A number of good pieces have come out in the last few weeks that complement some of my recent posts and serve as good addenda, that and great reading material for those looking for it. I’ve also started using Delicious to keep track of some of the better articles I read. Let me know if you have a good tool to save and share articles. And yes, I know about Facebook and Twitter.
- Related to my post on California politics, the cover story of The New York Times Magazine covered the upcoming gubernatorial race, focusing on Gavin Newsom (he’s on the cover), though the article is about all the candidates. Newsom generally comes out looking good, but Tom Campbell as a sleeper candidate for the Republicans is covered briefly but fondly. He’s the only Republican candidate to come out against Prop 8. Another interesting tid-bit is that Arnold supports the California constitutional convention. Too bad about that whole lame duck thing.
- A minor obsession of mine has been the process of getting honest and effective feedback. The corollary of that is telling the brutal truth. I stumbled upon (thanks, Delicious) this Esquire piece discussing just that. What can be so bad about telling the honest truth? A lot. There’s a difference between being honest and being honest and confrontational. This is a fun ride in exploring the latter.
- With the business model of media in decline, a favorite topic is predicting what exactly this means for the business of journalism. I have my own predictions, and so does Chris Anderson in his new book Free. I haven’t read Free yet, but in his op-ed for The Wall Street Journal earlier this year, he had a lot of fuzzy thinking about microeconomics, especially around the economic force that the price of all goods reach marginal cost. Malcolm Gladwell does an very nice job in The New Yorker of breaking down Anderson’s arguments and delineating where he’s right and where he’s being utopian.
- Ben Casnocha reviews Tyler Cowen’s new book, Create Your Own Economy. I’ve whined about how the Internet is killing our attention span and written that the ability to concentrate for long periods of time will become an even greater competitive advantage. I still emphatically believe this, but I’ve never thought of it as the relatively minor cost for a massively positive benefit. Online content has dramatically changed all our lives for the better. Ten years ago, my primary sources of information were The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Today, I follow over 50 sources of information, who then direct me to other critical analyses and information. This is important. And Ben makes sure we know that.
For those of you following at home, I’m currently enjoying Argentina, though my trip looks a bit more like this than like this. It’s a great place that I plan on coming back to, hopefully often.
4 responses so far ↓
Carlos Miceli // July 12, 2009 at 10:05 am |
Had some laughs with the Radical Honesty article, but it made me wonder: since when can you start being Radically Honest in your everyday life?
It seems to me that you need to have reached certain success, some financial and emotional independence to make that switch that I’m sure it will cost you many relationships. It may be freeing but many people won’t like it. If you start early, you would be stopping valuable connections (a must in today’s world) from growing.
Just a thought.
Regarding the “Free” debate, it seems to me they are focusing mainly in the online side, I don’t think you could apply that debate to the offline life. I actually had my own predictions as well after I read what Seth and Malcolm said, although my main point was that predictions are overrated. Check them out here if you are interested: http://www.owlsparks.com/thinking/predictions/
Good stuff Stephen, already enjoying the blog! Take care man.
Taunter // July 12, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
The governorship of California is rapidly approaching an ambassadorship – enormous prestige but terribly limited power. Much of this stems from the restrictions on the CA government – the 2/3 rules, P13, P98, etc – but I keep thinking the biggest issue is simply that the voters of CA offer a rare combination of incompetence and activism.
Most people do not have the time, skills, or inclination to master the minutiae of policy. That’s fine; that’s why they hire representatives. But in CA the people reserve the right to barge into the kitchen whenever they want; it’s a bit like a football team owner constantly going down to the sideline to overrule his head coach.
The state needs some sort of binding arbitration that could actually impose a balanced budget and break any state constitutional provisions that block its imposition. In any other country, that would have long since happened. Unfortunately, our federal system has a giant hole when it comes to states doing stupid things on their own accounts.
So far there is no credible mechanism to ensure that the people of CA – and not the people of CT or TX – bear the costs of CA’s stupidity. We are long overdue for a Federal procedure for state bankruptcy.
http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/07/iou/
Stephen Dodson // July 12, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
The California governor does have some powers, but with 2/3rd voting, the governor ends up getting a lot of the blame when a fervent, irrational minority decides to blow things up. Not a great job.
There’s an implication in your comment and your earlier post (http://tauntermedia.com/2009/06/17/california-dreaming/) that the current population of California is somehow responsible for the asinine governance structure decided by a small group of guys 150 years ago. The options to fundamentally change the system since then consist of a constitutional convention or armed revolt, not exactly easy things for a population to do.
Regarding a mechanism to make this to happen, I wish there was a forcing factor to compel this, e.g., your idea of Federal guidelines for state bankruptcy. I understand the US Constitution well enough to know that a federal procedure for it would be borderline unconstitutional. But I don’t know constitutional law well enough to know which side of the border it belongs on.
Taunter // July 12, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
California was a prosperous, reasonably-governed state for most of the years you describe (Leland Stanford was a thief of the highest order, but he did the bulk of his stealing from non-Californians). It was particularly well-run in the immediate aftermath of WWII, and when Pat Brown left office in January 1967 it was in fine shape.
The bankrupting decisions – Prop 13 (1978) ending practical property taxation, Prop 98 (1988) removing 40% of the budget from government control, the various defeats of oil severance taxes, the massive expansion in public pension obligations – are creatures of the past thirty years.
The propositions could be repealed with a simple majority of the California vote. It hardly takes armed revolt; Californians regularly vote on ballot initiatives. But in a state where even mentioning the absurdity of P13 brings furious denials of common sense from all aspirants to high office (http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Buffett_Prop13.html), it’s the people who are choosing to keep things in the current sorry state.
If Californians were willing to accept fewer benefits (including reducing pay and benefits of public employees), they could live within their means; the state has the fifth-highest tax load of any in the country (trailing the tri-state NY/NJ/CT and Hawaii).
If Californians were willing to pay the taxes necessary to fund the benefits they desire, they could do so by simply repealing by majority vote the amendment(s) that block them from doing so.
By refusing to go in either direction, the current crop of Californians is most certainly responsible for the state’s predicament.
As things stand, a Federal bankruptcy section dealing with state bankruptcies would be unconstitutional; it would interfere with a state’s sovereign right to void its debts as it sees fit. In that world of legal make-believe, the Federal government would not stand behind a defaulting state. As with Fannie/Freddie, I think it’s safe to say that in practice state debt has a Federal guarantee – which is why it is such a problem that states are able to issue it unilaterally.