Truth

Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu pointing to the N.F.L. representative and through gritted teeth, imploring him to, "Tell the truth!" about CTE is one of the more powerful scenes from this year's films.  Will Smith didn't get nominated (that's a whole separate post), but his performance in Concussion was outstanding and it is one of three recent and important films that deal with the theme of finding and disclosing truth---truth that is being held back by powerful forces that have a self interest in telling a different narrative.  Concussion, Spotlight, and 13 Hours each evokes anger and dismay from the viewers by showing how vested bureaucracies will sometimes stop at nothing and will bury peoples' lives and careers to retain power.  Each demonstrates why investigative journalists and filmmakers have a vital role to play in an open society and why the current tide against "offensive" speech is so misguided.

We need to know the truth so we can deal with it.

The N.F.L. clearly has an interest in controlling the narrative around the long term effects of head trauma.  It has long been known that football players suffer debilitating injuries that leave them limping and sore for the rest of their lives.  Dick Butkus and Wilbur Marshall, for instance, had to sue to collect disability payments from their playing day injuries.  But it has been only recently that the Alzheimer's like symptoms of former players have become widely known.  Like tobacco use, it turns out that the effects of playing only show up years later.  The N.F.L. has downplayed CTE for years, and attempted to throw a blanket over Omalu's work.  It became harder to do so as more player suicides began to hit the headlines and more reports of symptoms of the effects of head trauma from ex-players like Jim McMahon and Antwan Randall El have made it difficult for the N.F.L. to sweep under the rug.  But they tried and went to great lengths to silence and discredit Omalu.   The reality is that only by dealing with the truth--understanding fully the evidence and the data--will the N.F.L. be able to save itself and the game of football.  We do not fully understand the extent of the risk (CTE currently can only be determined by examining the brain of someone deceased) but more research will help determine rule changes and technologies in equipment that may reduces the risk of  long term problems.

The film Spotlight centers around the Boston Globe investigative reporting team that did a spectacular job of uncovering the pathology of child sex abuse in the Boston Archdiocese.  The Catholic Church was a powerful institution in Irish Catholic Boston with adherents at the highest level of business, government, and courts.  Because these forces closed ranks, the Archdiocese was able to cover up the continued transferring of pedophile priests that ruined the lives of hundreds and hundreds of vulnerable children.  Because they preyed kids from lower economic classes with dysfunctional families, their actions were even more despicable.   The institution that is supposed to be an advocate for the disempowered instead victimized them.  That team at the Boston Globe courageously took on the Archdiocese and exposed the Church despite the implicit threats to their careers and helped put an end to outrageous practice of circulating offending priests from parish to parish.

In 13 Hours, the filmmaker largely left politics out of the film and let the facts speak for themselves. You will recall that Susan Rice went on the talk show circuit immediately after the Benghazi attack to propagate the fiction that the attack on our embassy was the result of a protest against an anti-Muslim video.  This film dispels that myth and shows that the State Department left that embassy woefully undefended and then did not respond to pleas for help when there were military assets available. Only the bravery and fighting ability of a handful of CIA contractors kept the death toll from being even worse.  The Clinton State Department spun a tale that was simply not true to protect Clinton and the re-election chances of her boss.   By sticking very close to the facts, Michael Bay fully discredits the fairy tale of Clinton and Rice without every mentioning them.

Film is a reflection of the times.  It is not fortuitous that these three films were released within months of one another.  We need to know the facts.  We need courageous journalists and filmmakers that are willing to risk their careers (and even their lives) to expose the truth. Louis Brandeis once famously said that "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."  We need to know the likelihood of head injuries in football so we have fewer good men like Junior Seaus, Dave Duersons and Mike Websters meet tragic endings.  We need to know how institutions like the Catholic Church screen and monitor priests so that we don't have systemic abuse of kids.  The country needs a full accounting of all of the facts leading up to the deaths in Benghazi to ensure that it doesn't happen again and because Mrs. Clinton is asking us to promote her to commander in chief.  In each of these cases, the existing power structure -- the N.F.L., the Catholic Church and the State Department attempted to whitewash the facts and tell a different tale.  Taken together, these films show that no institution is above challenge and we need always to view their narratives with an amount of skepticism.

Mrs. Clinton somewhat infamously proclaimed, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

When there is harm, it makes all the difference.

Why I Think Trump Can Win All the Marbles

Donald Trump has, I believe, moved from a curiosity piece-- viewed by many as a bombastic, unfiltered, blowhard-- to the front of the pack, and at the moment, has become the overall favorite to win the 2016 election.  Here's why:

• He puts America first.  After seven years of nonstop apologizing for America, from the Cairo speech to his denial of American exceptionalism, to his news conference in Malaysia where he said, "America has some work to do," Obama and his team have unloaded nonstop criticism at America.  "America is a nation of cowards," complained Eric Holder.  "Racism is in our DNA," proclaimed Obama.  Neither of those broadsides is true.  America is a nation of heroes, and entrepreneurship, independence and resourcefulness is in our DNA.  We need a leader that is willing to extol our virtues and be a cheerleader and advocate.  Our brand sells.  And sometimes we need our leaders to remind us about how good we have been and can be.  Trump starts with the slogan, "Make America Great Again as his starting point.   With the current officeholder, you sometimes wonder whose side he's on.  The image above is painful.  No American wants to see our sailors at gunpoint on their knees.  But John Kerry was not only ok with it, he thanked the mullahs for their prompt return of our sailors after parading them in this pose in their propaganda photos and videos.  Americans are tired of bowing.
• He bites back.  He is unafraid to take opponents head on.  When Hillary trotted Bill out to the campaign trail and simultaneously touted women's rights, he didn't hold back about Hillary's role in enabling Bill and destroying the women he preyed on.  When Cruz disparaged "New York values," he jumped on how New Yorkers responded to 9/11.  Trump is fearless when hitting back hard is necessary.  It's something Mitt Romney could never do.
• He is direct and truthful.  You might not like what he has to say, but he doesn't spend a lot of time clarifying his statements or walking them back.  People are tired of P.C., tiptoeing around issues, fear of offending this person or that.  In contrast, when asked about whether he would invade Iraq again (a question he had to know was coming), issued several clarifying statements after his initial answer.  I still don't know exactly what he said.  For better or worse, there is none of that with Trump.  When asked again about his proposal temporarily halt Muslim immigration to the U.S. after he was attacked by members of his own party, he simply refused.  He understands that we are tired of political correctness.  An anchor baby is an anchor baby.  Barring students from chanting "USA" (as Wisconsin sports authority just did) or barring professors from referring to America as "the land of opportunity" as the University of California did will not be well received in a Trump administration.
  
  
  But even worse has been the systematic peddling of untruths by the Obama administration.  From blaming Benghazi on a filmmaker, to claiming that ISIS is "contained," to asserting that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," to Obama's refusal to use the term "Radical Islam," Obama's crew has tried to sell obvious falsehoods.  And most voters are tired of it.  Trump at least appears to be able to give it to you straight up, and let it stand on its own merits.

• Islamic terror.  I'm not sure a complete bar to Muslim immigration, even temporarily, is the correct answer, but Trump is at least unafraid to confront the issue head on.  Obama has consistently downplayed the threat and made American security subordinate to political correctness.  His staff can't even use the term "radical Islam."  He labeled ISIS as the "J.V." and asserted that it was contained.  He told Christians to get off their "high horse" on religious violence.  He is bleeding out dangerous inmates from Gitmo.  He is willing to take on Syrian refugees even though our vetting process doesn't work and the assaults on women in Europe are rampant.  Women in Austria are being told not to go out at night.  Jews in France are being warned not to wear yamulkes. ISIS has told the world that they have infiltrated refugees.  Trump wants to at least press the "pause" button.  He will not be constrained by P.C. in dealing with this real and complex problem.
• He comes off as a little impulsive.  Our adversaries know that they can act with impunity with Obama.  Iran fires off missiles and there are no consequence.  Russia invades Crimea and tells us to butt out of Syria and there are no consequences.  China builds islands and there are no consequences.  North Korea tests...and nothing happens.  It is good to remember that Iran released our hostages as soon as Reagan took office.  North Vietnam invaded the South only after Nixon left office.  In both cases, they were a little afraid of what the consequences would be.  A little uncertainty in the minds of our enemies can be a good thing.
• He is an outsider.  The Republican Establishment is flummoxed by him.  Somehow, the losses of Eric Cantor and John Boehner and the poll numbers of Trump, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson haven't quite penetrated their minds.  The Republican Establishment is a losing horse.  Ronald Reagan proved that 35 years ago.  It is one of the reasons why Jeb Bush can't get any traction.  Hillary has more baggage than American Airlines and United Airlines combined could handle, but they only chance of beating her is outside the establishment.  That a missing persons report on Mitch McConnell appears to be ready to be filed should tell the RNC something.
• People are angry.  I like and respect Nikki Haley, but her gratuitous poke at Trump for being an "angry voice" evidences the tone deafness of the Republican party.  People are angry.  They are angry that their wages are shrinking.  They are angry about an overreaching, unaccountable government that encroaches in nearly every aspect of their lives.  They are angry over an America that is getting sand kicked in its face at every turn.  They are angry at being told they are bigots every time they express themselves.  They are angry  because they are struggling to feed their own families when we are letting other countries flood us with people that have to be supported with tax dollars.   Trump has figured out how to tap into that anger and frustration and responded to Nikki Haley in Trump style, "I accept the mantle of anger," he proclaimed.

This is not to say I am endorsing Trump.  I have lots of issues with him.  His animosity toward free trade is dangerous.  His bromance with Putin is misplaced.  His policies are devoid of details.  But I think I have to begin to come to terms with a possible Trump presidency.   

At least there will be no doubt as to whose side he's on.

2015- Year in Review

2015 was an unusual year.  It saw the rise of nonestablishment politicians vying for the Republican nomination, and, as of this writing, businessman Donald Trump had a commanding lead.  The Democrats appear to have settled on Hillary Clinton, despite her email server problems and the hangover from Benghazi.  It was the year of radical Islamic terror.  Charlie Hebdo, the Russian airliner, the Paris attacks and the attacks in San Bernardino showed us that while radical Islam has not yet been able to replicate an attack of the magnitude of 9/11, the movement can still be quite lethal, albeit on a smaller scale thus far.   The U.S. economy continues to lumber along and, despite muted growth, the Fed decided to lift interest rates for the first time since the Great Recession.    

Here are my some of my standouts in 2015.

Favorite Film -  Far From the Madding Crowd.   Ok, it was not a blockbuster, but I am a sucker for a good love story where the lovers come together after a long trail of adversity, and I am doubly a sucker for one that is a classic.  This film version of the Thomas Hardy novel was well acted and Carey Mulligan was outstanding as Bathsheba Everdene.  Close behind it was the Cold War thriller, Bridge of Spies with Tom Hanks.  Ex Machina was a very interesting film that will be seen in retrospect as prescient--raising numerous issues about artificial intelligence.

In literature, among the novels I read were three that could serve as doorstops--Seveneves by Neal Stephenson (which would have been better and half its size), A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara (too depressing, too long and too in-your-face with its gay themes) and Purity by Jonathan Franzen. 

My favorite work of fiction--Purity.   Like many modern novels, Purity needed to be better edited, but I liked the flawed, authentic characters.  And I am always intrigued by novels that deal with the themes of secrets--of what we disclose to whom.  Purity contained several passages that made you stop, put the book down, and ponder for awhile.  As a runner up, I liked The Door by Hungarian writer Magda Szabdo.  The Door explores the complex relationship between a woman and her enigmatic housekeeper.   

My favorite work of nonfiction--Dead Wake by Erik Larson.  Yes, I know it was overpromoted.  And the WSJ Book Club annointed Erik Larson as its unofficial spokesperson, so I suffered a slight case of Erik Larson overexposure.  But Dead Wake is to the Lusitania what A Night to Remember was to the Titanic.   H is for Hawk by Helen Macdonald was my runner up.  To deal with the loss of her father, Macdonald turns to nature and falconry to process her grief.

Music was a little thinner this year than last.  Adele again did well and came up with a blockbuster album.  But my favorite album was by Australian Courtney Barnett, whose album Sometimes I Sit and Think, and Sometimes I Just Sit really resonated with me.  I loved the song Dead Fox and you can hear the unmistakable influence of Lou Reed in that song.

Biggest falls from grace-- Bill Cosby and Chipotle.   Bill Cosby was the father figure of a generation and now faces sexual assault charges.  Chipotle was a high flyer in the fast food industry--brought to its knees by multiple E. Coli outbreaks.  Both will keep PR staffs busy for a long, long time.

Worst prediction ever-- Peak oil.  Many predicted that we would run out of the stuff.  We are now drowning in it.  The price has collapsed and is now below $37 a barrel.  We are now playing Petroleum Limbo---how low can it go?

Most interesting development--- Activities that were heretofore the purview of government taken over by the private sector.  While the DHS as policy did not check the social media postings of the San Bernardino terrorists, the hacker group Anonymous began to successfully hack into the accounts of ISIS members and "out" them.  

Space flight is another area where the private sector has taken the lead.  There is healthy competition between Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) and Elon Musk (SpaceX).  Apollo was the last government program to reach an announced a goal within the timetable that was established and it captured the imagination of the nation.  Since then, NASA is a shell of its former self.  Under the Obama administration, manned space flight has ceased and the agency has been converted into a climate change measuring agency and recognition of Islamic contributions to science has been incorporated into its charter.  That slack has been taken up by the private sector and I expect to see more of it in the future as NASA continues to ossify.

Most intriguing developments-- Virtual reality, robotics, and artificial intelligence.  These areas are making great leaps but also will create difficult dilemmas for humanity.  Virtual reality will bring the news closer to home, and will make certain experiences more accessible.  But what of their authenticity?   Robotics presents complex questions---especially in love and in war.  Drones now do some of our fighting. But what happens when we let drones make the decisions on when and whom to attack?  Stephen Hawking believes that artificial intelligence could threaten mankind.  The films The Terminator (1984) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) correctly envisioned the fear that technology might overrun humans.  In the field of love, sexbots are being developed to attend to our carnal desires.  Although they are a decade or more from being usable, there is already a debate raging on whether they should be banned.  Some say women have had vibrators for years, so what's the big deal.  Others believe they could have a detrimental effect on human relationships and society.

2016 will be an interesting year.  The Democrats are putting all their chips on a candidate that remains under F.B.I. investigation and has more baggage than could be accommodated on any domestic airline flight.  With the economy in stall mode and our foreign policy in collapse, the Republicans should have a layup.  But their own dysfunctions have propelled a loose-lipped populist nonpolitician to the lead.  And we are going to see the results of raising  interest rates in a sub-3% growth economy with collapsing commodity prices.

Stay tuned.  It will get interesting.

The Response

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight them in France, we shall fight them on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing strength and confidence in the air,
we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue, and liberation of the old."

Winston Churchill- 1940

2009-  Barack Obama, in one of his first acts as President, removes the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and returns it to Great Britain.

"Paris was a setback."

"Let me now say a word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria.  That's what groups like ISIL want.

Barack Obama 2015

Barack Obama was elected, in part, because of his superior rhetorical skills.  Ironically, at a time when the Western world is crying out for leadership from the leading Western power, that voice has grown hesitant, tepid and equivocal.   His speech in Turkey following the massacre in Paris fell flat.  His address to the U.S.  following the terrorist attack in San Bernardino likewise contained no new strategic initiatives to counter radical Islam's terrorist attacks on the West.

But it's even worse.  If you consider the responses of various Obama administration officials to radical, violent jihad, you see a disturbing pattern of denial and truth distortions, and even a hint that we had it coming to us.   Just the day before the Paris attack, Obama was insisting that ISIS was contained.  Immediately before the San Bernardino attacks, he was assuring us that the U.S. was safe.  His statements seemed as out of synch and ludicrous as those of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  In some quarters, commentators were comparing him to the infamous Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi spokesman who continued to insist that the Iraqi army was prevailing as U.S. forces were dismantling the Republican Guard.

But wait, there's more.  After the Paris attacks, John Kerry stated that there was a "rationale" (blame the victim) behind the Charlie Hebdo attack.  And after San Bernardino, AG Loretta Lynch warned against an anti-Muslim backlash and vowed to "aggressively prosecute" individuals that said anti-Muslim things.  The only new initiative that Obama proposed was more gun control (aimed at those on the secret government no-fly list.  In sum, there were no new measures aimed at ISIS, but rather measures aimed at curtailing our rights of free speech, gun ownership and due process.  President Obama could not find the time to visit either Paris or San Bernardino following the attacks.

The most frightening aspect of the administration's approach to radical Islam is the blatant denial of facts throughout the course of its tenure.  From the assertion that Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous riot caused by a film (again, a justifiable response to exercise of free speech), to Susan Rice's assertion that Bowe Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" (the coward deserted), to ISIS is contained, to "only a handful of Gitmo" releasees return to jihad (200 is a big handful), Team Obama has consistently put forward falsehoods hoping we won't notice.  His assertion that Syrian refugees can be properly vetted has been completely discredited by the F.B.I.  The fact that DHS did not even check social media of the San Bernardino woman jihadist before allowing her into the U.S. tells us that the "vetting" process is a pretty flimsy net.

But people are noticing.   And they are fearful.   They know when a leader is not being forthcoming. Will it take another event of the magnitude of 9/11 or worse?    The rise of Donald Trump is a direct reaction to the culture of denial and fecklessness of the Obama administration.  His proposal to stop Muslim immigration temporarily has gotten traction and attention.  That is not the right answer, but Trump is not afraid to ask the right questions.  

Radical Islam is a very difficult problem to solve and defend against.  It transcends borders and it is a political order that is cloaked in religion, which acts as a force field around it.  Its soldiers don't wear uniforms and have the capacity to blend in and await in ambush for a long time.  While rejecting most of modernity, it uses modern tools like the internet and social media to its advantage.  They don't wear identifying marks and we do not know with certainty how much of Muslim society either participates or is sympathetic to its cause.   And it has several different and sometimes competing strains of virulence--- from ISIS to Boko Haram to Al Qaeda.

Yes, Trump is simplistic, overreactive, and overly inclusive.  But Trump is a reaction to the dangerous culture of obfuscation and denial of the core issue that the Obama administration refuses to face squarely.  Until we do, we will have more San Bernardinos, and maybe worse ones.

W's idea of fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here suddenly doesn't seem so trite anymore, does it?

Show Me the Data

I've not hidden the fact that I am not Barack Obama's biggest fan.  Many of my blog posts have had his policies at the center of my criticism, from his contempt of the free market, to his penchant for growing government and high levels of regulation and taxes, to his abdication of American leadership in foreign affairs.

But while reasonable people can disagree on policy solutions for societal problems, what bothers me most about Obama is his inability to support his case with data and make a case for his position.  Instead, his typical tactic is to create a straw man and then mock his critics.  He did it throughout the 2012 campaign, and it actually worked to some degree (e.g."the 80's are now calling and want their foreign policy back" to address Romney's assertion that Russia is a serious threat).  However, his derisive dismissal of ISIS as the "JV" and his assertion the day before the Paris attack that ISIS was "contained" shined a spotlight on Obama's inability to correctly analyze risk based on facts and data, or at least engage in an open and fair debate about them.  And, I would assert, that his political opponents are not much better.

On domestic policy, Obama leaped to the conclusion that white cops are systematically using excessive force in policing African Americans.   His supporters cite the bare number of deaths of black youths at the hands of white cops as sole evidence for that proposition. Worse, Obama used a few isolated cases--- the Michael Brown incident  being the most egregious as poster children for that proposition (and we know that the officer in that case was completely exonerated).  But real world analysis is much more complicated.   Since any interaction involves two or more people, we would have to control for a number of factors to understand the nature of that interaction, and the be able to ascertain whether there is actual racism at issue or whether there is something else going on.   Is the behavior of African Americans more aggressive, more threatening than that of whites?  Do they involve more serious alleged crimes?  Do they more often involve more than one person so officers feel more threatened? Those are the kinds of questions and analysis that must be done to determine the correct course of action and whether better training, screening and monitoring will make a difference.  We might even find after careful analysis, that police are, in fact, generally exercising tremendous restraint already.  Instead, the Obama administration jumped to the conclusion that cops need to be restrained and that military style weapons needed to be taken from them.  The result of the Obama/Holder policies after Ferguson has been a huge spike in urban crime--the Ferguson Effect. Even Obama's former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel has complained that police officers are now taking a very passive approach to police work.   There are some 20 million arrests each year in the U.S. and many more stops.  Without good data, one can just as easily argue now that Obama policies are the proximate cause of more deaths of black youths than overzealous law enforcement officers.


Similarly in foreign policy, the overarching goal needs to be the reduction in the risk of a mass casualty event like 9/11 or the Paris attacks earlier this month.   Especially given the explicit statements of ISIS, it is perfectly reasonable and sensible to raise the issue of whether the government is taking sufficient steps (or whether it has the ability to do so) to minimize the risk that Islamist attackers may be among the people that Obama is proposing to take in as refugees.  Instead of making his case, Obama simply derided the opposition as "being afraid of widows and orphans" and flatly stated that the refugees posed no greater risk than tourists (which begs the question of whether we need to tighten up policies on tourists) and then compared the refugees to tourists.  These rhetorical assertions flew in the face of the fact that 80% of the refugees were draft age males and the head of the FBI stated that the government does not have the ability to properly vet these people.  While Obama is mocking conservatives for being afraid of widows and orphans (never mind that they represent a tiny fraction of the influx), I, and many others are asking how the vetting is being done and what is the integrity of the data that is being used to vet these people.  We can safely assume that Damascus is not going to provide the U.S. with meticulous records on these folks.

In both domestic police work and vetting immigrants, it is impossible to have a system that has 100% effectiveness (as Rubio is demanding for the refugees).    It is not possible to produce a police force that will always use precisely the amount of necessary force to deter a criminal.  Likewise, it is simply not possible to provide 100% assurance that no ISIS sympathizer will tag along and embed himself among these refugees.  But before we jump to conclusions in either case, we need to enlist the assistance of statisticians and talk in language of acceptable risks before we leap to conclusions and implement policy solutions.  Neither President Obama nor his political opponents seem to be willing to do so.   An open and honest debate on the data would be refreshing and helpful progress in lieu of demanding perfection or demonizing the other party.

Stop doing it!

The New York Times has been wringing its hands about the expansion of market power of companies in certain industries as they have grown through mergers and acquisitions (of course, the NYT applauds the growth of government power wherever it occurs). 

Mergers to gain scale are especially bothersome to the editors at the Times since Jason Furman and  Peter Orzag’s research seems to show that firm size is a factor that exacerbates income inequality (big firms pay better). 

(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/how-mergers-damage-the-economy.html?_r=0)

The NYT caterwauling about consolidation reminds me of the story of the charity concert at which Bono was performing.   Bono stood up and began clapping his hands over his head and said, “Every time I do this, a child in Africa dies.”

From the back row, someone stood up and yelled, “Well stop f—ng doing that then!!”

The NYT, ever the supporter of larger, more intrusive government spending and regulation, cheered the Obama administration on when it bulldozed its way into the finance and health care industries.  In these two major industries, the Affordable Care Act and Dodd Frank have themselves ignited industry consolidation. 

Christopher Pope, in his article, “How the Affordable Care Act Fuels Health Care Market Consolidation,” he noted:

The shackling of competition is an essential feature of Obamacare, not a bug.  The health care system it establishes relies on unfunded mandates to raise revenue, seeks to cross-subsidize care with regulations, and views genuine competition as a threat it its funding structure.  As a result, it is obliged to standardize insurance options and eliminate cheaper alternatives that threaten to undercut its preferred plan designs.  By inhibiting competition between insurers and encouraging their integration with providers, Obamacare further erodes competitive checks on monopoly power of hospitals.  It strengthens incentives for hospital systems to buy up independent medical practices and surgery centers, weakens the competitive discipline on prices, and reduces the array of options available for patients.

It is no surprise then, that consumers have been harmed with higher costs and higher premiums that resulted from enactment of the ACA and that government policy is creating incentives for entities to consolidate.

Likewise, Dodd-Frank, which was enacted in response to the financial crisis of '08 had much the same results.  As Eugen Fama noted in his comments a few weeks ago, Dodd-Frank did not do away with "Too Big to Fail" as a policy.  Rather, it enshrined it.  And by raising compliance costs dramatically, the law is wiping out an essential aspect of the finance industry that in no way was responsible for the meltdown--community banks.  Community banks now cannot afford the hugely burdensome compliance requirements demanded by the government.  As a result, no new banks have been chartered and there has been a precipitous drop off in numbers of community banks and assets that are held by them.  The large banks have grown even larger and more powerful--precisely the opposite of what policymakers thought would be the correct prescription for the finance industry following the crash.

In a recent Harvard study by Marshall Lux and Robert Greene, the authors noted:

Consolidation is likely driven by regulatory economies of scale--larger banks are better suited to handle heightened regulatory burdens than are smaller banks, causing the average costs of community banks to be higher.

With the regulators of the Obama administration merrily and prolifically spinning out hundreds of pages of new rules as we speak, small businesses cannot hope to keep up, nor can they afford the huge compliance staff necessary to satisfy the army of regulators decending upon them.

Anecdotally, I can attest to conversations with several business owners of small companies that told me the same tale of woe.  One small meat processor told me, “I have to sell.  I simply cannot afford a 20 person compliance department.”

Government interference in markets had a substantial role to play in the housing crisis, just as its policies were responsible for gas lines in the 70’s.   Similarly, look behind the inflation in college tuition and what do we find?  Again, you guessed it--Big Government. 

(http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/federal-financial-aid-drives-tuition-and-college-costs-study-finds)

Proponents of Big Government are decrying the widening of income inequality.  If Furman and Orzag are correct and firm size is a large factor in income inequality, then we are really seeing is that Big Government policies are actually driving consolidation in several different industries.

If the NYT really wants mergers, and by implication, the growth in income disparity to slow down, it should call upon Big Government to “stop f---ng doing it then.”

Conversations

Some time ago, I wrote about how much Facebook had added to my life.   It has permitted me to reconnect with old friends,classmates, and coworkers and stay abreast of family members (especially those with whom it is best for all concerned to stay connected from afar).  Yes, there are downsides to it--oversharing among them--but that is easily remedied by deleting someone from your feed.

Twitter is even better.  I now get much of my news through Twitter and it permits you to quickly flip through to articles and essays that may be of interest to you.   Even better, it allows you to join conversations with some really wonderful minds from your smartphone.  Its 140 character limit (which, sadly, Twitter is planning on relaxing) forces concision and pithiness.  I count it as a small victory if I am retweeted, favorited, or even answered by a public intellectual.

Last week, I was answered by Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, writer, and anti-Putin activist, author of the new book, "Winter is Coming:  Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped."  

Kasparov tweeted:
Uh-oh, Kerry is talking to Lavrov again. Already Assad stays & Iran is at the table. By tomorrow he'll have given Alaska back to Russia.

I answered:
We're also working on giving back part of Arizona and California back to Mexico. Big downsizing plan. 

Kasparov responded:
Well, smaller borders are easier to protect! Very clever plan. 

Then someone else chimed in:
Crap, I live in Wyoming; better learn to speak French.

It's a brief, punchy exchange, laced with humor, but highlights in four little tweets, two matters of grave global concern:  Obama's decision to withdraw the United States from its traditional post-WWII role as a global power wherever and whenever he can, second, the simultaneous opportunity that Vladimir Putin is seizing to move into that vacated space.  

This is the genius of Twitter.  In a few sentences, three people were able to establish that we are all on the same page.  Without a long diatribe from any of us, it is a safe bet that we see the world vision of Obama and of Putin as unsettling and disturbing.    Twitter enabled me to connect with an important voice and share the fear that the simultaneous retreat by the U.S. and resurgence of  Russia may be the most dangerous threat to freedom and democracy since the 1930's.