In a previous blog post, I showed how California has by far the highest yearly fees of any state for small-business LLCs. $800 per year, plus a share of the gross. The vast majority of states charge no yearly tax at all, and those that do typically charge $200 or less.
By contrast, California has some of the lowest fees on lobbyists. $25 a year. Many other states charge a bit more; here's an old (2003) compilation of lobbyist fees and here is a more recent one. As you can see, many states charge more like $100/year, with Massachusetts at the high end at $1000.
To his credit, CA State Senator Leland Yee proposes to raise the lobbying fee. To a whopping $50 a year. Puhleese. Well, he has to worry some, cause the lobbyist lobby defeated Proposition 15 in 2010, which would have, among many other things, raised fees to $350. But $50 a year is pathetic.
This increased fee is not going to raise much revenue for California. Prop 15 was estimated to raise $1.5 million a year. So it wont fix our budget. But nor would it impact the big lobbyists, for whom a million dollars, split multiple ways so it more like a thousand dollars, is chump change. For example, PG&E is estimated to have spent $45 million in 2010. Akin Gump et. al., a top lobbying firm (they boast of it here), made $25 million in lobbying income in 2011.
So, why does California impede small business with huge small business LLC fees, while coddling lobbyist groups? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. It's due to our system of government, which is corruption. Our state representatives don't want the people to get money from the lobbyist groups, they want themselves to get money from lobbyists. And the cheaper the fees, the more lobbyists, which means more for them.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
David Schoenfield makes great case for Edgar Martinez for the Hall of Fame
A recent blog by David Schoenfield looks at the production one could expect from Albert Pujols over the next ten years. Assuming that Albert will remain elite, the post looks into the past, finding the best players (highest WAR), at his position (1B / DH), at ages 33, 34, ... up to age 41. As one would expect, there is a general decline from ages 32-34, where the top WARs are in the 6.2 - 7.2 range, through ages 35-38 where top WARs average 5.6, and beyond age 38 they rapidly decline into the 2.5 - 3.5 range. Based on this, the Angels may regret their deal after seven years.
But I was pleasantly surprised to see Edgar Martinez appear so often on the list. For four of those ten ages (if you include age 32 which for some reason Schoenfield doesn't) Edgar was the best 1B/DH in baseball. For five of those ten years he was the second best player, by WAR. And for two of those the "best" was Mark McGuire who deserves a large asterisk.
So, if you discount McGuire, from age 32-41, for six of those ten years, Edgar Martinez was the best first baseman / DH in baseball. And for three he was the second best in baseball. This is dominance over an extended period. And Edgar wasn't too shabby in his younger days either, posting OPS+ well above 100 in 1990, 91, 92 and 1994.
Hopefully the Hall of Fame voters will take notice. Last time he received a paltry 33%. Which is actually a slight decline from 36% the previous year.
But I was pleasantly surprised to see Edgar Martinez appear so often on the list. For four of those ten ages (if you include age 32 which for some reason Schoenfield doesn't) Edgar was the best 1B/DH in baseball. For five of those ten years he was the second best player, by WAR. And for two of those the "best" was Mark McGuire who deserves a large asterisk.
So, if you discount McGuire, from age 32-41, for six of those ten years, Edgar Martinez was the best first baseman / DH in baseball. And for three he was the second best in baseball. This is dominance over an extended period. And Edgar wasn't too shabby in his younger days either, posting OPS+ well above 100 in 1990, 91, 92 and 1994.
Hopefully the Hall of Fame voters will take notice. Last time he received a paltry 33%. Which is actually a slight decline from 36% the previous year.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
A Short Illustration of Why America is in Decline
USA Today ran a short article on how we could save $5.6 Billion by switching from the paper $1 bill to longer lasting $1 coins. (An older Business Week article is here). Just like most other western economies use coins. As a frequent visitor to Canada, I know that Canadians are especially proud of their pretty $1 coin, the Loonie, and reasonably accepting of their $2 coin, the Toonie. I like the British pound £1 coin cause it is hefty and really feels like you have something valuable. So, how does the USA fare with the idea? There's a proposal in Congress, with the cute name "Currency Optimization, Innovation and National Savings (COINS)Act" to replace the $1 bill with a coin.
The original proposals for $1 coins came from Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz. Not because it was a good idea or would save money, but as "a way to help Arizona mining interests". At least he is honest. By now we have two PACs formed, a pro-coin group, the Dollar Coin Alliance, (of which Kolbe is honorary chairman) and an anti-coin Americans for George. The former is supported by mining interests, vending machine companies, and the United Steelworkers Union. You can guess why.
Tom Ferguson, former government employee (Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing), probably drawing a large pension, and now a (probably) well-paid consultant and lobbyist, represents Americans for George and claims that "A nation's currency is more than just paper. It is iconic. It is emblematic. It signifies the economy". Other groups oppose the coin. Larry Sabbath of the National Armored Car Association has a valid concern, the increased weight. John Kerry, D-Mass, along with rival Scott Brown, R-Mass, show bipartisanship in opposing the move to coins. Their reasons? All paper for U.S. currency is made in Massachusetts by Crane and Co.
In the grand scheme of things, $5.6 billion isn't that much, but this issue really illustrates the fundamental nature of our current government. Selfishness and Corruption.
The original proposals for $1 coins came from Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz. Not because it was a good idea or would save money, but as "a way to help Arizona mining interests". At least he is honest. By now we have two PACs formed, a pro-coin group, the Dollar Coin Alliance, (of which Kolbe is honorary chairman) and an anti-coin Americans for George. The former is supported by mining interests, vending machine companies, and the United Steelworkers Union. You can guess why.
Tom Ferguson, former government employee (Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing), probably drawing a large pension, and now a (probably) well-paid consultant and lobbyist, represents Americans for George and claims that "A nation's currency is more than just paper. It is iconic. It is emblematic. It signifies the economy". Other groups oppose the coin. Larry Sabbath of the National Armored Car Association has a valid concern, the increased weight. John Kerry, D-Mass, along with rival Scott Brown, R-Mass, show bipartisanship in opposing the move to coins. Their reasons? All paper for U.S. currency is made in Massachusetts by Crane and Co.
In the grand scheme of things, $5.6 billion isn't that much, but this issue really illustrates the fundamental nature of our current government. Selfishness and Corruption.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Newspaper Vice President Complains about Free Speech
Lincoln Millstein wrote an unbelievable editorial in the Monday Oct 10 San Francisco Chronicle. In which he complains about the free press in Taiwan. It's "unfettered", it's "free speech run amok".
From the cracks about Fox News and Sarah Palin, it is clear that Millstein is liberal. Fine. But apparently he is not liberal enough to favor free speech. For any American to complain about too much free speech is wrong. And a senior newspaperman should know better, for him to complain about too much free speech should be a firing offense. This guy is a Senior Vice President at Hearst Newspapers. Who wants to limit free speech.
As for the Taiwan/China politics, here I must plead a lot of ignorance. Millstein decries Tsai Ing-wen, opposition party leader of Taiwan, as an extremist for not attending the Double Ten National Day ceremonies, a "shocking rebuke". Do another Google search. I quickly found this editorial, which seems to present a balanced view, revealing that this is not a rebuke, it is not the first time that a Taiwanese political party missed the ceremonies. The editorial decries a lack of political consensus on Taiwan (hmm, we don't have any of that problem here, do we?) and says that the invitation to Tsai Ing-wen was a "ruse" and calling her "shrewd" for declining. For a couple of more articles, none blaming Tsai for anything, see here and here. According to the second article, she did attend the ceremony!
A quick Google search on Millstein brought up some other incidents where he overstepped his editorial bounds, and digressed from Gernwich CT local politics into Taiwanese politics.
From the cracks about Fox News and Sarah Palin, it is clear that Millstein is liberal. Fine. But apparently he is not liberal enough to favor free speech. For any American to complain about too much free speech is wrong. And a senior newspaperman should know better, for him to complain about too much free speech should be a firing offense. This guy is a Senior Vice President at Hearst Newspapers. Who wants to limit free speech.
As for the Taiwan/China politics, here I must plead a lot of ignorance. Millstein decries Tsai Ing-wen, opposition party leader of Taiwan, as an extremist for not attending the Double Ten National Day ceremonies, a "shocking rebuke". Do another Google search. I quickly found this editorial, which seems to present a balanced view, revealing that this is not a rebuke, it is not the first time that a Taiwanese political party missed the ceremonies. The editorial decries a lack of political consensus on Taiwan (hmm, we don't have any of that problem here, do we?) and says that the invitation to Tsai Ing-wen was a "ruse" and calling her "shrewd" for declining. For a couple of more articles, none blaming Tsai for anything, see here and here. According to the second article, she did attend the ceremony!
A quick Google search on Millstein brought up some other incidents where he overstepped his editorial bounds, and digressed from Gernwich CT local politics into Taiwanese politics.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
SEIU Editorial in WSJ almost convincing
Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, writes an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. She makes many good points.
But she then digresses into bald-faced politics.
Ms. Henry argues that Congress should pass the American Jobs Act and put Americans back to work.
It's been three years since Wall Street CEOs crashed our economy. When Wall Street was on its knees, the American taxpayers came to their rescue with trillions of dollars in bailouts and promise from the big banks that they'd invest in our recovery.One could argue if it was solely Wall Street CEOs that crashed the economy. Whatever. We did bail them out. And we have received little in return. They have returned to their bonuses and excesses. They sit on hordes of cash and layoff workers. I'm pissed at them. I agree with David Brooks, neither of us a left-wing firebrand, that banks that are "too large to fail" should have been broken up during the bailout. Instead they got even larger.
But she then digresses into bald-faced politics.
And this week House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor again turned their backs on the American people by refusing to even bring the American Jobs Act up for a vote.A fair-minded observer would also criticize Harry Reid who, two days ago, triggered a "nuclear option" to prevent a vote in the Senate on the American Jobs Act. But SEIU can't criticize Democrats, cause they are in bed with them.
Ms. Henry argues that Congress should pass the American Jobs Act and put Americans back to work.
to keep teachers in our classrooms, police on the beat, health-care workers at our hospitals and clinics, and ensure that we have enough firefighters to protect our communities.Fine. If you are a teacher, health-care worker. etc. Which happens to be pretty much what the SEIU represents. Taxing the rich to pay SEIU members will provide some job creation and provide some spark to the economy, but it is hardly a cure all for the private sector, and is certainly not a righteous stand by the president of their union.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Book Review, George R R Martin's "A Dance With Dragons".
For the record, I loved the first three books, was o.k. with the fourth, and eagerly awaited A Dance With Dragons, the fifth book of George R. R. Martin's Song of Fire and Ice series. I was extremely disappointed. It's long and very little happens. I guess that when you are a big shot author, editors wont tell you you have written too much filler. There's too many unrelated characters growing in importance. Too much Robert Jordan, not enough Glen Cook. At this rate Martin, like Jordan, will die before the story's conclusion.
There's some excellent stuff. Daenerys Targaryen rules an occupied city along Slaver's Bay, where her desires to do the right things there, and conflicts with corrupt or grasping local nobility, constantly interfere with her planned return to claim the throne of Westeros. There's a few too many suitors and not enough of her. But the dramatic and exciting resolution is wonderful - surely written for the screen as you'd expect from a screenwriter. It just makes you wonder why we wasted all that time leading up to it with all her endless suitors and all the endless intrigue.
In the North, Stannis Baratheon's forces endure extreme hardships as they march through severe storms to assault the ruins of Winterfell, held by the despicable Boltons and Freys. Both sides face internal dissensions and intrigues. The descriptions of the trials of the starving army at march are great. I'm sorry, I like some darkness, but the prolonged descriptions of even more sadistic cruelty by the Freys and Boltons disgusted me, and are unnecessary. They already broke hospitality and slaughtered their prospective in-laws at a Wedding Feast. Their sigil is a flayed man. We get it, they aren't nice guys - I don't need pages and pages of twisted sex, mental and physical torture to prove that.
Anyway, do we get to a battle? No. All that dramatic buildup, and all we get is a 2nd hand report of the results of the battle, via a letter to Stannis' wife.
Tyrion the Imp is a fascinating character. There are glimpses of his character continuing to develop - will he end the series as a nihilistic cynic or not? But most of the book he moves around aimlessly, almost literally travelling in circles as he is exchanged from one camp to another. There are pages and pages of repetitive descriptions of all of his feasts. A nice contrast from the starvation of others, but it seemed like much was cut and pasted from a chapter 100 pages before. Frankly, the Imp became borderline boring in this one.
At the Wall, Jon Snow deals with the unwanted presence of Stannis, plus preparing the realm's defenses for Winter. He makes many interesting and controversial decisions. And fights the temptation to get involved to assist his family in politics. But it's all prep. Nothing actually happens. When the movie or TV series arrives, no Others will be harmed in the making of the picture. More actually happens at the Wall in the prologue in the very first book, than in this entire book in which Jon Snow is a major character.
Many other characters appear. Too many. The Onion Knight is pretty much a waste of time. Some Dorne characters take up some time, mainly for naught. I like the Sand Snakes, wish we saw more of them.
At the start of the book is a major magical revelation - "there's this magical thing you can do in Westeros". Not an unexpected one, something I always suspected for Arya, but made explicit. Almost nothing happens with it. Arya herself (my favorite character) makes a couple of brief appearances. Unfortunately, what she is up to appears to have almost zero relevance to any of the main plotlines.
As expected, a major character unexpectedly dies. One of the major charms of the series. I literally cried when Ygritte died way back in book two - rare for me to do just reading a book. But this time I found the death unsatisfying, undramatic, and unbelievable.
Oh yeah - there's way too much needless backstory. Every little event, like tying a shoe, brings back tragic memories of some lost battle ages ago. With countless names of dead nobles, better forgotten.
For an even more negative (but clever) review, see this.
.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Reviewing the 2011 Fantasy Baseball Season
Our league's regular season is winding down. Looks like my team, "Boomer's Wallbangers", will end up with a nice 12-8 record, but only good for 5th out of 10 teams, just missing the top four for the playoffs. This despite having the third highest total points. Such are the vagaries of head-to-head. I thought it would be a good time to review the season. In this post, let's look at how the players I drafted worked out. Here were my initial thoughts, but today, naturally, they are different. As a reminder, this was an automated draft, so the computer, and pre-season rankings, made many of the decisions. Though a lot of the As and Giants pitchers picks came from me. (Those I remember "bumping up" I'll put in italics). I'll rate them on a scale of "bust", "disappointing", "o.k.", "good", and "awesome". "RY" is shorthand for "Ranking (at that position) for the Year". "RM" is for the past month. For example, Evan Longoria is ranked, by our points, as the 6th best third basemen for the entire year.
1. Evan Longoria. RY 6th. Disappointing. But RM is 3rd, he's bouncing back at the end of this year.
2. Troy Tulowitsky RY 1st. A good pick.
3. Josh Hamilton RY 32nd. Disappointing.
4. Nelson Cruz RY 17th. Slightly disappointing
5. Jose Reyes. RY 4th. A good, possibly awesome pick.
6. Jayson Werth RY 38th. I dropped him at the All-Star Break - IMO, a bust. I'm surprised that his ranking is not lower!
7. Michael Young. RY hard to tell cause he's played all over, but I'd rank his year as awesome. His RY at 3B is 2nd.
8. Zack Greinke. RY 29th. Disappointing start of the year, but he'd coming on now.
9 Chris Young (the outfielder) RY 16th. He was excellent the start of the year, but has been dismal the past couple of months. (I dropped him a while ago.) So I'd say an o.k. pick.
10. Max Scherzer RY 31st. A good pick.
11. Kelly Johnson. RY 13th. He was awful for me the first 6 weeks, I dropped him. He had a slight revival but has reverted to lousy and has been dropped by a couple of other owners. A bust.
12. Joe Nathan Largely a Bust.
13. Tim Hudson. A good pick. I ended up trading him for Todd Helton.
14. Jonathan Sanchez. Luckily, I traded him, plus Elvis Andrus, for Justin Verlander. So he helped me, but objectively he's a bust.
15. Brian Roberts a complete bust
16. Andrew Bailey o.k.
17. Trevor Cahill. good first half, awful 2nd half. Hard to rate
18. Madison Bumgartner. This was a good pick. Unfortunately, in one of my big mistakes this year, I dropped him while he was struggling (and so was my team) and was slow to pick him back up.
19. Tsuyoshi Nishioka a bust. Of course, at this stage in the draft, you don't expect everybody to pan out, you are just hoping for a positive. Not here.
20. Denard Span. He was o.k., then hurt for the season. Disappointing.
21. Gio Gonzales. This was a great pick, until after the All-Star break. But still good overall.
22. Kurt Suzuki. RY 15th, Meh. I went through a lot of random catchers this year.
23. Austin Jackson. He was instantly traded for Ike Davis. Who played well for a couple of months and was then out for the year. So, I'd say disappointing (if you count him as Ike Davis)
24. Wade Davis. He was dropped fairly soon. o.k.
25. Logan Morrison. RY around 50. This was a great pick. Until Florida dumped him.
26. Michael Pineda RY 24th. A great pick.
27. Kila Ka'aihue A bust.
There were a few awesomes and good picks, but, overall, there were too many busts in this draft. But I feel good that man of the italic picks worked out well.
1. Evan Longoria. RY 6th. Disappointing. But RM is 3rd, he's bouncing back at the end of this year.
2. Troy Tulowitsky RY 1st. A good pick.
3. Josh Hamilton RY 32nd. Disappointing.
4. Nelson Cruz RY 17th. Slightly disappointing
5. Jose Reyes. RY 4th. A good, possibly awesome pick.
6. Jayson Werth RY 38th. I dropped him at the All-Star Break - IMO, a bust. I'm surprised that his ranking is not lower!
7. Michael Young. RY hard to tell cause he's played all over, but I'd rank his year as awesome. His RY at 3B is 2nd.
8. Zack Greinke. RY 29th. Disappointing start of the year, but he'd coming on now.
9 Chris Young (the outfielder) RY 16th. He was excellent the start of the year, but has been dismal the past couple of months. (I dropped him a while ago.) So I'd say an o.k. pick.
10. Max Scherzer RY 31st. A good pick.
11. Kelly Johnson. RY 13th. He was awful for me the first 6 weeks, I dropped him. He had a slight revival but has reverted to lousy and has been dropped by a couple of other owners. A bust.
12. Joe Nathan Largely a Bust.
13. Tim Hudson. A good pick. I ended up trading him for Todd Helton.
14. Jonathan Sanchez. Luckily, I traded him, plus Elvis Andrus, for Justin Verlander. So he helped me, but objectively he's a bust.
15. Brian Roberts a complete bust
16. Andrew Bailey o.k.
17. Trevor Cahill. good first half, awful 2nd half. Hard to rate
18. Madison Bumgartner. This was a good pick. Unfortunately, in one of my big mistakes this year, I dropped him while he was struggling (and so was my team) and was slow to pick him back up.
19. Tsuyoshi Nishioka a bust. Of course, at this stage in the draft, you don't expect everybody to pan out, you are just hoping for a positive. Not here.
20. Denard Span. He was o.k., then hurt for the season. Disappointing.
21. Gio Gonzales. This was a great pick, until after the All-Star break. But still good overall.
22. Kurt Suzuki. RY 15th, Meh. I went through a lot of random catchers this year.
23. Austin Jackson. He was instantly traded for Ike Davis. Who played well for a couple of months and was then out for the year. So, I'd say disappointing (if you count him as Ike Davis)
24. Wade Davis. He was dropped fairly soon. o.k.
25. Logan Morrison. RY around 50. This was a great pick. Until Florida dumped him.
26. Michael Pineda RY 24th. A great pick.
27. Kila Ka'aihue A bust.
There were a few awesomes and good picks, but, overall, there were too many busts in this draft. But I feel good that man of the italic picks worked out well.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Warren Buffet Editorial "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich"
Warren Buffet wrote an editorial for the Sunday New York Times. I agree with a lot of it. Progressive talk radio (the two shows I listened to yesterday) was all thrilled with it as a repudiation of Republican policies. And, in limited ways, it is.
As background, and painting in overly broad strokes, Democrats have called for repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, those making more than $250,000 a year. Republicans point out that many of those taxpayers are running small businesses, (the Wall Street Journal found that about half of that tax income came from small businesses) and increasing their taxes would hurt job creation. I agree that further burdens on small business would be a mistake in this weak economy. To me, the obvious fix is to write the tax laws so that the increased taxes fall only on rich individuals, not those running small businesses. To my knowledge, nobody in power has proposed any such thing, and maybe it would be difficult to write such a law defining exactly what is a "small business" without loopholes.
As an alternative, I like Buffett's proposals. They should please Democrats by raising the tax burden on the rich, should please Republicans by lessening the impact on small businesses, and they should please everybody by raising tax income to cut the deficit.
Many of the "mega-rich" make their money by investments, and the long term capital gains tax rate is a special low rate of 15%. Perhaps this rate should be raised. But there are arguments that we should encourage long-term investments.
By contrast, short-term capital gains are, in general, taxed as normal income, up to ~35%. But there is a carried interest loophole for investment bankers that allows them to treat much of this short term gain as long term. Closing this loophole would raise 4 billion a year.
Now, the UK has a similar lower rate. Not sure if there is any purpose to it. Barring some explanation of why it is needed, it should be repealed. Buffett argues for their repeal, and I think he would know if there were any good reason for the special low rate to exist. Republicans blocked this reform during the recent debt crisis.
Now, 4 billion a year is a nice start, but it ain't much in the grand scheme of our deficit. So Buffett adds proposals for two new tax levels, at 1 million and 10 million. Sounds good, and at these higher income levels they would be less likely to adversely affect any small businesses. He is not very specific about the new levels. I saw one estimate that this could cut the deficit by 3%. Still not much, but it's something.
Before Democrats crow over their vindication from Buffett, they should read the entire editorial. (emphasis mine)
As background, and painting in overly broad strokes, Democrats have called for repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, those making more than $250,000 a year. Republicans point out that many of those taxpayers are running small businesses, (the Wall Street Journal found that about half of that tax income came from small businesses) and increasing their taxes would hurt job creation. I agree that further burdens on small business would be a mistake in this weak economy. To me, the obvious fix is to write the tax laws so that the increased taxes fall only on rich individuals, not those running small businesses. To my knowledge, nobody in power has proposed any such thing, and maybe it would be difficult to write such a law defining exactly what is a "small business" without loopholes.
As an alternative, I like Buffett's proposals. They should please Democrats by raising the tax burden on the rich, should please Republicans by lessening the impact on small businesses, and they should please everybody by raising tax income to cut the deficit.
Many of the "mega-rich" make their money by investments, and the long term capital gains tax rate is a special low rate of 15%. Perhaps this rate should be raised. But there are arguments that we should encourage long-term investments.
By contrast, short-term capital gains are, in general, taxed as normal income, up to ~35%. But there is a carried interest loophole for investment bankers that allows them to treat much of this short term gain as long term. Closing this loophole would raise 4 billion a year.
Now, the UK has a similar lower rate. Not sure if there is any purpose to it. Barring some explanation of why it is needed, it should be repealed. Buffett argues for their repeal, and I think he would know if there were any good reason for the special low rate to exist. Republicans blocked this reform during the recent debt crisis.
Now, 4 billion a year is a nice start, but it ain't much in the grand scheme of our deficit. So Buffett adds proposals for two new tax levels, at 1 million and 10 million. Sounds good, and at these higher income levels they would be less likely to adversely affect any small businesses. He is not very specific about the new levels. I saw one estimate that this could cut the deficit by 3%. Still not much, but it's something.
Before Democrats crow over their vindication from Buffett, they should read the entire editorial. (emphasis mine)
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues.Even I know that 3% is a small reduction in the deficit, and Buffett is far smarter than me. He clearly states that cutting entitlements is essential.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again and Again
I already have a blog post entitled "Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again". So this post must be named "Again and Again"
In a recent blog, Krugman argues that there was no growth miracle under Reagan, and there was one under Clinton. But he cherry picks the dates over which growth is measured. It's trivial to debunk with a one minute Google search.
To see some real data, go to the excellent Trading Economics web site and look for US GDP growth. Select 1973 in the Date Selection gizmo. You should see this:
Judge for yourself the GDP growth during the Reagan and Clinton growth periods. Looks pretty equal to me. But Krugman includes the years of recession in the average. There was a long and deep recession included in the Reagan totals, and a short and shallow recession in the Clinton total. So of course the averaged growth rate over the entire period would be higher under Clinton.
In addition, for two of these years of the long recession, 1979 and 1980, which are included in the Reagan totals, Reagan wasn't even in office. This is obvious BS. (And kudos to Greg Mankiw for pointing it out)
In a recent blog, Krugman argues that there was no growth miracle under Reagan, and there was one under Clinton. But he cherry picks the dates over which growth is measured. It's trivial to debunk with a one minute Google search.
To see some real data, go to the excellent Trading Economics web site and look for US GDP growth. Select 1973 in the Date Selection gizmo. You should see this:
Judge for yourself the GDP growth during the Reagan and Clinton growth periods. Looks pretty equal to me. But Krugman includes the years of recession in the average. There was a long and deep recession included in the Reagan totals, and a short and shallow recession in the Clinton total. So of course the averaged growth rate over the entire period would be higher under Clinton.
In addition, for two of these years of the long recession, 1979 and 1980, which are included in the Reagan totals, Reagan wasn't even in office. This is obvious BS. (And kudos to Greg Mankiw for pointing it out)
Monday, June 13, 2011
Jon Carroll messes up
Jon Carroll, in a June 8 column, blasts Sarah Palin's comments on Paul Revere as embarrassing and garbled. Others have been even less charitable. When I first heard her comments, I thought the same thing. But it turns out that she had the facts more or less correct.
BTW, for an interesting take on Paul Revere as "not much of a hero", read The Fort by Bernard Cornwell.
BLOCK (the interviewer): So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.And this was a couple of days before Jon Carroll's column. Now, maybe there is a lead time, and he wasn't aware of the NPR interview when the article was written. However, it is now nearly a week later and he should apologize.
Prof. ALLISON (the guest): Well, yeah, she did.
BTW, for an interesting take on Paul Revere as "not much of a hero", read The Fort by Bernard Cornwell.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
New York Times cannot bring themselves to really criticize the Democrats
In today's editorial, "Passive in the Senate", the New York Times rightly criticizes the Democrat led US Senate for "not producing a budget proposal in more than two years". Last Wednesday, the Senate voted down the controversial Paul Ryan budget plan, 57 to 40. They also voted down two other Republican plans. For completeness, they then voted down President Obama's own budget, 97 to 0!. A complete waste of time, staged for politics.
But, does the Times really criticize the Democrats in the Senate? The following terms are used.
"deflect attention", "toxic plan", "outrageous", "extreme", "destructive".
However, as you probably suspect, these terms are all applied to the Republicans.
The editorial does criticize the Senate for being reactive, unoriginal, fearful, "play-it-safe", etc. But it's quickly diluted by the Times defending the Democrat actions, as in these sections:
One other section of the editorial is very troubling. It complains that the Senate is "hobbled", in part because "Its members are not elected from the carefully drawn partisan districts that in most years are a House luxury". Sounds like the writer is in favor of Gerrymandering. That way Democrats would have secure seats and could "get things done" without worrying about the will of the people. Just like Tom Friedman admires China's ability to get things done.
I agree with the editorial that revenues must be increased, and that health care costs must be trimmed. But we have a representative government that is supposed to handle that, not some all-powerful entrenched oligarchy and political class. :-) Irony intended, we do have a powerful entrenched political class, but Gerrymandering makes it even more entrenched.
But, does the Times really criticize the Democrats in the Senate? The following terms are used.
"deflect attention", "toxic plan", "outrageous", "extreme", "destructive".
However, as you probably suspect, these terms are all applied to the Republicans.
The editorial does criticize the Senate for being reactive, unoriginal, fearful, "play-it-safe", etc. But it's quickly diluted by the Times defending the Democrat actions, as in these sections:
These political considerations should not be minimized. With only a three-vote majority, Democrats, led by Harry Reid, are understandably fearful about losing the Senate next year and have decided that treading water is better than taking a showy but risky dive.and
It is fine — and important — to attack Mr. Ryan’s destructive Medicare plan, and such criticism seems to be remarkably effective among swing voters, as we saw in last week’s Democratic victory in a special election in western New York.Even the criticism is based on political motivations. The Times isn't criticizing the Senate Democrats for letting the country roll uncontrolled into a fiscal ditch, the criticism is completely political: their passivity loses the Democratic momentum, and empowers the Republicans.
But if Democrats are ever going to regain the momentum in the national conversation, they have to stand for something. Standing pat gives Republicans huge openings to move the debate to the right.
Democrats avoided passing appropriations bills last year for similar reasons, and that failure almost led to a government shutdown this year when Republicans exploited it.In other words, the Times is not particularly upset that the lack of Senate vision and leadership is hurting the country. They are just upset that it is hurting the Democrats.
One other section of the editorial is very troubling. It complains that the Senate is "hobbled", in part because "Its members are not elected from the carefully drawn partisan districts that in most years are a House luxury". Sounds like the writer is in favor of Gerrymandering. That way Democrats would have secure seats and could "get things done" without worrying about the will of the people. Just like Tom Friedman admires China's ability to get things done.
I agree with the editorial that revenues must be increased, and that health care costs must be trimmed. But we have a representative government that is supposed to handle that, not some all-powerful entrenched oligarchy and political class. :-) Irony intended, we do have a powerful entrenched political class, but Gerrymandering makes it even more entrenched.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Fantasy Baseball 2011 April Review
My team, "Boomer's Wallbangers", is off to a decent 2-1 start. I thought I'd look at which players have been "surprises". I'll define "steals" as players who are significantly over-performing their Average Draft Position (ADP), and 'disappointments" as those who have been under-performing. Based on our H2H league's point system, the "steals" are listed below. High numbers are good, meaning either lots of points, or they were drafted late. A "-" for ADP means that, in the average ESPN league, these players were not drafted.
Catchers Pts ADP
Russel Martin 81 - ("-" means undrafted)
Nick Hundley 69 -
Alex Avila 67 -
1B
Ike Davis 89 210
2B
Howie Kendrick 91 146
Neil Walker 80 166
Brian Roberts 70 150
D Espinosa 68 -
F Sanchez 67 -
3B
P. Polanco 84 203
Chipper Jones 73 202
Ryan Roberts 72 -
A Callapso 64 -
SS
Starlin Castro 82 151
A Cabrera 76 218
M Izturis 68 -
Angel Sanchez 68 -
Jed Lowrie 66 -
OF
Lance Berkman 99 204
Jonny Gomes 94 -
Jeff Francoeur 93 -
Alex Gordon 87 -
Sam Fuld 78 -
C. Maybin 73 -
B Boesch 73 -
SP
James Shields 100 204
K Lohse 96 -
A. Harang 82 -
M Harrison 82 -
I Kennedy 82 210
Randy Wolf 81 228
Josh Tomlin 80 -
J Masterson 79 -
A Ogando 79 -
AJ Burnett 76 211
J DeLaRosa 75 224
M Pineda 75 225
B Beachy 75 -
B McCarthy 73 -
Now, for the disappointments. In many cases, these players are currently on the DL (marked with a *) or have spent much time on the DL. Low numbers are bad - not many points or drafted early.
Catchers Pts ADP
Joe Mauer* 18 25
V Martinez* 46 43
1B
Adrian Gonzales 68 11
Adam Dunn 44 38
2B
Dustin Pedroia 69 28
Dan Uggla 65 34
3B
Evan Longoria* 1 5
R Zimmerman* 32 22
SS
Hanley Ramirez 43 2.5
Derek Jeter 45 56
Jimmy Rollins 56 64
OF
Carl Crawford 40 4
Josh Hamilton* 36 18
CarGo 61 11
Nelson Cruz 80 27
Matt Holliday 72 17
Jayson Werth 64 47
SP
Chris Carpenter 60 47
Tommy Hanson 61 49
Ubaldo Jimenez 24 47
F Liriano 14 86
Some thoughts. Remember that these numbers are for less than one month of play, so this is still a small sample size. That said...
First base has by far the fewest surprises. Good place to spend an early draft pick if you want a solid pick, neither good nor bad. In effect, at 1B, it's "reliable", you get what you pay for. By contrast, catchers have the most surprises, both steals and disappointments. IMO, catcher is not worth spending a high round draft pick, as you might be disappointed by an injury, and there seem to always be good steal catchers available for cheap. Shortstop is also a spot where there seem to be many surprises. Second base is kind of "medium". Less surprises than at SS, but still some. For catcher and middle infield, draft as best you can, but it is important to remain active with trades or on the waiver wire.
Third base and outfield have reasonably few surprises. Remember that outfield has three times as many total players, so 6 "steals" is more like 2 steals at another position. Most of the disappointments are due to injuries. So, in general, you seem to get what you pay for here.
Starting pitcher is interesting. There are a lot of positive "steals", pitchers who are doing far better than their ADP. But relatively few "disappointments". So, if you spend on a top-flite pitcher, you generally get what you pay for. But plenty of bargains are there to be had. Again, this is a key area to remain active with trade and on the waiver wire.
Catchers Pts ADP
Russel Martin 81 - ("-" means undrafted)
Nick Hundley 69 -
Alex Avila 67 -
1B
Ike Davis 89 210
2B
Howie Kendrick 91 146
Neil Walker 80 166
Brian Roberts 70 150
D Espinosa 68 -
F Sanchez 67 -
3B
P. Polanco 84 203
Chipper Jones 73 202
Ryan Roberts 72 -
A Callapso 64 -
SS
Starlin Castro 82 151
A Cabrera 76 218
M Izturis 68 -
Angel Sanchez 68 -
Jed Lowrie 66 -
OF
Lance Berkman 99 204
Jonny Gomes 94 -
Jeff Francoeur 93 -
Alex Gordon 87 -
Sam Fuld 78 -
C. Maybin 73 -
B Boesch 73 -
SP
James Shields 100 204
K Lohse 96 -
A. Harang 82 -
M Harrison 82 -
I Kennedy 82 210
Randy Wolf 81 228
Josh Tomlin 80 -
J Masterson 79 -
A Ogando 79 -
AJ Burnett 76 211
J DeLaRosa 75 224
M Pineda 75 225
B Beachy 75 -
B McCarthy 73 -
Now, for the disappointments. In many cases, these players are currently on the DL (marked with a *) or have spent much time on the DL. Low numbers are bad - not many points or drafted early.
Catchers Pts ADP
Joe Mauer* 18 25
V Martinez* 46 43
1B
Adrian Gonzales 68 11
Adam Dunn 44 38
2B
Dustin Pedroia 69 28
Dan Uggla 65 34
3B
Evan Longoria* 1 5
R Zimmerman* 32 22
SS
Hanley Ramirez 43 2.5
Derek Jeter 45 56
Jimmy Rollins 56 64
OF
Carl Crawford 40 4
Josh Hamilton* 36 18
CarGo 61 11
Nelson Cruz 80 27
Matt Holliday 72 17
Jayson Werth 64 47
SP
Chris Carpenter 60 47
Tommy Hanson 61 49
Ubaldo Jimenez 24 47
F Liriano 14 86
Some thoughts. Remember that these numbers are for less than one month of play, so this is still a small sample size. That said...
First base has by far the fewest surprises. Good place to spend an early draft pick if you want a solid pick, neither good nor bad. In effect, at 1B, it's "reliable", you get what you pay for. By contrast, catchers have the most surprises, both steals and disappointments. IMO, catcher is not worth spending a high round draft pick, as you might be disappointed by an injury, and there seem to always be good steal catchers available for cheap. Shortstop is also a spot where there seem to be many surprises. Second base is kind of "medium". Less surprises than at SS, but still some. For catcher and middle infield, draft as best you can, but it is important to remain active with trades or on the waiver wire.
Third base and outfield have reasonably few surprises. Remember that outfield has three times as many total players, so 6 "steals" is more like 2 steals at another position. Most of the disappointments are due to injuries. So, in general, you seem to get what you pay for here.
Starting pitcher is interesting. There are a lot of positive "steals", pitchers who are doing far better than their ADP. But relatively few "disappointments". So, if you spend on a top-flite pitcher, you generally get what you pay for. But plenty of bargains are there to be had. Again, this is a key area to remain active with trade and on the waiver wire.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Will the New York Times make up their mind?
In late March, the New York Times ran an article saying that GE was using "aggressive...lobbying" and "innovative accounting" to avoid paying US taxes, and even claim a tax refund of billions. There is some dispute as to the accuracy of the claims, but it's true that GE is taking advantage of tax laws to lower their tax burden. Whether this is "fiduciary responsibility" or "exploiting loopholes" is debatable.
In today's editorials, the Times, as one would expect, blast Paul Ryan's budget proposal. They blast it several times, including implicating it in any impending government shutdown, but I'm focusing on that one editorial. I agree with the editorial that "serious deficit reduction requires everything to be on the table, including tax increases", something Ryan does not envision. And Ryan dodges the whole third rail of Social Security. However, the Times goes on to say (italics mine)
Instead of blanket condemnation of Ryan's proposals, how about "we like getting rid of the loopholes. but lets increase his top rate from 25% to X%", and actually propose something concrete and constructive.
A couple of the more conservative Times columnists offer a more balanced evaluation of the Ryan proposal, Ross Douhat and David Brooks.
In today's editorials, the Times, as one would expect, blast Paul Ryan's budget proposal. They blast it several times, including implicating it in any impending government shutdown, but I'm focusing on that one editorial. I agree with the editorial that "serious deficit reduction requires everything to be on the table, including tax increases", something Ryan does not envision. And Ryan dodges the whole third rail of Social Security. However, the Times goes on to say (italics mine)
The Republican plan calls only for tax simplification. It would get rid of loopholes and reduce rates in a way that would not raise overall revenues but would invariably cut the tax bill of wealthy taxpayers for whom lower rates are more valuable than assorted loopholes.The Times cannot run an article complaining that tax loopholes let GE get away with paying no taxes, then, just a couple of weeks later, run an editorial that belittles the value of loopholes. This is intellectual dishonesty.
Instead of blanket condemnation of Ryan's proposals, how about "we like getting rid of the loopholes. but lets increase his top rate from 25% to X%", and actually propose something concrete and constructive.
A couple of the more conservative Times columnists offer a more balanced evaluation of the Ryan proposal, Ross Douhat and David Brooks.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The Sad Truth about TARP
Today's New York Times has a damning opinion piece about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Where the Bank Bailout Went Wrong. (see, I don't always disagree with NYT editorials!). Though the government declares that TARP has been "remarkably effective", the author, Neil M. Barofsky, who was the Special Inspector General of the program, strongly disagrees. Yes, the program "saved" our big banks.
Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admits that the mortgage servicers are “still doing a terribly inadequate job.” But Treasury Officials aren't fixing this. Instead, Americans know that they were taken for a ride by "fat cat" bankers who exploited the crisis to save and enrich themselves, while many homeowners take a financial licking. The last paragraph is chilling:
From the perspective of the largest financial institutions, the glowing assessment is warranted: billions of dollars in taxpayer money allowed institutions that were on the brink of collapse not only to survive but even to flourish. These banks now enjoy record profits and the seemingly permanent competitive advantage that accompanies being deemed “too big to fail.”But, as is painfully apparent to anyone, TARP failed in another goal, to protect home values.
Treasury, however, provided the money to banks with no effective policy or effort to compel the extension of credit... not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds. ... It was therefore no surprise that lending did not increase but rather continued to decline well into the recovery.Later, the Home Affordable Modification Program was announced, and has been a "colossal failure." The housing bust means that (very roughly) 10 million homes could face foreclosure, and this program has modified only 540,000, about 5%. Mortgage writedowns, where banks lower the principal on a mortgage (and take a big loss) were seen an "inevitable" in 2009. But as of 2011 there haven't been many, as banks refuse to take the losses, and the government is still crafting proposals.
Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admits that the mortgage servicers are “still doing a terribly inadequate job.” But Treasury Officials aren't fixing this. Instead, Americans know that they were taken for a ride by "fat cat" bankers who exploited the crisis to save and enrich themselves, while many homeowners take a financial licking. The last paragraph is chilling:
Indeed, Treasury’s mismanagement of TARP and its disregard for TARP’s Main Street goals — whether born of incompetence, timidity in the face of a crisis or a mindset too closely aligned with the banks it was supposed to rein in — may have so damaged the credibility of the government as a whole that future policy makers may be politically unable to take the necessary steps to save the system the next time a crisis arises. This avoidable political reality might just be TARP’s most lasting, and unfortunate, legacy.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Fantasy Baseball 2011 Starts
Our fantasy baseball league started again - in the wee hours of the morning the computer did an automated draft, and I woke up with much anticipation - what did Santa Claus being me this year? Before the draft, you can adjust the ranking of players. I targeted SS and 3B due to positional scarcity. For example, I had moved Troy Tulowitski up the ranks. Other teams seem to have targeted catchers, starting pitching, or relievers. Here are "my" picks, round by round. (I'm "Boomer's Wallbangers", picking sixth) Note that we are a head-to-head league with fairly "sabremetric" scoring, so some of the player's values vary from the more common 5x5 format. For example, steals aren't nearly as valuable in our league as in many, and walks are valuable. Though most of the GMs are very baseball knowledgeable, it's a "fun" league, not too serious. And, the computer sometimes does strange things...
1. Evan Longoria I love it! Had him last year, he's great and fills a relatively shallow position.
Many of the league members are Boston fans, so that somewhat explains the Pedroia and Lester picks.
2. Troy Tulowitzski again, I'm very happy. There aren't many good SSs. I've now have elite players at two hard-to-fill positions. The Daisuke pick is strange. I'm surprised that Matt Cain went so high but he's done great in this league for two years. Joey Votto at #19 looks like a steal for the Nerds.
3. Josh Hamilton. In a "live" draft, I may have picked Mauer instead, but this seems a good pick. Zimmerman is a good pick by the Marauders.
4. Nelson Cruz. I'm disappointed that Tex went just one pick before. (especially since I end up with no solid 1B at all!) Then, though I'm not a big Kershaw fan, McCann, Carpenter, Fielder and Posey might be better picks. But Cruz should put up huge numbers in Texas. Some of our league members value relievers highly, which explains why they are starting to fall earlier than would be usual. (I don't value them as much, but you do need a couple of good closers on your team)
5. Jose Reyes. I really don't need a second elite SS. But, the players picked shortly after don't excite me. So I can't blame the computer too much. I'm a bit disappointed that I barely missed out on Jered Weaver and Tommy Hanson. I've had Hanson on my team the past two years, and watching him grow and improve has been fun. Good picks by the Pirates and Penguins.
6. Jayson Werth. O.K. But computer is picking too many outfielders. I might have picked Kinsler or reached for Carlos Santana. But a solid pick. I had Jason Heyward last year, fun to watch him too, but I'm glad my friend Steven, who live and breathes Georgia sports, got him.
7. Michael Young. Darned, missed on Carlos Santana by one! Young is an interesting pick, especially if he stays in Texas and becomes eligible at multiple positions. None of the next 10 picks excite me too much, so, o.k. My team is getting a little "Texas heavy".
8. Zack Greinke. About time to get a pitcher. Two of the other teams (Comets and Pirates) obviously targeted top line pitching. I targeted "undervalued good pitching". At the end of the year we will see how well I rated them. Also, have to admit (as you'll see soon) I wanted to get a bunch of As and Giants to root for. :-) Assuming Greinke's health is not an issue, he should be a solid pick. I like the Prado and Stanton picks by the Penguins and Nerds.
9. Chris Young (OF). Picked him up last year and he was a pleasant surprise. Another outfielder, but the next 10 picks aren't all that exciting - maybe Konerko or Billy Butler to get a 1B?. Too bad I missed on Josh Johnson by 2 picks - a good pick by Displaced Braves Fan. Victorino to the Nerds scotches my plan to lock up all the Hawaiian born players. :-)
10. Max Scherzer. Love this pick, he was great for me the 2nd half of last year. Even though I'll desperately need a 1B, I prefer him to Billy Butler.
11. Kelly Johnson. O.K., gives me a good 2B. Sorry I missed out on Zobrist, Drew Stubbs and Panda - good picks by my opponents. If I didn't hate the Dodgers I might prefer Billingsly or Lilly. Actually, live, I might have picked Shaun Marcum or my next round pick...
12. Joe Nathan. If he's healthy, this is an awesome pick. But Shaun Marcum (who goes next) is a safer, good pick. Hard to say. I'm a bit surprised that Papelbon and Bucholz go so late.
13. Tim Hudson. Like him. And I need some quality pitchers. I'm a bit disappointed that Chris Perez, who did a good job for me last year, is off the board. But I wouldn't pick him till later anyway. Garza and Anderson are good picks by Monsters and Ewoks.
14. Jonathan Sanchez. You need some patience with him, but we'll see. I would have preferred Brett Anderson, but you can't have it all. Angel Pagan is a good pick by Monsters.
15. Brian Roberts. Another 2B? And injury prone. I don't like this pick. But the other picks later in the round aren't exciting either - that's what you start to get around pick 150... So, o.k., and some depth is good. I think Hudson and Putz are good picks by Nerds and Braves Fan.
16. Andrew Bailey. I like it - a good local reliever. Hope his arm works. Between Nathan and Bailey I may have to check the waiver wire for relievers the first couple of weeks. Myers and Hellickson look like good value picks for Falcons and Nerds.
17. Trevor Cahill. Like it. As you see, I bunched up many of the promising Bay Area pitchers in this area, and many have been drafted or will arrive soon... Brandon Morrow is a good pick by Monsters, and Neil Walker might be a great pickup for the Comets.
18. Madison Bumgartner. Like it - another promising local pitcher. Too bad Gaby Sanchez went two picks before, as I still don't have anybody for 1B!
19. Tsuyoshi Nishioka Like it - I had bumped him "up" on the draft list. But not sure why I need three second basemen! More depth. Live I may have picked Romero or Matusz, good value picks by the Falcons.
20. Denard Span. O.K. Solid outfielder who will probably improve over last year. Beckett and Wieters look like good alternative picks by Penguins and Monsters.
21. Gio Gonzales. I think this is an awesome pick. Also like Asdrubal Cabrera and Ike Davis picks by Pirates and Comets.
22. Kurt Suzuki. He was my catcher last year, and does a solid job. If you don't get an elite catcher, he is a solid pick. Escobar and Shields are good picks by Penguins and Monsters.
23. Austin Jackson. Not sure why he fell so low, but he's pretty good for round 23, right? I'm a bit disappointed that Freddie Freeman and Ryan Rayburn went just before. Other than Dexter Fowler, not sure who I would have picked instead, so lets hope Austin learns to make better contact.
24. Wade Davis. I like this pick too. A reasonable pitcher with upside. Jair Jurgens might be a good value pick by Pirates.
25. Logan Morrison. He's a good player, especially under our league rules where walks count. I like the pick, though I'm getting too many OF. Jake Peavy is the other interesting pick this round, by the Comets.
26. Michael Pineda - glad I got him. He was one of my "sleeper" picks. I'm really surprised that Posada, McLouth, Garland and Lackey fell so low. They could be great value picks.
27. Kila Ka'aihue. Another one of my "sleeper picks". And, a real 1B, finally, in round 27! Not sure what the computer was thinking. De La Rosa is a great value pick by Monsters.
Other than 1B, I'm happy with my team. So far...
1. Evan Longoria I love it! Had him last year, he's great and fills a relatively shallow position.
Many of the league members are Boston fans, so that somewhat explains the Pedroia and Lester picks.
2. Troy Tulowitzski again, I'm very happy. There aren't many good SSs. I've now have elite players at two hard-to-fill positions. The Daisuke pick is strange. I'm surprised that Matt Cain went so high but he's done great in this league for two years. Joey Votto at #19 looks like a steal for the Nerds.
3. Josh Hamilton. In a "live" draft, I may have picked Mauer instead, but this seems a good pick. Zimmerman is a good pick by the Marauders.
4. Nelson Cruz. I'm disappointed that Tex went just one pick before. (especially since I end up with no solid 1B at all!) Then, though I'm not a big Kershaw fan, McCann, Carpenter, Fielder and Posey might be better picks. But Cruz should put up huge numbers in Texas. Some of our league members value relievers highly, which explains why they are starting to fall earlier than would be usual. (I don't value them as much, but you do need a couple of good closers on your team)
5. Jose Reyes. I really don't need a second elite SS. But, the players picked shortly after don't excite me. So I can't blame the computer too much. I'm a bit disappointed that I barely missed out on Jered Weaver and Tommy Hanson. I've had Hanson on my team the past two years, and watching him grow and improve has been fun. Good picks by the Pirates and Penguins.
6. Jayson Werth. O.K. But computer is picking too many outfielders. I might have picked Kinsler or reached for Carlos Santana. But a solid pick. I had Jason Heyward last year, fun to watch him too, but I'm glad my friend Steven, who live and breathes Georgia sports, got him.
7. Michael Young. Darned, missed on Carlos Santana by one! Young is an interesting pick, especially if he stays in Texas and becomes eligible at multiple positions. None of the next 10 picks excite me too much, so, o.k. My team is getting a little "Texas heavy".
8. Zack Greinke. About time to get a pitcher. Two of the other teams (Comets and Pirates) obviously targeted top line pitching. I targeted "undervalued good pitching". At the end of the year we will see how well I rated them. Also, have to admit (as you'll see soon) I wanted to get a bunch of As and Giants to root for. :-) Assuming Greinke's health is not an issue, he should be a solid pick. I like the Prado and Stanton picks by the Penguins and Nerds.
9. Chris Young (OF). Picked him up last year and he was a pleasant surprise. Another outfielder, but the next 10 picks aren't all that exciting - maybe Konerko or Billy Butler to get a 1B?. Too bad I missed on Josh Johnson by 2 picks - a good pick by Displaced Braves Fan. Victorino to the Nerds scotches my plan to lock up all the Hawaiian born players. :-)
10. Max Scherzer. Love this pick, he was great for me the 2nd half of last year. Even though I'll desperately need a 1B, I prefer him to Billy Butler.
11. Kelly Johnson. O.K., gives me a good 2B. Sorry I missed out on Zobrist, Drew Stubbs and Panda - good picks by my opponents. If I didn't hate the Dodgers I might prefer Billingsly or Lilly. Actually, live, I might have picked Shaun Marcum or my next round pick...
12. Joe Nathan. If he's healthy, this is an awesome pick. But Shaun Marcum (who goes next) is a safer, good pick. Hard to say. I'm a bit surprised that Papelbon and Bucholz go so late.
13. Tim Hudson. Like him. And I need some quality pitchers. I'm a bit disappointed that Chris Perez, who did a good job for me last year, is off the board. But I wouldn't pick him till later anyway. Garza and Anderson are good picks by Monsters and Ewoks.
14. Jonathan Sanchez. You need some patience with him, but we'll see. I would have preferred Brett Anderson, but you can't have it all. Angel Pagan is a good pick by Monsters.
15. Brian Roberts. Another 2B? And injury prone. I don't like this pick. But the other picks later in the round aren't exciting either - that's what you start to get around pick 150... So, o.k., and some depth is good. I think Hudson and Putz are good picks by Nerds and Braves Fan.
16. Andrew Bailey. I like it - a good local reliever. Hope his arm works. Between Nathan and Bailey I may have to check the waiver wire for relievers the first couple of weeks. Myers and Hellickson look like good value picks for Falcons and Nerds.
17. Trevor Cahill. Like it. As you see, I bunched up many of the promising Bay Area pitchers in this area, and many have been drafted or will arrive soon... Brandon Morrow is a good pick by Monsters, and Neil Walker might be a great pickup for the Comets.
18. Madison Bumgartner. Like it - another promising local pitcher. Too bad Gaby Sanchez went two picks before, as I still don't have anybody for 1B!
19. Tsuyoshi Nishioka Like it - I had bumped him "up" on the draft list. But not sure why I need three second basemen! More depth. Live I may have picked Romero or Matusz, good value picks by the Falcons.
20. Denard Span. O.K. Solid outfielder who will probably improve over last year. Beckett and Wieters look like good alternative picks by Penguins and Monsters.
21. Gio Gonzales. I think this is an awesome pick. Also like Asdrubal Cabrera and Ike Davis picks by Pirates and Comets.
22. Kurt Suzuki. He was my catcher last year, and does a solid job. If you don't get an elite catcher, he is a solid pick. Escobar and Shields are good picks by Penguins and Monsters.
23. Austin Jackson. Not sure why he fell so low, but he's pretty good for round 23, right? I'm a bit disappointed that Freddie Freeman and Ryan Rayburn went just before. Other than Dexter Fowler, not sure who I would have picked instead, so lets hope Austin learns to make better contact.
24. Wade Davis. I like this pick too. A reasonable pitcher with upside. Jair Jurgens might be a good value pick by Pirates.
25. Logan Morrison. He's a good player, especially under our league rules where walks count. I like the pick, though I'm getting too many OF. Jake Peavy is the other interesting pick this round, by the Comets.
26. Michael Pineda - glad I got him. He was one of my "sleeper" picks. I'm really surprised that Posada, McLouth, Garland and Lackey fell so low. They could be great value picks.
27. Kila Ka'aihue. Another one of my "sleeper picks". And, a real 1B, finally, in round 27! Not sure what the computer was thinking. De La Rosa is a great value pick by Monsters.
Other than 1B, I'm happy with my team. So far...
Friday, March 25, 2011
Another nearly fact-free Paul Krugman editorial
Though, to his credit, he doesn't rant about how his opponents are knowingly ignoring the facts in pursuit of an evil agenda.
In a recent blog, Krugman discusses a Lancet study on cancer survival rates in various countries. The USA fares well in the study, and many opponents of ObamaCare cite that as evidence that the US health care system is superior. Here is the summary graphic taken from Krugman's article:
Krugman argues that the longer USA survival rate may be due to better and earlier diagnosis of the disease, whether or not the actual treatment is any more effective. He provides an excellent illustration of how this might happen
So far, kudos to Krugman. However, does he resent any facts that the USA does indeed "over-diagnose"? No. One would think he could at a minimum support his argument with something, anything. But he doesn't. He ends with a short snipe at opponents of ObamaCare, "you shouldn’t buy the spin."
Plus, isn't early detection of cancer a good thing? Well, as Science Based Medicine discusses, the facts are mixed. The article explicitly discusses Krugman's theory, and states "there is a grain of truth buried under the absolutist statement but it’s buried so deep that it’s well-nigh unrecognizable". The article has a great (if lengthy) discussion, repeating and elaborating on many of Krugman's points, including the issue that early detection can make survival rates appear to be longer, even if actual survival is no different. Do they agree with Krugman? Well... (italics added by me)
I'd like to add something both Krugman and Science Based Medicine fail to mention. Maybe today there are cancers for which early detection provides little or no benefit, because there are no effective treatments. That doesn't mean that we will never develop effective treatments. And, when we do, early detection will almost certainly be valuable. So, early detection is an important step in the treatment of cancer.
In conclusion, I wish Krugman could have provided some facts to support his argument that the USA over-diagnoses cancer. He may well be correct. And, to his credit, he does hint at the complications, that "Real life isn’t that simple". For the record, I'm completely undecided on the benefits of ObamaCare. But, it Paul Krugman wants to convince me of his arguments, he needs to bring some facts.
In a recent blog, Krugman discusses a Lancet study on cancer survival rates in various countries. The USA fares well in the study, and many opponents of ObamaCare cite that as evidence that the US health care system is superior. Here is the summary graphic taken from Krugman's article:
Krugman argues that the longer USA survival rate may be due to better and earlier diagnosis of the disease, whether or not the actual treatment is any more effective. He provides an excellent illustration of how this might happen
"Here’s how I understand the over-diagnosis issue, in terms of an extreme example: suppose that there’s a form of cancer that kills people 7 years after it starts, and that there is in fact nothing you can do about it. Suppose that country A screens for cancer very aggressively, and always catches this cancer in year 1, while country B chooses to invest its medical resources differently, and never catches the cancer until year 4. In that case, country A will have a 100% 5-year survival rate, while country B will have a 0% 5-year survival rate — because survival is measured from the time the cancer is diagnosed. Yet treatment in country B is no worse than in country A."
So far, kudos to Krugman. However, does he resent any facts that the USA does indeed "over-diagnose"? No. One would think he could at a minimum support his argument with something, anything. But he doesn't. He ends with a short snipe at opponents of ObamaCare, "you shouldn’t buy the spin."
Plus, isn't early detection of cancer a good thing? Well, as Science Based Medicine discusses, the facts are mixed. The article explicitly discusses Krugman's theory, and states "there is a grain of truth buried under the absolutist statement but it’s buried so deep that it’s well-nigh unrecognizable". The article has a great (if lengthy) discussion, repeating and elaborating on many of Krugman's points, including the issue that early detection can make survival rates appear to be longer, even if actual survival is no different. Do they agree with Krugman? Well... (italics added by me)
"Does all of this mean that we’re fooling ourselves that we’re doing better in treating cancer? That, after all, is the charge being made. Not at all."In other words, it's complicated, but Krugman's argument that early detection is "spin" that might fool us is wrong - Krugman himself is providing the "spin".
I'd like to add something both Krugman and Science Based Medicine fail to mention. Maybe today there are cancers for which early detection provides little or no benefit, because there are no effective treatments. That doesn't mean that we will never develop effective treatments. And, when we do, early detection will almost certainly be valuable. So, early detection is an important step in the treatment of cancer.
In conclusion, I wish Krugman could have provided some facts to support his argument that the USA over-diagnoses cancer. He may well be correct. And, to his credit, he does hint at the complications, that "Real life isn’t that simple". For the record, I'm completely undecided on the benefits of ObamaCare. But, it Paul Krugman wants to convince me of his arguments, he needs to bring some facts.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
What were they thinking?
Still filling in for my friend Ray who blogs at Remember Jenkin's Ear.
As most people with any information about Pakistan know, relations with the USA are badly strained over the Raymond Davis incident, where a CIA contractor killed a couple of Pakistanis. Eventually, we ended up paying off the families of the victims, and things may eventually quiet down.
However, relations are still rough. It's easy to find pictures of protesters burning American flags. (also here).
So what does some US genius do? Do we cool it for a while? No, we pour gasoline on the fire by ordering a drone strike. This drew a sharp rebuke from Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani (also here) for allegedly killing mainly civilians.
Now, I believe that the strike intended to hit terrorists, not civilians. Perhaps the Pakistanis are mistaken in their claims that it was a peaceful jirga of tribal elders. They could be protesting because right now we are very unpopular, and they want to, or need to, "stand up" to the USA. And. maybe they cynically complain in hopes of landing another large cash payout.
No matter. Unless the US strike took out Osama Bin Laden, it was a darned stupid idea. Not worth the risk. At a time when relations are terrible, we didn't piss off some shadowy ISI types who, IMO, aren't our allies to begin with. We pissed off the Pakistani army chief. Bad idea guys.
As most people with any information about Pakistan know, relations with the USA are badly strained over the Raymond Davis incident, where a CIA contractor killed a couple of Pakistanis. Eventually, we ended up paying off the families of the victims, and things may eventually quiet down.
However, relations are still rough. It's easy to find pictures of protesters burning American flags. (also here).
So what does some US genius do? Do we cool it for a while? No, we pour gasoline on the fire by ordering a drone strike. This drew a sharp rebuke from Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani (also here) for allegedly killing mainly civilians.
Now, I believe that the strike intended to hit terrorists, not civilians. Perhaps the Pakistanis are mistaken in their claims that it was a peaceful jirga of tribal elders. They could be protesting because right now we are very unpopular, and they want to, or need to, "stand up" to the USA. And. maybe they cynically complain in hopes of landing another large cash payout.
No matter. Unless the US strike took out Osama Bin Laden, it was a darned stupid idea. Not worth the risk. At a time when relations are terrible, we didn't piss off some shadowy ISI types who, IMO, aren't our allies to begin with. We pissed off the Pakistani army chief. Bad idea guys.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Filling in for my Friend Ray a Bit
My friend Ray, who blogs at Remember Jenkin's Ear, is temporarily out of action. He's posted a lot about the Raymond Davis situation in Pakistan. Davis is the CIA contractor who "allegedly" shot a couple of armed Pakistanis who approached his car. This understandably created a small crisis in US - Pakistan relations, which seemed to be growing into a large crisis thanks to things like the ISI stating that he was CIA, and intervention by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. Davis was formally charged with murder.
Ray speculated that this incident could lead to an Egypt-like uprising, and pointed out the general "fishiness" of the whole story.
Looks like money will be the fix, averting a crisis in US-Pakistani relations. For a reported 2.4 million dollars to each victim, (and, I assume, an apology, as least implicitly) Davis has been released. Another article here.
Ray speculated that this incident could lead to an Egypt-like uprising, and pointed out the general "fishiness" of the whole story.
Looks like money will be the fix, averting a crisis in US-Pakistani relations. For a reported 2.4 million dollars to each victim, (and, I assume, an apology, as least implicitly) Davis has been released. Another article here.
"In Pakistan's legal system, charges against people accused of murder can be dropped if "blood money" is paid to the family of the victim's relatives.".While I'm glad that this may have averted a serious break in US-Pakistani relations, it makes me wonder just how serious the Pakistani protestations really were. Frankly, this just supports my belief that the Pakistanis are, to some extent, "using" the US, playing us for as much money as they think they can get, especially given the extensive past misuse of much of the aid the US provides. I almost agree with one of the Islamicist parties, "The Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party condemned the release of Mr. Davis and said it would demonstrate." Unfortunately, as long as we are over-extended in Afghanistan, we need to remain on good terms with Pakistan..
Friday, March 11, 2011
New York Times Editorial Misses the Point
Today's New York Times Editorial misses a couple of key points in their discussion of the Wisconsin situation.
2) Just how does the New York Times expect politicians to cut back on exorbitant benefits? When, by their own admission a couple of lines above, they give a lot of support to one party, the Democrats? Here in California, former governor Arnie was creamed by public employee unions when he attempted reforms. Now in fairness, this applies to more than just public employee unions. Senior citizens will fight long and hard to maintain their Social Security benefits, companies fight for their tax-credits, everybody for their tax cuts, etc.
Somebody needs to step up and tell Americans the unpalatable truth and lead. Provide cover for wavering politicians in both parties. That somebody is President Obama. So far, he has been, IMO, all too weak on the leadership front. Please, President Obama, lead! Frankly, I expect that much of the time I will dislike your direction. But it's better than no direction at all. Follow up on the recommendations of the Budget Commission.
"Some union benefits are exorbitant, but no politician was forced to hand them out. Lawmakers are free to end this practice and should, but ending the basic rights of unions is a very different matter."1) It is not a basic right for public employees to have a union. Federal employees are, for the most part, not-unionized. They lack the key power of unions: "federal unions can’t advocate striking or actually go on strike."
2) Just how does the New York Times expect politicians to cut back on exorbitant benefits? When, by their own admission a couple of lines above, they give a lot of support to one party, the Democrats? Here in California, former governor Arnie was creamed by public employee unions when he attempted reforms. Now in fairness, this applies to more than just public employee unions. Senior citizens will fight long and hard to maintain their Social Security benefits, companies fight for their tax-credits, everybody for their tax cuts, etc.
Somebody needs to step up and tell Americans the unpalatable truth and lead. Provide cover for wavering politicians in both parties. That somebody is President Obama. So far, he has been, IMO, all too weak on the leadership front. Please, President Obama, lead! Frankly, I expect that much of the time I will dislike your direction. But it's better than no direction at all. Follow up on the recommendations of the Budget Commission.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Mayhem in Madison Wisconsin
Well, I don't claim to be an expert, though I have been to Madison many times and have even visited the now quorum-less State Senate chamber, but here are some thoughts on the unrest in Wisconsin in response to Governor Scott Walker's proposals to make state employees pay more towards health care and pensions, and to strip them of most of their collective bargaining rights.
IMO, asking them to pay more towards health care and pensions is eminently reasonable. According to a WSJ analysis, the proposed increases would be "roughly the national average for public pension payments, and it is less than half the national average of what government workers contribute to health care". Currently, Wisconsin public workers pay nothing towards their pensions, and a mere 6% for health-care benefits.
As for rolling back collective bargaining rights, this is a tactical political mistake and an unnecessary overreach that allows opponents, such as President Obama, to readily portray this as an "assault on unions". In the short run, the real need is to restrain costs. Worry about obscure fine points (at least, to many outside observers) of collective bargaining rights later. If Governor Walker had been willing to settle for a partial victory, he might have it already, as many in the union are willing to accept the cuts but not the broader provisions.
At least some rhetoric from the left has been misguided. Democratic State Sen. Bob Jauch called Mr. Walker's move "the end of the democratic process" during the committee debate on Wednesday night. He then showed his magnificent support for the democratic process by fleeing across the border to Illinois to deny the republican controlled senate a quorum. Protesters, ignoring recent calls for civility in political dialog (most of which I think are misguided), are shouting "Kill the bill". Fortunately, their actions have been civil, as there have been no incidents between them and conservative opponents. Interestingly, even the liberal NYT admits in that article that the union's protests "have been more organized than organic" i.e. more "astroturf" than "grassroots".
Governor Walker, compromise. Propose that the unions accept the pay cuts to pay for health care and pensions, but leave their broader collective bargaining powers alone.
For the record, I'm waiting for our newly elected California governor, Jerry Brown, to ask public employee unions to face some of the pain of the immense state budget deficit. I even voted for him, thinking he might have a chance to succeed: just like only somebody with impeccable conservative credentials (Nixon) could open relations with mainland China, it may take a governor with solid liberal credentials (Jerry Brown) to successfully tackle California's public employee crisis regarding pay, benefits, and pensions.
IMO, asking them to pay more towards health care and pensions is eminently reasonable. According to a WSJ analysis, the proposed increases would be "roughly the national average for public pension payments, and it is less than half the national average of what government workers contribute to health care". Currently, Wisconsin public workers pay nothing towards their pensions, and a mere 6% for health-care benefits.
As for rolling back collective bargaining rights, this is a tactical political mistake and an unnecessary overreach that allows opponents, such as President Obama, to readily portray this as an "assault on unions". In the short run, the real need is to restrain costs. Worry about obscure fine points (at least, to many outside observers) of collective bargaining rights later. If Governor Walker had been willing to settle for a partial victory, he might have it already, as many in the union are willing to accept the cuts but not the broader provisions.
At least some rhetoric from the left has been misguided. Democratic State Sen. Bob Jauch called Mr. Walker's move "the end of the democratic process" during the committee debate on Wednesday night. He then showed his magnificent support for the democratic process by fleeing across the border to Illinois to deny the republican controlled senate a quorum. Protesters, ignoring recent calls for civility in political dialog (most of which I think are misguided), are shouting "Kill the bill". Fortunately, their actions have been civil, as there have been no incidents between them and conservative opponents. Interestingly, even the liberal NYT admits in that article that the union's protests "have been more organized than organic" i.e. more "astroturf" than "grassroots".
Governor Walker, compromise. Propose that the unions accept the pay cuts to pay for health care and pensions, but leave their broader collective bargaining powers alone.
For the record, I'm waiting for our newly elected California governor, Jerry Brown, to ask public employee unions to face some of the pain of the immense state budget deficit. I even voted for him, thinking he might have a chance to succeed: just like only somebody with impeccable conservative credentials (Nixon) could open relations with mainland China, it may take a governor with solid liberal credentials (Jerry Brown) to successfully tackle California's public employee crisis regarding pay, benefits, and pensions.
Friday, January 21, 2011
California Business Taxes
There's a lot of talk, at least from the right, about California being "hostile" to business. I've been thinking of converting my little consulting business into a one-person LLC. Some investigation revealed that there would be a minimum $800 per year tax on the LLC. It goes up as you make more money. This is in addition to the normal state income tax. Seems a bit steep. If a "typical" small business is making maybe $50000 a year, that's an effective 1.6% tax rate. What do other states charge? Yesterday I was at the local library browsing the NOLO book Form Your own LLC. Only 11 states (including California) charge any special yearly LLC tax at all. Here is the complete list. A value of "yes" means that the exact number varies and was not in the book, a "+" means "or more".
As you can see, not only is California somewhat unusual in charging a yearly tax at all, it's tax is the highest.
| Alaska | $50 |
| Arkansas | $150+ |
| California | $800+ |
| Delaware | yes |
| Illinois | $250 |
| Kansas | yes |
| Massachusetts | $500 |
| New Hampshire | $100 |
| North Carolina | $200 |
| Pennsylvania | $380+ |
| Wyoming | $50+ |
| Alaska | $50 |
As you can see, not only is California somewhat unusual in charging a yearly tax at all, it's tax is the highest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
