Archive for the ‘money’ category

Living Large In Football’s Minor League

December 29, 2014

Perhaps the most dog-bites-man headline of this last weekend of regular season NFL play came atop stories on Jim Harbaugh’s move from the San Francisco 49ers to the University of Michigan.  Nearly all of those stories, before and after the news became official, mentioned Harbaugh’s expected salary:  $8,000,000/year, a sum that would make him the highest paid coach in the history of college football, though the latest reports suggest that even that staggering figure is low.

Henri_Rousseau_-_The_Football_Players

Just for the perverse pain of it, I decided to do a few sums.  The University of Michigan charges slightly lower instate tuition for its 1st and 2nd year undergraduates than it does for juniors and seniors.  The average of the two comes to $14,336.  Taking the original $8 million number for  Harbaugh’s salary, that translates into 558 tuition-free rides for Michigan kids.

University of Michigan faculty salaries in 2013 range from an average of roughly $88,000 for assistant professors to an average number around $149,000.  Picking a figure more or less in the middle, and adding in an allowance for benefits, Harbaugh’s reported salary would cover the cost of about 50 faculty — with, among other things, the benefit to the university and society of the research such an addition to the Wolverines capacity to study science, medicine, engineering, social science and the humanities might provide.

To add yet one more comparison:  even in an age of administrative bloat, Harbaugh’s compensation comes to more than the pay given Michigan’s top 16 executives, or all 20 of its deans.

Apples and oranges, football boosters might reply, and they’re right.  NCAA Division 1 football, at least within a major conference, has revenue streams not available to a mere Dean of Engineering or the College of Literature, Science and the Arts.  It’s plausible to me that between TV contracts, merchandise and the rest, the University of Michigan may indeed make a profit on its football operation.  (I’m not sure, though.  I’ve spent enough time in and around the film industry to know that before you simply accept that claim, you have to see the real books on anything as rich in opportunities for financial legerdemain as a big time entertainment business.)*

But even if , as is certainly true, the king’s ransom Jim Harbaugh will now collect doesn’t rob the rest of the university, and would in any event be simply unavailable to any other initiative at the University of Michigan, still, it seems to me useful to pay attention to the scale of that salary against the costs of what are, after all, the core of what a university does.  That would be to educate young adults and to create knowledge valuable in both a practical and liberal sense of value.  Michigan remains a great university, and I’ll be bursting with pride when my nephew graduates in Ann Arbor next year.  And, of course, Michigan is hardly the only football-mad school; it’s just the latest to hit the headlines with a monstrous expression of what it as a microcosm of society prices and hence prizes most richly.

In the end, I guess this whole post is a “get offa my lawn you kids” kind of plaint.  As a society we are so committed to a primitive market view of human relations that I can hear myself telling me that this is simply what the bourse will bear for a top name in a small, big-money field.  There’s a lot of ways to parse that thought for bullshit, of course, but just the fact that I frame it that way before catching myself shows how thoroughly the Reagan revolution has defined our categories of thought.  I will say, though, that the history of decline-and-falls is littered with examples of the already-rich alienating yet more resources from things that actually build the wealth and power of a society.

Oh well.

*I don’t know how to factor in the question of alumni fund raising, because I know of no way to calculate the crowding out problem: how much cash raised for athletics either fosters or crowds out possible support for academics.  If anyone has any insight on this — pop it into the comments, please.

Image:  Henri Rousseau, The Football Players1908  And yeah, I know. Not that football.  But I couldn’t resist such gaily prancing young sportsmen.  Could you?

Hit ‘Em Again Senator! Harder!

July 16, 2013

via TPM, this glorious evisceration of CNBC hacks by none other than my senior senator,* the Hon. Elizabeth Warren, (Fighting Democrat-MA)

Moah of this, please.

*True fact that may amuse no one but me.  John Kerry served in the US Senate from 1985 to 2013. Until August 25, 2009 — more than 24 years — he was the junior senator to Teddy Kennedy.  Elizabeth Warren began her term as Massachusetts’ junior US Senator on January 3, 2013.  On February 1, she became senior senator.

Bald Faced Theft

January 13, 2013

Fallows latest is a post titled “The Two Sentences That Should Be Part of All Discussion of the Debt Ceiling,”

Victor_Dubreuil_-_Barrels_on_Money,_c._1897_oil_on_canvas

In it, he writes:

 

1) Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize one single penny in additional public spending.

2) For Congress to “decide whether” to raise the debt ceiling, for programs and tax rates it has already voted into law, makes exactly as much sense as it would for a family to “decide whether” to pay a credit-card bill for goods it has already bought.
Ayup.
Image:  Victor Debruil, Barrels of Money, c. 1897

To Moscow With Love

November 2, 2012

Mitt Romney, interview with Wolf Blitzer, March 26, 2012:

I’m saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world’s worst actors, of course the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran, and nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough, but when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them, when [Syrian President] Assad, for instance, is murdering his own people, we go to the United Nations and who is it that always stands up for the world’s worst actors? It is always Russia, typically with China alongside, and so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that’s on the Security Council, that has the heft of the Security Council, and is of course a massive security power — Russia is the geopolitical foe.”

Mitt Romney, Republican National Convention acceptance speech, August 30, 2012:

President Obama … He abandoned our friends in Poland by walking away from our missile defense commitments, but is eager to give Russia’s President Putin the flexibility he desires, after the election. Under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty, and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone.

Mitt Romney, final presidential campaign debate, October 22, 2012:

“I’ll respond to a couple of things that you mentioned. First of all, Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe. Not … Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election.

Matt Romney, as reported by Peter Baker in The New York Times, today, November 2, 2012:

…While in Moscow, Mr. Romney told a Russian known to be able to deliver messages to Mr. Putin that despite the campaign rhetoric, his father wants good relations if he becomes president, according to a person informed about the conversation.

The rest of this post, I think, writes itself.

 

Images:  M. Minard, Chart depicting the change in size of Napoleon’s army during the Russian campaign of 1812-13, 1869

Caravaggio, Christ Expels the Money Changers from the Temple, 1610.

Megan McArdle, Lawyer, Ethicist, Historian.

April 27, 2010

She’s not even trying anymore. (And thankfully that means I don’t need to haul out my 5,000 word howitzer to shoot this bit of ephemera down.)

Here’s Ms. McArdle  on the Goldman hearings — uncut, not cherry-picked:

Now Levin is grilling a Goldman employee as to why they continued to sell a deal that the head of the division had described as “a shitty deal”.  The banker is trying to explain that he’s a salesman, not a fiduciary, with little success.  What I want to know is–didn’t these guys learn a damn thing from the show trials of the last decade?  These are the kinds of things that should never, ever be committed to any form that can be subpoena’d by a committee.

So the key issues in this incident in our public life  are  (a) that Goldman too fully documented its business practices (that’s the legal eagle McArdle at work); (b) that the key wrong here is being called to account for those business practices, not any acts by the witness or his employer (here’s McArdle’s keenly honed sense of right and wrong firing); and (c) that the injustice of asking for justification for said business practices, and the implication that these might have been less than savory, is of the same rank odor as these.  (And here we see the fine McArdle understanding of the lessons of the past in all its glory.)

Update: Per Downpuppy’s comments below — yes, McArdle qualifies the phrase “show trial” with “of the last decade,” meaning, I guess, something to do with Enron or the like.  But the

This is, of course, standard operating procedure for the Big Lie right.  In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a systematic rhetorical trope of delegitimizing the acts of the Obama administration and the current Democratic Party -led Congress in particular, and the idea of government action in general.  To McArdle, the notion that any Congress should interrogate the “free” market is a travesty; and though McArdle masks some of her partisanship under a veneer of the faux libertarian’s “pox on both their houses” rhetoric, she and her many fellow travelers frame the acts of this particular administration as being distinctively odious, specially intrusive and in violation of ideas of liberty to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

Nonsense of course — see, e.g. Hendrik Hertzberg’s depressingly mild rebuke of that similarly glib and much more overtly genial partisan propaganda monger/would-be public intellectual, David Brooks.

And really — even for the relentlessly sloppy and supericial McArdle, this is a terribly weak effort.  Questioning by a Senator with full advice of counsel and a few billion dollars behind you is of the same order as one of Stalin’s court cases, from which the only exit could be a bullet to the brain?  The moral midgetry required to make the comparison is breath taking —  and illustrative.

Update: Per Downpuppy’s comments below — yes, McArdle qualifies the phrase “show trial” with “of the last decade,” meaning, I guess, something to do with Enron or the like.

But the point I’m trying to get across here, expressed perhaps a little too elliptically above, is that the use of an term like “show trial,” even qualified, is of a piece with a broader rhetorical move on the seditious right to conflate, say, a mild, originally conservative-supported health care reform with a vast government overreach of a scale Stalin or Hitler would recognize.  There is a kind of dual outrage inflation/sense or judgment dulling that comes with  the use of words like statism, or over reach, or socialism or fascism — or show trials, with all the 20th century baggage that such an epithet evokes.

In this context, besides being incoherent (what does she have in mind as a show trial of  2001-2010 decade?  I really got nuthin, unless she truly does believe that Ken Lay and Andy Fastow are martyrs on the altar of Ms.Rand) McArdle’s attempt to qualify her use of the loaded “show trial” is merely a fig leaf, really a tell:  that she has to modify her rhetoric here strongly suggest that she knows just how noxious it really is.

Image:  Édouard Manet, The Execution of Emperor Maximilian, 1867

Quote for the Day: Financial Crisis/Warren Buffet Edition

October 17, 2008

From today’s NYT op-ed by the Sage of Omaha:

I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.

I get the restaurant line.  But actually visualizing the thought when I consider all the places my money has been?  Not such a pretty picture

Can Anyone Tell Me What John McCain Is Saying Here?

September 18, 2008

Further to the thought in this post:

There are plenty of folks taking note of John McCain’s scramble to come up with a rhetorical response to the ongoing adventures on Wall Street — see this for a good rundown on the difficulty Straight Talk John has in remembering what it is he actually believes on a minute-by-minute basis.

But the attention being paid to the implausibility of Commerce Committee Chairman and deregulation stalwart suddenly turning into the Scourge of the Robber Barons is missing another element of the story that in governance terms is more serious.  That is — I think there is a growing consensus that the McCain campaign has a deeply conflicted relationship with the truth (i.e. the candidate lies a lot, as does his Veep selection, as does his campaign as a whole).

But what is only just starting to get noticed is that McCain does not appear to think very well — certainly not on his feet, and maybe not under any circumstances.  And by this I mean he has a hard time assimilating information, analyzing it accurately, and coming to conclusions that he can then express in a clear and coherent fashion.

Now the links above mostly lead to stories about McCain’s difficulties with the location, leadership, and ally-status of Spain — the gaffe du jour.

But as the financial markets continue to play their lethal version of musical chairs, and as McCain hones his populist lines, I thought it would be useful to look at what he had to say when first confronted with the fact that the worldview of his economic stump speech had moved so far into fantasy land that not even the 2008 GOP could maintain the fiction.

Recall that on Monday morning, McCain famously repeated his standard line that whatever turmoil there might be in the markets, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

With even the White House declining to endorse that view (and ever more Federal action putting ever more tax dollars at risk in the still-uncertain-of-success rescue efforts), it became quickly clear to the candidate and his brain trust (an interesting phrase, don’t you think…) that Sen. McCain had to get back out there, and fast.

So out he duly went, a few hours later, to a town meeting in Florida.  There he made another statement, acknowledging that the fundamentals of the economy were at risk — and much other verbiage, which is where my real concern comes in.

I’ve now listened to the clip of John McCain trying to communicate his views and intentions about this imperiled economy four or five times now, and it’s not that I disagree with what he is saying.

It’s that I cannot make sense of his statement.  It’s astonishingly incoherent, so much so that I transcribed it for all to read.

I’ll post the transcript below in two versions:  one that matches the way it was delivered, just a single almost breathless block of words; and another in a somewhat easier to read and more charitable form, paragraphs and emphases broken up in my guess as to how McCain’s staff might have circulated a text.  I’ll comment a bit, and then post the Youtube for all to judge for themselves.

But my basic question remains:  can this man actually perform the mental operations  required of a president on the time scales that the office of President imposed on its incumbents?

So here goes:

And this is a unique and diverse state and it’s a wonderful state and it’s what America is all about.  And I want to say again I know Americans are hurting now and the fundamentals of our economy are at risk.  They’re at risk.  The great workers, the great innovators because of the greed of Wall Street and the greed and, and the abuse that has taken place which has put our very economy at risk.  Our economy is at risk today.  Have no doubt how serious this problem is.  And we Americans will get through it.  But we have got to reform, we’ve got to reform the way the government does business.  I want to promise you that my whole life I have reached across the aisle, and I’ve worked with Democrats, and I know how to do that and we must do that, because we have got to fix this economy which the fundamentals are at great risk right now.  And those are the American workers and these are the American workers who deserve far better than what they have gotten recently, and I want to promise you that it’s my highest priority:  we’ve got to get our economy going again. We’ve got to create jobs and keep this nation safe.

And again:

And this is a unique and diverse state and it’s a wonderful state and it’s what America is all about.  And I want to say again I know Americans are hurting now and the fundamentals of our economy are at risk.  They’re at risk. The great workers, the great innovators because of the greed of Wall Street and the greed and, and the abuse that has taken place which has put our very economy at risk.

Our economy is at risk today. Have no doubt how serious this problem is.  And we Americans will get through it.

But we have got to reform, we’ve got to reform the way the government does business.  I want to promise you that my whole life I have reached across the aisle, and I’ve worked with Democrats, and I know how to do that and we must do that, because we have got to fix this economy which the fundamentals are at great risk right now.

And those are the American workers and these are the American workers who deserve far better than what they have gotten recently, and I want to promise you that it’s my highest priority:  we’ve got to get our economy going again. We’ve got to create jobs and keep this nation safe.

Hello?  Anyone home?

It is possible to parse this and come up with a somewhat sympathetic reading:  McCain knows there’s a problem; knows that government action is required; and he is willing to work across the aisle for solutions.

But read it — or, given that no spoken remarks have the same quality transcribed as they do uttered, look at the clip below — and tell me that this is the likeliest interpretation.

What you see is a man grasping for some complete thought, and missing.  Listen to each sentence and fragment; try to follow the bouncing ball, and see the connection from one idea to the next.  I can’t.  It’s just: “situation bad; workers good; greed bad; situation bad; things must change; I can change; I promise change;…..”

In the end, this may just be another case of eastern elitist intellectual snobbery.

But the premise of my real fear here is that words uttered are a mirror of the mind behind them — never more so than when someone is under pressure to compose and speak an important thought whilst naked on the island:  no teleprompter, no prepared speech, just what you think at that moment.

If I’m right, then John McCain is an even worse potential President than I had thought (and that’s going some).

Update: It does occur to me that we have already tried a President with difficulties in this direction.  Doesn’t seem to have worked out so well.

But come to your own conclusion.  Here’s McCain’s clip, and as a lagniappe, a much longer video, an (almost)* complete speech from Obama delivered a day later touching on the same issues.

McCain first:

And now Obama:

*The clip I choose cuts off the boilerplate with which Obama begins many speeches — thanks to the local politicians and organizers and so on.  There are other versions easily to be found on Youtube if you want to catch that preamble.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,960 other followers