Timothy Geithner's Eyebrows Speak for America

Gains are Private, Debt is Public

As if I needed an economic crisis to fuel my disinterest in, and dislike of, American cars, GM and Ford's new payment protection plan, a la not having to pay for your car if you lose your job, makes me vomity sick. So, the products that the free market have shown to be mechanically inferior and overall unappealing are being subsidized by the taxpayer. I think the initial negotiation for the bailout was arcane enough that, although it was generally distasteful, didn't really resonate with the average taxpayer in a transparent way. Like most people, I just thought, "oh, that is pretty bogus, but I drive a Toyota." Well, this load of political and corporate smoke and mirrors is now shedding its disguise and is having a coming out party in the form of our tax dollars paying for some one's piece of crap Chevy Malibu. No, this is not intended as a personal diatribe against American cars, but as invective against nonsensical policies that engender morally hazardous human behavior. I don't see why American cars can't be great. They were once. Why can't they be again? Why, can these federally subsidized companies offer $500 for up to 9 payments in the case of GM, and $700/month for a year after purchase of a new vehicle in the case of Ford? The American taxpayer is going to be paying for quite a few new cars over the next couple of years, not to mention the mortgages that we will be paying for. (Subsidize is a very nice word I think. Paying is perhaps a bit more enlightening and direct.) 

I recently heard a man on NPR who bemoaned the current state of the American auto executives. The man hearkened back to a brighter day when Lee Iacocca was able to charm the American public back into buying good American cars. Well, newsflash, Iacocca's biggest accomplishment was probably when he marched onto an ethically loose Capitol Hill and boozed and schmoozed his way into a multi-billion dollar bailout for his effectively bankrupt company back in 1979. They have been benefiting from the vapors ever since. My point is two-fold: 1) if we want people to buy American cars, let's encourage them to buy them, and not subsidize, I mean pay for, them publically; and 2) in order for people to buy American cars, they have to want to buy American cars. Let's not just "restructure". Let's revamp. Rebuild. Rethink. etc. etc. etc. Gut the companies. Let them go bankrupt. Let people feel responsible. If companies that provide a needed service fold, that service will not be lost in the mess, it will simply be provided by a more innovative or efficient entity. If that is a restructured version of the original firm then that is fine. If it is a new firm, that is fine as well. It's not like we haven't been down this road before. How many times do we hear about JD Rockefeller's stellar timber and railroading companies, or Leland Stanford's trading empire? Things change. I am ok with that. Let's stop using private capital to publically pay off debt.

Losing our shirts.

Like a social nicotine, the American public (myself included) has flocked to the screens of our news media industry to suck down the latest headline in real time, perhaps in hopes of being the first to know of something good…or really bad. (There is real intellectual and social utility derived from knowledge like that, right?) Why do we do this? In a perverse way, I seem to derive a certain amount of catharsis from this process—perhaps because I believe that I’ll gain closure or resolution by knowing the ‘bad news’ up front. Maybe it is just front-end masochism. Like eating the steamed broccoli first and saving the savory meat for last. 

 I think at this point we would all breathe a sigh of deep relief if Tim Geithner looked the nation and the Senate Finance Committee, or whoever, straight in the eyes, for once, and said something to the effect of, “Mr. Chairman, right now we are all screwed, and will lose everything before we can gain it back again. Thank you.” At least we would be honest with ourselves. 

What's G?

Today I reference an article featured with some prominence on the homepage of NYTimes.com, "Four Hours Without Gmail." Now, I do not claim to be particularly tech-savvy, nor do I claim to fully comprehend the relative importance of many of the interconnected online systems that the world has learned to rely on for our otherwise overlooked necessities, but Gmail? Come on. 

The Article shared the front page on cyberspace with headlines like, "Worry of a North Korea Missile Test," "Fed Chief Offers a Dire Economic Forecast," "Retail Earnings Reflect Slowdown in Consumer Spending," "Controller Tells Tale of Hudson Landing," and "NASA Satellite Fails to Reach Orbit," among others. Maybe I am naive and do not grasp the gravity of an event such as a temporary Gmail meltdown, but I am pretty sure that it is not to par with events that threaten human life and welfare. 

Maybe I am wrong. After all, I do spend about half of my workday on Gchat. Maybe it is not about being right or wrong. Maybe I am missing the point. Maybe the point is that Google has branded and marketed themselves in such a way that they earned a spot on the front page of NYTimes.com for doing nothing. They earned that headline through years of market domination, not as a result of some everyday mundanity--as was the case in this story. They are a corporate celebrity completely independent of a personality like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jerry Yang, Michael Bloomberg, or Rupert Murdoch. They are just Google. I guess that is pretty G.

Isn't it funny how affected a person can be by the current economic downturn? I mean, I have never really paid much attention to the financial markets. Although I recognized the power of it all, the financial community always seemed too enigmatic and arcane for a layperson such as myself to take more than a periphery interest in it. Now it seems that this otherwise foreign world  has engulfed my thinking and emotions in a strangely tolerable, yet invasive, way. I seem to gauge life subconsciously through the DOW, or the most current augmentation of the stimulus saga. If the DOW is up, my worldview is up. If the DOW is down, then...well, life seems a lot harder. If money is given to the Big Three in some misfangled bull-crap-ridden bail-out designed to do nothing than assuage idiotic shareholders who decided to invest their money in a product that hasn't produced for forty years, then I also get down a little bit. Today the DOW is down, and it looks like our friends in Detroit are getting theirs, but I am not too down. I think that I am getting used to this mess. How has the financial crisis affected your psyche?

50 Years Ago I Was -24

When people ask me what my musical influences were growing up, I unhesitatingly respond that I grew up on The Beatles and The Beach Boys. This is true.  Yet, there was another influence that came before the boys of summer or the fabfour. 

There is a fuzzy, sepia-tone memory of going to a Hills Department Store and buying a record with my dad that is at the beginning of this story. It was 1987. Not a particularly stand out year for anything, except Luis Valdez's classic film, "La Bamba." The record my dad bought was the soundtrack to the film, and the rest is history. Aside from the Disco Duck record that I had received for a birthday a couple of years earlier, my understanding of pop-music/rock'n'roll was pretty limited at the time. So, hearing "La Bamba", even if it was Lou Diamond Phillips lip-synching to Los Lobos, was revelatory. In fact, every time I listened to the record I had to perform. I used to get out my mom's old Chris Evert tennis racket and sing along into a microphone made out of constructs. It was pretty hip. I miss those days. Point being, that record and the artists it represented, namely Richie Valens, Buddy Holly, and the Big Bopper played a big part in the development of a part of my life that I really love. It is for that reason that I was a bit surprised and saddened when I neither heard nor saw anything on the 50th anniversary of their deaths, except a small blurb on a KQED morning show, that celebrated the contributions that those early pioneers made to rock'n'roll. Did Don McClain ruin it for everybody? Anyway, my hat is off to those three who had such a profound impact on the face of rock'n'roll as it has been played since 1959. 

There are a lot of things about me that you don't know.

I used to hate Rock Band. I thought it was perverse. That was, until I played it. Now, I can't get enough.

I used to think American Idol was ridiculous. I guess I still do, but that doesn't stop me from watching it and enjoying it. 

I used to hate herbal tea. No flavor. What's the point? Just add milk and sugar dummy. Now I love it. 

There are lots of things you don't know about me. 

Less Talk More Soft Rock

Every once in a while, as impulse permits, I get the urge to find some good 'pop-music' on the radio while I am driving to work. This phenomenon is perhaps akin to buying chocolate-covered pistachios at Trader Joes--a delicious treat to be sure, but I am not a treat kind of guy.I like leftovers and chips. Anyway, every time I indulge this desire I end up surfing until I find a nice soft-rock station. Here in San Francisco that station happens to be KOIT. I don't know how it happens, and I don't know if I should be ashamed. It's as if there is some thirst in my subconscious that can only be quenched with soft rock. Without thinking I instinctively remove my hand from the search button and gently place it back on the wheel as soon as the soothing tones of one of the 1970's greatest augmentations to rock'n'roll makes its way from the speakers to my eardrums. It is a catharsis. It is mom singing you to sleep. It is a guilty pleasure that you feel no guilt about. Yesterday, it was Chicago with, "You're the Inspiration." At other times it has been George Michael, Michael McDonald, and Sarah McGlaughlin. I am not ashamed. Bring it on KOIT. Less talk, more soft rock please.