The
praise from both left and right for Obama’s initial
slate of financial appointments has been almost
unanimously effusive. But not from me. My main
complaint is that a great opportunity was missed –
the appointment of Joseph Stiglitz to either Treasury
Secretary (instead of Tim Geithner) or head of the
National Economic Council (instead of Larry Summers).
Apparently, because of decade-old bad blood between
Summers and Stiglitz, there was no room for Stiglitz
as part of the new economic team.
The best argument for a Stiglitz role was proffered
by Michael Hirsh last week in a Newsweek
onlinepiece. Here
are a few excerpts:
“Stiglitz, more than anyone on the Washington scene,
was the biggest fly in the ointment of “free-market
fundamentalism” pressed on the world in the 90s by
Summers, Geithner and their mentor, former Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin – advice that has now
contributed to the worst financial crisis since the
Great Depression.”
“Stiglitz has been the leading voice opposed to the
mindless liberalization of capital flows that brought
us to where we are today.”
“In a spate of books, essays and speeches dating from
the early 90s, Stiglitz denounced Rubin’s support for
repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, which separated
commercial from investment banking.”
“As far back as 1990, Stiglitz argued in a paper
against securitizing mortgages and selling them…”
Yesterday, even the New York Times’Frank Rich, who
has been wildly supportive of Obama, chimed in:
“In our current financial quagmire, there have
also been those who had the wisdom to sound alarms
before Rubin, Summers or Geithner did. Among them
were Joseph Stiglitz…”
An
excellent illustration of Stiglitz’s understanding of
the economic crisis can be gleaned from apiecehe
wrote in the December 2008 Vanity Fair. (Because
of the magazine’s long lead time, the essay was
written months earlier, before Lehman Brothers,
AIG and the bailout.)
As
Michael Hirsh concluded his essay, “Obama has made a
point of declaring that he wants a dissonant voices
in his administration. So why not Joe Stiglitz?”
Why not, indeed?
ON THE ELECTION RESULTS
In my
November 3 post, the day before the election, I made
a prediction of the electoral vote count. My guess
was predicated on the assumption that all nine
battleground states – Colorado, Florida, Indiana,
Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia – would swing to Obama. The other 42
contests (including Washington, DC) were pretty well
decided well in advance of the election and needed no
crystal ball. My forecast called for Obama to receive
375 electoral votes and McCain 163 (270 were needed
to win). The final results -- Obama received 365
votes. I was 10 votes too optimistic
I made two mistakes. The lesser of my errors was in
the Nebraska outcome. Nebraska is one of two states
that does not require all its electoral votes to go
to the popular vote winner (Maine is the other).
Obama received one of its five electoral votes.
The greater of my errors lay in Missouri, a state
which prides itself on almost always having voted for
the winning presidential candidate. It didn’t this
time. McCain received 3,903 more votes than Obama out
of a total of almost three million cast. But in a
development harking back to the Florida vote in the
2000 election, Ralph Nader was a spoiler once again;
he got 17,813 votes in Missouri, over four times
McCain’s winning margin. It’s not a stretch to assume
that most of the Nader votes would have gone to Obama
had Nader not entered the race. Missouri’s 11
electoral votes went to McCain.
So except for the Nader effect and my ignoring that
Nebraska had proportional electoral voting, I would
have come up with the
exactelectoral
outcome. But as we say in golf, “woulda, coulda,
shoulda.”
ON
AUTOMOBILES
General MotorsOn April
14, 1997, my brother Harold and I met for dinner at
the Townsend Hotel in Birmingham, Michigan, with Rick
Wagoner (now the embattled CEO of General Motors) and
several of his associates. The purpose of our meeting
was to discuss the Rosen Motors hybrid electric
powertrain that we had developed for use into
passenger automobiles. We had hoped that General
Motors would consider it for one of their models,
especially since we had used a Saturn as one of our
test beds (the other was a Mercedes.) Alas, we didn’t
get the order, but the meal was delicious and the
company gracious.
Flash forward to the New York Times of December 6,
2008. In aquotefrom
their lead director, George Fisher: “We were late
on hybrids… That’s probably a mistake, in
retrospect.”
Areallybig
mistake.
Diagram
fromTime magazineof the Rosen
Motors hybrid-electric
powertrain Tesla MotorsFor
the last few years, Tesla has been the darling of
the press, and even of the blogosphere,
includingThrough
Rosen-colored Glasses. But
now that the company is shipping its Tesla
Roadster sports car – over 100 have been delivered
to customers -- some of these erstwhile admirers
are now trying to knock the company off the
pedestal they put it on. Build ‘em up, tear ‘em
down.
A few weeks ago, Daniel Lyons of Newsweek took
someshotsat the
company: “A classic Silicon Valley product – it’s
late and over budget, has gone through loads of
redesigns, still has bugs and, at $109,000, cost
more than originally planned.” I’m shocked,
shocked. I don’t know why inventors can’t create
world-changing innovations on time, on budget and
bug-free. Maybe it’s not easy.
Then a week ago,Randall Strossof the
New York Times piled on with a snide, negative
view of the company’s prospects. (“…woefully
immature technology…don’t-even-ask expensive…not
much more than a functioning concept car…”)
How familiar this all seems to me. On the one hand we
have entrepreneurs that are killing themselves to
bring new technology and new products to market, and
in this case to revolutionize a century-old industry
that has embarrassingly lagged technologically and
ecologically. These entrepreneurs may succeed, or
they may not – they understand this going into the
fray. But they’re busting their butts trying to
change the world.
And then we have the “observers,” those who opine
from the outside. Those who can, do; those who can’t,
opine. It reminds me of the famous quote by “Engine”
Charlie Wilson, who ran the Defense Department during
the Eisenhower years. Fed up with outside criticism
about his managing of the Department, he offered this
observation: “I always liked bird dogs better than
kennel dogs myself – you know, the ones that will get
out and hunt for food rather than sit on their
fannies and yelp.”
Let’s hear it for the bird dogs.
ON MICROJETS
One
bird-dog that’s having a difficult time now isEclipse
Aviation. Even
after raising almost $1 billion in private funds
over the last decade, the company ran out of money
and was forced to declarebankruptcylast
month. It’s continuing to operate in bankruptcy,
and its assets will probably be purchased at
auction by its chairman’s affiliated European
company and then continue to manufacture. But it’s
a sad illustration of how difficult it is for an
upstart to penetrate an established industry, even
a billion-dollar upstart. And it’s even more
difficult in the midst of a world economic
crisis.
ON PET PEEVES
How about
this one? You check into a hotel and there is a
brand-new flat-screen television set. That’s the good
news. The bad news is that most of the programming on
it is transmitted in the low-definition aspect ratio
of 4x3. The TV, however, is set to stretch the image
to the high-definition aspect ratio of 16x9. So
unless you’re getting a high def signal, you’ll be
looking at a lot of horizontally stretched fat faces
and fat bodies. It drives me nuts. Sometimes the
remote control can correct this, and sometimes the
hotel’s engineer can do it, but more often than not
I’m faced with staring at a distorted image.
To illustrate, look at these images. The first one is
a 4x3 image shown in the proper aspect ratio. The
second takes the 4x3 image and stretches it
horizontally to fill the 16x9 screen on the
wide-screen TV set. Most of you think of Obama as
lean; not those of you who see him on the typical
hotel room television set.
A second pet peeve relates to adjectives that
journalists sometimes use in describing my getting
longer in the tooth. Often, they’re unobjectionable
or euphemistic words – “veteran,” “long-serving,”
“experienced.” Now that I’m a former person and am
rarely interviewed, it’s no longer much of an issue.
But then the December 2008 Harper’s Magazine arrives
in the mail, and, being right on top of the breaking
news, it carries a piece on the New York
Philharmonic’s historicFebruary
trip to North Korea--
only 10 months after the fact! In any event, look
at the adjective they use to describe me:
“In the middle of the room was Benjamin M. Rosen, an
elderly man with a cheeky smile...” Now, I
ask you, can an elderly person blog? (BTW, I sort of
liked “cheeky.”)
ON
iPhone APPLICATIONS
For those of you with iPhones, consider adding these
free applications: Shazam and Google Mobile App.
Shazam miraculously recognizes and identifies
virtually every recorded piece in the popular genre
after listening to a 13-second sample of the music.
Google Mobile App performs a voice search. Instead of
typing in your search, you simply say the search
words, and shazam! -- oops, that’s the other app --
there is the search result on the screen (most of the
time, anyway). I’d characterize both programs as
remarkable and leading candidates for “how do they do
that?”
ON ARCHITECTURAL PROGRESS, 1941 TO 2008
The
52-story glass-and-steel building that we live in at
the foot of Central Park West was formerly, as most
New Yorkers know, the Gulf +Western building. But
what was there before the Gulf+Western building?
Here’s the answer:
Columbus
Circle, New York, photographed December
2008
Columbus
Circle, New York, photographed Thanksgiving
1941
ON ART
Donna has
been heavily involved for the last year withProspect.1, a
new biennial that opened in New Orleans November 1
and runs through mid-January. It is the largest
biennial of international contemporary art ever
organized in the United States and is expected to
provide a healthy boost to New Orleans tourism. It
should also enhance the perception of the city as
a cultural center with a breadth that extends well
beyond jazz. Indeed, over 80 artists from around
the world are showing their works in 30 different
venues around the city -- museums, historic
buildings, and found sites throughout the city.
If you’re looking for an excuse to go to New Orleans,
consider the Prospect .1 biennial. BTW, it’s free.
I took a lot of photographs of the art on display
there, and many of the national media and art
publications have featured these works in the last
couple of months. But what hasn’t been published are
scenes from the opening party held on Halloween at
Antoine’s restaurant. Over 800 people (I didn’t know
the restaurant could hold that many people) in formal
attire, in casual attire, in costume, in masks, in
whatever – it was quite an evening. Laissez les bon
temps rouler!