health care and education

Will the government's increased role in health care cause it to more closely resemble the education system?  The U.S. public school system used to be world class.  It clearly no longer is as a whole.  But, some private schools and higher education institutions continue to be very good (for a price).  And teaching is generally a second-choice career.  Will medicine follow?  Where, because we start with today's quality, it will be hard to perceive its decline for many years?  And we will find ourselves in a two-tier system where many of the participants receive the lower-tier quality?  And, perhaps far into the future, agitation for vouchers or similar market based incentives (needing the years in the desert to internalize that the highest quality medicine cannot be available for all for free)?

Intel antitrust

I don't know the relative merits of the case but I would note that Intel doesn't seem to have sat on its heels despite its dominant position.  I would say some other companies with antitrust issues have not made as many significant improvements in their products as Intel has in microprocessor speed.  But who knows, maybe Moore's Law could have been surpassed with a freer market.

Geithner

He seems like a nice enough guy but he is being disingenuous when he says the government lacked the powers it needed to handle the collapse of a company like AIG and that, "Coming into AIG we had, basically, duct tape and string."  Setting aside the method (meaning tools), it was the PRICE that was wrong.  The tools at hand (using AIG as a conduit to cover banks exposed to CDS losses) were used poorly.  The Fed could have poured less cash into AIG rather than paying out on CDSs at 100 cents on the dollar.  Also, the subtext seems to be that the CDS counterparties used economic collapse as a playing card ("we will bring the financial system down by demanding that AIG make good on its CDS obligations") and that the Fed caved in.  Crazy both in the recklessness of the counterparties and if the Fed bought the argument.  Put simply, the Fed should simply have said: "we can pay you some amount on the CDSs or you can take your chances in bankruptcy court with AIG."  As bankruptcy court for AIG would have meant bankruptcy for the counterparties (as the financial system collapsed), they would have accepted the "some amount".  Separately, why is Goldman's hedged position with AIG relevant?  Either they were hedged (in which case there was no need to bail GS out because there was no system risk from failure to satisfy the CDS obligations to GS) or they weren't (in which case they weren't in a position to demand 100 cents on the dollar).

The Fed should ask for its money back.

wetlands

There's a lot to be said for wetlands.  Filtering water.  Capturing greenhouse gasses.  Refuges for wildlife.  Easing the effect of floods.  I'm considering making wetlands protection a pet cause.  Second to education reform, of course.

AIG CDS Collateral

We are starting to get some clearer coverage on the collateral calls that sunk AIG and, more importantly, made its CDS counterparties whole.  Unfortunately, that coverage is buried inches below the lead.  From today's Wall Street Journal:

"That [Maiden Lane] was a boon to the banks, which were effectively made whole. The banks pocketed $35 billion in collateral AIG already had paid them, and collected another $26.8 billion in cash for selling the investments at roughly their lowered values. Goldman Sachs got to keep billions in collateral and got paid $5.6 billion for the investments.

Whether that was the best strategy for AIG remains a subject of debate.

At the time, the move eliminated the risk that AIG would have to post still more collateral on the canceled swaps if the investments continued to decline. Last November, AIG's then-chief executive, Edward Liddy, told investors that the company was hemorrhaging cash because it had to post collateral on the swaps and problems with other deals. "We need to stop that and that's what this is designed to do," Mr. Liddy said.
The advantage of that approach was illustrated in the first quarter. Markets continued to fall but AIG didn't have to keep handing over more cash on closed-out deals. But AIG also surrendered any chance of getting some of the collateral back on the canceled swaps.

AIG's former longtime CEO, Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, argued publicly at the time that the government should have guaranteed the swap contracts, eliminating the need for AIG to post more collateral. Others have contended that AIG's trading partners should have been forced to accept less money for tearing up the contracts."

fan with a thermostat

I've been looking but can't find a simple small fan with a thermostat to cool down my media cabinet.  This should be a $20 product but it doesn't seem to exist.  I've found over-priced components to cobble one together but that would be nearly $100.  My cable box keeps shutting off because it overheats.

Verizon and iPhone

I'd bet that this Businessweek article (claiming that Verizon is still serious about selling the iPhone) is 100% wrong.  My guess is that there are a lot of potential iPhone customers who are unwilling to switch to AT&T (and would prefer Verizon's service).  And that Verizon is dangling the idea of the iPhone on Verizon to keep them in limbo and waiting until the iPhone's allure wears off (or technology shifts such that Verizon can sell the iPhone because we are all on 4G).  A statement to the press is nearly free (and a lot cheaper than advertising).