By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
I love big ideas and the one I’m about to share may be the biggest idea of 2011!
What if I told you I had devised a way that would reduce personal debt by 8-9% each year (yet there would be zero loss to our quality of life or reduction in things we want to purchase)?
In addition to personal debt reduction, we could eat away at the international trade imbalance by an equivalent annual amount.
And finally, the “generalized frustration” each American feels daily would be moderately and noticeably reduced.
Would you be interested?
Of course, you would.
Here’s my idea. Ban all “up-selling”–the annoying practice of enticing Americans, a group who already can’t shop responsibly, to buy stuff we neither need nor want with money we don’t have!
The only thing we would miss is the stuff we bring home that we neither want nor need….and keep it available for those who truly need these items (yet another economic efficiency).
But–and here’s the brilliant part–only ban upselling domestically. For all international sales we will “require” companies to up-sell. This means every time we transact for a major export—e.g. sell aircraft, soybeans, semi-conductors, etc to a foreign country– we require that the US company ask if they’d like fries, an extra muffin, stamps, batteries, or to open a new bank account (in the US).
Of course, individually no single upsell will make much of a dent. But over time the US trade imbalance will be rectified, we won’t need another bailout from DC, we’ll walk around less antsy becuase we’ll feel competent to shop for ourselves, and for the first time in a long time we’ll be a model of personal fiscal restraint for the rest of the world.
So obviously a lot can happen between now and November.
War with Iran, European collapse, cat breading craze leads to chronic bread shortages, etc etc.
But first of all, what’s the fun of talking about politics if you aren’t willing to make wild predictions based on insufficient data?
Second, I thought about citing swing state data showing the President in a stronger position and talking about the many paths he has to victory but really, just consider the choice between this guy and this guy. There’s really no comparison.
Ron Granieri is correct that I’m a passionate Marxist, but he’s got the wrong Marx brother. I prefer Groucho. (Karl’s the mute with the curly hair, right?)
Speaking of farcical comedy, with his shocking Romney endorsement, have we seen the last of Donald Trump’s involvement in Campaign 2012? OK, just kidding.
But seriously folks…I hesitate to respond to Ron Granieri’s latest piece because frankly I don’t understand his big words, French references and elite, ivory-tower sophistry. (or is it sapphistry?) I am, after all, just an ordinary, unfrozen caveman lawyer.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate the GOP Mudfest: The RP Responds
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
The difference between liberals and conservatives….
My son found out recently that Sony Bono was a Republican member of Congress and wanted to to know more about him and his prior career.
I’m showing him the clip at the bottom of this post which I think demonstrates beautifully the core distinction between conservatives and liberals—a national obsession that, to me, seems blown out of proportion and even arbitrary.
Basically, if you boil down all the differences between to the two political types, liberals are slightly superior in the areas of fashion sense and rhythm (see Cher).
Conservatives, by contrast, are slightly more task oriented and better at getting elected to Congress. (See Sonny).
That’s really about it.
Oh, and liberals and conservatives tend to marry each other.
And when the try, can even make a pretty catchy duet.
Touché, Jonathan (he drawled while slouching in an old office chair…). You are quite right that Gingrich is no Reagan, nor are any of the other impostors. The analogy is flawed, but nonetheless retains its admonitory power. Indeed, as Robert Reich has written elsewhere, liberals should temper their enthusiasm for a Gingrich candidacy because even a small percentage chance of his election is too much.
Ultimately, all such comparisons should make us remember Jonathan’s favorite philosopher, Karl Marx, who famously wrote in The 18th Brumaire: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice.
He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre [Gingrich for Reagan]….precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.”
First of all, a hearty Mazel Tov to Ron Granieri for being the first person ever at the Internet tubes to use both the terms Schadenfreude and QFT in a post.
(I had to look the latter up at the Urban Dictionary and assume he is using definition #1, not #2)
(No, seriously, RP Nation. When the rest of us were reading comic books and the backs of baseball cards, Ron was queuing Firing Line repeats, poring through back issues of the National Review, and dog-earing his prized first edition of God and Man at Yale.)
I have to take issue, however, with the Reagan analogy which has been über-abused by the TV screaming heads who tend to fill up air time with clichéd analyses. Gingrich (or Paul…or Santorum…or Bachmann…yadda, yadda, yadda) is no Reagan in any sense of the word, particularly when it comes to electability. Certainly both of our liberal fathers misjudged Reagan’s general election appeal (My Dad…ugh…voted for Bonzo’s BFF in fact because he eerily predicted Carter’s antipathy toward Israel), as did much of America.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate the GOP Mudfest: The RP Rebuts
By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Feb 2, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Thought for the day.
This comes from a story I’ve retold many times. It’s a good story and may or may not be true. I just can’t recall clearly. But it’s plausible it happened the way I recall.
But, as the saying goes, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
So, here goes…
When I was a boy I collected baseball cards. The cards had quotes by the players on the back. My favorite was a quote be Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee, outspoken and colorful pitcher for the Boston Red Sox. Lee was quoted as saying,
“Sometimes I pitch myself down 3 balls and no strikes, just to make it interesting.”
I was fascinated by that quote. I loved it and saw something in it that was profound–yet funny.
Do you do this in your life? Out of boredom, create a difficult situation you must extricate yourself from–just to “make it interesting?” Just for the adrenaline rush?
I have to admit I do on occasion. And I regret it…and am going to try not to do that today.
I love Aesop’s Fables.
