Skip to content

What a guy

I subscribe to a number of Apple related RSS feeds, most of which are manned by Apple worshippers for whom Steve Jobs is a saint, and Tim Cook his anointed successor. I am hoping this is snark, but…

Apple’s Board of Directors approved a dividend equivalent payment to employees holding restricted stock units, but this won’t apply to Tim Cook, says a report in MacRumors. These RSUs vest after a period of time and are usually given to employees to entice them to stay with the company for a length of time.

Tim Cook, for example, was awarded 1.125 million RSUs when he stepped into the CEO position last year. At the current dividend payment of US$2.65 per share, Cook would receive a payment of approximately $75 million. Keeping with his character as a kind and gentle leader of Apple, Cook is refusing to accept this dividend, says a recent SEC filing.

(via The Unofficial Apple Weblog)

I don’t know how he’s going to do it. He’s going to have to get by on the mere $400 million he pulled in last year and the similar pittance he’ll get this year. Guess he’ll just have to tighten his belt.

No value added

If you’re a Daily Kos reader, you are no doubt familiar with the Daily Pundit Roundup, in which snippets of columns are featured. Today, Eugene Robinson is excerpted, the excerpt containing the following:

There’s nothing inherently wrong with private equity, which plays an important role in the economy.

This in a column in which he is rightly praising Obama for going after Romney on his Bain record. The statement is all too typical of liberals, who, in order to make themselves seem reasonable when measured against rabid Republicans, are always willing to give credit where it is not due, and to buy into the prevailing, right wing manufactured meme. In fact, there is something inherently wrong with private equity, as practiced by Romney, who was merely typical of the breed. And while it is true that private equity plays an important role in our economy, that role is almost entirely negative. Don’t take it from me, take it from the rarely wrong Paul Krugman, at the link contained in the same Kos Pundit Round up:

Once upon a time, this fairy tale tells us, America was a land of lazy managers and slacker workers. Productivity languished, and American industry was fading away in the face of foreign competition.

Then square-jawed, tough-minded buyout kings like Mitt Romney and the fictional Gordon Gekko came to the rescue, imposing financial and work discipline. Sure, some people didn’t like it, and, sure, they made a lot of money for themselves along the way. But the result was a great economic revival, whose benefits trickled down to everyone.

You can see why Wall Street likes this story. But none of it — except the bit about the Gekkos and the Romneys making lots of money — is true.

For the alleged productivity surge never actually happened. In fact, overall business productivity in America grew faster in the postwar generation, an era in which banks were tightly regulated and private equity barely existed, than it has since our political system decided that greed was good.

For the most part, people like Romney are leeches, except leeches can have some beneficial uses. Romney type leeches merely suck the blood out of corporations, and leave the body behind when they finish feeding. It is purely incidental to them whether the body lives or dies once they’ve finished feeding. In this they are typical of the rot that has set into a system where money is most easily made either by draining money from the government or from truly productive enterprises, or getting the government to sanction what by any measure should be criminal activity. Thus we have insurance companies that do not insure, for-profit educational institutions that do not educate, and bankers who gamble with our money, secure in the knowledge that the more they screw up, the more likely they’ll get more of our money to bail them out.

Yet somehow, these folks have all managed to convince us liberals, or at least those in the Beltway, that we are supposed to genuflect, before pointing out that maybe, sometimes, they cause a few problems. The fact of the matter is that they only rarely, and never intentionally, contribute anything of value to society. To the extent they do contribute anything of value, we almost always get more of the good stuff if we tightly regulate them to make sure they stay on task.

Could it be?

Could it be that Mitt Romney will go the way of John Kerry, convinced either by himself or his handlers that he need not respond to attacks on his record? With Kerry, it was somewhat understandable. He, or his handlers, had a sort of naive faith that the American press would never allow a baseless attack on his war record to get traction. With Romney, it’s a little different. The attacks are basically grounded in truth and he should have been fairly warned, as he has been beaten over the head with Bain before, and rightly so. The Bain business plan is emblematic of the worst of unfettered capitalism, which considers any amount of inflicted suffering and harm to society justified so long as someone is making a profit. But Romney does appear to be stumbling, as if he never anticipated these attacks. Perhaps this is all a result of bubble thinking; it does appear that many Republicans are convinced that everyone else sees Obama as the devil incarnate, so there’s no need to believe that you have to present a convincing case for your own candidate:

Here’s an AP story Mitt Romney’s campaign would rather not see:

The core of his presidential candidacy under attack, Mitt Romney has yet to shape a playbook to defend a quarter-century in the business world that created great riches for himself and great hardship, at times, for some American workers.

Romney and his aides have struggled to respond consistently to intensifying criticism about his tenure at Bain Capital and how it would be reflected in his presidency. The lack of a cohesive message stems, in part, from Romney’s fundamental belief that any debate that puts the economy front and center is a win for Republicans.

It’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney actually believes that he can sit back and coast to victory as long as the economy stays front and center, but based on his lackadaisical response to the Bain assault, it might actually be true. As Alexander Burns notes, he’s been AWOL from the campaign trail since Friday and isn’t scheduled to make an appearance until noon on Wednesday when he addresses the Chamber of Commerce.

(via Daily Kos: Mitt Romney punts on Bain)

As Kerry learned to his sorrow, even if an attack is a pack of lies, you risk everything if you don’t get ahead of it. It has, one hopes against hopes, to be harder to suppress a meme grounded in truth than one grounded in lies. If it is, then Romney may be spending a considerable amount of his time from now until November talking about Bain.

 

What religion is JP Morgan Chase?

Not to be outdone by Arizona, Missouri is getting deeper into the crazy act. The legislature there has passed a bill to keep women safe from any possibility that they might try controlling their own bodies:

The bill states that no employer or health plan provider can be compelled to provide coverage _ or be penalized for refusing to cover _ abortion, contraception or sterilization if those items run contrary to their religious or moral convictions. The bill also gives the state attorney general grounds to sue other governmental officials or entities that infringe on the rights granted in the legislation.

“This bill is about religious freedom and moral convictions,” said Rep. Sandy Crawford, R-Buffalo. “This is about sending a message to the federal government that we don’t like things rammed down our throat.”

(via Hullabaloo)

In these days of Citizens United, this raises an interesting question, and some even more interesting possibilities. Most employers are corporations. So far as I know, most religious sects do not baptize corporations, but this bill wisely rejects such a crabbed approach. Corporations being people, of course they can have religions, and this being America, it is only right, just and fit that the religious sensibilities of corporations be entitled to far greater deference than might be extended to the the moral qualms of mere flesh and blood mortals. Why stop with women, after all. Besides the obvious, there are all kinds of possibilities here. If memory serves, the Amish were allowed to opt out of Social Security. Most corporations have deeply religious objections to paying taxes, paying the minimum wage, abiding by environmental regulations-or any regulations for that matter-not to mention a host of other moral positions they hold which might be unique to their religion, but are nonetheless sincerely held. These deeply held moral convictions must also be respected. Thankfully, they have no objections to taking government money, so we’ll still be able to bail them out when they tank the economy again.

 

A gift for the Democrats

One nice thing about the modern Republican party is that so many of them can’t help themselves. They are reflexively pro-rich, and reflexively against anything more than one Democrat is for. Sometimes, they react before taking time to think, meaning they do quickly what they would do anyway, because true thinking is hard. Case in point:

New Democratic-led legislation aimed at penalizing those who would renounce their U.S. citizenship to dodge taxes has provoked fiery criticism from influential conservatives and is putting Republican leaders in a politically precarious situation.

Inspired by the actions of Eduardo Saverin, the Facebook co-founder who renounced his citizenship ahead of a large tax payment associated with the company’s much-ballyhooed initial public offering, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Casey (D-PA) unveiled a bill Thursday to force such tax-dodgers to pay a 30 percent tax rate on all future U.S. investments and ban them from ever setting foot in the country again.

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist compared it to the actions of Nazi Germany.

“I think Schumer can probably find the legislation to do this. It existed in Germany in the 1930s and Rhodesia in the ’70s and in South Africa as well,” Norquist said, as quoted by The Hill. “He probably just plagiarized it and translated it from the original German.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board derided the legislation as “Soviet-style exit taxes” that resemble “what oppressive and demagogic regimes do, and it’s humiliating to see U.S. Senators posture in such fashion.”

(via Talking Points Memo)

Perhaps it is smart politics to defend a billionaire who renounces his citizenship to avoid paying taxes. (In the interest of fairness, I should add that he has said it was not about taxes, but if you run that through Google translate it comes out as It’s all about taxes, something even his Republican defenders acknowledge celebrate.) It’s an option, it hardly needs pointing out, not available to the rabble. This plays perfectly into the Obama attack line against Romney, who thinks the only reason the GM bailout was any good is because GM is now making a profit. Now, if only the Cory Bookers of the Democratic party would get out of the way.

Friday Night Music, with some old time comedy

Okay, this is in response to a request, and by way of proving that we can meet on some common ground, even with those with whom we disagree politically. A somewhat frequent commenter, who I think it’s fair to say never agrees with me on anything else, suggested I put up the Beach Boys. I think, years and years ago, I found an acceptable video of Sloop John B, so I thought I’d see if I could find California Girls.

Most of the good stuff has embedding enabled. This one is available on youtube in color, again with embedding turned off. I think it’s a live version, and for anybody under 40 in the audience, it gives a little taste for what passed as comedy in those days, so I was glad to find this black and white version. This is from so long ago that Brian Wilson was still with the group.

The Emperor may be naked, but you can’t convince the press

As I recall the tale, none of the grownups watching the parade would admit the obvious until a little boy in the crowd made his views known. But, at least at that point, the folks in the crowd cast off their delusions, and joined in the cry that the Emperor was naked. Perhaps human nature has changed since the time of Hans Christian Anderson, or maybe the American press corps is merely thicker than your average Dane:

Last month, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein published an Op ed and a book making the extremely controversial argument that both parties aren’t equally to blame for what ails Washington. They argued that the GOP — by allowing extremists to roam free and by wielding the filibuster to achieve government dysfunction as a political end in itself — were demonstrably more culpable for creating what is approaching a crisis of governance.

It turns out neither man has been invited on to the Sunday shows even once to discuss this thesis. As Bob Somerby and Kevin Drum note, these are among the most quoted people in Washington — yet suddenly this latest topic is too hot for the talkers, or not deemed relevant at all.

I ran this thesis by Ornstein himself, and he confirmed that the book’s publicity people had tried to get the authors booked on the Sunday shows, with no success.

“Not a single one of the Sunday shows has indicated an interest, and I do find it curious,” Ornstein told me, adding that the Op ed had well over 200,000 Facebook recommends and has been viral for weeks. “This is a level of attention for a book that we haven’t received before. You would think it would attract some attention from the Sunday shows.’

Ornstein also noted another interesting point. Their thesis takes on the media for falling into a false equivalence mindset and maintaining the pretense that both sides are equally to blame. Yet despite the frequent self-obsession of the media, even that angle has failed to generate any interest. What’s more, some reporters have privately indicated their frustration with their editorial overlords’ apparent deafness to this idea.

Ornstein, while stressing that he wasn’t casting any blame, noted that the topic hasn’t come up on Howard Kurtz’s weekend media show.

This is curious. Is “experts confirm that, yes, one side is more to blame than the other, and journalists should say so” really too hot a topic for the Sunday shows? Is it not relevant or interesting?

Of course, this should not be surprising. There’s been quite a few of us babes in the crowd decrying the “both sides do it” meme, seeing as there is no objective evidence to support it. Still, when two of their own cry out, you think they would at least stop, listen, and cluck disapprovingly, before going back to spouting their drivel . Ah well, Ornstein and Mann will probably get on the Daily Show or Colbert. You know, on the Comedy Channel, where the thinking people hang out.

Brooks again

Dean Baker concentrates his fire on David Brooks again, despite my suggestion that he avoid high blood pressure by not reading him. Baker takes issue with this gem from Brooks’s latest column:

“Western democratic systems were based on a balance between self-doubt and self-confidence. They worked because there were structures that protected the voters from themselves and the rulers from themselves. Once people lost a sense of their own weakness, the self-doubt went away and the chastening structures were overwhelmed.”

Baker’s criticisms are all well founded, of course, but there’s a more fundamental problem with the quoted paragraph. It’s total, ahistorical gibberish, made up on the spur of the moment to support another of Brooks’s absurd theses. I defy anyone to cite a founder of this democracy, or any democracy, who opined that “democratic systems were based on a balance between self-doubt and self-confidence”. I heard about this guy, for instance, who said this one particular democratic system was “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”. But then, maybe Brooks knows something he didn’t know. This is simply a variant of Brooks’s typical “there are two kinds of people in the world” argument, with his side, as always, on the side of reason.

I suppose if one were to torture some words and phrases from some historical moment, the mangled remains, once the cries for mercy died down, might, when viewed in the dark, yield up something one could interpret as being suggestive of Brooks’s formulation. In his world, maybe that’s enough. The balance of his paragraph makes even less sense. This is what passes for deep thought in this day and age. Were only Brooks afflicted with a modicum of the self-doubt he urges on the rest of us, we would all be better off.

Postscript: I hereby make a solemn promise not to mention David Brooks again for at least a month. This could become as addictive as ice cream, and far less nutritious.

Capitalist speaks truth, is muffled

Nick Hanauer, and I have no idea who he is, though he is apparently rich, made some wholly obvious points during a TED lecture. Naturally, this led the folks at TED to try to block distribution of his talk, apparently on the grounds that it would hurt the fee-fees of other rich folks. Some might recall that I wondered a few days ago about why the capitalists, at least those who actually produce things, don’t demand stimulus. Hanauer, we must presume, agrees that is precisely what they should be doing.

 

 

Curt Schilling at the public trough

Life is a mystery. Curt Schilling, well known for being a vocal Republican, would never go in for a government guaranteed loan like Solyndra got, would he? After all, the government is not supposed to pick winners and losers, am I right? And yet

38 Studios, the video game startup founded and funded by former Boston Red Sox ace Curt Schilling, is reportedly in troubled waters just three months after releasing Kingdoms of Amalur, its first title.

Ocean State economic development officials are reportedly working to keep the company viable. At stake is a $75 million loan guarantee the state of Rhode Island made to the fledgling video game developer.

The Providence Journal reports Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee spent the weekend working under a “tight timeframe” with 38 Studios and officials from the Rhode Island Economic Development Corp., with the aim of “keeping 38 studios solvent.” A spokeswoman for the governor’s office confirmed that the governor had made the reported statements.

38 Studios started six years ago in Massachusetts. But in 2010, Rhode Island lured the startup company south with a $75 million loan guarantee. In exchange, 38 Studios promised it will grow to a head count of 450. Turbine Inc., at one time the largest independent video game developer in Massachusetts, had a head count of 300. Schilling has invested millions of his own money in the company.

Presumably he’d welcome an Issa-type investigation.