PutinCon March 22, 2018 Putin is winning. And Trump, aka David Dennison, calls to congratulate him. It is a terrible time for democracy — and decency. World chess — and human rights — champion Garry Kasparov writes: This weekend Vladimir Putin staged yet another phony election, a charade to distract Russia and the world while his brutal dictatorship continues into its nineteenth year. Putin’s repression, corruption, wars, assassinations, and his interference and undermining of democratic governments will continue. For now. But his rule will not last forever. On Friday, it was an honor for the Human Rights Foundation to gather hundreds of supporters of Russian human rights and democracy together in New York City to celebrate the Russian people and expose Putin’s crimes. At PutinCon, we heard a masterclass from experts, biographers, and victims about Putin’s rise to power and his beliefs, psychology, methods, and weaknesses. We also learned how the free world can support civil society and democracy inside Russia while defending itself from Putin’s aggression. All talks are now available at PutinCon.com for the world to see and share. We also filmed a short video to capture highlights from the event—you can watch here. Putin may have orchestrated another fraudulent election, but the supporters of Russian democracy are more determined than ever. I encourage you to share these talks and spread the truth about Putin and his corrupt regime—and, most importantly, how to fight back. Thank you for supporting the Human Rights Foundation and for making events like PutinCon possible. With gratitude, Garry Kasparov Chairman Human Rights Foundation
None Of Us Is Home . . . March 21, 2018March 20, 2018 . . . until all of us are home. Here’s 5 minutes on that idea, and how the good people of Philadelphia are trying to help. Jim Carrey — pet detective and political caricaturist. Have you seen his Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweet? And the reaction? Meanwhile, Fran Lebowitz flew to Australia. She was in her late 20s and now she is 67 — how did this happen? — but if you know who she is, you will enjoy the account.
The Minister of Happiness Will See You Now March 20, 2018March 19, 2018 Really? A Minister of Happiness? A Minister of Loneliness? But of course! Should we not follow the Brits’ lead? The Emiratis’ lead? Here are Kim Samuel (and Bobby Kennedy) on the need for more than just GDP: . . . a modern metric of economic wellbeing must include dimensions like happiness and social connection. . . . [T]he global economy looks healthy. . . . And yet, the world over, people are feeling disconnected, lonely, isolated . . . . . . Despite having the third largest economy in Europe, Britons report feeling far lonelier than other Europeans. The problem has grown to such a degree that Prime Minister Theresa May appointed a Minister of Loneliness earlier this year. . . . our current metrics are ill-equipped to register the effects of social isolation — so much so that both the British Minister of Loneliness and newly appointed Minister of Happiness for the UAE have identified one of largest hurdles in their new positions to be a lack of data. . . . . . . Encouragingly, a handful of countries, including Bhutan, UAE, and Ecuador, have also developed metrics for ‘National Happiness Indexes.’ Yet by and large, governments haven’t significantly revised metrics like GDP, fearing a dent to their perceived prosperity. . . . On March 18, 1968, 50 years ago today, the fight to reform metrics of national health and wealth found an unlikely champion: then-US Presidential contender Bobby Kennedy. In a stirring speech at the University of Kansas, he said that Gross National Product counts “air pollution and cigarette advertising” but “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.” And here is the 2018 World Happiness Report, ranking 156 countries, from Finland to Burundi (see page 20). The US is #18, behind, among others, Canada, Israel, Australia, Iceland, Costa Rica, and Germany.
Flying To Cuba And Ireland Without A Tug Made In CHAYYY-na March 17, 2018 FLY MUCH? There are now Android and iPhone WheelTug apps. Just search on WheelTug and download from the app store if you want to help the company add to its (already extensive, professionally-sourced) flight data. The more time we can prove airlines waste sitting at the gate, the more they will pay each year to lease the systems that will save them a good chunk of that wasted time. DEPT. OF PROTOCOL: What To Do When the PM Is Gay and the VP Is A Homophobe? Click to see. And happy St. Patrick’s Day! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: Have you seen this clip of Jimmy Kimmel with the items in the new on-line Trump store? Guess where the Trump family makes them. DEPT. OF PROTOCOL AGAIN: Now that his lawyers have made it official in a federal court filing, I believe we should always refer to him as “Donald Trump, aka David Dennison.” Let him call his opponents demeaning or subtly racist names — “Little,” “Low IQ.” We should call Trump what his own lawyer calls him in an official court filing threatening a porn star. From now on, he’s Donald Trump, aka David Dennison. “AND FINALLY, NEW RULES:” Bill Maher has a lot of fun at Democrats’ expense in these six minutes . . . much of it spot on. And finally, finally (save this for Tuesday if I’ve already taken too much of your weekend and Monday) . . . CUBA Steve Morgan long ago worked at the same Washington law firm as Trump’s lawyer in the Mueller probe. Recently, he traveled to Cuba. Under Trump’s — aka Dennison’s — tightened rules, he is required to keep his U.S. Treasury Reg. 515-565b paperwork for 7 years. He reports: Cuba had been on my “bucket list” for at least 30 years. I spent time traveling to Holguin, Santiago de Cuba, Havana and Varadero. The people were friendly and welcoming. The landscape was beautiful, the food delicious, the music electrifying. Anyone for great coffee or rum? In some ways, it was a trip in a time machine. The baroque architecture of government buildings and massive mansions built in the 1800’s and early 1900’s is breathtaking. Unfortunately, the exodus of over 2 million Cubans since the Revolution and a lack of funding have left many of these buildings in a state of great disrepair. Most are now museums or multi-family residences. Thousands of vintage cars dating from the 1950’s and earlier on the road look like a movie set from that period. The citizens, most of whom work for the State for paltry wages ($50 a month for full time employment in the cigar factories), do without many of the things we Americans take for granted, either because they can’t afford them, or because of the U.S. Embargo. Would I want to live there under the current conditions? No. But after seeing the real Cuba, spending time with ordinary Cuban citizens and learning more about the history of Cuba and U.S.-Cuba relations, I need to question the renewal of chilling restrictions imposed by the current Administration. General Batista, who staged a coup in 1952 after realizing that his candidacy for President was doomed, quickly saw the Truman Administration recognize his government and provide military and economic aid. Organized resistance in Cuba resulted. I visited the Moncado Army Barracks in Santiago de Cuba, where Fidel Castro and other revolutionaries staged an unsuccessful attack in 1953. The damage caused by flying bullets can still be seen. It is now a school for children. Revolutionary activities continued, until January 1, 1959, when Batista fled to the Dominican Republic, Che Guevara took Santa Clara and Castro’s troops seized the Moncado Army Barracks without firing a shot. The U.S. recognized the new Cuban government 6 days later. Were U.S. properties and Cuban properties seized by the State and nationalized in the years following the Revolution? Absolutely. Did millions of Cuban citizens flee their native country (voluntarily or involuntarily) because of the changes imposed by Castro’s government? No question. Did Castro provide military support to regimes I detest? Certainly. The original intent of the U.S. Embargo and travel restrictions was to punish the Cuban regime and isolate the country. The original naïve hope was that the Cuban people would revolt, and somehow return seized property to the Americans. That was 58 years ago. Castro outlived the terms of 10 U.S. Presidents. Several of them (e.g., Carter, Clinton) attempted to loosen restrictions regarding Cuba, only to be over-ruled by succeeding Republican administrations. President Obama boldly re-opened the U.S. Embassy in Havana, only to see Trump [aka David Dennison] take a giant step backwards. Today, tourists from Canada, Britain, Germany and many other U. S. allies travel freely in Cuba. Ordinary Americans are denied the opportunity to travel freely to visit our fellow human beings. Several Cubans — mindful of what’s going on here — told me that in the year before Batista was overthrown, he had a massive turnover among his ministers and high-level officials. Some were fired, others resigned. Sound familiar?
Eerie Echoes of the Civil War March 15, 2018March 13, 2018 We’re not gonna slip back into that craziness. But history buffs and Lincoln fans will find Manisha Sinha’s take in the New York Review of Books resonant: Today’s Eerie Echoes of the Civil War In 1858, Abraham Lincoln launched his campaign for the Senate seat from Illinois with his now famous “A House Divided” speech. While he did not predict disunion or civil war, Lincoln alluded to the country’s deep political divisions over slavery and concluded, “I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” . . . Much history ensues — you remember the “Whigs” from your high school history class, and your “Know-Nothing” party (anything they didn’t want to know they dismissed as fake news), but here you will get a refresher — a good chunk of it in Lincoln’s own words: . . . There were many other moving parts involved in the political disarray of the 1850s. One was the collapse of the so-called second-party system, in which each of the main political parties comprised of northern and southern wings were bound in a complicated alliance of forces. Another was the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment. While Lincoln’s party, the Whigs, disintegrated under the weight of the sectional argument over slavery, the nativist Know-Nothing party took its place in many states, North and South. Lincoln memorably stated his position in 1855: “I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].” In our time, the surge of anti-immigrant sentiment in the US, exemplified by Republican support for Trump’s plan to build a border wall, has resurrected this ugly, persistent strain in American politics. (It is interesting to note, too, that even in Lincoln’s day, Russia made itself felt as a political presence, a rival model to American democracy.) Today’s efforts to obstruct immigration and citizenship for Dreamers have a precedent in the nativist Know-Nothing party’s initiative to restrict the path to citizenship for the large waves of immigration of the 1850s. Under the Trump administration, the Citizenship and Immigration Service has changed its mission statement from safeguarding “America’s promise as a nation of immigrants” to promising enforcement of the nation’s immigration law. . . . There’s much more — this is the New York Review of Books, after all — and it’s truly worth reading. Meanwhile, Putin is winning — he and Xi. (Get it? “He and Xi.” Xi is pronounced . . . oh, well, if I have to explain it . . .) And we’re totally letting them. Lincoln would have been appalled. Today’s “party of Lincoln”? Not so much.
That $1,000 Bonus? It Was Really $190 March 14, 2018March 14, 2018 If you own FANH or PRKR, meet me at the end. But first: Writes Paul Waldman in the Washington Post: Shocker: Democrats’ predictions about the GOP tax cut are coming true . . . [M]ost of the news media treated [the argument over who would benefit from the tax cut] in the standard he said/she said manner: Republicans say this, Democrats say that, and the truth lies in some secret location we may never actually reach. Well, it has been only two months since President Trump signed the bill into law, and we’re already learning what anyone with any sense knew at the time: Everything Democrats predicted is turning out to be right. Let’s look at this report in the New York Times, which describes how stock buybacks are reaching record levels . . . While the Times does note that some businesses are raising salaries, the piece concludes that “much” of the savings from the tax cuts is going to these buybacks, with this big-picture effect: Those so-called buybacks are good for shareholders, including the senior executives who tend to be big owners of their companies’ stock. A company purchasing its own shares is a time-tested way to bolster its stock price. But the purchases can come at the expense of investments in things like hiring, research and development and building new plants — the sort of investments that directly help the overall economy. The buybacks are also most likely to worsen economic inequality because the benefits of stocks purchases flow disproportionately to the richest Americans. This is exactly what Democrats warned would happen. How could Democrats have been so clairvoyant? Do they own a time machine? Well, no. They applied logic, looked at data and understood history. Republicans, on the other hand, were spinning out a ludicrous fantasy with no basis whatsoever. . . . But what about those bonuses that companies announced and that Trump kept touting? It’s true that some companies did give workers one-time bonuses. But it was essentially a PR move. Take Walmart, for instance. It made a splashy announcement that it would be giving bonuses of up to $1,000 to workers, which sounded great. But then it turned out that you’d only get that much if you’d been working there for 20 years, and the average worker would get around $190. Which is better than nothing, but it isn’t exactly going to transform your life. And as ThinkProgress noted, the total value of Walmart’s bonuses was $400 million, which seems like a lot until you learn that over 10 years the value of the tax cut to the corporation will be $18 billion. In other words, about 2 percent of its tax cut is going to workers, at least in the short run. How many times do we have to play this game? When a new policy debate emerges, Democrats try to make an argument that has some connection to reality, while Republicans make absurd claims in the knowledge that even if they get debunked in the occasional “news analysis” piece, on the whole they’ll be treated with complete seriousness, no matter how ridiculous they are. And there’s more. Read it. Some of us bought FANH at $5.40 and — after a years’ long wait — enjoyed its run to a recent high of $33.81. Yesterday it abruptly dropped five bucks on the release of their quarterly financials, so I checked in with someone smarter than me. (This did not require as much searching as I would have liked.) He said the reported earnings looked great and that the market may have mis-reacted to the sharply lower revenues. That decline, he said, resulted from an intentional backing off from an unprofitable part of their business. So — if he’s right — no cause to panic. Indeed, after the close I even bought back at $27.20 a few of the shares I had sold around $32. But not many, because I hate buying something for $27 I could earlier have bought for $5.40. Which is why I managed to avoid buying Berkshire Hathaway some years ago at $955 (it closed at $314,000 yesterday). You’ll not find me buying a stock that’s already quintupled, even if it means missing the three-hundred-fold appreciation that might follow. There’s zero reason to think FANH is the next Berkshire Hathaway. But I wouldn’t rush to sell just because the price dropped. Meanwhile, I noted yesterday that PRKR bounced back a little on the strength (I assume) of a favorable venue ruling. So I checked in on that one, too. First off, the company has a burn rate (I’m told) of about $750,000 a month. A lot for you or me, but not so terribly much, in context, for PRKR. The venue ruling was for a lawsuit in Orlando — which could eventually bear fruit, but is not the one we’re focused on. We’re focused on a lawsuit in Germany that my friend says seeks $800 million and that could be resolved next month. (These suits have been going on for eight years.) Two others in Germany were found in our favor but are tied up in a review process. And the one in Orlando might eventually bear fruit as well. The good news is that we’re suing Apple, Qualcomm, Intel, Samsung, and LG (I think), each of whom could pony up $100 million without skipping lunch. The bad news is: they’re rich enough to keep fighting until the end of time. PRKR claims to have invented the CDMA technology that’s in most cell phones (not to be confused with MDMA, the drug that’s on many dance floors), and they’d like a small licensing fee on each one, please. So our bet is that one of these lawsuits will settle for a fraction of what the company demands . . . in which case the company (trading today at a $17 million market capitalization) might find itself sitting on a couple of hundred million dollars in cash. Or more. Or less. Or nothing. Completely incapable of prudence or restraint in situations like this, I bought more.
Overdrive March 13, 2018March 18, 2018 Tanya Slye: “I thought you might be interested to know about a great app called Overdrive. It’s free, and links to your library card making it incredibly easy to borrow ebooks and audiobooks from your smart phone without having to actually go to your library! I switched off of Audible and have found it to be easy to use best of all completely free!” Likewise: Hoopla. Check out the Epic app, too, “the leading digital library for kids,” if you have any — it’s rated 4.8 out of five stars. (Other favorites? Search the app store for “free audio books” and you get several highly-rated choices.) Have you ever seen ABC’s The Middle? I hadn’t but Season 9, Episode 14 is about personal finance (sort of) and one of you spotted young Axl reading the latest edition of my book at the 20-minute mark. See it? That’s my book!!! Blink and you’ll miss it (and he does toss it away as useless) but I am now a fan of the show for life. Very funny. PRKR, our moon-shot speculation from earlier this year, drifted from $1.10 down to 80 cents but bounced halfway back yesterday on a favorable “venue” ruling in its patent suit against Qualcomm and Apple. Be prepared to lose it all; but imagine the impact of, say, a $200 million judgment on a company currently valued at $18 million.
Credit Where It’s Due March 12, 2018March 10, 2018 But first . . . P.: “I tried to buy more BOREF at $4.90 Friday but Fidelity is refusing to accept opening trades since they’ve stopped reporting financials. What’s going on?” The company says they prefer to concentrate all available funds on the task at hand — bringing WheelTug to market — rather than pay to report the way they used to. They “meet all their corporate requirements” and post their financials on-line. The stock remains a terrific speculation in my view (perhaps colored by my owning a gazillion shares). At $4.90, it’s valued at $25 million (or you could buy this apartment), about where it was six years ago . . . before its subsidiary, WheelTug, had more than 20 airlines signed up with 1,042 planes in queue; before the FAA had signed off on WheelTug’s certification plan; before it had 140 patents pending or issued. In 2014, with the stock at $16.50, I estimated its fair value at between $2.79 and $338. The analysis still holds — and depends entirely on the assumptions you plug into it. (I had placed the odds of failure between 90% and 60%. Now, I like to think, they’re lower.) Only buy shares with money you can truly afford to lose; and by placing a “limit order,” lest you pay more than you meant to. Ameritrade and others do still accept orders. And now . . . It would be great if Trump can denuke North Korea. When Obama did this with Iran, he had an MIT nuclear physicist running his Energy Department, to assure that the technical aspects of the deal were airtight. Trump has Rick Perry. Trump believes the Iran deal was horrible. In fact: It’s working. And took thousands of hours to get right. And runs 159 pages compared with the 4-page deal with North Korea in 1994 that failed. Trump further believes he will be able to pull off a North Korea deal that holds up over the years, as the Iran deal has but the previous North Korea deal did not. If he can, it would be wonderful and he would deserve credit. My worry is that he will take credit even if he makes a very bad deal — as he took credit for “the largest Electoral College victory since Ronald Reagan” (which it was not) . . . the largest Inaugural crowd in history (which it was not) . . . the largest tax cut in history (which it was not — but which was, according to Reagan budget director David Stockman and most other economists, a massively irresponsible tax cut at exactly the wrong time in the business cycle, endangering our children with yet more debt and starving us of the funds needed to revitalize our uncompetitive crumbling infrastructure). This seems to be his M.O. Things were horrible under Obama. Things are amazing under him. Under Obama, unemployment was “28%, 29%, as high as 35%.” But now? “Our program is working far beyond our wildest expectations,” he told last week’s Latino Coalition Legislative Summit. Not just working. Or working beyond expectations. Or working far beyond expectations. No — working far beyond our wildest expectations. He went on to say, as evidence of this, “We’ve created nearly 3 million jobs since the election. Think of that. Three million jobs. If I would have said that prior to the election, nobody would have believed it. (Applause.) Right? They would not have believed it.” In fact, he inherited an economy that had produced 75 consecutive months of private sector job growth and — with the help of a massively irresponsible tax cut to juice the economy further — kept it going at about the same pace. (Slightly fewer jobs were created in Trump’s first year than in Obama’s last.) Obama rescued the world from the brink of the global depression his Republican predecessor had handed him. He brought unemployment down from a peak of 10% to under 5% (chart here). That was horrible. With Trump, the economy, has finally begun to recover; everybody has “great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost”; the middle class is rolling in money from a tax bill Trump selflessly accepted, though it would “cost him a fortune.” And Mexico is paying for a beautiful wall that’s finally staunched the flood of rapists and murderers. In short, we are winning so much — except maybe against Putin — we’ve begun to grow tired of winning. It is a beautiful thing. That I can tell you. Believe me.
How To Win The Lottery March 9, 2018March 8, 2018 Someone considerably smarter than me thinks RSPP ($40 a share) could get bought out at $60 in the next couple of years — but hopes not, because he thinks it’s worth more. No guarantees, of course, but I bought what for me is a good chunk. And now . . . This won’t help you win the lottery, but they sure did. Consistently. It’s a great weekend read. (Thanks, Brian!) Have a great weekend.
Unintended Consequences March 8, 2018March 7, 2018 You may know centrist political scientist Norman Ornstein from his books or frequent TV appearances. He and Al Franken and their families used to attend Renaissance Weekend, where they developed a routine: “I’m Norm,” Norm sang. “I’m Al!” Al sang. “Together” — they both sang — “we’re NormAl!” It went downhill from there. So I got to know them — I am a huge fan — and their terrific kids. With that cheery setup, I offer this gut-punch from yesterday’s Times. Ever since the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., law enforcement and other officials have been calling for changes in the Baker Act, a Florida law that allows involuntary commitment for 72 hours of people who are an imminent danger to themselves or others. If the Baker Act had been easier to deploy, they think, Nikolas Cruz, the accused shooter, would have been taken and treated before his horrible act. . . . I know something about the Baker Act. About halfway through my son Matthew’s decade-long struggle with serious mental illness, my wife and I invoked the Baker Act against him. This kind, brilliant, thoughtful young man, who experienced the sudden onset of mental illness at age 24, was living in a small condominium we owned near Sarasota, Fla. One day . . . It’s a short, real-life horror story that could have happened to anyone. I see zero downside in siding with Ronald Reagan and Antonin Scalia when it comes to keeping military-grade weapons out of civilian hands.* Or in banning bump stocks or high-capacity magazines. Or in imposing effective universal background checks. Or in allowing states and municipalities the freedom to require proficiency tests and licensing, should they choose to, as they do with automobiles. Or in appropriating more money, not less, to treat mental illness. Where is the risk is any of that? Where is the downside? But as Norm makes heart-wrenchingly clear, other aspects of our response need to be carefully thought through.