I stopped by "Hair Shop Japan" in Funabashi this morning. They offer full service for a mere 1900 yen. Full service means a haircut, shampoo (after the haircut, which is the way it should be), and full shave. Unfortunately they don't use the straight razor except around the ears and in back. The remainder of the shave is with a safety razor, and of course that's not nearly as good. However, I think for an extra charge they'll use the straight razor all around.
Recommended.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Pondering Suicide? Don't Block Traffic in China
Speaking of China, the AP reports that Chen Fuchao perched himself on the edge of a bridge in southern China, contemplating suicide and bringing traffic to halt for about five hours. A passer-by, Lai Jiansheng, walked up to the man, shook his hand, then pushed him off the ledge, saluting after he fell.
Lai said he was fed up with Chen. "I pushed him off because jumpers like Chen are very selfish. Their action violates a lot of public interest. They do not really dare to kill themselves. Instead, they just want to raise the relevant government authorities' attention to their appeals."
Chen fell onto an air cushion positioned by police and survived, suffering spine and elbow injuries. Lai was arrested.
Lai said he was fed up with Chen. "I pushed him off because jumpers like Chen are very selfish. Their action violates a lot of public interest. They do not really dare to kill themselves. Instead, they just want to raise the relevant government authorities' attention to their appeals."
Chen fell onto an air cushion positioned by police and survived, suffering spine and elbow injuries. Lai was arrested.
Back from China
I just spent about 4 days in China, in Hangzhou specifically. It still amazes me how common China's national bird, the construction crane, is. And how many McMansions there are.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Heads I Win, Tails I Win
Previously I wondered aloud why, for example, Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America, still has a job, amidst soaring unemployment. He ran his company into de facto bankruptcy, drove the stock price into a ditch, required massive infusions of taxpayer support, and overpaid for Merrill Lynch. If he were a plumber the house would be flooded, sewage would come out of the shower head, and there'd be no hot water. Yet he still has a job, and thousands of competent plumbers are collecting unemployment insurance.
Lewis is not just an isolated example. Why do most of AIG's corporate risk officers still have jobs? If they worked for an automobile manufacturer, they would have failed to notice that a metal knife blade affixed to the steering wheel and pointing at the driver might pose a safety hazard.
Then there's the case of Jake DeSantis, one of the 377 vastly overpaid geniuses at AIG's Financial Products group, the one that destroyed the company. He wrote a New York Times Op-Ed explaining why he still deserved a bonus. Matt Taibbi tears him a new orifice.
These cases are not isolated. They are common, even typical. Executive compensation has been totally decoupled from shareholder interests. And it's the taxpayers who own many of these companies now, or should if public officials were acting in taxpayer interests instead of grabbing money from public coffers and sending it to Wall Street, even without equity stakes.
We don't have a market economy. We have a kleptocracy, more akin to Putin's Russia or Marcos's Philippines. (I am in general agreement with Simon Johnson.) Obama is trying to get FDIC-like authority to take financial institutions into receivership if they are insolvent, and there's also a proposal that shareholders vote directly on executive compensation rather than leave such important matters to a board of directors. (Speaking of which, why, in corporate America, is a shareholder, who does not return his proxy, surrendering his vote to the current Chairman and Board, to vote as they please? If shareholders support current management, then they should have to vote as such. If they don't vote, they shouldn't count for any side.) Obama's budget proposal also helps make the tax code more progressive and close loopholes such as hedge fund compensation taxes. All these policies will help, but they won't be enough, and of course the kleptocracy is fighting them. After all, when you don't have the talent to make money the old fashioned way (by earning it), why not steal it?
Lewis is not just an isolated example. Why do most of AIG's corporate risk officers still have jobs? If they worked for an automobile manufacturer, they would have failed to notice that a metal knife blade affixed to the steering wheel and pointing at the driver might pose a safety hazard.
Then there's the case of Jake DeSantis, one of the 377 vastly overpaid geniuses at AIG's Financial Products group, the one that destroyed the company. He wrote a New York Times Op-Ed explaining why he still deserved a bonus. Matt Taibbi tears him a new orifice.
These cases are not isolated. They are common, even typical. Executive compensation has been totally decoupled from shareholder interests. And it's the taxpayers who own many of these companies now, or should if public officials were acting in taxpayer interests instead of grabbing money from public coffers and sending it to Wall Street, even without equity stakes.
We don't have a market economy. We have a kleptocracy, more akin to Putin's Russia or Marcos's Philippines. (I am in general agreement with Simon Johnson.) Obama is trying to get FDIC-like authority to take financial institutions into receivership if they are insolvent, and there's also a proposal that shareholders vote directly on executive compensation rather than leave such important matters to a board of directors. (Speaking of which, why, in corporate America, is a shareholder, who does not return his proxy, surrendering his vote to the current Chairman and Board, to vote as they please? If shareholders support current management, then they should have to vote as such. If they don't vote, they shouldn't count for any side.) Obama's budget proposal also helps make the tax code more progressive and close loopholes such as hedge fund compensation taxes. All these policies will help, but they won't be enough, and of course the kleptocracy is fighting them. After all, when you don't have the talent to make money the old fashioned way (by earning it), why not steal it?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
AIG Monstrosity
AIG is an absolute horror now, if it wasn't already. The whole situation is blowing up in the young Obama Administration's face. For example, I doubt the President can explain why several AIG employees received million-plus retention bonuses...after leaving the company.
So what now?
Congress will pass some type of legislation raising income taxes on financial industry employees working at zombie companies. Unfortunately that legislation won't cover non-U.S. nationals who worked at AIG's London office, and there are plenty of those. The President should also ask U.K. authorities to do the same. That's the short-term fix for this narrow issue.
The President should also fire both Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers. They're done. It's time for a new team already. Then bring in Bill Seidman and Paul Volcker, veterans from the last banking crisis. (They are change we can believe in.) And give them carte blanche to place financial institutions into full and proper receivership, not this half-assed AIG-style receivership-without-the-benefits. It's your mess now, President Obama, so man up and take control. Didn't you read any book about FDR?
As the AIG situation so wonderfully illustrates, there are a bunch of contracts that need to be broken, starting with multi-millionaire employment contracts that are still rewarding many employees who would otherwise be guilty of criminal fraud on any other planet. Instead we are living in this "New Democrat" ideological fantasy that socialism (massive and continuing subsidies to zombie companies) is really capitalism. It's exactly the opposite! Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Treasury is cutting backroom deals with his Wall Street buddies so they can avoid the fair consequences of their mismanagement. This all stinks, and it's long past time to put these institutions into Swedish-style receivership. Otherwise it looks like we're going to have a new scandal every week.
Do you really want a new financial scandal every week, President Obama? Do you really want to spend the rest of your presidency defending the actions of de facto criminal Wall Street managers? Shut this stupidity down, now, and start with AIG, before this crisis cripples your presidency.
So what now?
Congress will pass some type of legislation raising income taxes on financial industry employees working at zombie companies. Unfortunately that legislation won't cover non-U.S. nationals who worked at AIG's London office, and there are plenty of those. The President should also ask U.K. authorities to do the same. That's the short-term fix for this narrow issue.
The President should also fire both Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers. They're done. It's time for a new team already. Then bring in Bill Seidman and Paul Volcker, veterans from the last banking crisis. (They are change we can believe in.) And give them carte blanche to place financial institutions into full and proper receivership, not this half-assed AIG-style receivership-without-the-benefits. It's your mess now, President Obama, so man up and take control. Didn't you read any book about FDR?
As the AIG situation so wonderfully illustrates, there are a bunch of contracts that need to be broken, starting with multi-millionaire employment contracts that are still rewarding many employees who would otherwise be guilty of criminal fraud on any other planet. Instead we are living in this "New Democrat" ideological fantasy that socialism (massive and continuing subsidies to zombie companies) is really capitalism. It's exactly the opposite! Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Treasury is cutting backroom deals with his Wall Street buddies so they can avoid the fair consequences of their mismanagement. This all stinks, and it's long past time to put these institutions into Swedish-style receivership. Otherwise it looks like we're going to have a new scandal every week.
Do you really want a new financial scandal every week, President Obama? Do you really want to spend the rest of your presidency defending the actions of de facto criminal Wall Street managers? Shut this stupidity down, now, and start with AIG, before this crisis cripples your presidency.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Larry Summers Suggests Buying Stocks
Lawrence Summers, Director of the U.S. National Economic Council, spoke at the Brookings Institution on March 13. In his remarks he pointed out that, after adjusting for inflation, the Dow Jones Industrial Average this past week dipped to the same level it was in 1966. "While there could be many ways to question this calculation, that the market would be at essentially the same real level as it was in 1966 when there were no PCs, no Internet, no flexible manufacturing, no software industry, and when our workforce was half and our net capital stock was a third of what it is today, may be regarded by some as the sale of the century."
I'm glad Professor Summers qualified this calculation. Economists generally believe that, at least in the long run and on average, the prices of financial assets (like stocks) depend on the net present value of expected future profits. (I'm oversimplifying, but only slightly.) The past is the past: PCs, the Internet, software, etc. are all reasons why investors in, say, the early 1970s could be bullish about future earnings growth and, thus, stocks. They are not reasons now.
So what events and innovations will generate future earnings growth in the U.S. economy? It's something I worry about practically every day at work, to make sure we're focused on real, sustainable growth. From our perspective that includes gaining marketshare, as long as it is profitable. Unfortunately too many actors in the U.S. economy focused on financial gimmicks to generate false bubble "growth," and we now better understand that true growth was limited.
Out of curiosity I looked at the composition of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1966. Here were the 30 listed companies at that time: Allied Chemical (now part of Honeywell), Aluminum Company of America (now Alcoa), American Can (now part of Rio Tinto Alcan), AT&T, American Tobacco (divided and now owned by other tobacco companies), Anaconda Copper (now only a Superfund environmental liability for BP), Bethlehem Steel (now part of Arcelor Mittal), Chrysler (now owned by Cerberus Capital Management), Du Pont, Eastman Kodak, GE, General Foods (now part of Kraft), General Motors, Goodyear, International Harvester (now Navistar), International Nickel (now Vale Inco), International Paper, Johns-Manville (now part of Berkshire Hathaway), Owens-Illinois Glass, Procter & Gamble, Sears Roebuck, Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil), Swift & Company (now part of JBS S.A.), Texaco (now part of Chevron), Union Carbide (now part of Dow Chemical), United Aircraft (now United Technologies), U.S. Steel, Westinghouse Electric (now split up, with broadcasting as part of CBS), and Woolworth (now Foot Locker). Notice something interesting? There's not a single financial services company on the list. It really was an "industrial" average. With the exception of Sears and Woolworth (and possibly AT&T), every company on the list made something physical. In later years the Dow would add American Express (1982), J.P. Morgan (1991), Travelers (1997, which later became part of Citigroup), AIG (2004), and Bank of America (2008).
I'm glad Professor Summers qualified this calculation. Economists generally believe that, at least in the long run and on average, the prices of financial assets (like stocks) depend on the net present value of expected future profits. (I'm oversimplifying, but only slightly.) The past is the past: PCs, the Internet, software, etc. are all reasons why investors in, say, the early 1970s could be bullish about future earnings growth and, thus, stocks. They are not reasons now.
So what events and innovations will generate future earnings growth in the U.S. economy? It's something I worry about practically every day at work, to make sure we're focused on real, sustainable growth. From our perspective that includes gaining marketshare, as long as it is profitable. Unfortunately too many actors in the U.S. economy focused on financial gimmicks to generate false bubble "growth," and we now better understand that true growth was limited.
Out of curiosity I looked at the composition of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1966. Here were the 30 listed companies at that time: Allied Chemical (now part of Honeywell), Aluminum Company of America (now Alcoa), American Can (now part of Rio Tinto Alcan), AT&T, American Tobacco (divided and now owned by other tobacco companies), Anaconda Copper (now only a Superfund environmental liability for BP), Bethlehem Steel (now part of Arcelor Mittal), Chrysler (now owned by Cerberus Capital Management), Du Pont, Eastman Kodak, GE, General Foods (now part of Kraft), General Motors, Goodyear, International Harvester (now Navistar), International Nickel (now Vale Inco), International Paper, Johns-Manville (now part of Berkshire Hathaway), Owens-Illinois Glass, Procter & Gamble, Sears Roebuck, Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil), Swift & Company (now part of JBS S.A.), Texaco (now part of Chevron), Union Carbide (now part of Dow Chemical), United Aircraft (now United Technologies), U.S. Steel, Westinghouse Electric (now split up, with broadcasting as part of CBS), and Woolworth (now Foot Locker). Notice something interesting? There's not a single financial services company on the list. It really was an "industrial" average. With the exception of Sears and Woolworth (and possibly AT&T), every company on the list made something physical. In later years the Dow would add American Express (1982), J.P. Morgan (1991), Travelers (1997, which later became part of Citigroup), AIG (2004), and Bank of America (2008).
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Japanese Depression?
Economists are now forecasting that Japanese real GDP contracted by an astounding 12 percent in the 4th quarter of 2008, year to year. The government will report the GDP number on Monday.
UPDATE: It's bad. Very, very bad: -12.7% annual rate in Japan's 4Q2008. Nouriel Roubini tallies the global economic collapse: -3.8% for the U.S., -6% for the Eurozone, -8% for Germany, -16% for Singapore, and -20% for South Korea.
UPDATE: It's bad. Very, very bad: -12.7% annual rate in Japan's 4Q2008. Nouriel Roubini tallies the global economic collapse: -3.8% for the U.S., -6% for the Eurozone, -8% for Germany, -16% for Singapore, and -20% for South Korea.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Japan's Economic Woes
Like much of the rest of the world, Japan is experiencing serious economic problems. Toyota, NEC, Hitachi, Panasonic, Sony, Mizuho Financial Group, and Honda are among the firms reporting record losses and/or (usually and) laying off thousands of workers. Japan's export-driven economy is struggling against both weak demand (at home and abroad) and a particularly strong yen.
These economic challenges certainly make working in Japan even more interesting. Our customers have always looked to reduce costs, but now there seems to be some more serious thinking about how they can improve operational efficiencies. Previously "unthinkable" structural changes are now more likely. More assumptions are questioned and rethought.
Companies are appreciating at least one unique attribute of IBM mainframes: they typically become less expensive if your business declines. That's due to something called Variable Workload License Charge (VWLC). If your transaction and batch volumes decline, you pay a lower software charge, automatically. Nothing else in IT behaves that way, so the mainframe becomes even more valuable in this environment. For this reason and several others, in both bad times and good times it's a good time to have at least one IBM mainframe.
These economic challenges certainly make working in Japan even more interesting. Our customers have always looked to reduce costs, but now there seems to be some more serious thinking about how they can improve operational efficiencies. Previously "unthinkable" structural changes are now more likely. More assumptions are questioned and rethought.
Companies are appreciating at least one unique attribute of IBM mainframes: they typically become less expensive if your business declines. That's due to something called Variable Workload License Charge (VWLC). If your transaction and batch volumes decline, you pay a lower software charge, automatically. Nothing else in IT behaves that way, so the mainframe becomes even more valuable in this environment. For this reason and several others, in both bad times and good times it's a good time to have at least one IBM mainframe.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Praise for the MacBook
After using Apple's "unibody" MacBook (what MacRumors.com calls "Revision F") for a little over a month, I'm ready to say it's a fine piece of engineering and one of the best machines I've ever owned.
It's not perfect. Apple chose a slightly mediocre LCD screen, but at least it's LED-backlit. It'd be real nice to have an ExpressCard/34 slot, which is missing. (That'd help cope with the lack of Firewire, wide area wireless, and memory card slot.) I cannot get LEAP wireless to work consistently, and I have to reboot to switch between wireless and wired ethernet for some reason, so I'm still trying to figure out Mac OS X's networking. Also, the MacBooks are a bit overpriced, especially the 2.4 GHz model. (I don't really understand why anybody would buy the 2.4 GHz model. The 2.0 GHz model is a much better value, particularly if you can shop around and get at least some small discounts and/or rebates.)
All that said, the aluminum MacBook seems to be a rugged and reliable machine. It runs cool to the touch (Apple chose some good CPUs), the touchpad works very well (once you get used to it), the weight is reasonable (4.5 lbs.), performance is good (including graphics performance), the keyboard is nice, battery life seems quite reasonable, and it "just works."
It's not perfect. Apple chose a slightly mediocre LCD screen, but at least it's LED-backlit. It'd be real nice to have an ExpressCard/34 slot, which is missing. (That'd help cope with the lack of Firewire, wide area wireless, and memory card slot.) I cannot get LEAP wireless to work consistently, and I have to reboot to switch between wireless and wired ethernet for some reason, so I'm still trying to figure out Mac OS X's networking. Also, the MacBooks are a bit overpriced, especially the 2.4 GHz model. (I don't really understand why anybody would buy the 2.4 GHz model. The 2.0 GHz model is a much better value, particularly if you can shop around and get at least some small discounts and/or rebates.)
All that said, the aluminum MacBook seems to be a rugged and reliable machine. It runs cool to the touch (Apple chose some good CPUs), the touchpad works very well (once you get used to it), the weight is reasonable (4.5 lbs.), performance is good (including graphics performance), the keyboard is nice, battery life seems quite reasonable, and it "just works."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)