I think his latest piece titled More (Steve) Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs has the potential to impact the lives of even more people.  Friedman says:

The most striking feature of Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency was the amazing, young, Internet-enabled, grass-roots movement he mobilized to get elected. The most striking feature of Obama’s presidency a year later is how thoroughly that movement has disappeared.

I remember getting inundated by posts from my friends on Facebook in the weeks leading up to the election urging me to support Obama, attend rallies or make sure to go out and vote.  The movement continued for the next few weeks, but has completely lost steam.  Even the most ardent Obama supporters among my friends aren’t engaged via social media anymore.  This in itself is pretty amazing, but not Friedman’s main point. He wants President Obama to re-engage America’s youth and doesn’t believe that going after Wall Street or other negative methods will work.  He continues:

Obama should launch his own moon shot. What the country needs most now is not more government stimulus, but more stimulation. We need to get millions of American kids, not just the geniuses, excited about innovation and entrepreneurship again. We need to make 2010 what Obama should have made 2009: the year of innovation, the year of making our pie bigger, the year of “Start-Up America.”

Obama should make the centerpiece of his presidency mobilizing a million new start-up companies that won’t just give us temporary highway jobs, but lasting good jobs that keep America on the cutting edge. The best way to counter the Tea Party movement, which is all about stopping things, is with an Innovation Movement, which is all about starting things. Without inventing more new products and services that make people more productive, healthier or entertained — that we can sell around the world — we’ll never be able to afford the health care our people need, let alone pay off our debts.

I am 100% behind this idea.  It makes perfect sense and would appeal to both sides of the aisle at at time when partisanship is at a seemingly all time high because of the fight over health care.  It would harken back to the Obama that many young people voted for, rather than the less than inspirational version of the President who we have gotten to know since his election.

I believe that entrepreneurship is our best hope for saving the US from its mammoth debt obligations.  We need to find ways to “grow the pie” rather than trying to raise taxes on a stagnant (or shrinking) pie.  I believe that all kinds of entrepreneurship are going to be necessary to solve our problems.  We are going to need traditional entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, but we will also need social entrepreneurs like Muhammad Yunus and the social entrepreneurs featured in Business Week.

I think that if President Obama were to make entrepreneurship a central portion of his presidency, he will find a huge groundswell of willing entrepreneurs who will be willing to help.  Friedman mentions National Lab Day and the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship as examples of organization that are helping young people get interested in innovation.  Both programs would not be able to survive without older, successful mentors.  I think that entrepreneurs are willing to help out as mentors and young people are waiting to be entrepreneurs, but some are just waiting to be pushed.  Inc. Magazine contributor and author of Upstarts!, Donna Fenn says:

Over 75% of the entrepreneurs I interviewed for my book, Upstarts! said that they were very or highly likely to start another company; most had already founded two or more.”  She continues, “70% said their companies had a social mission. But make no mistake: they’re laser-focused on the bottom line as well and they understand why growing a profitable, sustainable company that creates jobs is a social good in and of itself. It’s pretty clear to me: this is a generation worth investing in.

Fenn‘s point is important because many startups are not only creating jobs and coming up with new solutions to problems, but they are also trying to make the world a better place.  If we can get more people to think with this mindset, the US and the world will be a better place.  So President Obama, please follow Friedman’s advice.  This is a no lose issue for you and the country.  You should be able to get support from both sides of the aisle.  You should be able to reconnect with an electorate that wants to support you, but has not because you have abandoned what got you into office.  Go back to the politics of hope, propose real solutions that everyone can get behind and see what happens.  I bet it will change lives.

                          

2009 was a fun year.  I graduated with a degree in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin, made great progress on Entrustet, made some good friends and traveled to Europe with one of my best friends to visit another.  I was in another great friend’s wedding, got my consulting company off the ground, saw some amazing sporting events and got more involved in Madison.  I even stuck with my blog.

My Best Posts (in no order)

The Business School Way of Life

Is the Dollar America’s Achilles Heel?

America Doesn’t Plan for the Future

The Entrepreneurial Push

Every Startup Needs a Mentor Team

My Decade in Review

My Favorite Books (read, not written in 2009)

Infidel

Three Cups of Tea

Outliers

Always Running

The White Tiger

I’m looking forward to going to South Africa for the World Cup this summer, attending South By Southwest and continuing to work on Entrustet.  I think 2010 will be another fun and interesting year for me.  I hope your 2010 is too!

Predictions for 2010s

I know it’s just about impossible to look forward a few months, much less a year or even a decade, but here’s some guesses as to where we are headed.

2010

1. Gold will continue its rise in response to more US government debt creation
2. Developing countries continue to grow more quickly than developed countries.
3. Unemployment will become the biggest political problem next year, but entrepreneurs will be somewhat sheltered

Longer Term

1. The Reserve Status of US dollar will be called into question.  Look for China and the rest of the world to continue to diversify away from US government debt.  I don’t know when this will happen, but I can’t see any other solution to the US’s massive debt and unfunded liabilities.
2. At some point, bubbles in China, US debt and others may pop.  This could lead to lower stock values and a resumption of the bear market.
3. China will move from manufacturer to the world toward one of the leading innovators.  China will continue to assert itself on the political and economic stages. Look for their dominance in rare earth metals.
4. Entrepreneurs around the world will be successful, as large companies do not want to invest in new technologies and talent is cheap.

                          

The classic definition of gotcha journalism usually refers to an interview style where the interviewer tries to trap the interviewee into saying something that would be damaging to themselves or their cause.  It has been around since the early 80s and became firmly rooted into our political and popular culture since then.

With the rise of the Internet, journalists, bloggers and citizens have taken gotcha journalism to new levels.  The barrier to entry is much lower:  instead of having to secure an interview with someone in order to trap the interviewee, the new breed of gotcha journalism uses the Internet to sift through all of the statements that a person has made in their entire life to try to paint them in a bad light.

Now, bloggers go through politicians’ every public statement for any misspeak or inaccuracy and then try to crucify them.  It started with John Kerry being labeled a “flip-flopper,” moved to George Bush‘s butchering of the English language and more recently, led President Obama’s Green Energy Czar to quit because of statements he made almost ten years ago.  When President Obama misspoke on the campaign trail, saying that he had visited all 57 states, right wing bloggers tried to make it seem like Obama was stupid.  When Sarah Palin burst onto the national scene, left wing bloggers and some in the media sifted through her previous public statements to search for any inaccuracy.

It seems like 75% of the news stories I read about each day have to do with some politician getting raked over the coals for some statement he just made that is different from a statement he made a long time ago.  Many times, the person leveling the charge is a fellow politician, along with the media and the blogosphere.

My generation is the first generation to be online from an early age.  We first interacted with email, then instant messaging, then social networks and now blogs.  We created (and are still creating) vast amounts of data about ourselves, much of which is stored online.  We have archived AIM conversations from when we were in 6th grade,  digital pictures from high school and college that are online and we all have our dumb Facebook wall posts that we made throughout our college years.

Many of us have blogs on wordpress or blogger and many more have microblogging accounts on services like Twitter where we make observations and pithy comments about our daily lives.  I know I’ve changed alot since I was in 6th grade and I assume I will change almost as much between now and the end of the 2010s.  During the next decade, as people in my generation get older and become leaders in business, politics and culture, will we still be subjected to gotcha journalism like our public figures are today?

One argument is that since everyone has all of this content online, we will become desensitized to people’s dumb or incorrect statements from when they were young.  Everyone has pictures of themselves on Facebook that they wished never made it online.  Everyone is going to have a poorly thought out wall post that could be taken out of context, or a pithy remark on Twitter that does not stand the test of time.  Anyone who blogs about anything interesting will be majorly wrong about something.  Will millennials become bored by the new gotcha journalism because everyone has something online that could make them look bad?

On the other hand, millennials may just make gotcha journalism even worse than it is today.  Since everyone has created gigabytes of online content, bloggers and the media will have an easier time digging up dirt on anyone who enters the public eye.  Imagine being able to see the new candidate for Governor at a boozy college party or getting a transcript of his AIM conversations with his best friend or girlfriend from high school.  The media, bloggers and most of all, the citizens will eat this stuff up.  Ratings will go up and everyone will be happy, execpt for the public feature.

I hope that my generation helps start the shift away from gotcha journalism.  I can’t imagine being shocked by the vast majority of the dirt that someone would dig up about a public figure online.  I hope that millennials are willing to allow people to change their opinion and not be called a flip-flopper.  I hope we will cut public figures some slack when their college photos get published to the major blogs and their old blog posts come back to haunt them.  I’m not optimistic, but I am hopeful.  If not, we will have some really boring politicians, business leaders and public figures!

Do you think millenials will help stop gotcha journalism or do you think the problem will get worse?

                          

Startup friendly cities need to have a high density of smart people.  Potential founders of startups need other smart people who could be potential partners, contractors or employees.  Most cities that have a high density of smart people happen to be cities with large universities that attract a huge supply of smart people each year.  It helps that these cities have universities because it’s even better to have young smart people, rather than simply smart people.  Young people can afford to take bigger risks and are more willing to work longer hours for little or no pay than older people who may already have families, mortgages or other obligations.

Another helpful characteristic is low cost of living.  If founders can live cheaply and find cheap office space, it makes it much easier for a startup to get off the ground.  Additionally, having a low cost of living allows startups to stretch their investment dollars much further.  Employees, rent and just about everything else is cheaper.  I talked to one Madison-based founder who has successfully sold one company and is on his second startup who believes that Madison’s low cost of living is one of the most important reasons why his company succeeded and his competitors did not.

Access to affordable office space in a business incubator is another key characteristic of startup friendly cities.  Business incubators are an important asset for startups, especially if they are affordable.  Unfortunately, many incubators I’ve seen end up charging close to market rates.  Incubators are an important step for startups because they are usually the first move from working out of the founder’s bedroom.  They also provide camaraderie, connections and bring startups out of isolation because the rest of the people in your office are also running startups.  It’s much better for a startup to move into an affordable business incubator with other startups, rather than move into an affordable office space next to a lawyer, construction contracting company and a non-profit.

It is extremely important for startups to interact in a community of other startups. Having other entrepreneurs around, especially entrepreneurs who have been successful in the past, is important because founders can ask for advice when they have problems.  A mentor program like MERLIN Mentors is very important because it matches up experienced people who have been successful before with inexperienced startup founders.  These mentor programs not only build a community of startups, but they provide specific feedback to startups and help them overcome challenges that they might not if they were left on their own.

Another important aspect of an entrepreneur community is free networking events like the High Tech Happy Hour and Capital Entrepreneurs. Events like the High Tech Happy Hour bring smart people together who are not necessarily focused on entrepreneurship and startups, but are fertile ground for finding employees.  Local, free entrepreneurship groups like Capital Entrepreneurs offer founders of startups a place to meet others who are doing what they are doing.  It also creates a community and gives founders of startups some semblance of co-workers.  Starting a startup can be lonely if you do not get out and interact with others who are facing the same challenges and dilemmas that you are.

These free networking events provide a way for experienced entrepreneurs to mingle with people who are just getting started.  Experienced entrepreneurs set an example and show everyone in the city that starting a company is viable.  They can also provide advice, but simply having experienced, successful entrepreneurs in your city makes your city startup friendly.  Cities like Boston, San Francisco and Seattle have these networks.  Others like Madison and Boulder are just getting started, but are on the right track.

These experienced entrepreneurs can introduce inexperienced founders to professional service providers like lawyers and accountants who are willing to help entrepreneurs.  It also helps if your city cultivates a network of experienced, flexible professional service providers.  These service providers should be willing to take equity, give discounts or defer payments into the future for startups that they think are going to be successful.  It is extremely helpful if startups can still get top notch professional services, without breaking the bank during the company’s research stage.

These professional service providers can help startups gain access to capital that they need to fund their business.  Ideally, a startup friendly city will have VCs, angels and other rich people who are interested in investing in startups, but not all cities must have all three.  A strong network of professional service providers who work with entrepreneurs can make introductions to rich people who are willing to invest.  Some startup friendly cities can be heavy on angel and rich individuals, but light on VCs.  Another way cities can help entrepreneurs is by advocating for small business loans and other alternative ways of funding.

Startup friendly cities generally have support programs in place for entrepreneurs.  They tend to have low taxes.  It is much easier to start a startup in a city that does not have 10% sales tax, like the city of Chicago.  The state of Wisconsin provides a 25% tax credit to angel investors who invest in certified Wisconsin startups.  Wisconsin also offers low interest loans that are forgiven if the startup fails.  Both of these programs help entrepreneurs succeed.  Other states have implemented programs that fund early stage startups.

Finally, many people who start statups generally like living in cities.  They like walking to work and living in tolerant environments.  They like to be able to meet in coffee shops, go to interesting restaurants and enjoy life with their peers.  It’s best to have good weather.  Low crime and good schools are also helpful.  Overall, creating a city with high quality of life keeps the three most important ingredients, experienced entrepreneurs, rich people and smart, young people, in one place.

Cities can begin to implement policies that help foster entrepreneurship.  Cities can start by creating a business incubator for startups that offers offices (with windows) at 50% discounts.  They can start to create mentor programs like MERLIN and create entrepreneur networking groups like Capital Entrepreneurs.  Service providers can start offering discounts or equity for service deals.  Once one service provider has success offering this deal, it quickly becomes the industry standard.  I’m not advocating that government do all of this.  People who want to see their cities become more friendly to startups have to do some of the work themselves.

Government does have a place.  It can offer incentives for startups to move to their cities.  It can lower taxes or offer government programs that provide easier access to capital.  It could create a new business incubator and it could help create a community of entrepreneurs by publicizing entrepreneur success stories or the local startup community.  Government could help make cities more startup friendly simply by being more friendly to startups themselves.

Characteristics of Startup Friendly Cities

Figure out if your city is startup friendly.  Rate your city on a scale of 0-2 for each characteristic and score total the score at the end.  0 means that your city does not do it at all, 2 means your city does is very well.

1. Access to capital
2. High concentration of smart people
3. Low cost of living
4. High concentration of rich people
5. Network of experienced entrepreneurs
6. Mentor programs
7. Low cost startup incubator
8. Low taxes
9. Governemnt support
10. Flexible professional service providors
11. Free networking events
12. High quality of life
13. Tolerant, vibrant, walkable cities
14. Large universities
15. Culture of entrepreneurship
16. Educated workforce
17. Good weather
18. High concentration of science and technology workers
19. Direct national flights
20. Entrepreneurship advocacy groups

I would say Madison, WI gets a score of 23/40.  Milwaukee gets a 13/40.  San Francisco gets 36/40.

How startup friendly is your city?  Do you agree with my list?  Do you have any characteristics to add?

                          

SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance – Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner.  SuperFreakonomics is a great follow up to the Stevens’ first effort, Freakonomics.  If you enjoyed Freakonomics, you will love SuperFreakonomics.  They tackle all sorts of problems with data, which you hardly ever see in most other walks of life.  Ever since I read Freakonomics, I’ve been fascinated with the way they look at problems and issues and I’ve been reading the Freakonomics blog in the New York Times daily.  In SuperFreakonomics, Levitt and Dubner tackle emergency room safety, the efficacy of child car seats, prostitution and most controversially, global warming.  They also present some amazing history about this history of vaccines, car seats and health care in their trademarked, data driven, but still humorous style.

I won’t ruin any more of the book for you, but there has been a huge outcry from the global warming establishment about SuperFreakonomics’ take on global warming.  Dubner and Levitt say that global warming has become a “new relgion complete with dogma and good and evil.”  They have been proven right because they were immediately criticized by the global warming establishment when the book was released.  I liked the way they tried to bring reason and science back to the global warming debate and move it away from political, religious debates that it has become, but was suprised that they advocated so hard for geo-engineering.

Levitt and Dubner (and I) love to point out that most of our problems come from unintended consequences of well meaning policy decision.  Many times, these unintended consequences could have been predicted ahead of time, but weren’t looked at for a variety of reasons.  They advocate geo-engineering the planet, but don’t take any time to talk about the potential unintended consequences.  There may not be many (but I doubt it), but I was expecting them to address the issue at least a little bit.  That said, SuperFreakonomics is entertaining, informative and well worth reading.

Absurdistan – Gary Shteyngart.  Not many books can make me laugh out loud.  I was on a flight to NYC, reading Absurdistan and trying not to laugh out loud and failed fairly miserably.  Absurdistan is the fictional story about a young, Jewish, fat, son of an oligarch, Russian immigrant to New York City and his trials and tribulations going between Russia, the US and Absurdistan, a fictional country located near Iran.  I read it on the advice of of someone who likes many of the same books I’ve read and wasn’t disappointed.

Shtyngart’s writing is really fun.  He mixes in hip hop references with geopolitical feelings musings that would only occur to a Russian who moved to the US.  One of my favorite parts is about how people in the 3rd world applaud whenever a pilot safely lands a plan “as if it were some kind of miracle”, whereas in the West, people complain about being late and rush to get off.  The section on a Holocaust Museum in Absurdistan is brilliant writing and worth reading on its own.  The books is a scathing critique of just about everything from Russian politics, American foreign policy, fat people and corporations.  While a little slow in places, each chapter has at least a gem worth finding.  I recommend reading this book if you like history, politics, different cultures and good writing.  As a bonus, after reading Absurdistan, Oscar Wao and The White Tiger, I now know how to say a certain part of the male anatomy in Russia, The Dominican Republic and India.

                          

For example, Pollan talks about how throughout American history, there have been “blessed” and “evil” nutrients.  In the 1800s, protein was evil and John Harvey Kellogg led the charge against this scorage, leading many Americans to give up their traditional eggs, bacon, sausage and pancakes for boxed cereal, with the blessed carbohydrates.  Later, it was fat, leading to the creation of margarine and transfat to replace real butter and animal fat.  The Atkins phenomenon brought protein back because carbs were supposedly bad.  There have been many other examples of this throughout American history, but these are the easiest ones to see.  Each of these movements were started by people with good intentions who wanted to make Americans healthier.  At best, they did not work.  At worst, they made things worse.

The margarine and other plant fats that scientists created ended up being worse than the fats that they were replacing.  Pollan claimed that this switch led to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths from heart disease and other preventable diseases.  These deaths were an unintended consequence of food scientists and the government’s good intentions to help American live healthier lives.

Pollan’s talk led me to start thinking about other unintended consequences and how many people miss their impact in everyday life. I found some relating to our food, including some potential ones relating to Pollan’s “eater’s manifesto.”  Subsidizing the corn and soybean market after the USSR’s wheat crop failed in order to ensure that we never went hungry led to monocultures and a crash in farm prices, which led to fewer family farms.  It has led to America’s overproduction of cheap corn, which made high fructose corn syrup the cheapest and easiest sweetener to work with, leading to cheaper manufactured food and fatter, less healthy Americans.  Cheap subsidized corn and soybeans make it tough for farmers in Africa to compete and pull themselves out of poverty.  Now I don’t believe that each of these are straight cause and effect relationships, but its clear that these unintended consequences of trying to make sure that America’s food supply is secure have continued to ripple across the world since the 1970s.

Pollan’s manifesto advocates that we eat food, not too much, mostly plants and move away from packaged, processed “food like substances.”  This is a good goal, but he also advocates moving away from monoculture and large industrial farms.  The thinking is that we we have healthier plants, animals and humans if we diversify our food supply and stop growing huge amounts of corn and soybeans for use in just about everything.  Pollan believes that these types of changes could help solve global warming, the healthcare crisis and  potentially the current economic crisis.  It is clearly a noble goal, but what about the unintended consequences?

If farmers move away from high yielding monocultures, might we be at a larger risk of famine in the future as populations rise?  Could we lose jobs in the current food industry?  Could lower yields lead to higher food costs, much like how increased demand for corn based ethanol raised food prices worldwide, with most of the increased hurting the world’s poor?  Are there some other unintended consequences that Pollan’s way of thinking might bring about, much like the other big changes to our food supply brought to America’s dinner tables?

Personally, I think it is worth experimenting with Pollan’s ideas because I’m not sure we can do much worse than we are doing now, but it would be foolish to simply accept them and begin to implement them immediately.  I don’t believe that Pollan is calling for this, but I have not seen much research into the potential unintended consequences of his ideas. It reminds me a story I just came across the other day about tuna fishing.

In the early 1990s, groups like Greenpeace were outraged that tuna fishing companies were killing hundreds of dolphins with each catch.  Here’s how tuna fishing works

The main way that tuna is caught is through purse seines in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Basically, after a large group of tuna is located, a miles-across purse seine net is closed around them via a group of small boats associated with a large factory ship.  It’s an effective way to catch large amounts of fish for not a lot of money.

This technique is pretty standard- the main variation lies in how the large group of tuna is located. There are basically three ways to do this.

1) Get lucky and happen to stumble across a large group of tuna visible from the surface in the middle of an enormous ocean. Obviously, this isn’t terribly practical.

2) Attract tuna using floating objects.  Stay tuned, we’ll come back to #2.

3) Follow dolphins, because dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific are often associated with large schools of tuna. Dolphins are easy to follow because, unlike tuna, they have to come up for air.

For a long time, #3 was the most common way of catching tuna. The problem with this method was that by definition, dolphins are right there- and they get caught in the net as well. Despite the honest effort of many sailors to free dolphins (there is a long maritime tradition of respecting dolphins), by some estimates, around 500,000 dolphins a year were killed as a result of bycatch.

Sounds terrible, right?  500,000 dolphins EACH YEAR were killed as a result of this tuna fishing.  Groups like Greenpeace and others marshaled public support and got the rules changed, making dolphin following illegal.  People could not fish for tuna by following dolphins to big groups of tuna.  So what happened?

Tuna fishing fleets rapidly switched over to method #2, attracting tuna using floating objects.  If you put a log in the middle of the ocean, within hours it will be surrounded by fish. It may have something to do with the fact that many open ocean fish can go their entire lives without encountering a hard surface.

The floating objects now used by tuna fishing fleets are quite high tech- they have sonar and video cameras that allow the flagship to detect how many fish are near that object. Once there are enough, the purse seine comes and scoops them all up- and the floating object is redeployed.

The big problem with this method is that floating objects don’t only attract tuna. EVERYTHING is attracted to floating objects, including sea turtles, sharks, seabirds, billfish, and, yes, dolphins!

Well-intentioned groups like Greenpeace and others tried to help the dolphins by making fishing for tuna by using dolphins illegal, but the unintended consequences of their actions have created “The Ecological Disaster that is Dolphin Safe Tuna.” Here are some stats comparing the bycatch of both methods of fishing.  First, the floating log method, then the old, dolphin method:

Ten thousand sets of purse seine nets around immature tuna swimming under logs and other debris will cause the deaths of 25 dolphins; 130 million small tunas; 513,870 mahi mahi; 139,580 sharks; 118,660 wahoo; 30,050 rainbow runners; 12,680 other small fish; 6540 billfish; 2980 yellowtail; 200 other large fish; 1020 sea turtles; and 50 triggerfish.

By trying to help dolphins, groups like Greenpeace caused one of the worst marine ecological disasters of all time. Few other fisheries are as bad for groups like sharks and sea turtles as the purse seine fishery, and none are as large in scale.

“Ten thousand sets of purse seine nets around mature yellowfin swimming in association with dolphins, will cause the deaths of 4000 dolphins (0.04 percent of a population that replenishes itself at the rate of two to six percent per year); 70,000 small tunas; 100 mahi mahi; 3 other small fish; 520 billfish; 30 other large fish; and 100 sea turtles. No sharks, no wahoo, no rainbow runners, no yellowtail, and no triggerfish and dramatic reductions in all other species but dolphins.”

In other words… the only species that “dolphin safe” tuna is good for is dolphins!  The bycatch rate for EVERY OTHER species is lower when fishing dolphin-associated tuna vs. floating object associated tuna! The reason for this is obvious- floating objects attract everything nearby, while dolphins following tuna doesn’t attract any other species.

If you work out the math on this, you find that 1 dolphin saved costs 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large fish, 27 sharks, and almost 1,200 small fish.

“Dolphin Safe Tuna” is one of the most egregious examples of unintended consequences that I have heard about in a long time.  I wonder if we may repeat similar mistakes with global warming (now called climate change), health care, taxes, the bank bailouts and our monsterous national debt.  We should at least try to look at the potential downsides and unintended consequences of our larger decision in all aspects of our lives – political, business and personal – so that we do not make another mistake like margarine or dolphin safe tuna.

                          

Worse, the plans have usually ended up running away from tough decisions. With the stimulus bill the flaws were forgivable: there was an urgent need to give the economy a boost. But the House of Representatives has produced a cap-and-trade bill that is protectionist, riddled with exemptions and which gives away the permits that are supposed to force carbon-emitters to change their ways. There is a growing danger that this bill will not be passed through the Senate and reconciled with the House version in time for the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December.

With health care, Mr Obama’s preference for vague statements of principle rather than detailed specification has led to a House proposal that loads taxes onto the rich, sets up a state-run insurance scheme that many fear will put private-sector providers out of business and fails to contain, let alone reverse, the escalating costs of treatment while adding an expensive requirement that everyone have health insurance, with large subsidies where needed. Barely any Republicans could support this proposal as it stands. Frantic efforts to save the reform effort are under way in the Senate, but it is distinctly odd to note that the president’s signature policy is now being devised for him by a gang of six senators. Financial regulation is also stuck.

President Obama has allowed the Democrats in Congress, especially the House, to run the country, outsourcing the details, and arguably the Presidency, to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  This is not what most centrists and even some Democrats voted for.  Right now, Obama is risking his Presidency by allowing the rest of his party to trot him out to support poorly thought out, unpopular legislation.

On health care, Obama has allowed the Democrats in Congress to take the easy way out (and protect their supporters): soaking the rich, refusing to touch tort reform (trial lawyers) and ruling out taxing health benefits (unions).  He has made deals with Big Pharma and the insurance companies that do not address the rising costs of health care.  These plans only try to bring the uninsured into the current system.  While a noble goal, it could well bankrupt the country.  Instead of truly trying to rise above partisan politics and making touch decisions to both cover all Americans and stem the rising costs of health care, Obama has outsourced his responsibilities and is risking his presidency.  Until yesterday, Obama was silent when Democrats bashed real concerns about the competing plans voiced by Americans, causing his approval ratings to sink.

The Republicans are no better and possibly worse.  Instead of trying to reach across the aisle or propose any solutions of their own, they are simply saying “no.”  Its almost like the end of Rome when out of touch, rich, elites did everything they could to stay in power at the expense of the rest of the population.  Both sides seem out of touch and angry whenever there is disagreement.  Obama would be well served to tell Pelosi and Reid who’s boss and come forward with a detail oriented, innovative plan that cuts across constituencies and addresses both cutting costs and covering everyone.

What do you think?  Do you agree that Obama has outsourced the tough decision to Congress?  Should he confront Pelosi/Reid?

                          

To borrow from Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, Its the Leverage, Stupid!  Consumers borrowed huge amounts of money to live lavish lifestyles or to just keep up with the monthly bills.  The consumer savings rate peaked in the 1970s around 15%, but declined consistantly during the 80s and 90s.  It even went negative in 2007, right before the financial crisis.  This meant that consumers were, on average, spending more than they made.  Consumers resorted to using their homes as ATMs, borrowing vast amounts of money to keep the party going.  Clearly it was not sustainable.

Banks and non-bank banks stoked the flames and let the party rage on.  Banks offered mortgages to people who shouldn’t have had them, manufactured huge bets on CDOs and made billions moving money around.  After the government removed many of the leverage regulations, banks continued to go wild.  Other companies and hedge funds joined the fray, borrowing billions of dollars  for leveraged buyouts that left balance sheets riddled with debt.

When the economy started to slow down and the stock market fell out of bed, companies and consumers who were strapped with debt and little savings faced the brunt of the downturn.  Companies began to deleverage, cuting costs and jobs to be able to stay in business.  US consumers, scared by huge declines in net worth stemming from the stock market collapse and the real estate downturn, started to save, bringing the savings rate up to around 7%.  

The US government, which had started to run larger deficits during the Bush years, stepped in to fill the void.  The Bush administration pushed the first bailouts through and the Obama administration passed even more bailouts and a huge stimulus package.  The $740bn+ stimulus package pushed much of the spending two to three years down the road, funding tons of pork-laden projects that are probably unnecessary and have nothing to do with stimulus.  These programs saddle the government with even more debt at a time when the rest of the world is concerned about the value of the dollar.  The government should have advocated for $200-300b of immediate spending, or better yet, returned money to the people so that they could pay down their own debts.  Instead, we have record amounts of debt and even more leverage, not even taking into consideration the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security that will require even more leverage.

Now, as the stock market and the economy as a whole are showing signs of getting worse, there are calls for a second stimulus.  I fear that Congress will pass another massive bill, but most of the money won’t be spent fast enough and there will be even more waste.  I’m worried that many of the projects will be useless and ineffective at turning the economy around.

The only way to fix the problem and get through the bear market is to deleverage.  We need to squeeze the leverage out of the system, stop the insanity and go back to more rational debt levels.  With another round of mortgage resets set to take place late this summer, we are likely to have many more foreclosures in the next year.  Instead of spending money on projects in the future, the government should have made it easy for mortgage holders to renegotiate their mortgages in exchange for the bank having the rights to some of the upside of the house when the market turns.  This type of solution removes debt (leverage) from the consumers and bad debt (leverage) from the financial institution and saves consumers money right away, with a lower mortgage payment.  The government will have to spend a little more money, but it would be rational, compared to the huge stimulus package and bail outs that we have seen so far.

The government should be helping (forcing) companies to convert debt to equity in institutions that have bad balance sheets.  Instead of bailing out investors and companies who made bad decisions, the government should be converting debt to equity to shore up balance sheets and make the companies deleverage.

I think we are on the verge of another downturn in the stock market and rising unemployment.  The press seems to think (or hope) that the worst is behind us.  Most people are turing bullish and many Americans have come back into the market.  I fear that we face a repeat of the stock market’s performance during the Great Depression, where there was a prolonged bear market rally and then a second crash that wiped out more market value than the initial crash.

China and the rest of the world are already starting to pick at the reserve status of the dollar.  If the US keeps leveraging and then decides to inflate away the problem, the US dollar may lose its reserve status.  The government must make sure they do not make the crisis worse than it is.  Its not a Republican or Democrat issue. Its an American issue.  I am not confident that the government will make the right decisions.  With GoldmanSachs alums holding many key government jobs, I fear that they will do what they know best: continue to leverage and try to pick up the pieces later.  If you want to go farther, read Matt Taibi’s blog and latest piece in Rolling Stone.

I hope I am wrong, but I don’t see the US coming out of this without lots more pain.  What do you think?

                          

The documentary has interviews with the journalist who first started to question Enron’s meteoric rise, former employees and executives and plenty of video from the companies many meetings and pep talks.  It is really well done and very interesting, notching an Academy Award Nomination in 2006.  If you are at all interested in the Enron story, or corporate fraud in general, check out this documentary.

The most interesting part of the documentary centered on Enron’s role in the blackouts that plagued California in winter 2001 and summer 2002.  I was always skeptical about claims of meddling and corporate scandal in the blackouts, but the documentary painted a very explicit case that showed overt meddling that caused up to $30b of losses in the California economy, the recall and end to the political career of Gray Davis and ultimately the election of The Governator to California’s highest office.

The documentary showed audio of Enron traders telling power plants to shut down, which caused rolling blackouts.  The traders also were taped diverting power from California power plants to other areas to try to drive up the price.  It worked.  Power was $40 per unit before they started their shenanigans and spiked to $1000 per unit at their peak and Enron made billions.  This part of the business was pretty much the only successful part, but was clearly unethical, if not illegal.

The rolling blackouts caused huge economic damage to California’s economy, ended a political career, caused traffic accidents and many other consequences so that Enron could make money.  Add this business practice to their cooking the books, it was pretty clear that Enron was very corrupt.  It was also interesting to see how complicit investment banks, ratings agencies, the Bush Administration, accountants and journalists were in allowing Enron to get away with fraud for so long.

There are many parallels to the current financial crisis in that so many people were blinded by greed, derelicting their moral and fiduciary duties.  They turned a blind eye to poor business practices and extreme risk taking.  Its interesting to see history repeat itself so quickly.  Check out the documentary.  Its playing for free on Mark Cuban’s HDnet channel for the next few weeks.

                          

In 2010, the estate tax is completely repealed.  The Bush Administration’s plan ends in 2010, meaning that in 2011, the estate tax will go back to $1m and 55%, unless Congress passes another bill to change it, which is doubtful with this economy and the Democrats in power.  Whether you think the estate tax is a good idea or not, the current situation sets up some perverse incentives that could save or cost people millions.

Imagine a person with a father who has $10m in assets who is sickly and may die in 2009.  If the father were to die in 2009, $6.5m of the money would be taxed at 45%, or close to $3m, but if the father were to live until Jan 1, 2010, the person would save all of that money.  The government’s monetary incentive is to keep older, sick people alive, even if it against the person’s best interest.  The father might even try to hold on longer than he normally would, just to save the extra money.

Now fast forward to December 2010.  The same person from the example above would not have to pay any taxes if their father were to die before the end of the year.  If the father were to live until 2011, $9m of the $10m estate would be taxed at 55% or almost $5m.  People would have the incentive to make sure that their parents died before the tax rate changed.  Now imagine super rich people who have billions.  The difference is real money.

Now I don’t think that most people will be influenced by these incentives, as most people care more about their family than money, but I can see situations where someone might (Mom, if you read this, don’t worry!).  The estate tax changes are just another example of government policies creating unintended incentives and consequences.  Hopefully nobody tries to “take advantage” of these changes.