Serving Constituents one at a Time is Expensive and un American

Fred Bernstein's opinion piece in today's New York Times hits the nail on the head.  I have been developing the thought for years now that Congress's attempts at micro managing is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  The Constitution gives Congress the job of legislating and the President the job of executing what was legislated.  Constituent services tries to serve local issues with federal tools.

A prime example of Congressional over reach to a local issue is mandating toilets having a certain gallonage per flush, something more appropriate to local building codes.  A Senator or Congressman asked to vote on such a micro issue has got to sense that this sort decision making is beneath them, not in a derogatory but in a chart of responsibility sense, and if they are so focused on constituent services they forget they are not the mayor anymore.

A Congress for the Many, or the Few?

Clint Eastwood GOP performance was terrific

I appreciate the Romney team's courage for letting Clint Eastwood perform unscripted on Thursday night.  He is the example of the individual type that everyone else at the convention was lauding but not being. The convention scripted as it was down to the last cough was a bore. Clint's remarks got right to my problem with Obama, so what is handwringing go on in the Republican hierarchy as reported by today's NY Times regarding his performance?  I say that and Paul Ryan's speech on Wednesday are the best moments of the convention.

Paul Ryan supercharges the GOP ticket

 Paul Ryan is the VP candidate that changes my mind about Mitt Romney's feckless campaign.  Finally we have an articulate engaging and happy warrior weaned on Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman debating on substantial issues. It is a fantastic selection that supercharges the GOP ticket.


.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

I see Berkshire Hathway's earnings were affected by the giant derivative that Warren Buffet bought for the company a few years back.  His explanations in the annual reports of BKHT are not convincing that this instrument is other than a useless financial exercise and certainly not an example of masterful capital allocation.  I don't see the material good it provides society nor the company.  It's not remotely like buying Union Pacific, for example, which appears to be a terrific investment nor USAIR which was a terrible one but which at least was an investment and not a wager.

Investors vote to break up the banks

I feel some vindication from of all people, Charles Gasparino of Fox and the Post, ouch Murdoch properties! From his July 30th editorial  comes "the ultimate vote for any company is with investors; if they keep selling the megabanks’ shares, and only buying when it looks like they’ll be broken up, it’s only a matter of time before the breakups start.  And that would be a good thing: The vote of the investor class, as opposed to the political class in Washington or their cronies on Wall Street, offering the best hope to fix our broken banking system." 


The complete article is linked below, but the above is the real and only nugget.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/investors_vote_to_break_up_the_banks_3mxN1i4SDHkb4DNGC4t8QM

Business Press is Clueless

Matt Taibb's observation in his Rolling Stone piece where he commented that Sandy Weill's reconsideration as "an instant YouTube classic. The very funniest part, I thought, was the response of Squawk Box host Andrew Ross Sorkin, the single most credulously slobbering financial reporter on the planet this side of Maria Bartiromo. Even he was so shocked by Weill’s comments that he lost his voice – "I’m speechless," he said. " 

Taibb's editorial jogged me enough to realize that I get better investment insight from everything other than business journalism.  This came to me particularly hard when reading in "Vanity Fair," of all journals, about Microsoft this past month.  That article explained the puzzlement I felt about Microsoft for many years about which I never got a hint in the business press.  My high opinion of Jamie Dimon, for example, comes from the business press and my current puzzlement regarding him and J P Morgan Chase requires another "Vanity Fair" article delineating where and when he went from promoting shareholder value to empire building.

Regulate, Don't Split Up Huge Banks

Steve Rattner is entitled to his opinion, but as an investor TBTF banks are losers.  The money required to lobby Congress and regulators is a waste as are compliance costs.  And for what?  The right to loose really big money with a prop trading desk?
Rattner's editorial is a plea to keep the legal staff supporting the banking system's regulatory structure pampered and well compensated.  If, as a the title of this blog states, a banker realizes that he puts the very existence of his company at risk then Adam Smith's invisible hand will self regulate the bank without need of a privileged class of expert advisors and a meddling government.