The Check List and the Commish February 15, 2008March 10, 2017 THE CHECK LIST Kevin Smith: ‘I’m with a large hospital here in Indianapolis and I’d seen the New Yorker checklist article … was glad to see you pick up on it this week. However, you’ll probably want to see this – the program’s being shut down! Pretty sad!’ ☞ Not just sad – outrageous: . . . The results were stunning. Within three months, the rate of bloodstream infections from . . . I.V. lines fell by two-thirds. The average I.C.U. cut its infection rate from 4 percent to zero. Over 18 months, the program saved more than 1,500 lives and nearly $200 million. Yet this past month, the Office for Human Research Protections shut the program down. The agency issued notice to the researchers and the Michigan Health and Hospital Association that, by introducing a checklist and tracking the results without written, informed consent from each patient and health-care provider, they had violated scientific ethics regulations. Johns Hopkins had to halt not only the program in Michigan but also its plans to extend it to hospitals in New Jersey and Rhode Island. The government’s decision was bizarre and dangerous. But there was a certain blinkered logic to it, which went like this: A checklist is an alteration in medical care no less than an experimental drug is. Studying an experimental drug in people without federal monitoring and explicit written permission from each patient is unethical and illegal. . . ☞ Let’s not rest until we get this fixed. This one is so basic and obvious, even the Bush Administration should be able to get it right. And that’s saying something. THE COMMISH As in, the Commissioner. Wasn’t that the name of a TV series? (I rub Google’s tummy . . . yes!) I assume it was about a police commissioner. This is about a water commissioner. I gave $500 to help get her elected, giving me a 100% batting average. Every time I support the candidacy of a water commissioner, she wins. (Long story; her brother gives to the DNC, she got it into her head to run for this, so next thing you know I’ve got my money on Debra Shore for a seat on the Chicago Water Commission.) And there are two things I want to tell you about her. – Her Essay It ran on Chicago Public Radio, and it’s really lovely. Read or listen to it here. Just a sweet little piece about how hard it is to put yourself out there and run for office. (‘It was the most humbling experience of my life. As a candidate, you go out in the face of colossal indifference and sometimes outright hostility. . . .’) Go ye and do likewise. – Her First Year The only thing I’d thought about less than ‘how are water commissioners selected?’ is ‘what new life could they possibly bring to the job?’ I mean: water should be potable and plentiful (Chicago sits on a Great Lake, how hard can it be?); no leaks. End of story. But no, the report she issued on her first year had some really interesting ideas. Like making rain barrels available at cost ($40) for Chicagoans to put under their rain gutters. ‘Using rainwater means you are not using – or paying for – filtered drinking water. And the captured rain, when used to water your garden during a dry spell, then helps to recharge our underground aquifers rather than flowing into the sewers as it would during a storm.’ (For more on this idea for your own rain gutters, click here. For an example of some of the features of a pricier rain barrel, here.) Like using permeable paving materials ‘to allow rainwater to infiltrate the ground’ rather than, again, enter the sewer system. Debra refers us to this site for more. Like caffeinating the water supply, so people will just feel perkier. Which is my idea, not Debra’s, but it’s always fun to see whether you’re paying attention. One of the links at the end of the report lets you click on each room in your house for water-saving tips.
Landing Gear Down – Check; Hands Washed – Check February 14, 2008January 5, 2017 In fairness to your schedule, I’m giving you another day to read yesterday’s New Yorker link. It describes how the B17 – though wildly superior to anything else then flying – crashed on its first test flight because it was just too complicated to fly. So – instead of scrapping the plane – they added the first-ever pilot ‘checklist’ . . . and from then on it performed beautifully and became the workhorse of the war. A similar thing has happened in hospital Intensive Care Units. Astonishing drops in error rates, costs, and lost lives through the addition of simple check lists. It’s a story that needs to become ‘urgent common knowledge’ so that every hospital quickly adopts this practice. Or, if you did read it yesterday, how about the links from Tuesday about superdelegates, Miami and Florida? No? Not enough? You want more? Okay, but this is my final offer/ing: FUN Kathi Derevan: ‘I’m not big on sending ‘cool’ websites, but this one really does deserve a look.’ ☞ It brightened my day.
The Life-Saving Checklist February 13, 2008March 25, 2012 This New Yorker piece is so engagingly written, and so important, I should wait to post it on Friday, when you have the weekend to read it. But here it is anyway. The nub: there’s a simple, proven way to cut medical costs and bad hospital outcomes dramatically. Yet, ‘at the current rate, it will never happen.’ Read it. Forward it to your doctor. Bring it to the attention of the personnel department if your company buys health insurance. Know anyone who sits on the board of a hospital? A lot of money – and lives – could be saved.
Superdelegates – Click the Link February 12, 2008January 5, 2017 UNFAIR – BUT PERHAPS NOT ENTIRELY UNFAIR Here’s an inspirational music video for John McCain, in the style of a video for one of his Democratic opponents. PETER Peter S.: ‘Please let someone like Howard Dean or Rahm Emmanuel know that if Hillary steals the nomination from Obama by making them revote in MI and FL or count the votes from the original beauty contests or by pressuring the superdelegates into voting for her even though Obama has more delegates from the primaries and caucuses, I and a huge percentage of Democrats will be permanently turned off to her and the party. Whoever has more delegates going into the convention better come out of the convention with the nomination or there will be political hell to pay.’ ☞ Thanks, Peter. Do you want us to stick with the rules or change the rules? Or just change the rules as regards superdelegates? Your call. (My own feeling is that it’s imperative we stick with the rules unless both campaigns agree on how they should be changed.) Here’s a really good discussion of the superdelegates. Worth the read. (And for those just joining us, here‘s my understanding of how we got INTO this mess. And here‘s the stab I took at explaining how the process works from here on out.) PAUL Paul: ‘Does the DNC have a plan B in the event that the margin of difference between the two candidates is less than the delegate count of Florida and Michigan? That frankly is what it all boils down to, and is all that I am concerned about. Just tell me that the Democratic Party is not going to be plunged into a constitutional crisis and that there is an ‘escape route’ that any rational member of the party will accept as fair.‘ ☞ The escape route is simply to follow the rules – unless both campaigns agree on some change they’d both like to see us make (in that case, I assume we’d do all we can to effect it). Rational members of the party will, I hope, accept that you can’t have a contest without rules, and that the fair thing to do once the contest starts is stick to the rules. JAYNE Jayne: ‘Your points are well taken, but people are really angry about this process.’ ☞ I understand, which is why all of us who really care about the big picture have an obligation to understand – and then explain – the reality of the issue, which is that there really are no villains here (unless Karl Rove put the FL Republicans up to this, knowing it would drive us crazy) . . . and that the one thing all can agree on is that we must all stick with the rules of the game, unless both campaigns mutually agree on a change. That’s the big picture. (The even bigger picture: we need to win back the White House, widen our lead in Congress, and reverse the rightward slide in the Judiciary. For that, we’ll all need to back whichever of our two superb candidates wins the nomination.) Jayne again: ‘There must be a creative solution so that we can all move forward. Perhaps a contest with two tickets to the Convention for the best solution?’ ☞ If you come up with a creative solution everyone likes, you can have MY two tickets to the Convention.
If the World IS Ending, Why Not Visit Paradise? Or Take a Barge from Jacksonville to Puerto Rico February 11, 2008March 10, 2017 JIM ROGERS ON THE END OF THE WORLD Well, not the end of the world for him. He’s moved to Singapore. Or for farmers – and there are a lot more farmers in the world, he notes, than investment bankers. Or for your oil stocks or your timber stock. But click here to read it. MAY AS WELL GET TO PARADISE FIRST [SELF-INTEREST ON] I’ve written a couple of times about Paradise Breezes, in Costa Rica, but with some trepidation because, well, what if you spend all that money to get there and you don’t like it? Or your car falls through one of the rickety bridges on your way to or fro? Or you hate our chef or the surf’s not up or you slip on the tile when you come in from the pool? But I’m told by one of my partners that all but four of those bridges have now been replaced – by this time next year the road might even be paved – and the guest comments, here, have me on the verge of a Sally Fields moment (‘You like it! You really like it!’). If you’re getting tired of winter, you might want to day-dream a little and read those reviews. [SELF-INTEREST OFF] TRBR If the world ends, barge traffic to Puerto Rico could slacken. But a smart investor I know ran through the story on Trailer Bridge; I bought it between $9.75 and $11.50 and have an order in to buy some more today. He thinks it will be earning $2 or $3 a share in the next couple of years. Click here for a presentation that explains the cost advantages it enjoys, the room for growth, its ‘green’ advantage, and what might happen if Cuba ever opens up to U.S. investment.* I know: barges and mud. And my mud-mover, GLDD, has been mucky of late. But these are just the kind of boring stocks I think may not be much affected by recession (famous last words), and that may perhaps be a good bit higher in a year or three. * You have to register to see it, and enter a company name – but any name will do. EQUAL TIME Donna Schmitt: ‘Betty (an Obama supporter) stated that ‘in Michigan Hillary managed to wink at the DNC ruling by being the only Democratic candidate to leave her name on the ballot.’ It’s amazing how many facts Betty got wrong with that single statement: (1.) There was never a DNC ruling regarding ballot removal in Florida or Michigan. (2.) Even assuming Betty meant the ‘Pledge’ (it was not written by the DNC but by the Democratic Party Chairs in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina), the Pledge did not call for ballot remove in Florida or Michigan. (3.) Obama’s campaign said the decision to remove his name from the ballot was ‘an extension of the pledge.’ (4.) In addition to Hillary, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel stayed on the Michigan ballot. I realize that you, as a DNC official, cannot afford to take a specific candidate’s side in the Florida – Michigan fiasco, but I just wanted to state the facts for Betty.’ ☞ More on your many other Florida/Michigan/super-delegate emails to follow.
One Republican Grandfather’s View February 8, 2008January 5, 2017 FLORIDA – WHAT HAPPENS NOW? Betty and her husband, extraordinary Florida Democrats, have given tens of thousands of dollars to the DNC in years past but have held back this cycle because, she told me several weeks ago, before the primary, Florida’s (and Michigan’s) Democrats had been disenfranchised ‘by the DNC.’ They would be voting . . . and yet the results of those votes would not translate into delegates at the Convention – how could that be? I replied with an email similar to my post here, hoping that once she and her husband understood how this dreadful mess developed . . . and that it was not something the DNC caused or could fix (if you disagree, please click that link) . . . they’d look at the big picture and rejoin our effort. (The big picture: boy, would it ever be good for the country and the planet if Dems won back the White House, widened our lead in Congress, and reversed the rightward slide in the Judiciary.) Yesterday, Betty, an Obama supporter, emailed with a new – and equally valid – concern. You’d better the hell not let Florida and Michigan delegates count NOW. (‘Florida’s result was a joke,’ she wrote, ‘a ‘beauty contest,’ based primarily on name recognition. And in Michigan Hillary managed to wink at the DNC ruling by being the only Democratic candidate to leave her name on the ballot, giving her a hugely unfair advantage. Consequently, if this issue isn’t resolved in a way that is fair to Obama, it will make me seriously consider staying home in November, something I’ve not done in 45 years of being old enough to vote!’) My (unofficial!) reply: Betty, I totally hear you, and am so grateful to have had the chance to respond earlier and now to this. What you are saying is: the game must be fair. There need to be rules everybody knows and plays by. So, just as the rules called for Florida and Michigan not to jump the gun — with penalties if they did — so, now, there is already in place a complicated but long-since established set of rules for “what happens next.” These rules were made long before anyone had an idea what states might or might not jump the gun or what candidates might or might not be disadvantaged if they did. It naturally pained us deeply that so many wonderful Democrats, including so many wonderful major donors, like you, got angry with us for enforcing the rules – it cost us your financial support, which we badly need. But how can you change the rules in the middle of the game? Even if there had been some legal way to do it (i.e., with enough time to call the requisite meetings as required by our by-laws, etc.), it would have seemed so grossly unfair to all the states that *also* wanted to go first but had abided by the rules . . . or else it would have led to chaos, with even more states jumping the gun. So now, I agree with you, it’s crucial we not try to mess with the rules, even if there were some legal way to do it. As I understand it, the DNC’s Rules & By-Laws Committee controls the delegate-selection process up until two months before the election. Anything is possible, but I would be amazed if, after taking so much heat for enforcing their rules — and with the DNC having fought and won a lawsuit affirming its right to make these rules – the Committee suddenly chose retroactively to change their own rules. (The one exception easy to imagine would be if it turned out we had by then one undisputed presumptive nominee, at which point for the sake of unity and party healing, etc., that nominee might ask the Committee to relent, and there would be good reason for the Committee to say yes.) At the two-month mark, like a plane behind handed off from one air traffic controller to the one at the airport of final destination, the responsibility for who gets seated at the Convention (if there is a dispute) gets handed off to the Convention Credentials Committee. The DNC gets to appoint, and has appointed, 25 “standing members” to that committee – being careful not to skew it toward backers of any one candidate. But the full committee will have 186 members (can you imagine?), determined – all according to rules long since set down – based on some kind of formula not in my head that basically has to do with who won which delegates. (If this becomes important, you can be sure I and everyone else will familiarize themselves with the specifics.) At that point, one or the other candidate might indeed come to “control” the Credentials Committee – all based on the rules of the game – at which point he or she very likely would want to seat, or not seat, disputed delegates based on what worked to his or her advantage. So that’s my understanding of how it all works — but the main thing to say is that a huge amount of time, under the guidance of people like Jim Roosevelt, has, over the years, gone into HAVING rules of the game . . . never set with the intent to favor one specific candidate over another. And the other main thing to say is that, from my point of view, it is so crucial that we win back the WH, widen our lead in Congress, and reverse the wrongward slide of the Judiciary, that those of us who can should do all the law allows to support the DNC, which is working, even as we speak, to do all it can afford to do — our resources are limited when people don’t give! — to organize the nation’s 203,000 precincts to turn out progressive voters in November; work with 7,000 local polling officials (now, not on election day) to try to assure a fair distribution of polling machines (and avoid butterfly ballot snafus); and all the other things (like opposition research) that will improve our chances up and down the ballot on November 4. Barack raised $32 million last month. The DNC raised $5 million. If the only thing that mattered were who won the primary, then it would make sense to spend $500 million on the primary campaign, with terrific Democrats competing against each other, while having the Party run on fumes. (The DNC’s cash, last I looked, was less than the cash in my personal retirement account.) But if our goal is put one of our two superb primary candidates in the WH as opposed to, say a McCain/Huckabee Administration — with all that implies in terms of lifetime judicial appointments — then I don’t get why we wouldn’t *rush* to support the DNC’s efforts, and help it build a war chest to match, or surpass, that of the RNC. One more wrinkle – some are talking of arranging March caucuses in Florida and Michigan as an imperfect but well-intentioned way to give the candidates a chance to campaign in those states, and the citizens of those states a chance to express their preference and have their delegates seated at the Convention. The downside is that this would be very expensive and – even then – not likely offer the citizenry nearly as many polling places as they would have had in a state-run election. But whether such ‘do-over’ primaries are held is up to the states, not the DNC. And while we’re on Florida, here’s yet one more wrinkle that could affect voter turnout November 4, and thus possibly even swing Florida one way or the other: POLITICS IS PERSONAL – A REPUBLICAN PERSPECTIVE You may know the “Marriage Protection” fight has officially made its way to Florida, with a vague and disingenuous amendment that will be on the presidential ballot in November. Before we even talk about how dangerous and divisive this amendment is, let me introduce myself and then the Campaign I am leading to defeat this amendment. I’m Jon Kislak and at first glace anyone would think I may appear a most unusual choice to lead a campaign like Florida Red and Blue. People on the campaign like to say I’m the “red” part of Florida Red and Blue. I’m a Republican. More than that, I’m an active Republican – I was Finance Chairman for the (now) Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and President George H.W. Bush appointed me to serve as Under Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture. When people learn about my strong Republican credentials, they may assume I’m in this fight because I’m gay. That’s not why I’m in this fight and, for the record, I am not gay. Which is not the same as saying I don’t have a deeply personal reason to be engaged in this fight. So why is a straight Republican leading a campaign to keep a “gay marriage” ban out of our State Constitution? In fact — funny story — the first question I got from a reporter last summer when we took Florida Red and Blue public was, “What’s a good Republican like you doing in a place like this?” Aside from this being the right fight for my state and my party from a political and policy perspective, I am in this fight for my grandson, Ezra. Ezra was born 2 years ago to my daughter Rebecca, and adopted by Joanna, Rebecca’s partner of many years. They live in Rhode Island. Since Florida is the only state in the union to have a law expressly banning gays and lesbians from adopting, my daughter and her family are concerned every time they visit. And they certainly wouldn’t live here. Personally, I don’t care how anyone feels about “gay marriage.” It’s just not right that our laws, public policy and social climate in Florida are so un-welcoming as to keep a Grandfather like me from seeing his grandson. Providence is a long way from Miami. I’m sure I’m not the only South Florida grandfather in this situation. So, in a nutshell, that’s why I’m with Florida Red and Blue as a donor, supporter and leader. And I am proud to be just one leader. We have an unprecedented and amazing Board of Directors which includes legendary Democratic finance man Bob Farmer (who has been national Treasurer of four Presidential campaigns, including Bill Clinton and John Kerry), the former national President of NOW Patricia Ireland, former Chairman of the Miami-Dade Chamber of Commerce Peter Rhoulac and Jorge Mursuli, the national Vice President of People for the American Way. With this group leading Florida Red and Blue, we’re becoming more and more prepared every day. We’ve already raised more than $2 million to fight this amendment. We have more than 150 elected, religious and social leaders signed-on to oppose the amendment and we’ve already invested more than $175,000 in polling and research that will tell us how to manage this campaign and communicate to voters. Now that it’s official that the amendment will be put before voters (we expect it to be Florida Amendment 2), the real work begins. We have to be successful in the nine months ahead of us because there’s much more at stake than the investments of our donors. Real lives will be impacted by our successes and failures. The amendment here in Florida is not just bad – it’s very bad. The actual language is: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” You can see, this language goes way beyond just banning same-sex unions. The “substantial equivalent” language is untested and undefined and has the potential to be used to ban existing rights, benefits and protections for millions of Floridians. In Florida, amendments now must receive 60% voter approval to pass. So the November vote is an outstanding opportunity to defeat this amendment. Sending this amendment into to the electoral dust-bin would not only be great for Florida, it would send a great signal to the rest of the nation that a southern state – one with rich diversity – saw past the misleading appeals to reactive politics. Wining here would send the unmistakable message that Arizona was not a fluke — these amendments are not slam-dunks anymore. We’d love for Florida to become the proverbial “line in the sand,” where those who push these ballot measures come to understand that future efforts will be met by well funded, organized, bi-partisan opposition. And most importantly, opponents who can and will win. It’s my hope that I’ll be able to keep each of you up to speed on Florida Red and Blue and the progress we’re making. Of course, you can always visit our campaign website at FloridaRedandBlue.com. Thank you for taking the time to read my email [this email went out to a large listserve of which I am a member – A.T.] and be engaged in this crucial struggle here in Florida and everywhere . . . Jon Kislak Campaign Chairman Florida Red and Blue Miami
Good News, Bad News, Smartypants February 7, 2008March 10, 2017 NOW WITH MOTION AND SOUND And the men’s stuff. Behold Charles’s Fall show. And look what they’re saying about it in Cleveland: You know how fashion experts always say that every woman needs only “10 easy pieces” in her wardrobe? The crisp white shirt, the perfectly tailored blazer, the great black pants, blah, blah, blah? Not that that advice isn’t perfectly legitimate, it’s just that when we’re shopping, it’s not the black pants and white shirts that grab the eye now, is it? Somehow, though, designer Charles Nolan continues to perfectly bridge that line between the classic and the eye-catching, with beautifully tailored separates that flatter a woman’s body – women of all ages and shapes. His fabrics are generally sumptuous, and they’re what sets him apart from the usual glut of monotony that makes up most mid-tier womenswear. For fall ’08, Nolan was inspired by the costumes he’s making for a production by the American Ballet Theater, saying “It’s all about moving forward mindful of the past,” in his show notes. There was a certain Edwardian charm to much of the collection, but only in the intricate construction of bodices, seams and tiny puff-shouldered jackets – do not forget that these are modern clothes for modern women. There may be flashier clothes, but it’s doubtful there are more wearable, flattering clothes with a touch of artsy playfulness. And that’s what 10 easy pieces should be all about. CHOPPY MARKETS You can’t say the market is not volatile. One of my stocks, CME, was down $103 yesterday. The good news is it’s a stock I’m short. The bad news is I only had the guts to short 100 shares of it. The further bad news is that, in addition to being gutless, I am brainless. I shorted it a long time ago at $420. So even with yesterday’s drop to $485, I’m still down $6,500. The further good news is that I recognized I knew next to nothing about CME when I shorted it (‘but it sure seemed pricey to me’) so I never mentioned it to you, because I try superhard to mention here only situations that, while they may be wildly speculative, I have either at least thought through – or, better still, have grabbed from someone smarter than me who has thought them through. (Obviously, that has not always worked out.) WHY IS CHINA LENDING TO US? Wayne Seibert: ‘I have a question that you might be uniquely able to answer, since you are both a political activist and a financial smartypants. Why is the fact that other countries want to lend us money bad? When I see that China is willing to invest a trillion dollars in US bonds, while their people live on $100 a year, I wonder why … wouldn’t that be like Americans in the 1840’s foregoing railroads in order to invest in British manor houses? My uninformed speculation is that the elites of China know how precarious their hold on power really is, they know a revolution is coming, and they want liquid assets abroad to hold onto when the deluge comes. What’s your opinion?’ ☞ Well, big topic, great question. It’s fine for us to borrow money – from anyone – to invest in our future. But it inevitably erodes our future if we borrow for things like VCRs and oil and bombs that soon get junked or burned up or blown up. The foreigners lending to us are happy to do so, knowing they can trade their VCRs and oil for our farmland and banks and whatever other assets of ours they will be buying. The reason the Chinese government allows this to go on may be at least in large part that they are trying to grow quickly – yet not spiral out of control (a ‘boom’ can send an economy spinning out of control). So one interesting thing will be to see what happens if we have a recession that causes us to buy less from China. If this causes their own growth to fall, one thing it seems to me the Chinese might then consider would be to redirect some of their investment from US Treasuries into their own economic projects, to keep their economic engine roaring ahead. It will be good if they can keep roaring ahead, because they will buy more stuff from us and their middle class will one day be able to buy the shares of stock we Baby Boomers have accumulated in our retirement plans and will be selling to finance our retirements. But it won’t be so good if, because of this redirection, they stop lending to us, because that will drive our interest rate higher, making the mortgage woes, and all the rest, all the worse. Which they’d rather not do, because it would cut our imports from them, so that’s another reason they keep lending to us: to keep us buying from them. We’re in a bit of a debt box, largely of our own (Reagan/Bush/Bush’s own) making, and the story of the next decade will be whether, and how well, we can work our way out.
Seeing the Sunshine February 6, 2008January 5, 2017 At one point yesterday, right around the time counsel for the plaintiff was calling me a liar, the Dow was down 370 points. Our legal system – while better than resolving things with a duel (I’m still reading the Alexander Hamilton biography) – can be so depressing. (The DNC, it will amuse the RNC to know, is being sued for discriminating against gay people.) At some point, if I can find anything constructive or entertaining or cathartic to say about this, I may inflict some of it on you, but my point is actually that there was a lot to feel good about yesterday (not least that I my upgrade came through and I got bumped up to first class! the grilled roast beef sandwich snack was delicious! I count my blessings hourly). Not the budget, of course. At $3.1 trillion, I learned when I landed, the Republicans propose to increase military spending and cut back funding for health care to the poor and old. The budget deficit, announced at $400 billion, will of course be higher, both because (if I got the news right) it doesn’t include what will be about $200 billion for the wars and because, as usual, it doesn’t include the money we’ll be borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund (another $200 billion or so) or what I assume will be the reduced tax revenues a recession could cause. The Democratic majority will not pass this budget . . . but in round numbers, it sure looks as though the National Debt will be very much in the neighborhood of $10 trillion by the time the White House changes hands, as suggested here at least since March of 2005. About three-fourths of it will have been racked up under just three of our 43 Presidents – Reagan, Bush, and Bush. This on the watch of the President who told us it was fine to slash taxes on the rich because, first, the cuts he proposed would actually not go primarily to the rich but – ‘by far the vast majority’ to those ‘at the bottom end of the economic ladder’ (now that, it seems to me, was lying) and because, second, we faced budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. Right. But no, it wasn’t news of the budget that buoyed me, or the election results last night (I am enthusiastically neutral between our two superb Democratic candidates) – it was some greedy old money news. For starters, thanks to your generous guzzling, Honest Tea – a private company whose product I have touted here shamelessly for almost ten years, since its inception – received an exciting new shareholder: Coca Cola bought 40% of the company, as explained (in case you want to read the Honest Tea story) here. None of that does you any good, unless you were hoping for more readily available organic iced tea, but our Aldabra warrants were up about 20%, to $2.87 (about a double or more from where we bought them this past summer) on news the Boise Paper acquisition was approved by Aldabra shareholders. The new company will be called Boise, and trading will move in about a month from the American to the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BZ. Meanwhile, SYMZ, which had recently gone the other way, from the American Exchange toward the pink sheets and deregistration with the S.E.C., jumped 16% to $13.25, which is still a far cry from the $20-and-change it was a few months ago, but back to double what we paid. Volume was light and I see no news, but it’s still better than most stocks did yesterday. Lots to be sheepish about, of course. Poor old FMD is barely limping along, for example. How I hope you had the good sense to sell half your FMD at $56 – even though I didn’t have that good sense and in fact suggested that you hold on – because that would mean you’re now playing with house money, and just might do fine. (Otherwise, you’re down about 50%.) But the oil and gas stocks are doing okay, and the one retailer I can remember suggesting – Wal*Mart – is doing well, no doubt because Wall Street thinks Wal*Mart is the only place most Americans will be able to afford to shop. For the most part yesterday, my shorts went down and my longs slipped just a little – and did I mention I got bumped up to first class? Hard to beat that.
The Recycled Industrial Mesh that Holds Up Our Pouf (Whatever Pouf Is) February 5, 2008March 10, 2017 Sorry about yesterday. My $127 four-star Priceline.com room in Washington is spacious and lovely, with a good-sized flatscreen TV and free wi-fi. But, oh, is that wi-fi sloooow! And now . . . THE WINNER IS Charles! Nominated for a Fashion Group International ‘Rising Star’ award last month – he won. Last week he had a nice mention in the Times. And Sunday, his Fall fashion show played to a packed crowd (we called and had the football game moved back so as not to conflict) . . . as reviewed here by Style.com complete with a slide show of all 47 ‘looks.’ If a picture is worth 1,000 words, I’ve just written a 47,000-word column to make up for yesterday. Note the $300,000 antique French couch in the background. Actually, Charles painted it – himself – a couple of nights before the show. Note, too, the ‘hoop skirts’ reminiscent of Versailles. So now you’re wondering, is this like the old Steven Wright line I’m so fond of? (‘The sign said ‘Breakfast Anytime,’ so I ordered French toast during the Renaissance.’) (Yes that Steven Wright, the one who said he’d ‘kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.’) And the answer is, no, Steven Wright is not on Charles’s radar screen, so far as I know. Rather, the inspiration for the show was ‘Cake,’ a new ballet about the life of Marie Antoinette he has asked to costume for the American Ballet Theatre’s junior company. ‘I inevitably found myself lost in Eighteenth Century France,’ he told his Boswell (that would be me) – ‘plutocrats, the poor, the stirrings of egalité and calls for CHANGE . . . the silks and chiffons but the need for something practical . . . democratizing beauty . . . fashion for a new age aborning . . . yes, we can . . . ready on day one . . . does the knife loom for our subprime excess? ‘This is what comes of sketching Eighteenth Century French ballet costumes while watching MSNBC.’ And he went on: ‘I was struck by the sheer technology of the period, what had to go into making the old hoop structure showing lightness and wealth . . . that was all about technology. Whale bone, light metal – fantastic when you think about it. Just as astonishing for its time as the amazing fabrics and technology we get to play with today . . . the memory taffetas that evoke grand evenings – but you can sleep in on a plane and smooth out (and practically hose down) . . . the recycled industrial mesh that holds up our pouf – the skirt wraps the body for ease of fit as the silk wraps the mesh to maintain its shape. This mesh also gives lightness and rise to the shoulders of the heather jersey-lined featherweight wool tweed jacket . . . It’s all about the fit . . . it’s all about empowerment . . . it’s all about moving forward mindful of the past.’ I have only the vaguest idea what any of that means, but aren’t the clothes pretty? NOT SO RICHISTAN Judy Bailey: ‘I see that by the terms of Richistan my partner and I just make it. We have, by living frugally and modestly, and by having valuable hobbies such as sewing, tile setting, and carpentry, accumulated a nest egg of about $800,000. Adding the value of our house, about $400,000, we are there, even though our income has always been very modest. Most of my working life, I was paid like a clerk, a free-lance editor, or a librarian. But consider my friend Terry, who has been a teacher all his life. I am sure his savings do not enroll him in the ranks of Richistan, but in many ways he is richer than me by far. He is working in a special teaching environment which allows him to make $80,000 per year – more than twice my income – and he need not save a penny of that, for when he retires in a few years, he will have a tidy income guaranteed for life, and including generous health insurance. Meanwhile, my partner and I will have only the income that can be generated by our nest egg, plus Social Security payments based on the low wages we’ve made all these years, and we must go onto the open market for health coverage. So who is richer? . . . Folks who work for the government and in those fewer and fewer industries that have traditional pension plans have a kind of security that the rest of us only dream about. Why is it that they are not included in Richistan? And how do you figure that a nest egg of a million dollars will generate $72,000 between 65 and 95?‘ ☞ Several years ago I announced somewhere that it now required $5 million to be a millionaire. Today, it probably requires $10 million or – if we’re talking millionaire (with the kind of italics the word used to deserve) – $25 million. That said, having a $1 million nest egg to supplement Social Security is still vastly better than what most people will have at 65. (Most people, sadly, will have next to nothing.) Meanwhile, the $72,000 figure I used is what you could withdraw each year for 30 years if, over those 30 years, you were earning 6% on the funds that remained. (Think of it as the reverse of a 6% $1 million mortgage that would be paid off after 30 years of $72,000 annual payments.) But 6% after inflation in a Roth IRA (say) – while not pie-in-the-sky – is in no way guaranteed. So this was a fairly aggressive illustration designed to encourage people to be frugal and build a nest egg. I wanted to get to a dazzling, but not totally bogus, number to inspire people to save. But the implication of your question is spot on: once you do retire, the frugal thing to do is not to withdraw $72,000 a year from each million you’ve saved up, because you might not be able to earn 6% after inflation – or you might live past 95. And I hope you will. Bunny Lytle: ‘My understanding is that one can only safely take between 3% to 4 % annualy adjusted for inflation if you don’t want to go broke eventually. (May not be true as brokerage firms are my source.)’ ☞ No – I agree, and have always urged people not to assume they will be able to earn more than 3% after-tax-after-inflation. In the retirement section of my software, may it rest in peace (ohhhhh how I miss the gigantic royalties, ohhhhh how I miss the fun of sending wish-lists to programmers who’d grant them brilliantly, ohhhhh DOS, sweet DOS; but I digress), whenever anyone assumed a higher than 3% return above inflation, they’d get an error message: It’s no cinch to outpace inflation by even 3% over the long run. You have chosen yields that outpace your inflation assumption by [whatever they entered %]. We hope you’re successful, but if you wish to change your entries, press ESC and do so now. So the 3% idea is valid. But remember that if you don’t need the money to last forever, you can take more. A 90-year-old expecting not to live past 108 could (obviously) withdraw a lot more than 3% a year.
Super Bowl, Super Tuesday February 4, 2008March 25, 2012 But not such a super Internet connection. Let’s all take the day off. Later, Dude.