Archive

Archive for October, 2008

On the “Real America”

October 21st, 2008

As much as i’ve hated hearing GOP commentators and Sarah Palin herself talk about the “Real America” that supports McCain/Palin, I don’t personally feel that it’s an expression of racism. Rather, this is a sign of denial on the part of party leaders that they have lost the support of the majority of the American people.

This rationalization for losing is actually a pretty common thing to experience growing up in middle America. Lost the grade-school soccer game to a team that fouled yours a few times? Don’t worry, you were the “real winners.” The characterization of losses as non-”real” is a defensive compensatory mechanism. Subscribing to one party in our political system is often shown to limit your ability to think critically about your own stances.

So, although I think it’s despicable to actually believe that anyone who doesn’t support your own political party is un-(or anti-)American, I don’t honestly think that’s what’s going through the minds of the people giving this explanation for the lack of support for McCain/Palin. It’s just a obvious sign that the faithful holdouts are in denial about the unsustainability of the methods and practices of the modern Republican party.

Tech

Are you the favorite person of anybody?

October 8th, 2008

I stumbled upon this short while researching John C. Reilly, and absolutely loved it.

Tech

A Crisis in Trust

October 7th, 2008

I apologize in advance for the following post, because, firstly, I am an apologist by nature, and secondly, it is a bit less well thought out than most posts, but the topic compels me to write about anyway.

I have a theory that what underlies and led up to the current credit crisis is really a crisis in trust. Trust is the fundamental thing that allows us to enter a transaction with another person (or with a corporation), and if we do not trust our counterparties, then there is no way that capitalism may work. What the financial industry has done in the name of innovation over the past couple decades is to bet far more than they should have on the premise that trust is unnecessary; basically, if you don’t trust someone, you just charge more interest, and extract more of a profit from a larger segment of people to make up for those who default. As long as we were in a boom economy, the relative numbers of parties that would be in default were low, and real, honest-to-goodness counterparty integrity and trust (like getting a loan from a banker you knew in high school) was quietly replaced by complex financial modeling.

What has occurred in the lending market (probably best described by This American Life recently) may the effect of the sudden failure of decades of financial modeling to compensate for the gradual deterioration of real trust between individuals on Wall St. Trust was just a limitation on the levels of profit that could be gained through financial innovation; the real geniuses found out that you could give a loan to basically anyone as long as you could include their probability of default as a number in your financial calculation. The lack of information or faith about the balance sheets of counterparties seemed to become a problem so suddenly because the innovations obfuscated the real cost of the debts that were being incurred (think option ARMs or balloon payments), until finally it all came due and nobody could be counted on to fulfill the terms of the mortgages (or, for that matter, credit default swaps) that they had agreed to. The boom market can not be described as the result of complete trust in all counterparties; it was the hubris of believing that trust could be outsourced to third parties (the ratings agencies), and as such, not being particularly important, instead of being an absolutely essential component of deciding to do business with someone else.

It seems like I’m being a bit hysterical about the importance of integrity and trust in a free market system where capitalists are incentivized only to maximize short term profit, long term implications be damned. To trust recent corporate philosophy, preserving your real trustworthiness is a matter best left to those in branding or P.R., and that your actual actions can be painted over or hidden by name changes or evasive legal maneuvering. However, the culture of a company or even the reputation of a business leader with integrity can visibly affect the way that all people interact with your company. To make my point, i’ll invoke the image of Warren Buffett, whose every word the American public seems to look to as if messages from a mystic oracle.

It may be true the reason the credit market seized up is solely because of the sudden extreme value of cash on hand to protect against strategic competitive moves, such as that alleged by some against J.P. Morgan. It also may be true that trust has no place in a free market; that all decisions should be based upon rational evaluation of the creditor’s ability to pay. However, in this type of an economic storm, I am going to make a prediction that the value of integrity and ability to honor promises, regardless of the cost, is going to be a determining factor in which businesses are able to survive and make it through the recession/depression. Those who are able to cultivate a supernatural track record and reputation for trustworthiness and integrity will survive where the sharp business of the past will fail without trusting counterparties. In fact, I believe it will likely be a successful tactic for small businesses to overtake their failing large competitors caught up in this mess over the next decade. Although I sincerely hope that the country recovers from this crisis quickly, it could very well prove to be a good time to be in business and change the way that business is done in America.

Tech