Monthly Archives: June 2009

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

It’s The Corporate Culture, Stupid

12 Comments

I don’t often agree with David Brooks, but he has a good diagnosis today of why Government Motors is doomed to fail:

First, the Obama plan will reduce the influence of commercial outsiders. The best place for fresh thinking could come from outside private investors. But the Obama plan rides roughshod over the current private investors and so discourages future investors. G.M. is now a pariah on Wall Street. Say farewell to a potentially powerful source of external commercial pressure.

Second, the Obama plan entrenches the ancien régime. The old C.E.O. is gone, but he’s been replaced by a veteran insider and similar executive coterie. Meanwhile, the U.A.W. has been given a bigger leadership role. This is the union that fought for job banks, where employees get paid for doing nothing. This is the organization that championed retirement with full benefits at around age 50. This is not an organization that represents fundamental cultural change.

Third, the Obama approach reduces the fear that impels change. The U.S. government will own most of G.M. It would be politically suicidal for the Democrats, or whoever is in power, to pull the plug on the company — now or ever. Therefore, the current managers can rest assured that they never need to fear liquidation again. There will always be federal subsidies for their own mediocrity.

As a taxpayer, I want to divest immediately.

[Update a few minutes later]

Related thoughts from Jim Manzi:

The US government is now the majority owner of the nation’s largest car company. The government has chosen GM’s CEO, Fritz Henderson, and will directly select numerous board members. It will be all but impossible for Congress and various regulatory agencies to avoid meddling with detailed operating decisions.

There is already enormous pressure on GM to abandon the vehicles that make it money — gas-guzzling SUVs and pick-ups — in order to focus on fuel-efficient cars that lose money. I doubt we’ll see many production facilities sent offshore, even if this would make economic sense for GM’s shareholders.

This is a terrible harbinger for the US economy, especially when combined with the Obama administration’s apparently heavy-handed negotiating tactics in favor of Chrysler’s unionized employees at the expense of bondholders.

We appear to be headed for European-style industrial policy circa 1975, with a complicated set of favors being traded between elected officials, government bureaucrats and corporate bureaucrats in semi-private companies.

Great.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Fannie Motors?

[Late morning update]

Obama is busy not running GM:

…while Obama is busy “not running GM” he still has time to make calls to the mayor of Detroit to assure him that GM’s headquarters won’t be moving to Warren, Mich., as it was offered to, but that it will be staying in Detroit.

You know, when the president says he doesn’t want to run GM? I don’t believe him.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Obama says that he has to destroy the village in order to save it:

After a while, the endless, “I have no intention to run GM” pledges begin to sound a bit like the guy insisting he means to eat healthier and cut back on the fatty foods… in a little while.

He actually used the line, “I’m not spending this amount because I want to spend taxpayers dollars; I’m doing this to protect taxpayers”, which I suspect will stir a combination of incredulousness and mockery. Most people who loudly pledge that they don’t want to do something don’t do it.

The wilful suspension of disbelief about this guy from the Dems and the media is astounding.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary

First Gun Buybacks

11 Comments

…and now extending the idiocy to cars:

Turn in old cars. It’s long been a talking point of liberals and environmentalists that cars older than a given age should be removed from the highways. The usual mantra goes “The government should buy all cars older than X and pay the owner $750. Then the owner could go out and buy a newer, cleaner, more efficient car.” The advocates for this position either fail or refuse to understand that the owners will not be able to find a car to buy with their $750. Basic economics.

At least the gun buybacks, stupid as they are, offer a reasonable amount of money for the hardware, particularly given that many of those turned in are non functional. I suspect that if the government implements such a program for cars, they’ll get a lot of undriveable clunkers, but very few useful automobiles.

Unless, of course, they make us an offer we can’t refuse. That would, after all, be the Chicago way.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Ideology That Dare Not Speak Its Name

2 Comments

Who owns socialism?

As Confucius said, “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

One of the insidious tactics of the left over the decades has been to debase the currency of the language, calling themselves “liberals” and “progressives,” and accusing those who disagree with them as “racists,” and “haters.” I refuse to bow to their politically corrosive sophistry. What we are seeing in Washington today is socialism, and fascism, and the two are not opposites, but are in fact closely related.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jonah Goldberg has similar thoughts today at USA Today:

The whole spectacle was just too funny for liberal observers. Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News & World Report’s opinion editor, was a typical giggler. He chortled, “What’s really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it.”

Putting aside the funny and scary notion that it’s “funny and scary” for political professionals to take weighty political issues seriously, there are some fundamental problems with all of this disdain. For starters, why do liberals routinely suggest, even hope, that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into an age of socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism? (One source of confusion is that these terms are routinely used interchangeably.)

For instance, in (another) fawning interview with President Obama, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocks Obama’s critics for considering Obama to be a “crypto-socialist.” This, of course, would be the same Jon Meacham who last February co-authored a cover story with Newsweek’s editor at large (and grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the American Socialist Part) Evan Thomas titled — wait for it — “We Are All Socialists Now,” in which they argued that the growth of government was making us like a “European,” i.e. socialist, country.

Washington Post columnists Jim Hoagland (a centrist), E.J. Dionne (a liberal) and Harold Meyerson (very, very liberal) have all suggested that Obama intentionally or otherwise is putting us on the path to “social democracy.” Left-wing blogger and Democratic activist Matthew Yglesias last fall hoped that the financial crisis offered a “real opportunity” for “massive socialism.” Polling done by Rasmussen — and touted by Meyerson — shows that while Republicans favor “capitalism” over “socialism” by 11 to 1, Democrats favor capitalism by a mere 39% to 30%. So, again: Is it really crazy to think that there is a constituency for some flavor of socialism in the Democratic Party?

No, it’s not crazy talk. Except when “right wingers” talk about it, of course.

But as he notes, “corporatism” (the economic philosophy of fascism) is the best term for it.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Advice To The Tea Partiers

19 Comments

They should ask, “What would Reagan do“?

Conservatives are dismayed and baffled at the sight of Obama’s Latin American-style personality cult and at poll results showing astonishing erosion in public support for free markets and limited government. “This is a center-right nation,” conservatives continue to insist. To be sure, Reagan and the conservative movement stoked the populist flames from the 1970s through the 1990s, with considerable success. But conservatives became too comfortable with the thought that populism would remain a reliable conservative force in American politics, and largely lost or disdained the art of constitutional argument.

Madison and Tocqueville knew better (as Mansfield has warned us repeatedly over the last two decades), and would not have been surprised by the present crisis. The other person who would not have been surprised is Ronald Reagan. This sunny optimist also warned repeatedly that “freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation.” Reagan’s greatest frustration as president was his inability to control spending. In contrast to Pres. George W. Bush, Reagan vetoed several “budget-busting” bills in the course of his presidency, only to see many Republican members of Congress join Democrats in overriding his vetoes. This led Reagan, late in his second term, to recognize the wisdom of Mansfield’s Razor and to embrace a bold constitutional strategy that no one much remembers today.

We need to get people to talk about the Constitution much more.

Space, Technology and Society

Space Solar Powerballs

10 Comments

Trevor Brown proposes spherical solar power satellites.

This isn’t a new idea. I wrote a paper on it back in the early nineties for an SPS conference, and I think that Geoff Landis has done some work on it as well (for instance, here’s a report of a talk that he gave on it at the 1996 ISDC, which was the last one that I attended prior to by going to Dallas two years ago — ctrl-F for “spherical”). It does vastly simplify the design issues, because it is no longer necessary to point the panels at the sun. One of the comments there needs some elaboration:

While the surface area of the sphere facing the Sun matches your calculations, the whole side would not be available for power generation. The so-called Beta angle, or the Sun angle, affects the total amount of power converted. Also, while a sphere would not need rigid station-keeping and attitude control to collect solar energy, the transmitter back to Earth certainly will. Also, a large spherical structure would be more taxing on a station-keeping/attitude control system than a more planar design. These caveats in mind, this is a creative alternative.

With regard to the needed area, the beta-angle effect means that at any orientation, you’re only getting the effective solar panel area of the cross-section of the sphere. That is, while the hemisphere has twice the area of the circular cross section, the non-zero beta angle of all points except that at the center of the illuminated area means that you need twice the solar panel that would be necessary if it were a flat circle. Add to this the fact that you have just as much area on the side in shadow, and it means that you need four times the total solar panel area to get the equivalent collection capacity of a pointed flat plate. So you have to postulate very cheap panels for this to make economic sense. But if you can get them, the simplification of the design is worth a lot.

As for pointing the transmitter, that’s actually not so tough a job. You hang it down below the sphere, and it will remain vertical, due to gravity gradient restoring torques. You could point it with control cables all around its circumference, attached to the sphere. In addition to inflating it, I also considered putting a charge on its surface to keep it spherical, but it would take a lot of ions, particularly for a big one, and inflating is probably a better solution, though subject to leaks, and the need for gas resupply.

One other point. I actually considered a fleet of them in MEO, continuously switching from one rectenna to the next as they orbit, to reduce the size of the transmitter antenna, which gets kind of humungous out at GEO.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary

An Interesting Quote

3 Comments

On the economics of fascism, from self-declared fascist Lawrence Dennis:

Thus we shall see what fascism has to do to make a system of private ownership and management workable, so far as arrangements involving capital income or reward are concerned. The ruling principle must be that capital and management reward must be kept in continuous and flexible adjustment with economic possibilities, and that legal and institutional arrangements—like loan contracts, bonds, legal concepts of just compensation, due process of law, and confiscation—must not obstruct executive action of government to maintain this adjustment otherwise than by the present devices of bankruptcy, foreclosures, reorganization, and cycles of booms and depressions. [Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism (New York: Harper & Bros., 1936 ), Ch. V. “Can We Reorganize the Present System?”]

Emphasis mine. As Jonah notes, it seems very familiar, somehow.