Blog

August 8, 2023

The Big 10 is going to have 18 schools while the Big 12 has 16 and the Pac 12 has four. And these represent institutions of higher learning?

I am a middling college football fan. I follow my alma maters, Georgia and Ohio State, and Tennessee where I taught for 24 years and where I live. I pay scant attention to the rest of college football. But conference expansion had me trying to make some sense out of it. To date, the SEC has done the better job, keeping the schools within reasonable proximity. The Big “10” home to my beloved Ohio State Buckeyes has become a joke.

Several years ago when the SEC was looking to expand, rumor had it that the conference approached Florida State and Clemson about joining. Those schools were a good fit both academically and geographically. However, Florida State’s head coach Bobby Bowden was riding a crest of national prominence and was reputed to veto the move to the SEC because it was likely that FSU would be in the same division as Alabama, Auburn and LSU threatening his run of top five ratings. Clemson too decided that staying in the ACC was preferable to joining the SEC and having to play Tennessee, Georgia and Florida every year. So the SEC turned to Arkansas and South Carolina instead. Little did Florida State realize that the future TV contracts would explode resulting in the SEC schools receiving payouts in excess of $30 million annually more than the ACC. Now Florida State is whining about its “low” payout. The SEC in the meanwhile added Missouri and Texas A&M in 2012. I was always puzzled about the addition of Missouri despite it bordering Tennessee. I wished that the SEC had made another run at Clemson. But I liked Texas A&M due to the abundance of talent in Texas and its natural rivalry with LSU. Texas A&M always felt slighted in the Big 12 because of the presence of the University of Texas and needed space to make its own mark. Now the allure of bigger dollars has prompted Texas and Oklahoma to join the SEC despite having to play big time opposition. I have no doubt that the expansion of the college football playoff from 4 to 12 was made to make it even more attractive for Texas and Oklahoma to jump to the SEC.

The bigger badder SEC forced the Big Ten to do something. Previously it had added Penn State and Nebraska to counter the additions of Arkansas and South Carolina to the SEC. Those schools made sense both geographically and academically. Then pushed by the further expansion in the SEC, the Big Ten added Maryland because it wanted a presence in the DC area and Rutgers because of its proximity to New York. Rutgers was and still is a headscratcher. It simply does not fit with the rest of the Big Ten with its mediocre athletics. I don’t understand why the conference did not add Syracuse instead with its better athletics and academics. Then the astounding news that USC and UCLA were leaving the Pac 12 to go to the Big Ten is directly attributable to the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma. The Los Angeles glamor schools add to the TV market and are a counterweight to the SEC. However, they make no sense geographically. 

I thought that adding Notre Dame and Stanford would be a bigger boost to the Big Ten but Notre Dame likes being an independent with its own TV contract and its link with the ACC. Colorado’s leaving the Pac 12 for the Big 12 then led to Washington and Oregon begging to be let into the Big Ten even with reduced revenue shares. Now at least the four west coast teams can schedule each other and reduce their trips east. 

To me the Big Ten was forced to expand even at the expense of its athletes in all sports not only football. Travel has got to be brutal. Balancing academics and athletics was always difficult. Now it becomes almost impossible. Although the athletes can now generate income (NIL), that income is wildly different for the stars and the other members of the teams. I think the only reasonable solution should be revenue sharing between the schools and all the athletes in all the sports. Every athlete receives the same amount from the school regardless of sport. Yes I know that since football drives the revenue it could be argued that the amount going to each athlete should be dependent upon how revenue is generated by that sport. I simply don’t agree. I think that football players and women fencers should get the same share from the TV revenue and that NIL money will go to the more glamorous athletes in the more glamorous sports. I would also incorporate significant pay incentives for academics and a graduation bonus. Today’s rush to expansion is motivated by dollars. The athletes will pay the price. The least we can do is to give them significant compensation. 

Fox News has a sweepstakes where the winner gets to go to the first republican debate. The loser gets to go to both the first debate and the second one.

Who does a social influencer influence?

The Oracle-Who-Names Things and Stuff somehow got the republicans to allow their states to be labelled “red” even though historically red meant leftish, socialist and communist. Remember “Better dead than red”? Now that has an altogether different meaning.

I don’t use the term “cisgender” or made up pronouns. I also won’t refer to an individual as “they.”

But then, I don’t use the term “African American” either. Recall that once I was reviewing a paper for an academic journal in an area where I am widely published. I looked at the citations and found that three of my articles were attributed to a Harold African-American. I kid you not.

I am not a soccer fan. I did not watch any of the women’s world cup but it is rare when I don’t want the US teams to do well. This world cup was an exception when the US women refused to sing the national anthem before its match with Viet Nam and only a few players put their hands over their hearts. Then a majority of the team chose not to do either before their match with Sweden. The most famous member of the team Megan Rapinoe once knelt during the anthem and said that she would never sing it again. Then as the fates would have it, during the game with Sweden, Rapinoe’s missed penalty kick led to the US loss. 

Rapinoe had also chided parents for not wanting their girls to play volleyball against a girl’s team with a biological boy by saying “I’m sorry but your kid’s high school volleyball team just isn’t that important.” Amazingly she said that she doesn’t believe that boys have an advantage in girl’s sports. But didn’t an under-15 boy’s club team FC Dallas once beat the US women’s national team 5-2 in a scrimmage?

Fitch has downgraded long term US bonds. What some “experts” are saying is that this implies that the US will be less able to repay its debts in the long run. Of course that is nonsense since the US has the power of the printing press. What it actually means to the markets is that the congress and the presidency have no will to curtail spending and to address the problem of runaway national debt. This means less growth, more inflation and although long term bonds will be paid back, they will be paid back in inflated dollars devaluing their worth. So caveat emptor.

The democrats keep saying that no one is above the law – except Joe and Hunter Biden.

The democrats insist that the republicans have presented no proof of the allegations about the Bidens. I guess Hunter’s laptop doesn’t qualify and all the testimony from former associates and IRS whistleblowers is merely hearsay. I guess the republicans have to give them a fake dossier.

It’s hard to do but the democrats are trying to turn Trump into a sympathetic figure. I am sure there is a difference between Trump’s classified documents and Biden’s or Hillary’s for that matter. But what is sad is seeing two sets of laws being applied in this country.

I have written before that I thought the democrats’ strategy was to get Trump the republican nomination by riling up his base through the raids, charges and indictments. Trump would suck all the air out of the room leaving no space for the other candidates. I am certain that the democrats have gotten all the pollsters to rig their polling to show that Trump has an unsurmountable lead to discourage the supporters of the other candidates from donating money and going to the polls to vote.

The latest indictment by the Department of “Justice” is part of the democrats’ strategy to get Trump nominated. It is going for a two-fer. First, Trump will be tried in a DC court where he has zero chance of getting an impartial judge and receiving a fair trial. Then the democrats’ want the conviction to be appealed to the Supreme Court where they know it will be overturned. This is the democrats’ dream because it will give them another opportunity to bash the Supreme Court as ruling against the will of the people and being a “threat to democracy”. Pack the Court!

Trump was indicted for trying to overturn the election. Didn’t the democrats try to do the same thing when John Kerry lost?

I am no fan of Trump. He combines the worse traits of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. He has questionable morals, an insufferable bombastic ego and governed badly. Perhaps the best thing he ever did was defeating Hillary Clinton. It would be ironic if that turned out to be the second best thing. He is certainly not presidential. I don’t understand why he tweets. When Nancy Pelosi remarked that he looked “like a scared puppy” at his latest indictment, he tweeted (or whatever it is now called) that he was not scared and that “She is a Wicked Witch whose husbands journey from hell starts and finishes with her. She is a sick and demented psycho who will someday live in HELL?” Now doesn’t that sound presidential?

A dear friend of mine said “OMG! Don’t tell me I’m going to be forced to vote for Trump!”

A Trump presidency will be a journey through hell for the country. He will use the Department of “Justice” to go after the Bidens. Of course, Hunter is not in jail only because of his last name. But Trump will seek to take Joe down as well. Trump is vindictive and you can bet that anyone associated with Biden will be harassed and persecuted just like what has happened to Trump and his allies. It will be payback time and the nation will suffer. 

The first Trump term was bad enough with the “repeal and replace” Obamacare fiasco and the punitive use of tariffs against our allies, but it was not as bad as what we have suffered through with the Bidens. For all of Trump’s faults, he did not deliberately try to destroy the country. However, I can guarantee that whoever wins, the next four years will be hell. A Biden second term will mean a continuation of policies intended to destroy the republic (change the electoral college, pack the Supreme Court, weaken the First and Second Amendments, more woke, more CRT, failing schools, more climate regulations, higher energy prices, more outrageous spending, judicial appointees who are ignorant of the Constitution, more inflation, more dependency on China for climate related stuff and heavy metals for EV batteries). Did I leave anything out?

BTW did you know that China has withdrawn from the Paris Accord?

One of Biden’s lies was that he was going to bring the country together when elected. He has done the opposite. We have never been farther apart as a country. On every major issue most democrats feel one way and republicans feel the other. One of my closest friends is a card carrying “progressive”. I told him that if he and I could not find common ground then there was little hope for the country. He actually is gleeful about the Trump indictment. He should be sad for what it forebodes for the country.

A victory by either will push parts of the country toward serious discussion of succession. 

August 7, 2023

I love baseball. Maybe it is because other than baseball I have so few fond memories of my childhood. I was an unwanted second son. Dad wanted a girl. My brother was a math genius and a straight A student. I never could compete but he was my best friend until his senior year at Purdue. Dad showered him with accolades, new stuff and favors. I didn’t mind because I knew he was smarter than me. I was only jealous of his hair. He got my mother’s side of the family hair inherited from the Anglo side of the family: thick and wavy. I got “colored” hair. I had friends growing up but other than my brother none were close. It was because I was two years ahead in school, graduating from high school when I was 16. I was young. I was short and unathletic. When I was in the varsity band as an eight grader my feet did not touch the floor. When I graduated the only boy shorter in my class was a midget. I never had a date in high school.

But I looked forward to the summers. Going to Brooklyn or Cincinnati to see the Dodgers was the only time we had fun as a family. Dad loved the Brooklyn Dodgers because of Jackie Robinson. He planned our summer vacations around the Dodgers’ schedule. If they were in New York we would go stay with my mother’s brother (Uncle Son) in Brooklyn and go to Ebbets Field or to the Polo Grounds where they played the Giants. If they were in Cincinnati we would stay with Dad’s older brother (Uncle Floyd) and see them play the Reds in Crosby Field. The Dodgers’ 1954 lineup read like an all-star team: Junior Gilliam, Pee Wee Reese, Duke Snider, Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Gill Hodges, Carl Furillo and Billy Cox. Carl Erskine, Johnny Podres, Don Newcombe and Preacher Roe were the pitchers. Walter Alston was the manager. Yet that team finished five games behind the New York Giants who had Sal Maglie, Hoyt Wilhelm and Al Worthington as pitchers. Joe Garagiloa caught. Alvin Dark, Billy Gardner, Hank Thompson, Monte Irvin, Dusty Rhodes and Willie Mays were on that team. Leo Durocher was the manager. The 1954 Reds had Gus Bell, Wally Post, Ted Kluszewski, Art Fowler and Knoxville’s own Ed Bailey. Cincinnati wasn’t very good finishing 23 games back. But that didn’t matter. We went to see the Dodgers. 

Although we loved baseball, we never went to see the local minor league team – the Atlanta Crackers (I kid you not. During the heyday of the Negro League, the local team was the Atlanta Black Crackers. Again I kid you not). We did not go to the games because the stadium seating was segregated. The black section was run down, the bathrooms hardly functioned and were filthy. Dad refused to put us in a situation where we would be segregated by race.

When I went to work at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in 1973, the Washington Senators had left to become the Texas Rangers so I became a fan of the Baltimore Orioles. I was there during the great years of Cal Ripken, Jim Palmer, Boog Powell, Mark Belanger, Mike Cuellar, Eddie Murray, Mike Flannagan and Steve Stone. Frank and Brooks Robinson were recent memories. Earl Weaver was the manager. 

By the time Baltimore’s glory days were gone, so was I. But I went to see college baseball while on the faculty at UNC and remember Walt Weiss as being the star. When I returned to DC in the early 1980s, I stayed an Orioles fan and picked the opponent to go see while the Orioles struggled.

Coming to Knoxville, I was treated to SEC baseball, arguably the best in the country. Tennessee has had some great players and Todd Helton was my favorite. I really liked the Rod Delmonico teams but the ones with Coach Tony Vitello are more fun.

I now usually go to Cincinnati and St Petersburg for major league baseball. Although the Braves are my favorite team I won’t go the Truist Park because the Braves abandoned downtown Atlanta for the ritzy suburbs. I don’t fault them. They know their fanbase. They have been successful and have an incredible team. But I still won’t go. I can’t even see them live, since they are blacked out in Knoxville. That’s one of the things I don’t like about Major League Baseball. Another dislike is the floating strike zone of some umpires. I probably am biased but the worse called game in major league history has got to be game five of the 1997 National League Championship Series where Eric Gregg’s strike zone was as wide as his waist. The Marlins’ Livan Hernandez whose fastball was probably 75 mph struck out 15 Braves who behind Greg Maddux lost 2-1. The last out was made by new Hall of Famer Fred McGriff who could not have reached the called “strike” if he had thrown his bat at it. 

I subscribe to MLB since the stupid rapacious Google gods dropped the MLB Network. Now I can see how truly awful most of the umpires are. Angel Hernandez is the worst but CJ Bucknor isn’t far behind. Dan Bellino made perhaps the worse strike call I’ve seen this side of Eric Gregg. Since MLB has instituted rules to speed up the game, maybe they should go to a digital strike zone. It pains me to say that but I suffer a greater pain seeing all the bad ball and strike calls.

My last peeve with Major League Baseball is ignoring the great Larry Doby. Every year I would send MLB a letter/email imploring them to recognize Doby who integrated the American League the same year that Jackie Robinson debuted in the National League. Very people know of Doby, although he is in the Hall of Fame, because he came into the league after the Allstar break while Robinson started at the beginning of the season. So I think it should be Jackie Robinson/Larry Doby day with all the teams in the National League wearing Robinson’s number and those in the American League wearing Doby’s. Alternatively, why not have each team wear the number of their first black player? I have a Sam Jethroe jersey.

The recent kerfuffle over the proposed Florida AP course on black history should be embarrassing to all those who are attacking it. To recount, Ron DeSantis and his Department of Education rejected the original AP course because it was more about the left’s attempts to indoctrinate rather than to provide an unbiased account of black history. The revision was Florida’s own effort written in large part by scholars such as Dr William Allen, professor emeritus from Michigan State University. I met Dr Allen when I was invited by Liberty Fund to first write a remembrance of Walter Williams (https://www.aier.org/article/walter-williams-a-fond-remembrance/) and then to participate in a colloquium celebrating his life. Dr Allen was one of the participants. He was one of the most eloquent wordsmiths I have ever encountered. I was in awe of his intellect, his forthrightness and thinking.

To recount, Ron DeSantis was attacked for opposing the teaching of woke black history rather than the teaching of black history. No one explained why critical race theory, advocating for the abolition of prisons, queer black studies and black feminism were essential parts of black history. There was even a laudatory section on the Marxist anti-family Black Lives Matter. The left accused DeSantis as opposing the teaching of black history. One headline read “What is behind DeSantis push to erase black history?” This is another illustration that the media is fostering the lie that DeSantis opposes the teaching of black history.  Historic black conservatives were excluded from the original AP course.

National Education Association president’s Becky Pringles defense of the AP curriculum “Black history is American history. DeSantis is stealing our students’ freedom to learn it” is sobering and shows precisely why we need to change our children being indoctrinated rather than educated in our public schools. Pringles ignores that contrary to the claims that Gov DeSantis is trying to erase black history, the governor annually awards winners of Black History Month student contests in Florida. 

The blistering attack on the Florida revision was led by Vice President Kamala Harris who in a speech in Jacksonville attacked the new curriculum stating that it said that enslaved people benefited from slavery implying that the Florida curriculum was actually saying that slavery was good for black people. The one line read “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” One headline read “Florida’s public schools will now teach students that some black people benefited from slavery because it taught them useful skills, part of new African American history standards approved Wednesday that were blasted by a state teachers’ union as a “step backward.” 

Dr Allen has been in the news and very vocal about how the criticism was misguided pointing out that slavery was odious but in a slave society not all slaves worked at menial tasks. There were blacksmiths, carpenters, cooks, craftsmen and even bookkeepers. Allen pointed out that the great Frederick Douglas was taught by the plantation owner’s wife to read and write. Allen when asked about that single line said “I think the sentence explains itself. Its grammar is certainly perfectly clear when refers to the fact that those who were held in slavery possess skills, whether they developed them before being held in slavery, while being held in slavery or subsequently to being held in slavery, from which they benefited when they applied themselves in the exertion of those skills. That’s not a statement that is at all controversial. The facts sustain it. The testimonies of the people who lived the history sustain it.”

As Dr Allen says, the statement is self evident and true. But in addition to Harris, two leading black conservatives agreed with her and attacked the sentence. They were Byron Donalds, Florida congressman and Tim Scott the junior senator from South Carolina. Why would they agree with Harris? It is for the same reason. The curriculum was assailed was because it was a chance to attack Ron DeSantis. Harris and the Democrats see DeSantis as a major threat to their power. Donalds is a Trump supporter while Scott is running for the Republican presidential nomination against DeSantis. Donalds and Scott are trying to undermine DeSantis’ quest for the nomination while Harris recognizes him as the Democrat’s biggest threat.

However, Donalds, Scott, Harris and all the critics have egg on their faces. All the critics were intellectually lazy and have embarrassed themselves. This because the AP course lionized by the left which was rejected by the state of Florida contained almost the exact same statement: “In addition to agricultural work, enslaved people learned specialized trades and worked as painters, carpenters, tailors, musicians, and healers in the North and South. Once free, African Americans used these skills to provide for themselves and others.”

Again, the only reason why all this nonsense occurred in the first place is that Ron DeSantis is running for president. Otherwise, there would haven’t been a peep of criticism – at least not by those with half a brain.

Almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision saying that affirmative action admissions based on race were unconstitutional, protests on the left sprang up attacking legacy admissions. Democratic lawmakers led by the socialist Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) introduced legislation to deny federal aid to institutions that offered legacy admissions to children of alumni and donors. One of the co-sponsors of the bill Jeff Markey (D-MA) said “every seat that a university reserves for the already wealthy and well connected, that is, the children of donors and the children of alumni, is a seat not available to a more qualified individual who comes from a financially challenged background, or who comes from a minority community.” Note that Markey is saying, probably unintentionally, that the legacy admit must be less qualified than the minority applicant (presumably so long as the minority applicant is not Asian). So the test would be to see if there were any brown or black applicant who was rejected and more qualified than any legacy admit. Note that the legacy admit might be the children of black or brown alumni or donors. Would they be subject to the same caveat?

Not to be outdone, The US Department of “Education” launched a civil rights investigation into Harvard’s use of legacy admissions. The department said that it is investigating “whether the University discriminates on the basis of race by using donor and legacy preferences in its undergraduate admissions process.” Of course, Harvard will deny that race plays a factor even though virtually all of its legacy admissions are white. Nonetheless, I don’t see how legacy admissions could be considered illegal under the Supreme Court decision since race is not a factor in making the decision. However, Wesleyan University (Connecticut) announce that it would no longer have legacy admissions. I doubt very seriously if this will have any impact on their student body. One would assume that legacy admissions are probably from well educated households, most likely of some means. The students probably went to first rate high schools and scored highly on whatever admissions criteria are set by the schools. Wesleyan is simply burnishing its liberal creds by making a sounds-good announcement. My father once told me “that sounds good – if you are interested in sounds.”

Some schools like MIT and Cal Tech do not have legacy admits while Harvard and Yale do. Significantly, most schools with legacy admits are private. The so-called elite schools on the east coast first instituted legacy admits along with opening admissions offices in order to limit Jewish enrollment in the early 1900s. As such, the intent was clearly discriminatory since virtually all alumni were white protestants. My daughter went to my alma mater, the University of Georgia, and my youngest granddaughter graduates from Georgia in December. Were they legacy admits? 

Today the question is how many slots are clearly marked for legacy admissions? Surely, some children of donors and alumni are rejected in the application process. I am somewhat disappointed that I was on the Chapel Hill faculty in the late 1970s and they were the other school involved in the admissions suit. Certainly they could have addressed the other side by offering legacy admissions to the children of graduates of their state’s HBCUs, assuming that the parents were denied admission to the white schools because of their race during segregated times. Would those on the left oppose such a program? Just saying.

Why are most EVs so ugly? The forthcoming Genesis SUV and convertible are exceptions. The non-electric SUV is tempting but it does not come in red.

Have you seen the new KIA EV SUV? It dethrones the Mustang and Teslas as the ugliest SUV. As much as I love Porsche’s their EV is second ugliest with the most awful paint jobs I’ve seen to date. It reminds me of Pepto Bismol.

Those in the EV camp are crowing that the new agreement to have additional manufacturers given access to Tesla’s charging network solves the problem of range anxiety. It does not. The problem with EVs is that the charging is so much slower than using gas. There is a commercial in which the EV owner is saying that charging “only takes 19 minutes.” If it took 19 minutes to fill up a gas tank consumers would be throwing a fit. Also look at the long lines at the Tesla charging stations in California and decide if having one makes sense.

Charging networks do not address the problem of limited range. Until that is addressed, EVs will be no more than second car commuting vehicles. Also, the bigger the EV (SUVs) the lower the range, the heavier the batteries and the greater negative impact on the environment.

World governments’ all-in EV strategies are increasingly stupid. Outlawing the sale of gas/diesel engines before charging networks are on line, before the energy grid can handle the increased demands and severely damaging the environment in the name of saving the planet only makes sense if you follow the money. 

Lithium batteries explode and the fire is difficult to extinguish. The mandating of EVs has ignored the problem of rare earth materials in the batteries. China is seeking to dominate the market while the Biden administration is denying permits for mines in the US. How much money did Hunter get from the Chinese?

The innovation in battery technology is the use of sodium rather than lithium. They solve range anxiety with ranges in excess of 600 miles. They solve the rare earth problem being readily accessible and cheap. 

I have a close friend who has bought into the “climate change is our greatest existential threat” propaganda. But he drives a gas powered Mercedes convertible that he loves and will never buy a Tesla because he dislikes Elon Musk intensely.

Seriously I have nothing against EVs. I welcome diversity to the marketplace and the expansion of choice to consumers. I just hate the technology being forced down the throat of consumers by the zealots who occupy power in governments, banks, and investment firms. 

I admire Elon Musk for his determination to make a successful product when others have failed. I have a friend who has an Audi EV which actually is quite attractive. He bought if for commuting and crows about its performance. It is a fast as a Porsche turbo. I just hope he doesn’t go 0-60 in 3.5 seconds in the city. 

I wonder why Tesla drivers don’t flick their lights since they all belong to the same cult.

EVs lose about 30 percent of their range in cold winter climates. Now it is found that they lose about 30 percent of their range in extreme heat. So buy one if you don’t live in Minnesota or Arizona.

There was an incongruous headline that said that Ford was cutting the price of its “popular” EV truck by $10,000. If the truck were popular then Ford would not be cutting the price.

EV trucks are a vanity item. It cannot tour boats or campers over distance without losing significant range.

Speaking of campers, the Biden administration is trying to ban gas generators. This will adversely impact all those nature loving mostly green campers who love to camp off grid using solar and gas generators to power their rigs. Where is the push back?

The first cybertruck from Tesla has just been produced. It is plagued with the same manufacturing problems that characterize Teslas, namely ill fitting panels. Teslas are rightly lauded for their innovative technology so why can’t they fix their manufacturing issues?

By banning gas powered cars and trucks the righteous politicians are trying to force the public into EVs. What if we don’t buy them? I predict a huge growth in the used car market as consumers rebel against the dictates of the misguided left.

I am wondering how much of these harmful regulations can be reversed by another administration? Much like Biden repealed almost anything associated with Trump during the first days of his tenure, a less sympathetic administration can be expected to do the same once it is in office.

I still can’t figure out why the UAW funds Democrats who are intent on destroying so many jobs in the automobile industry. Can they possibly be that stupid?

Marriner Eccles who was chairman of the Fed from 1934 to 1948 was reputed to say that the main problem with banking was that there were 13,000 banks in the US and not that many bankers in the world.

Eccles was probably right then and right now. Too many bankers lack risk management skills and make decisions that heighten risk rather than reduce it. Banking is inherently a risky business. Its liabilities are mostly short term deposits while its assets are mostly longer term loans. Any finance professor will tell you when there is a mismatch between asset and liability maturity structures there will be risk. Moreover, bank risk is enhanced because the short term liabilities are mostly payable on demand. This mismatch caused the implosion of the savings and loan industry and led to the bankruptcy of its insurer the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) which In 1989 was dissolved and absorbed by the FDIC. Incidentally, I was appointed by the FDIC to be one of the four public interest members of the board that oversaw the transition of the FSLIC into the FDIC. 

Instead of addressing the risks inherent in the structure of banking, the Congress actually made it worse by increasing deposit insurance at the FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000. Bankers could now take even more risks since more losses would be covered by the government insurer. Therefore, the incentives of bankers to chase return increased rather than decreased.

With the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank bad ideas are again in play. First, the regulators ended up insuring all deposits at SVB sending a signal to both bankers and the market. The market was told that “too big to fail” was still the norm. The result was a movement of deposits from smaller banks to larger ones. Bankers were implicitly told they could take more risk because the government would bail them out. There has actually been talk about raising deposit insurance limits again. Bad idea if one wishes to lessen risk. Ironically, there would be less risk taking if deposit insurance were lowered rather than raised. Another idea that is being floated by the regulators is to raise capital requirements at the largest banks which are now the beneficiaries of the deposit inflow. Since capital is a line of defense against losses, any loss incurred by the FDiC would be less than if capital were higher. However, the total assets of the FDIC are insufficient to pay out all the deposits of the largest US banks even with the increase in capital. 

Yet there are two ways to address the risk inherent in banking that likely will never be considered. The first is the idea proposed by Milton Friedman in the 1950s – that of the “narrow bank”. Here banks would only be allowed to take deposits and not make any loans. The deposits would be held as required reserves. The Fed would pay interest on the reserves and in turn the banks would pay interest on deposits. Loans would be made by nondepositories, such as mortgage banking companies and finance companies which would borrow the money in the market in order to lend them to consumers. The nondepositories could be part of the bank’s holding company but their operations would not imperil the deposit holding bank. Hence there would be no more bank runs. The narrow bank model was actually proposed to the Fed in 2019 which denied approval claiming that narrow banks would threaten the implementation of monetary policy. The Fed was wrong and probably just wanted to preserve the number of bank executives extant.

The second idea would be to mandate private deposit insurance for amounts greater than $250,000. The insurance premium paid by the bank would give a clear signal as to the riskiness of the bank and would force less risk taking. There is already an entity called the Deposit Insurance Fund (https://www.difxs.com/DIF/Home.aspx) that offers private deposit insurance. The concept could be expanded to cover all banks so that premia are set much like automobile insurance where the riskier drivers pay higher premiums than safer drivers. Thus, if Congress or the Fed really wanted to lessen risk taking, it could mandate private deposit insurance for deposits over $250,000 and/or eliminate the motivation of bankers to chase yield by replacing traditional banks with narrow banks. 

Do you pay attention to lists? Obviously some people do or else no one would be compiling them. I occasionally will look for best mystery novels of the year or best science fiction novels of the year or best historical fiction of the year. One list that that caught my eye was the list of the happiest countries. I could envision folks dancing in the streets, strewing flowers while singing kumbaya. BTW, did you know that kumbaya is of African origin? Isn’t that counter intuitive that slaves would be singing kumbaya? Well the country that is deemed the happiest in the whole world is Finland (the US is number 15). Personally, I can’t see how anyone would be happy living near the Artic Circle with over 100 days of winter in the south, 200 days of winter in the north and 51 days where the sun does not get above the horizon.

That Finland is the happiest only applies to native white Finns for Finland is one of the most racist countries in the world. Indeed, polls have shown that most Finns themselves consider Finland to be a racist country. So how the researchers determine that racism somehow equates to happiness is beyond me. Read James Thompson’s novels featuring detective Kari Vaara: Snow Angels, Lucifer’s Tears and Helsinki White. They feature a Finnish detective and are perhaps the most racist novels I have ever read. The Finns are not exactly a welcoming people if you are a non-white Finn. Those who are gypsies, Arab speaking, Jews, of Russian descent and from Somalia suffer discrimination. These Finns I guess are happily suffering from discrimination in employment, religion, abuse in schools, in housing and police harassment. Many are also denied access to banking services. Also the Finns have not greeted transgenders with open arms. Finland requires mandatory sterilization as a condition for sex change identity. Transgenders often are targeted for violence. Even the original Finns, the Sami (the Lapps) have been forced to move to the northernmost part of the country to herd their reindeer and fish. I guess this is the Finnish equivalent of our Indian reservations. Are the Sami happy?

How is happiness consistent with racism? One reference stated that there was growing violence and abuse against immigrants and non-Finnish Finns. There was even a George Floyd type of incident involving a black youth and the Finnish police. However, the reaction in Finland was to basically ignore the incident while in erstwhile racist America, the reaction was just the opposite with police being put in jail and George Floyd accorded sainthood. What makes the Finns happy? They are happy because of the country’s welfare system. However, the same Finns resent those who are different from availing themselves to the same welfare system with its generous unemployment benefits and “free” healthcare. Just think how much happier the Finns would be if they just could eliminate all of those pesky blacks, Arabs, Jews, Russians and gypsies!

What about the unhappiest countries in the world? The top five are Afghanistan, Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Congo and Botswana. Actually, for reasons that I have listed before, I would have thought Congo would be number one given its history of brutality by the Belgians and exploitation of its natural resources by the Europeans and the Chinese. I was surprised that Botswana was on the unhappiest list. Perhaps I have been overly influenced by Alexander McCall Smith’s novels on the No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency. But Botswana is Africa’s most stable country, is democratic and is relatively free of corruption. It is the world’s largest producer of diamonds and has a healthy safari-based tourist trade. It is a middle-income nation – a rarity on the African subcontinent. It even has given gay rights legal recognition. Botswana’s unhappiness is attributed to familial trauma and abuse from both men and women. One source even suggested that “The government of Botswana must integrate happiness as one of the pillars of good governance.” Well good luck with that. I guess the ultimate question is “would you rather be happy in Finland or unhappy in Botswana?”

How can law enforcement find the Long Island serial killer but can’t find who leaked the Supreme Court’s opinion on abortion or who left the cocaine at the White House?

Remember when Sen Blackburn asked (now Justice) Kentanji Brown Jackson to define “woman” and the answer was “I am not a biologist”? Well a biology professor at a small school in Texas was fired for defining sex as determined by X, Y chromosomes.  So apparently biologists don’t know the answer either.

Those pundits predicting that the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action would severely limit black enrollment at “elite” universities obviously must think that the administrators in the admissions offices are stupid. Harold Black’s First Law says “Any law worth circumventing will be.” If admissions’ officers can’t figure out a way around the Court’s ruling, then they should be fired.

One statistic cited by those favoring the Court’s decision on affirmative action is that when affirmative action was curtailed in California, that a higher percentage of minorities graduated from the “elite” California schools. Well if less qualified minorities are denied admission then obviously the percent of the total enrolled that graduate must increase.

What is remarkable about affirmative action is that every group polled favored its demise. Blacks, Asians, whites, Democrats and Republicans thought it unfair. Seems like the only supporters were the universities and their affirmative action officers.

I am an empiricist. I want to know what evidence exists to demonstrate the effectiveness of affirmative action. Much like the War on Poverty, the only beneficiaries appear to be those hired to administer the programs.

How can those crying racism explain the success of Asian Americans? Isn’t it interesting that rather than looking at the Asians as the model to follow to address inequities of racial minorities, white liberals instead are seeking to limit Asian success? Perhaps this is because the Asians show that the blacks and whites who profit from bemoaning inequities are purveyors of policies whose effects are to entrench minorities as a class dependent upon the state while enriching themselves.

Socialist ice cream mavens Ben and Jerry want the US to return “stolen” land to the Indians yet they have yet to give back their factory’s land which was apparently “stolen” from the Abenaki tribe.

Biden’s touching women and nibbling on young girls is starting to freak me out.

I was disappointed in Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissents in several Supreme Court decisions. They indicated either a fundamental error in her thinking regarding the Constitution and/or data from “experts.” 

The dissents of the court’s liberals (Brown Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor) were social rather than legal arguments. Thus, even if they were true, the three still should have found the doctrine unconstitutional.

Isn’t it interesting how the media treated Brown Jackson? She was not the atypical rookie justice. In the past, new justices have been silent. Remember when Clarence Thomas was mocked for not speaking during his early years? Also Jackson wrote three solo dissents. It took Chief Justice Roberts 16 years before he wrote a solo dissent. The left media is trumpeting Brown Jackson’s dissents and outspokenness. Yet her dissents were so off target that even the other two liberals on the court would not join her.

The court’s other affirmative action justice – Sonia Sotomayor – continues to be an embarrassment. It now seems that Gorsuch has replaced Alito in ridiculing her statements and opinions. Justice Thomas is doing the same with Brown Jackson.

The Babylon Bee has taken to lampooning Sotomayor by saying that she “shows the world illiteracy doesn’t have to stop you from achieving your dreams.”

ESPN hates the Braves. Is it the name? Although they are the best team in baseball with the most exciting player, Sports Center buries their highlights behind even the WNBA, the woeful New York teams and other sports. So I watch the MLB Network instead.

If it weren’t for college football I would not watch ESPN. 

I am the commencement speaker at my youngest granddaughter’s graduation from the University of Georgia. Any ideas as to what I should say other than “Go Dawgs”?

I found it interesting that the immediate reaction to the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action in university admissions was to render dire predictions regarding student body diversity. It is as though all the pundits have forgotten that the group being discriminated against was an historically oppressed minority – Asian Americans. As I wrote on these pages in November 2022, the first admissions offices at “elite” universities were established in the early 1900s to curtail Jewish enrollment.  It worked with the percentage of Jews at Harvard falling by 50 percent as a result. Like today’s Asian Americans, Jews historically invested in what economists call “human capital” – the investment in education. Given their history of persecution, the Jews knew that when the next pogrom occurred it was a whole lot easier to grab the kids and family and run rather than try to grab the apartment building and run. So the Jews invested in human capital rather than physical capital. Much the same is true today, resulting in a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes being awarded to Jews. One person has written “Jewish cultural values based on family upbringing, dedication to education, self-motivation, persistence, resilience in face of adversity, and just plain hard work” undoubtedly contributes to their success.  It is likely that the same can be said about the Asians. Ironically, the same is true for the segregated society from which I came in Atlanta during the Civil Rights era. I grew up in a totally segregated middle class neighborhood made up of highly educated two parent households. All of us went to college and to my knowledge all of us graduated. Among my high school classmates are doctors, lawyers, a hedge fund manager, teachers, businesspeople and other professionals. Of the kids growing up with me only three went to predominately white institutions. The rest went to HBCUs. I believe that most of the kids in my neighborhood would have been admitted under affirmative action to many of the elite universities and most would fare well once admitted. 

However, I am not so certain if most would be admitted if the process were colorblind. Why? Many of the “elite” universities reject over 95% of all applicants. One highly ranked public university said that it could fill its freshman class with only students with GPAs of 4.0 and higher and still would have to reject thousands more who had the same grade point average. There are those who say that standardized tests should be excluded from admissions criteria because such tests – outside of math – are culture bound. However, all GPAs are not created equal because all high schools do not provide the exact same education. Surely a 4.0 in a Chicago public school does not equal that of a 4.0 from an elite private school. Recall that in Chicago precious few minority students can read, write or do arithmetic at grade level. 

Admissions offices at universities exist for the sole purpose of discriminating among applicants for admission. If that were not true then there would be no reason to have such offices. Looking at the admissions requirements at Harvard, the average admitted student has a GPA of 4.18, an SAT score of 1520 (1600 is “perfect”. There are other requirements as well such as submitting a written essay, listing extra curriculum activities such as sports, clubs and civic involvement. Moreover, Harvard rejected Asians because they consistently scored lower on “personal quality” ratings – a purely subjective evaluation. I presume that the people making that judgment were not Asians. However, any admission requirement is discriminatory, with race seemingly being the only one considered unconstitutional. 

What can be done? When I was in graduate school, one state obligated its universities to accept all in-state applicants with a certain minimum GPA. The flagship university in that state had a huge freshman class and did not have the resources to maintain that class size through all four years. It therefore had a stringent first year curriculum that required calculus and science designed to whittle down the class. It worked, with the sophomore class being almost half the size of the freshman class. I suggest establishing criteria for admissions that is race-neutral for a certain percent of the class – say 70 percent and then admitting the remainder of the class via a lottery. But of course, the sports programs would be exempt.