April 5, 2009
To the New York Times -
re bossing the world nations, as in telling N Korea they can’t develop
nuclear weapons:
Now, wait just a minute. I may be naive and simple minded but , to me, telling other countries, such as North Korea and Iran, not to build missiles and bombs seems presumptuous and possibly causing rancor enough so that they defy us. President Obama is doing a great job and I am very happy he is President. On this subject, however, he is towing an old line that has gotten us nowhere.
We ourselves have nuclear weapons as do several other countries. Is that the credentials to boss everyone else around telling them what they can’t develop missiles or nuclear power? Yes, I know this was a United Nations treaty but wasn’t that agreed upon back in the cave era?
Time to be real. Use diplomacy to make friends who won’t attack us.
The Nato countries should rewrite their agenda. The Alliance should use international forces to keep nuclear nations from doing anything aggressive. The US must come to terms with the fact that we have little credibility after attacking and ruining Iraq.
Please tell me why we, Americans, have the right to tell other countries how to live in this big bad world?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Response to Greed or Stupidity, D. Brooks, New York Times
April 3, 2009
My letter to David Brooks, of the New York Times, about his editorial “Greed and Stupidity”:
Dear Mr. Brooks,
You put the entire picture of the causes of our financial crisis or collapse very succinctly. I really appreciate that. The complicated nature of it all explains why Americans and the new President are
having a difficult time figuring out what to do. They are still looking for a formulaic explanation, as if there is a recipe and they left out an important ingredient. In a way they are right. The recipe included responsibility and integrity but I guess they thought that was
optional.
From the editorial by David Brooks - NY Times - 4-3-09:
The best single encapsulation of the greed narrative is an essay called “The Quiet Coup,” by Simon Johnson, (former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund or IMF) in The Atlantic.
Mr. Johnson says:
“The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says Johnson, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak
freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true
depression, we’re running out of time.”
Johnson begins with a trend. Between 1973 and 1985, the
U.S. financial sector accounted for about 16 percent of domestic
corporate profits. In the 1990s, it ranged from 21 percent to 30 percent. This decade, it soared to 41 percent. In other words, Wall Street got huge. As it got huge, its prestige grew. Its compensation packages grew. Its political power grew as well. Wall Street and Washington merged as a flow of investment bankers went down to the White House and the Treasury Department.
The second and, to me, more persuasive theory revolves around ignorance and uncertainty. The primary problem is not the greed of a giant oligarchy. It’s that overconfident bankers didn’t know what they were doing. They thought they had these sophisticated tools to reduce risk. But when big events — like the rise of China — fundamentally altered the world economy, their tools were worse than useless.
Many writers have described elements of this intellectual
hubris. Amar Bhidé has described the fallacy of diversification.
Bankers thought that if they bundled slices of many assets into
giant packages then they didn’t have to perform due diligence on each one. ...the formula that gave finance whizzes the illusion that they could accurately calculate risks.
In Wired, Felix Salmon described the false lure of the Gaussian copula function, the formula that gave finance whizzes the illusion that they could accurately calculate risks. Still, one has to choose a guiding theory. To my mind, we didn’t get into this crisis because
inbred oligarchs grabbed power. We got into it because arrogant
traders around the world were playing a high-stakes game they
didn’t understand.
We should return to the day when banks were focused institutions — when savings banks, insurance companies, brokerages and investment banks lived separate lives. We can agree on that reform.
Again, from Johnson at the Atlantic:
“Typically, these countries (those that go to the IMF for help)
are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks... ......With credit unavailable, economic paralysis ensues, and conditions just get worse and worse. The government is forced
to draw down its foreign-currency reserves to pay for imports, service debt, and cover private losses. But these reserves will eventually run out. If the country cannot right itself before that happens, it will default on its sovereign debt and become an economic pariah.”
There is a “disturbing similarity” to a banana republic in our
own crisis: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the
inevitable collapse.”
In wrapping up Mr. Brooks comments and those of my other sources for the essay above, it is obvious that strict regulation is
necessary and obligatory now, for the banking industry and other
financial institutions. That is clear. Whether or not this President
can do enough remains to be seen.
My letter to David Brooks, of the New York Times, about his editorial “Greed and Stupidity”:
Dear Mr. Brooks,
You put the entire picture of the causes of our financial crisis or collapse very succinctly. I really appreciate that. The complicated nature of it all explains why Americans and the new President are
having a difficult time figuring out what to do. They are still looking for a formulaic explanation, as if there is a recipe and they left out an important ingredient. In a way they are right. The recipe included responsibility and integrity but I guess they thought that was
optional.
From the editorial by David Brooks - NY Times - 4-3-09:
The best single encapsulation of the greed narrative is an essay called “The Quiet Coup,” by Simon Johnson, (former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund or IMF) in The Atlantic.
Mr. Johnson says:
“The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says Johnson, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak
freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true
depression, we’re running out of time.”
Johnson begins with a trend. Between 1973 and 1985, the
U.S. financial sector accounted for about 16 percent of domestic
corporate profits. In the 1990s, it ranged from 21 percent to 30 percent. This decade, it soared to 41 percent. In other words, Wall Street got huge. As it got huge, its prestige grew. Its compensation packages grew. Its political power grew as well. Wall Street and Washington merged as a flow of investment bankers went down to the White House and the Treasury Department.
The second and, to me, more persuasive theory revolves around ignorance and uncertainty. The primary problem is not the greed of a giant oligarchy. It’s that overconfident bankers didn’t know what they were doing. They thought they had these sophisticated tools to reduce risk. But when big events — like the rise of China — fundamentally altered the world economy, their tools were worse than useless.
Many writers have described elements of this intellectual
hubris. Amar Bhidé has described the fallacy of diversification.
Bankers thought that if they bundled slices of many assets into
giant packages then they didn’t have to perform due diligence on each one. ...the formula that gave finance whizzes the illusion that they could accurately calculate risks.
In Wired, Felix Salmon described the false lure of the Gaussian copula function, the formula that gave finance whizzes the illusion that they could accurately calculate risks. Still, one has to choose a guiding theory. To my mind, we didn’t get into this crisis because
inbred oligarchs grabbed power. We got into it because arrogant
traders around the world were playing a high-stakes game they
didn’t understand.
We should return to the day when banks were focused institutions — when savings banks, insurance companies, brokerages and investment banks lived separate lives. We can agree on that reform.
Again, from Johnson at the Atlantic:
“Typically, these countries (those that go to the IMF for help)
are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks... ......With credit unavailable, economic paralysis ensues, and conditions just get worse and worse. The government is forced
to draw down its foreign-currency reserves to pay for imports, service debt, and cover private losses. But these reserves will eventually run out. If the country cannot right itself before that happens, it will default on its sovereign debt and become an economic pariah.”
There is a “disturbing similarity” to a banana republic in our
own crisis: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the
inevitable collapse.”
In wrapping up Mr. Brooks comments and those of my other sources for the essay above, it is obvious that strict regulation is
necessary and obligatory now, for the banking industry and other
financial institutions. That is clear. Whether or not this President
can do enough remains to be seen.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
We Are Impatient Children of Technology
Reading the comments above makes me see that we are too impatient in America. On CNN the commentators said that we are too accustomed to instant results. Such as a home make over completed within an hour on TV or a business venture ordered up by Donald Trump all in one episode of The Apprentice.
I am guilty of similar lightning expectations. I have been impatient with this new administration also.
Patience and trust is what we must learn, on both sides of the isle. Don’t we all love our country and want the best for her? We can moan and grown like spoiled children and perhaps ruin the opportunity for this bunch in Washington to do anything constructive.
Come on, it has been only TWO months for them. Could you turn things around that fast? As President Obama said yesterday, the US is like the Titanic. It will take a super human effort to turn her around. Give Obama and his crew a chance.
I’m as skeptical and impatient as the next person but I think we should back off (INCLUDING the press!) and let them figure it out. No one has faced these problems before (exactly) so don’t crowd them and suffocate them. Let them govern and in a year or two the day of reckoning will come, so to speak.
I am guilty of similar lightning expectations. I have been impatient with this new administration also.
Patience and trust is what we must learn, on both sides of the isle. Don’t we all love our country and want the best for her? We can moan and grown like spoiled children and perhaps ruin the opportunity for this bunch in Washington to do anything constructive.
Come on, it has been only TWO months for them. Could you turn things around that fast? As President Obama said yesterday, the US is like the Titanic. It will take a super human effort to turn her around. Give Obama and his crew a chance.
I’m as skeptical and impatient as the next person but I think we should back off (INCLUDING the press!) and let them figure it out. No one has faced these problems before (exactly) so don’t crowd them and suffocate them. Let them govern and in a year or two the day of reckoning will come, so to speak.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Bi-lingual, tri-lingual, or quad-lingal (?) Education
To The New York Times-March 11, 2009
Bi-, tri-, quadrupal language education would never do anything but help children. I work with second graders who are at least bi-lingual. Their parents have poor English skills but and I don’t speak Thai or Chinese or Tagalo. We talk all the time anyway because I can understand badly accented English easily. This comes from living in different countries and learning four languages before I was ten. My “ear” is trained linguistically. Our communication is about the children, of course, and they deeply appreciate a teacher that can speak to them in their first language or in any language. The children do not need to speak to me in Spanish or Thai.They are completely fluent in Engish. Their minds are agile and they quickly switch from language to language.
Language comes from a part of the brain that is it’s own. That part of the brain needs as much development as any other, as we know. Bi-lingual education is something everyone should have, especially in today’s global society.
Europeans routinely speak many languages. They are better educated than we are so, obviously, learning multiple languages didn’t hurt them.
The US education system is poor but removing language learning is not the answer. Hiring teachers who speak multiple languages is.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Public v.s. Charter Schools
Mr. O'Connell, Governor Schwarzenegger, President Obama,
Please do not take funding away from public schools, especially elementary schools. I am a second grade teacher in a wonderful public elementary school here in Los Angeles. It has been built up in the community by a very talented principal and involved parents.It is small and intimate, where the families feel comfortable and safe enough to spend time on campus getting to know us teachers and each other. Their involvement in the school activities and knowing the teachers is crucial, as we know, to the quality of the school. The three hundred or so families, whose children are there from kindergarten to fifth grade, are mostly immigrants with American born children.
Charter schools are not the way to go. The problem is that they are not all located where the children and their families live. Another issue is the quality of their teachers. Thirdly, the funds they operate on are mostly private donations and therefore not under government jurisdiction or regulation. The AB1137 requirements for "re-authorization" of charter schools are not effective enough. the charter school only has to perform as well as the surrounding public schools. The school is measured by tests that are loosely prepared and subject to bias. Even if these meager standards are not met, the school can continue to operate regardless.
As you know, some of our schools in the Los Angeles area are the worst in the country. The elementary school I mentioned initially is, however, proof that our public schools can redeem themselves. We must improve on the infrastructure we have, aided by federal, state and local governments. Ending busing, keeping schools small and community based and raising the expectations of the teachers the administrators and the students is the key to our renewing the high standards that our schools once had.
Please do not take funding away from public schools, especially elementary schools. I am a second grade teacher in a wonderful public elementary school here in Los Angeles. It has been built up in the community by a very talented principal and involved parents.It is small and intimate, where the families feel comfortable and safe enough to spend time on campus getting to know us teachers and each other. Their involvement in the school activities and knowing the teachers is crucial, as we know, to the quality of the school. The three hundred or so families, whose children are there from kindergarten to fifth grade, are mostly immigrants with American born children.
Charter schools are not the way to go. The problem is that they are not all located where the children and their families live. Another issue is the quality of their teachers. Thirdly, the funds they operate on are mostly private donations and therefore not under government jurisdiction or regulation. The AB1137 requirements for "re-authorization" of charter schools are not effective enough. the charter school only has to perform as well as the surrounding public schools. The school is measured by tests that are loosely prepared and subject to bias. Even if these meager standards are not met, the school can continue to operate regardless.
As you know, some of our schools in the Los Angeles area are the worst in the country. The elementary school I mentioned initially is, however, proof that our public schools can redeem themselves. We must improve on the infrastructure we have, aided by federal, state and local governments. Ending busing, keeping schools small and community based and raising the expectations of the teachers the administrators and the students is the key to our renewing the high standards that our schools once had.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The OMG Generation
to: Kate Zernike at THE NEW YORK TIMES
March 8, 2009
Dear Ms. Zernike,
I thoroughly enjoyed your “Generation OMG” piece. You are so insightful when you compare the parent’s generation (be they from the 1930’s or later) to the their children’s. It is fascinating to see the destinctions in the younger generations play out in their development and subscequent outlook towards the future. I would love to see a graph of the influences of parental sociological traits play out in the characteristics of their offspring A book that encompasses all of this subject in detail would be very interesting. Perhaps there is one?
My parents were teenagers during the Great Depression and became successful writers (in my father’s case for the NY Times!) shunning the material values of the 1950’s. I was born in 1951 and into this wild bohemian household and have been an artist and a teacher. My husband is a doctor. Our son is a freshman at in college and grew up in an affluent environment of private schools and video games. Together we represent the Boomers and the Bubble generations. He is a fairly typical example, I think, of his generation. They are high consumers, risk takers and somewhat more conscious of the world as a whole. They are aware of politics and human rights but most don’t envision a life of public service. They are still young.
The world is changing in a massive way, however, imploding in on itself. Perhaps it it the Y2K effect that didn’t happen in the year 2000, and is coming now with the onset of the tremendous changes in communication and technology.
Our college and highschool aged children will see that the comfort they were raised in is not a given. They are likely to have a difficult time finding jobs in whatever career they choose, even if the economy improves, because of the shear number of them. Some are already working to forge a place in the job market to come.
Our children will live and work in a global society, rather than a world of super powers and the almighty USA. This will mean new ways of making money, what to spend it on or how to save it. Their families, if they have them, will be structured differently. The parents will probably both be working and the children will be out into society earlier. We used to say that the “nuclear” family was the future. It is now the past. This is not to say that the future will be better or worse for them than it has been for us. It is just evolution.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Brady
Pasadena, California
March 8, 2009
Dear Ms. Zernike,
I thoroughly enjoyed your “Generation OMG” piece. You are so insightful when you compare the parent’s generation (be they from the 1930’s or later) to the their children’s. It is fascinating to see the destinctions in the younger generations play out in their development and subscequent outlook towards the future. I would love to see a graph of the influences of parental sociological traits play out in the characteristics of their offspring A book that encompasses all of this subject in detail would be very interesting. Perhaps there is one?
My parents were teenagers during the Great Depression and became successful writers (in my father’s case for the NY Times!) shunning the material values of the 1950’s. I was born in 1951 and into this wild bohemian household and have been an artist and a teacher. My husband is a doctor. Our son is a freshman at in college and grew up in an affluent environment of private schools and video games. Together we represent the Boomers and the Bubble generations. He is a fairly typical example, I think, of his generation. They are high consumers, risk takers and somewhat more conscious of the world as a whole. They are aware of politics and human rights but most don’t envision a life of public service. They are still young.
The world is changing in a massive way, however, imploding in on itself. Perhaps it it the Y2K effect that didn’t happen in the year 2000, and is coming now with the onset of the tremendous changes in communication and technology.
Our college and highschool aged children will see that the comfort they were raised in is not a given. They are likely to have a difficult time finding jobs in whatever career they choose, even if the economy improves, because of the shear number of them. Some are already working to forge a place in the job market to come.
Our children will live and work in a global society, rather than a world of super powers and the almighty USA. This will mean new ways of making money, what to spend it on or how to save it. Their families, if they have them, will be structured differently. The parents will probably both be working and the children will be out into society earlier. We used to say that the “nuclear” family was the future. It is now the past. This is not to say that the future will be better or worse for them than it has been for us. It is just evolution.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Brady
Pasadena, California
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
to Tim Rutten, LA Times
Dear Ms. Woods:
Thanks very much and I don't think it's ever too late to do the
right thing.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Lissa Brady [mailto:lissabw@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:21 AM
To: Rutten, Timothy
Subject: Shocking and awfull, but not news to me
Dear Mr. Rutten,
Your opinion piece, Bush's Executive Tyranny, in todays online LA
Times, is right on the money. Ever since the Iraq war began I have
been worried about how far the Bush administration would act
unlawfully, dragging down our country to levels of corruption never
revealed domestically before. Your statements about the documents
issued by Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel are terrifying.
Was this office an establishment of Cheney and Rumsfeld? Unthinkable!
I thought they were just out to make money off American tax payers.
Unfortunately, they had much higher ambitions. They were truly
hijacking our country!
(We should have the equivalent movie made to Frost/ Nixon but as
Brokaw/Cheney or Cooper/Rumsfeld or Rutten/Bush.
The average American will not buy this terrible story unless it is
presented as a movie or television expose by Barbara Walters or 60
Minutes.)
The suggestion of Sen. Leahy to "establish a bipartisan citizens
commission to investigate and report on exactly what occurred" is
urgent and of paramount importance. The longer we wait the less we
will be able to uncover.
Americans, all of us, need to see how far the Bush administration went
without asking us or, even, telling us what secret actions they took
and how. There were fanatics at the helm and they have truly battered
this ship. We are sinking from the damage It may be too late to repair
it.
Sincerely and sadly,
Elizabeth Brady Woods
Thanks very much and I don't think it's ever too late to do the
right thing.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Lissa Brady [mailto:lissabw@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:21 AM
To: Rutten, Timothy
Subject: Shocking and awfull, but not news to me
Dear Mr. Rutten,
Your opinion piece, Bush's Executive Tyranny, in todays online LA
Times, is right on the money. Ever since the Iraq war began I have
been worried about how far the Bush administration would act
unlawfully, dragging down our country to levels of corruption never
revealed domestically before. Your statements about the documents
issued by Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel are terrifying.
Was this office an establishment of Cheney and Rumsfeld? Unthinkable!
I thought they were just out to make money off American tax payers.
Unfortunately, they had much higher ambitions. They were truly
hijacking our country!
(We should have the equivalent movie made to Frost/ Nixon but as
Brokaw/Cheney or Cooper/Rumsfeld or Rutten/Bush.
The average American will not buy this terrible story unless it is
presented as a movie or television expose by Barbara Walters or 60
Minutes.)
The suggestion of Sen. Leahy to "establish a bipartisan citizens
commission to investigate and report on exactly what occurred" is
urgent and of paramount importance. The longer we wait the less we
will be able to uncover.
Americans, all of us, need to see how far the Bush administration went
without asking us or, even, telling us what secret actions they took
and how. There were fanatics at the helm and they have truly battered
this ship. We are sinking from the damage It may be too late to repair
it.
Sincerely and sadly,
Elizabeth Brady Woods
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)