Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (293325)	2/21/2009 9:03:24 AM
From: Tom Clarke	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

The 3-6-3 Rule Rules. Well, It Used To Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Why did the nascent United States produce so many great thinkers? Where are they now? Great thinkers come to the fore when they are required. The founding of any great enterprise requires inspiration coupled to intellect. If the intellect is wanting, the inspiration is enough, but makes it harder to carry out the fruits of your inspiration except by dogged determination. Intellect alone is not useless -- it's worse than useless. On a good day it's counterproductive; the other 364 days it's destructive. You cannot come up with a worthwhile concept based solely on intellect. It qualifies you only to be a clerk or a sophist. Clerking is hard work, so everybody goes full sophist right away. And now the world is run by sophists. They think that because they read a few books about people who were great that they are great in turn. There are two problems with this surmise. One, the people they think were great, weren't. And they are incapable of much more than misremembering and misunderstanding the twaddle they read anyway because education isn't very rigorous anymore. If you think the world's business is decided by simply choosing wisely between John Galt and Noam Chomsky, I don't know what to say to you. Mozart is never going to show up on American Idol. I'll answer the question I posed in the opening myself. The reason Hamilton and Madison et. al. sat at the same table once is that it was required just then. There was an enormous market for ideas in the rough, right away. A few years later, the time for thinking like that was over. Old Muttonhead rightly sat at the head of the table and told Jefferson and Hamilton to put a sock in it, and see if they could manage to keep the spittoons emptied in their assigned offices before they got any more bright ideas. We could use some Old Muttonhead right now. I read the news in the most desultory fashion because it's so useless to read twaddle filtered through incoherence and basted with a faction reduction. I hear, literally, gibberish. There is no such thing as a "toxic asset." An asset is pass/fail. It either is, or it's not. A banker prone to adjectives isn't one. There's that sophistry again. To hear a person with their hand on the levers of vital things utter such bosh indicates to me that the people that formerly put stupid back-seat-driver bright ideas in the suggestion box at their crummy jobs thrice daily are in charge of important things now. Smart managers know the suggestion box is 99.9% for humoring cranks. The Internet is the world's suggestion box now, with the same role. What possible good could it do to read the paper and see a capital injection into the money supply and a transfer payment to non-productive sectors referred to interchangeably as "a bailout." It used to be only the journalist that was that ignorant. When the people the journalists are interviewing start talking like that, why listen at all? My father was a banker. He told me the old saw about the only rule in the bank is the "3-6-3 Rule." Borrow at 3%, lend at 6%, and play golf at three. It was a joke and pop never played golf and he never left at three and people were always coming in to the bank to rob it and shoot the guard. You see, you don't understand the joke. You think it means that bankers were effete and lazy and thick-headed. It really meant that the wisest of them knew that after you borrowed (judiciously) at 3% and lent (wisely) at 6% there was nothing left to do. If you kept coming up with bright ideas after that, it was all bad, brother. Everybody's been working overtime in banking and government coming up with new and bright ideas to torture the language and the arithmetic so they could pat themselves on the back about how much smarter they are than everybody else. Can I have my bonus billion now? I'm going to invest it with Bernie Madoff because I'm so smahhht. You're not captains of industry. You're not visionaries. You're not statesmen. You're supposed to be clerks. I'm sorry, but clerks don't get paid all that much -- and never get a piece of the action. They don't get statues in the park in their honor. I can read well enough to know that real clerks, honorable, hardworking clerks, are going to be taxed into the hereafter, never mind the foreseeable future, to make sure the fake clerks with delusions of grandeur don't have to go back to the real world they fled. It's an honorable profession, being a clerk. I spend part of my day being one. You intellectual swells should try dabbling in it. To paraphrase the apartment dwelling version of Randle Patrick McMurphy : Sell big ideas someplace else; we're all stocked up here. sippicancottage.blogspot.com

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (293325)	2/21/2009 4:31:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

No one predicted the Republican win in 94 except for Gingrich and Bob Novak, the CW said they were nuts. A repeat could easily happen in 2010. For now, the public is giving Obama a pass because there is a crisis and it's still early days. But if he doesn't buckle down and achieve some level of not-too-far-left competence, the public may be reminded why they usually like divided government. Hugh Hewitt had Carol Liebau on guest hosting yesterday. She has some interesting remembrances of Obama because she was on Harvard Law Review while Obama was heading it. She said that even then he seemed more interested in being the head of Harvard Law Review than in buckling down and doing the work. She had hoped that POTUS was a job large enough to catch Obama's attention but even here he seems to want to get out of the White House and return to campaign mode. After all, Obama has spent most of his life in campaign mode. She also mentioned that there were very few conservatives on the Law Review (she was one) and that they were usually treated with contempt by the large left-wing majority. Because of this, Obama garnered a lot of good will with the conservatives just by being polite to them. Carol Liebau thinks that this is where Obama got his idea that politeness = bipartisanship; after all, it could not have been that different in Chicago. Obama has never been in a situation where liberals and conservatives were close to 50/50 and bipartisanship meant that actual compromise deals had to be struck.