say, "those stupid Europeans make fun of us for wiping our butts with our hands, but we know they can never get truly clean with their wasteful toilet paper, and they are all walking around with shit on their asses".)

Sorry, John Paulson

The beauty of Obama bailing out the bottom tranche is a textbook demonstration of why "legal risk" is such a notoriously difficult parameter to put inside a risk model. Trading companies zeroed in on the most outrageous mortgages like heat-seaking missiles, since they had the most edge when they shorted them. However, since bets were clustered in the same place -- the ratio of CDSes to Underlyings on bottom tranche mortgages is something like 7:1 -- so, if it is structured correctly, every dollar Obama gives away to the most obviously unworthy recipients should take away seven dollars from utterly unworthy trading companies. It almost gives one hope.