Via Instapundit who notes, “Personally, I’d like to see some Congressmen forced to testify before a panel of car dealers, about the budget deficit’s Sudden Acceleration Problem.”

Toyota has recalled millions of cars and trucks—4.2 million to replace floor mats that might impede throttle-pedal travel, and 2.4 million to install a shim behind the electronic pedal assembly. All of the affected pedal assemblies were made by Canadian supplier CTS. Toyota’s boffins have documented a problem that can make a few of these pedals slow to return, and maybe even stick down. Problem solved.

But the media, Congress—and personal-injury lawyers—smell the blood in the water. Not to diminish the injuries and a few deaths attributable to these very real mechanical problems, but they’re statistically only a very small blip, which may explain why Toyota took so long to identify the issue, especially when it has symptoms similar to the similarly documented floor mat recall. Plus, sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) is notoriously difficult to diagnose because, more often then not, the problem can’t be repeated in front of a mechanic.

Let’s not forget the Audi SUA episode back in the ’80s; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration eventually concluded that there was no mechanical problem. The culprit, as hard as this is to admit, was most likely driver error. To put the issue into context, in the last decade, there were about 24,000 customer complaints about SUA involving almost every major automaker. The NHTSA investigated fewer than 50.

The issue now is whether there’s a more insidious problem unrelated to the two recalls already extant. Specifically, whether there’s some design flaw in the entire concept of electronic throttle control. Some are questioning whether electromagnetic interference from devices like cellphones could be contributing to the acceleration problems.

IBD:

As the U.S. dithers, East Asia has moved forward on market liberalization with a vengeance, creating the biggest free trade zones seen in years. The train is pulling out of the station, and America isn’t on board.

Largely ignored over the weekend, Jan. 1 signaled the arrival of the world’s third-biggest free trade area. China and Asia’s Tigers — the Association of Southeast Asian Nations — scrapped 7,000 different tariffs to form a $200 billion open market for about 2 billion consumers, one-third of the world’s population.

That’s not the half of it. Jan. 1 also heralded another ASEAN free-trade pact with mighty India, ending tariffs on 4,000 products staggered through 2016. This deal will expand a $50 billion market for 1.5 billion consumers into something even bigger.

ASEAN also signed off on free trade with Australia and New Zealand, tacking on another $50 billion market to expand for their 600 million consumers. It follows ASEAN’s Dec. 1 agreement with Japan, which created a $240 billion market for 670 million. In addition, Thailand and South Korea completed the last step of 2007’s ASEAN-Korea pact, finalizing expansion of the zone to a $72 billion market for 600 million.

ASEAN’s six freest members — Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei — even enacted a free-trade deal among themselves on Jan. 1, ending tariffs on goods sold to each other, freeing a $60 billion market for 500 million consumers.

ASEAN wasn’t the only one moving on free trade. Over the same weekend, India announced that three years of talks with South Korea were complete, uniting the third- and fourth-largest economies in the Far East. India’s leaders said a one-year deadline for negotiating a pact with the European Union was set this week, too.

All this points to something major: While the Obama administration has put its energy into trade wars with China, enacting punitive tariffs on steel, tires, nylon, paper, and other goods and has signed no new pacts in 2009, free trade is marching on without the U.S.

That’s a sorry leadership deficit in an era when protectionism, much of it started by the White House to please U.S. unions, has multiplied to 437 protectionist moves across the globe, many retaliatory, according to the Center for Economic Policy and Research.

A year or three from now, the Obama administration may still be coddling jurassic labor unions that abhor free trade and fencing off America’s market and hoping no one notices, but nobody doubts the Asian states are going to be growing.

Economists estimate 6% to 9% growth rates propelling those economies forward — and free-trade pacts will be a big part of it.

One hand destroys jobs, while the other tries to create them. Sheesh.

James Pethokoukis in Reuters:

Here’s the theory about the new U.S. position on greenhouse gases. The official finding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the emissions endanger human health sets the stage for permit requirements on power plants, factories and automobiles. It also supplies President Barack Obama with more evidence at the Copenhagen summit of a “new normal” in America when it comes to climate policy. And back home, it supposedly gives a nudge to the Senate where cap-and-trade legislation is stuck on the back burner.

But in practice, the only thing certain about the EPA ruling is more regulatory uncertainty leading to less economic growth and fewer jobs. Bad news, to be sure, for American businesses already flummoxed by the mercurial state of healthcare, financial and tax reform. Call it Obama’s Uncertainty Tax.

It’s astounding how much damage this band of clowns can cause the nation in just one year.

Elect a president who’s never run a business nor held an executive position and what do you get? Big ideas from people who know nothing.

John Stossel writes about Obama’s recent “jobs summit.”

“We want to make sure it is not just the public sector doing this in a vacuum,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama. “It’s important we engage the private sector as well.”  Administration officials, however, have excluded major trade associations from the summit… .

Some of those groups privately complain that their job creation ideas, including enactment of stalled free trade deals that they say would boost exports, are opposed by labor unions, which will be heavily represented at the forum.

The White House, which has clashed with some of the business groups over their opposition to health-care reform and other initiatives, says it has met repeatedly with those organizations and wants to hear fresh ideas.

Yes. I am sure those “fresh ideas” will come from the trade unions whom the White House just hasn’t heard from much over the past year. At the summit they will also hear from environmental groups “Green for All” and “Coalition for the Green Bank.” I’m sure they’ll have great ideas for job creation.

Will at least some free-market economists get to speak?  No.  The White House will hear from Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, and Jeffrey Sachs. “Fresh ideas” won’t be heard from these folks.

They and the political class can’t imagine a decentralized world where good things happen…without them.  But in the real world, that’s exactly how good things happen, and how jobs are created.

When government sets simple rules that everyone understands and then gets out of the way, free people create jobs.

Hong Kong demonstrates this.  Last century, Hong Kong was third world poor.  50 years ago, its citizens’ average income was under $700 (in today’s dollars) per year.  Today, it’s $43,800.  Hong Kong got rich because Hong Kong’s rulers,  stuffy British bureaucrats, practiced what I’ll call “benign neglect”: they enforced rule of law—kept  people from stealing from each other, or killing each other— but then sat around and drank tea.  They left people alone, and free people, left alone, created prosperity.

America’s founders did the same thing.  The Constitution announced that American would be a country of limited government.  That provided the simple and understandable rules that allowed America to grow into the richest country ever.

Today’s political class thinks that they can improve on that, but they can’t.  Their micromanagement kills jobs.  When Washington threatens to drastically change the rules of the game with health care mandates, cap and trade, financial regulation, a second stimulus, and (of course) a “jobs bill”, the private sector can’t make investments with any confidence.  At least the Post quoted one businessman who said Washington should stop fiddling:

Peter Y. Solmssen, interim U.S. chief executive of Siemens Corp., a German conglomerate, said fixed policies would help businesses, large and small. “We both need a certain amount of certainty, which gives us the opportunity and capability to plan.”

C. Edmund Wright at American Thinker.

Can Barney Frank Dunk on Lebron? No, he cannot. Nor can anyone else in Washington. Nor can they catch passes from Ben Rothlisberger in the Super Bowl or strike out Derek Jeter in the World Series. They are not equipped to do so.

So what?

This ridiculous image speaks to the business malaise infecting the economy since Obama took office. The point is that politicians are equally ill-equipped to run the auto industry or the health industry or the lending industry or the insurance industry — and their determination to do so is sucking all the dynamism from the entrepreneurial class in this country.

With the threat of this administration and congress, what is the possible motivation for anyone with ideas and capital to invest his time, talent, and money into a risky endeavor? There appears to be none. In fact, there appear to be powerful incentives not to invest any time or treasure — thus an economy with almost zero creative inertia.

For Obama voters, almost zero creative inertia means almost no one is having bright ideas, starting businesses based on them, and hiring employees to help share the dream.

Consider: A professional sports league featuring Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Robert Byrd is not an enterprise that can successfully draw investors or paying customers, nor will it command media attention as anything resembling excellence. The entrepreneurial class in this country looks at the governing class in Washington today and sees a bunch of misfit incompetents who are determined to play starring roles in every nook and cranny of the economy.

And it is repulsive as well as disheartening. Maybe three of the 535 members of Congress have what it takes to keep a small business alive for a single fiscal quarter. We believe even fewer have what it takes to roll the dice and actually start one.

Yet they continue to pass laws and speak to reporters about all they are doing to create or save jobs. Yeah, right.

To people who are supercharged with the entrepreneurial spirit, the idea that the pudgy, bespectacled congressman — a self-described non-outdoorsman — could properly run an industry is just as outlandish as the idea that he could elevate over and “posterize” Lebron or Kobe. Taking risks and investing blood, sweat, and tears into a business that will — should it become successful — fall under the strict supervision of Washingtonians is simply a non-starter.

Any business idea, from the first day it is hatched, is nothing more than a series of cost-benefit analyses that the idea-holder either acts on or passes. Sometimes the first decision is to forget the idea. Sometimes the first decision is to move ahead and invest some cash. Perhaps a few million cost-benefit analyses later you might have Microsoft or Home Depot or ESPN. Or you might have Bill’s Plumbing or Johnson’s Quality Homes or a café or an electrical wholesaler, and so on. And those businesses still operate on a constant stream of risk-reward decisions. In the business world, there is no neutral gear.

From Junk Science, a collection of wanted posters for Carbon Criminals.

Note that most, if not all, are business leaders who’ve figured out the profit side of the Green Scare.

From Wired, how a company called Demand Media mines search engine data to create how-to articles and videos guaranteed to turn a profit.

The stuff may be crap and those making it are earning Third World pay, but it is profitable.

Reese is a tall Texan who serves as Demand’s chief innovation officer and who created the idea-spawning algorithm that lies at the heart of Demand’s process. To determine what articles to assign, his formula analyzes three chunks of information.

First, to find out what terms users are searching for, it parses bulk data purchased from search engines, ISPs, and Internet marketing firms (as well as Demand’s own traffic logs). Then the algorithm crunches keyword rates to calculate how much advertisers will pay to appear on pages that include those terms. (A portion of Demand’s revenue comes from Google, which allows businesses to bid on phrases that they would like to advertise against.) Third, the formula checks to see how many Web pages already include those terms. It doesn’t make sense to commission an article that will be buried on the fifth page of Google results. Finally, the algorithm, like a drunken prophet, starts spitting out phrase after phrase: “butterfly cake,” “shin splints,” “Harley-Davidson belt buckles.”

But that’s just the start. Armed with those key words, another algorithm, called the Knowledge Engine, dives back into the data to figure out exactly what people want to know about the term. If the original algorithm divines “2009 Chevy Corvette” as a profitable title, the Knowledge Engine will return with “cost of 2009 Corvette”; for “shin splint” it might come back with “equine treatment shin splints.” The second algorithm also looks at how well past titles with similar words have performed in terms of ad revenue. Demand has learned, for instance, that “best” and “how to” bring in traffic or high clickthrough rates, while “history of” is ad poison. At the end of the process, the company has a topic and a dollar amount — the term’s “lifetime value,” or LTV — that Demand expects to generate from any resulting content.

Genius.

Plenty of other companies — About.com, Mahalo, Answers.com — have tried to corner the market in arcane online advice. But none has gone about it as aggressively, scientifically, and single-mindedly as Demand. Pieces are not dreamed up by trained editors nor commissioned based on submitted questions. Instead they are assigned by an algorithm, which mines nearly a terabyte of search data, Internet traffic patterns, and keyword rates to determine what users want to know and how much advertisers will pay to appear next to the answers.

The process is automatic, random, and endless, a Stirling engine fueled by the world’s unceasing desire to know how to grow avocado trees from pits or how to throw an Atlanta Braves-themed birthday party. It is a database of human needs, and if you haven’t stumbled on a Demand video or article yet, you soon will.

By next summer, according to founder and CEO Richard Rosenblatt, Demand will be publishing 1 million items a month, the equivalent of four English-language Wikipedias a year. Demand is already one of the largest suppliers of content to YouTube, where its 170,000 videos make up more than twice the content of CBS, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera English, Universal Music Group, CollegeHumor, and Soulja Boy combined. Demand also posts its material to its network of 45 B-list sites — ranging from eHow and Livestrong.com to the little-known doggy-photo site TheDailyPuppy.com — that manage to pull in more traffic than ESPN, NBC Universal, and Time Warner’s online properties (excluding AOL) put together. To appreciate the impact Demand is poised to have on the Web, imagine a classroom where one kid raises his hand after every question and screams out the answer. He may not be smart or even right, but he makes it difficult to hear anybody else.

The result is a factory stamping out moneymaking content. “I call them the Henry Ford of online video,” says Jordan Hoffner, director of content partnerships at YouTube. Media companies like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, AOL, and USA Today have either hired Demand or studied its innovations. This year, the privately held Demand is expected to bring in about $200 million in revenue; its most recent round of financing by blue-chip investors valued the company at $1 billion.

Taxpayers bailed out certain companies to the tune of billions of dollars.

Now that we have a financial interest in these corporations, we have the legal right to address how much executives get paid.

Thus the Obama administration is busy cutting pay — a popular exercise, indeed.  Of course, some of those companies are conglomerates where many divisions were highly profitable and had nothing to do with the meltdown.

Does it make sense for us to chase off executive talent? Or is it cutting off our nose to spite our face?

Suppose one division of AIG was the Los Angeles Lakers. Would it be smart business to cap salaries at $1 million (hey, anybody can live on that!)?

No, it would be the quickest way to turn the Lakers into the Clippers.

Macroblog on why small businesses won’t be hiring soon.

In a speech yesterday, William Dudley, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, identified financial constraints for small businesses as a restraint on the pace of economic recovery. Specifically, he said:

“For small business borrowers, there are three problems. First, the fundamentals of their businesses have often deteriorated because of the length and severity of the recession—making many less creditworthy. Second, some sources of funding for small businesses—credit card borrowing and home equity loans—have dried up as banks have responded to rising credit losses in these areas by tightening credit standards. Third, small businesses have few alternative sources of funds. They are too small to borrow in the capital markets and the Small Business Administration programs are not large enough to accommodate more than a small fraction of the demand from this sector.”

President Dudley’s comments are even more relevant in the current recession if one considers the disproportionate effect the recession has had on very small businesses. In general, the Small Business Administration defines a small business as a firm with less than 500 employees. However, for my analysis here I focus on the very small firms (those with less than 50 employees) as the data indicate these firms have been the most affected by the current recession. (Look here for another take on how to define a small business).

Boeing Co. workers in North Charleston voted overwhelmingly to disband their union in a move that could give the region an edge in landing an aircraft plant the company is looking to build.

Of the 267 ballots cast, 199 were in favor of decertifying the election that made them members of the International Association of Machinists. The company was pleased; the union was disappointed.

Sounds like they’re smart enough to understand costs and competition.

Paul Graham:

Now that the term “ramen profitable” has become widespread, I ought to explain precisely what the idea entails.

Ramen profitable means a startup makes just enough to pay the founders’ living expenses. This is a different form of profitability than startups have traditionally aimed for. Traditional profitability means a big bet is finally paying off, whereas the main importance of ramen profitability is that it buys you time. [1]

In the past, a startup would usually become profitable only after raising and spending quite a lot of money. A company making computer hardware might not become profitable for 5 years, during which they spent $50 million. But when they did they might have revenues of $50 million a year. This kind of profitability means the startup has succeeded.

Ramen profitability is the other extreme: a startup that becomes profitable after 2 months, even though its revenues are only $3000 a month, because the only employees are a couple 25 year old founders who can live on practically nothing. Revenues of $3000 a month do not mean the company has succeeded. But it does share something with the one that’s profitable in the traditional way: they don’t need to raise money to survive.

Ramen profitability is an unfamiliar idea to most people because it only recently became feasible. It’s still not feasible for a lot of startups; it would not be for most biotech startups, for example; but it is for many software startups because they’re now so cheap. For many, the only real cost is the founders’ living expenses.

The main significance of this type of profitability is that you’re no longer at the mercy of investors. If you’re still losing money, then eventually you’ll either have to raise more or shut down. Once you’re ramen profitable this painful choice goes away. You can still raise money, but you don’t have to do it now.

…this will be all too familiar.

Read the post below first. Michael Malone explains why Big Tech loved Obama:

The first surprise to many [Silicon Valley] Valleyites is how innately anti-entrepreneurial the new Administration has turned out to be. Candidate Obama looked like a high tech executive – smart, hip, a gadget freak – and he certainly talked pro-entrepreneur. But the reality of the last six months has been very different. One might have predicted that he would use the best tool in his economic arsenal – new company creation and the millions of new jobs those firms in turn create – to fight this recession. But President Obama has instead appeared to be almost exclusively interested in Big Business as the key to economy recovery.

By comparison, almost every move the new Administration has made regarding entrepreneurship seems to be targeting at destroying it in this country. It has left Sarbanes-Oxley intact, added ever-greater burdens on small business owners, called for increasing capital gains taxes, and is now preparing to pile on cap-and-trade, double taxation on offshore earnings, and a host of other new costs. Even Obamacare seems likely to land unfairly on small companies.

Entrepreneurship has been the single most important contributor to the economic health of this country for at least a century now – and if you were going to systematically destroy that vitality, you couldn’t come up with a better strategy than the one Washington has put in place over the last six months. Indeed, you can make the case that the sole contribution the Obama administration has made to entrepreneurship in America to date is to force all of those millions of unemployed people to desperately set up their own businesses in order to survive.

You might imagine that this would be upsetting to all of those Valley tycoons who played such an important role in underwriting, advising and legitimizing Candidate Obama. But you would be wrong.

What I think is most misunderstood by outsiders is that the electronics industry is not monolithic, and that its players do not all share the same interests. And nowhere is this divide greater than between start-up companies and the giant, well-known corporations – even though the latter, just a few years before, were start-ups themselves.

For example, you may think that the competitive challenge that big tech companies fear most is from other big tech companies. You know: Apple v. Microsoft, HP v. Dell, Cisco v. Juniper, MySpace v. Facebook. But in fact, that isn’t the case. Sure, those are dangerous competitors; but far more threatening is that clever new start-up that seems to appear out of nowhere. That’s the threat that wakes up Fortune 500 tech CEOs at 3 a.m. That little start-up not only competes with you, it can render your entire business – even your entire industry – obsolete and you don’t even see it coming. Think desktop publishing and the printing industry, the iPod and the music industry – and just look at the terror that Twitter seems to be creating at Google and Facebook these days.

Once you understand this dynamic, a lot of the paradoxical recent business behavior in high tech suddenly becomes explicable. For example, why did the big tech companies embrace such regulations as Sarbanes and stock options expensing – even though they would cost them billions of dollars with no obvious gain? And why would they support a Presidential candidate who seemed to have little understanding of, or sympathy for, market capitalism and business?

Because it was the best strategy to crush the start-ups.

Congress passed strict tobacco legislation with Philip Morris grinning all the way to the bank.

When Senator John McCain introduced FDA regulatory legislation in 1998, the company spent a reported $100 million successfully fighting it. But since then, Philip Morris has had a crucial realization. With 50% of the U.S. tobacco market already safely in the company’s pocket – and more than 50% of 18- to 25-year-old smokers loyal to its top brand, Marlboro – restrictive legislation will effectively lock in its market dominance, preventing any competitors from taking a bite out of Philip Morris’ very lucrative business.

Important lesson. As Jonah Goldberg noted in Liberal Fascism, big business loves big government when said government locks in its market share.

For example, the big meatpackers actually encouraged strong government regulation — it wasn’t all the doing of muckrakers — because the big boys knew the smaller operators couldn’t afford the cost of meeting government rules.

It didn’t Lenin long after nationalizing the Russian economy to realize it wasn’t working well — all those starving people must have been a clue.

So he decided to allow farmers to grow and sell food without government interference. When his comrades bitched that he’d sold out his Bolshevik ideals, he retorted that they were fools because the state retained control of the Commanding Heights — all the heavy industry, the railroads, the newspapers etc.

Such has been the economic argument for the past 100 years: how much government should be nosing in the economy. It’s a debate sure to heat up as Obama has turned General Motors into Government Motors, cocksure that he and his advisors know best.

This has elicited some amusing reactions, such as this from Pravda.

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

…The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

A more sober analysis comes from Megan McArdle at the Atlantic. (She voted for Obama.)

…The government is acting as if GM’s main problem is that it stubbornly refused to enter the lucrative market for small, fuel-efficient cars.  But the market for small, fuel efficient cars is not lucrative–they’re the cars with the thinnest margins.  And no one’s making it up on volume, either:  at the height of last year’s oil spike, when barrels of Brent Crude were being quoted in first-born sons, small cars soared to . . . 20% of the American market.  Yes, there was a glut of SUVs, but that’s because American companies were making a lot of SUVs.  Foreign companies make money on small cars because they develop them for lucrative home markets before modifying them for American production.

GM’s main problem is not that the market is unreasonably unwilling to finance a potentially profitable company.  Nor that it can’t produce an awesome small car that shockingly few people want to buy.  (Believe me, as the owner of a tiny, ultra-efficient car, I would that there were higher demand for my rapidly depreciating asset).  GM’s main problems are

1)  A terrible, bloated cost structure
2)  A terrible, bloated bureaucracy
3)  A bunch of meh car lines

Which of these is the government going to solve?  That terrible, bloated cost structure supports a bloated union whose jobs are the entire rationale for the government intervention.  Leaning on the parts suppliers just risks UAW jobs further down the supply chain.  Maybe we can take it out of the budget for copy paper and pencils.

Forgive me if I am skeptical that the government is going to show GM how to streamline its bureaucracy.  Nor do governments historically have a good record as cutting-edge auto designers.

The link is to a photo of the Trabant, the car made by East Germany. Trabant jokes were legend.

Q. What’s the difference between a Trabant and a golf ball?
A. You can drive a golf ball.

Q. How do you make a Trabant disappear?
A. Spray it with rust remover.

Q. How do you double the value of a Trabant?
A. Fill up the tank!

Q. What’s the difference between a Jehovah’s Witness and a Trabant?
A. You can shut the door on a Jehovah’s Witness.

The good news about the Trabant was you had to wait seven years to own one.

What makes Warren run? Michael Lewis reviews a biography of the Omaha billionaire.

There is now a long shelf of books about Warren Buffett, but this is the first time he has gone to any trouble to add to it. Reportedly Buffett now regrets his decision–he has apparently put some fresh distance between himself and his official biographer. If so, it’s not hard to see why. Alice Schroeder is a former Morgan Stanley research analyst, able to understand and to explain Buffett’s money-making, but she declined to confine herself to the business at hand. She has sought to describe Buffett’s psychological landscape as clearly as his financial one. For the reader, the results are pretty terrific–there are not a lot of 838-page narratives that leave you wanting more–but for Buffett they are no doubt upsetting.

Over his long and admirable career, the famous billionaire has been shockingly honest about who he is and what he does. Now along comes this first-time author who insists on seeing his pleasant honesty and raising it, painfully. Even worse: she’s a woman! Buffett has a long and happy history of admitting attractive, intelligent women into his life, which Schroeder describes without mentioning how neatly she fits into the pattern. These women have invariably felt the need to shelter and to protect their man, and to subordinate their own needs to his–until now. Buffett should have known better: you should never completely trust a writer. Especially if she is any good.

Begin, as Schroeder does, at the beginning. Born in 1930, the son of an emotionally abusive mother and a father whom he adored but who was unable to absorb the full shock of his wife, Buffett was emotionally problematic. In Schroeder’s telling, the young Warren was sneaky, socially awkward, and generally a wiseass with a cruel streak. As a man he would reserve his harshest criticism for those who lied or cheated or stole, but as a boy he shoplifted pathologically–not because he wanted a particular thing, but simply for the pleasure of stealing. At ease in Omaha, he was unhappy everywhere else, and so he suffered especially when his stockbroker father Howard was elected to the House of Representatives and he became the new kid at middle school in Washington, D.C. He was young for his class. In the most important social departments, he started out well behind his classmates and, as he puts it, “I never caught up, basically.” He had terrible social anxieties and, right up until the time he married, at the age of twenty-one, a special lack of talent with girls.

In spite of all this he was deeply, ferociously competitive. Here is one of the odd things about the man whom Schroeder describes: the plain facts of his young character assemble themselves into something like a portrait of a universal loser–and yet right from the start Buffett himself seems to have been able to believe that the universe was wrong and he was right.

Manny Lopez in the Detroit News

President Barack Obama insists he doesn’t want to run the domestic auto industry — and we should all be thankful for that.

But his actions speak differently — and we should all be worried.

“… I rejected the original restructuring plan” that Chrysler LLC submitted for government loans, he said April 30 in announcing his decision to force Chrysler into bankruptcy. “… And the standard I set was high — I challenged them to design a plan …”

That’s a lot of self promotion and involvement from a guy who doesn’t want to control the companies.

To be sure, the government, with the investment of $4 billion in our tax dollars in Chrysler and $15.4 billion in General Motors Corp. needs to set guidelines and rules for repayment. If not met, call the loans and get our money back.

But forcing a private American company into bankruptcy because the president thinks it’s the most prudent action. Um, no. Not by any measure.

Blaming the hedge funds

The president found a scapegoat in the hedge funds that balked at the government’s “offer” to take pennies on the dollar for their secured investment

“… It was unacceptable to let a small group of speculators endanger Chrysler’s future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else,” he said.

Pardon me while I puke.

Chrysler’s secured lenders held about $6.9 billion in debt and a couple didn’t want to take significantly less than what they were owed. The lenders that opposed hold less than 10 percent of that debt.

You mean to tell me that the president, who has authorized more than $19 billion in cash to the auto companies, with much of it likely never to be repaid, was willing to force Chrysler into bankruptcy over less than a billion bucks?

When you’re doling out dump trucks full of cash, another Ram pickup full doesn’t break the government’s back.

Too much auto ignorance

Make no mistake: The president had this outcome in mind all along. He’ll force that action on GM, too.

All the while bashing Detroit for not being Toyota.

“I don’t know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid. But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same,” he said during his 100-days-in-office speech. “So my job is to ask the auto industry: Why is it you guys can’t do this?”

Seriously? GM is building the Volt. The Ford Fusion hybrid will get top mileage numbers.It’s about time Obama starts looking past the nonsense he’s being fed by Californians in Congress. Certainly, the domestic industry needs to do more and it didn’t adapt fast enough.

But to suggest that less than a billion bucks forced Chrysler into court or that these companies aren’t in the same league as the Japanese shows that the auto ignorance in Washington rolls on.

Note to Obama: Toyota sells a fine hybrid and Americans are not buying them.

Gary Hamel in the WSJ:

The experience of growing up online will profoundly shape the workplace expectations of “Generation F” – the Facebook Generation. At a minimum, they’ll expect the social environment of work to reflect the social context of the Web, rather than as is currently the case, a mid-20th-century Weberian bureaucracy.

If your company hopes to attract the most creative and energetic members of Gen F, it will need to understand these Internet-derived expectations, and then reinvent its management practices accordingly. Sure, it’s a buyer’s market for talent right now, but that won’t always be the case—and in the future, any company that lacks a vital core of Gen F employees will soon find itself stuck in the mud.

With that in mind, I compiled a list of 12 work-relevant characteristics of online life. These are the post-bureaucratic realities that tomorrow’s employees will use as yardsticks in determining whether your company is “with it” or “past it.” In assembling this short list, I haven’t tried to catalog every salient feature of the Web’s social milieu, only those that are most at odds with the legacy practices found in large companies.

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.
On the Web, every idea has the chance to gain a following—or not, and no one has the power to kill off a subversive idea or squelch an embarrassing debate. Ideas gain traction based on their perceived merits, rather than on the political power of their sponsors.

2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.
When you post a video to YouTube, no one asks you if you went to film school. When you write a blog, no one cares whether you have a journalism degree. Position, title, and academic degrees—none of the usual status differentiators carry much weight online. On the Web, what counts is not your resume, but what you can contribute.

3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.
In any Web forum there are some individuals who command more respect and attention than others—and have more influence as a consequence. Critically, though, these individuals haven’t been appointed by some superior authority. Instead, their clout reflects the freely given approbation of their peers. On the Web, authority trickles up, not down.

Read on…

Yes! Into the ground! Betsy Newmark

Well, we’re going to soon find out with the plans put forward for GM and Chrysler.

The United Auto Workers (UAW) would own 39% of GM. The federal government would own 50%. The creditors will be shafted with just 10%. (In the Chrysler plan being discussed, labor would own 55%, making it effectively a subsidiary of the UAW.)

Since everyone recognizes the role that the unions have played in the decline of the two companies, how are they going to improve and come out of this debacle as stronger, more profitable companies? What is going to happen when it comes time for the UAW to negotiate their next labor contract with a company that they own 39%? Do you think that an Obama-run administration would stand up to their demands? As Holman Jenkins points out, it has been the combination of government and union action in the past thirty years that has led these companies to the situation that they’re now in.

Chrysler was bailed out directly with government loan guarantees; the Big Three all benefited from Reagan era “voluntary” quotas on Japanese imports to prop up domestic car prices. But these were temporary fixes. For more than 40 years, a 25% tariff has kept out foreign-built pickup trucks even as a studied loophole was created in fuel-economy regulations to let the Big Three develop a lucrative, protected niche in the “passenger truck” business.

This became the long-running unwritten deal. This was Washington’s real auto policy.

For three decades, the Big Three were able to survive precisely because they skimped on quality and features in the money-losing sedans they were required under Congress’s fuel economy rules to build in high-cost UAW factories. In return, Washington compensated them with the hothouse, politically protected opportunity to profit from pickups and SUVs.

Doesn’t sound much like what you hear incessantly from your Congressman, about how Detroit’s problems are all due to management “incompetence” in deciding to build “gas guzzling” SUVs, does it?

But then uncertain at this point is whether any legislator (other than John Dingell) remembers or grasps anymore Congress’s own role. Yet the muddled, covert bailout continues: Washington’s latest fuel-economy rules actually reward manufacturers for increasing the size and weight of some vehicles. The truck tariff remains in place. The fuel-mileage rules continue to protect the UAW monopoly by discouraging the Big Three from shipping small-car production offshore.

Lately some have doted, with wonderment and admiration, on the Obama administration’s apparent willingness to drive a hard bargain with the UAW as it tries to impose a stage-managed replica of bankruptcy on GM and Chrysler. Please.

In a real bankruptcy, which is the natural fate of companies unable to meet their obligations, Chrysler and GM would be run (or liquidated) for the benefit of their creditors, not their workers. But, here, “pattern bargaining” will remain the law of the Detroit jungle. The UAW will continue to use its unnaturally augmented clout to extract uncompetitive pay and benefits (it can do no other given its internal incentives). As it has for 40 years, Washington will pitch in with one improvisation after another, disguised as energy policy, trade policy, health-care policy or environmental policy, to stop the rivets from popping off. Politics, especially Democratic electoral politics, will play a more dominant role than ever.

Look closely and the hidden subsidies to keep the dismal beast alive have already started flowing — tax credits for UAW retirees to make up for reduced health-care benefits, loans to help Detroit “invest in green cars.” And plenty more will be needed to sustain Obama Motors on life support, at least through the 2012 election.

Why would anyone invest money in these companies today? The ordinary bondholders are getting the shaft. As Larry Kudlow pointed out Monday,

The government is about to take over GM in a plan that completely screws private bondholders and favors the unions. Get this: The GM bondholders own $27 billion and they’re getting 10 percent of the common stock in an expected exchange. And the UAW owns $10 billion of the bonds and they’re getting 40 percent of the stock. Huh? Did I miss something here? And Uncle Sam will have a controlling share of the stock with something close to 50 percent ownership. And no bankruptcy judge. So this is a political restructuring run by the White House, not a rule-of-law bankruptcy-court reorganization.

Yes, up is down and down is up. But it’s been that way for a long time in Detroit. Don’t expect anything to change.

Paul Graham:

I usually avoid politics, but since we now seem to have an administration that’s open to suggestions, I’m going to risk making one. The single biggest thing the government could do to increase the number of startups in this country is a policy that would cost nothing: establish a new class of visa for startup founders.

The biggest constraint on the number of new startups that get created in the U.S. is not tax policy or employment law or even Sarbanes-Oxley. It’s that we won’t let the people who want to start them into the country.

Letting just 10,000 startup founders into the country each year could have a visible effect on the economy. If we assume 4 people per startup, which is probably an overestimate, that’s 2500 new companies. Each year. They wouldn’t all grow as big as Google, but out of 2500 some would come close.

By definition these 10,000 founders wouldn’t be taking jobs from Americans: it could be part of the terms of the visa that they couldn’t work for existing companies, only new ones they’d founded. In fact they’d cause there to be more jobs for Americans, because the companies they started would hire more employees as they grew.

The tricky part might seem to be how one defined a startup. But that could be solved quite easily: let the market decide. Startup investors work hard to find the best startups. The government could not do better than to piggyback on their expertise, and use investment by recognized startup investors as the test of whether a company was a real startup.

How would the government decide who’s a startup investor? The same way they decide what counts as a university for student visas. We’ll establish our own accreditation procedure. We know who one another are.

10,000 people is a drop in the bucket by immigration standards, but would represent a huge increase in the pool of startup founders. I think this would have such a visible effect on the economy that it would make the legislator who introduced the bill famous. The only way to know for sure would be to try it, and that would cost practically nothing.

Paul Graham:

Recently I realized I’d been holding two ideas in my head that would explode if combined.

The first is that startups may represent a new economic phase, on the scale of the Industrial Revolution. I’m not sure of this, but there seems a decent chance it’s true. People are dramatically more productive as founders or early employees of startups—imagine how much less Larry and Sergey would have achieved if they’d gone to work for a big company—and that scale of improvement can change social customs.

The second idea is that startups are a type of business that flourishes in certain places that specialize in it—that Silicon Valley specializes in startups in the same way Los Angeles specializes in movies, or New York in finance. [1]

What if both are true? What if startups are both a new economic phase and also a type of business that only flourishes in certain centers?

If so, this revolution is going to be particularly revolutionary. All previous revolutions have spread. Agriculture, cities, and industrialization all spread widely. If startups end up being like the movie business, with just a handful of centers and one dominant one, that’s going to have novel consequences.

There are already signs that startups may not spread particularly well. The spread of startups seems to be proceeding slower than the spread of the Industrial Revolution, despite the fact that communication is so much faster now.

Within a few decades of the founding of Boulton & Watt there were steam engines scattered over northern Europe and North America. Industrialization didn’t spread much beyond those regions for a while. It only spread to places where there was a strong middle class—countries where a private citizen could make a fortune without having it confiscated. Otherwise it wasn’t worth investing in factories. But in a country with a strong middle class it was easy for industrial techniques to take root. An individual mine or factory owner could decide to install a steam engine, and within a few years he could probably find someone local to make him one. So steam engines spread fast. And they spread widely, because the locations of mines and factories were determined by features like rivers, harbors, and sources of raw materials. [2]

Read it all.

The Bulletin:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”

Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the campaign had asked her and her boss to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:

“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

Ms. Moncrief made her first overture to Ms. Heidelbaugh after The New York Times allegedly spiked the story — on Oct. 21, 2008. Last fall, she testified under oath about what she had learned about ACORN from her years in its Washington, D.C. office. Although she was present at the congressional hearing, she did not testify.

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking Republican on the committee, said the interactions between the Obama campaign and ACORN, as described by Ms. Moncrief, and attested to before the committee by Ms. Heidelbaugh, could possibly violate federal election law, and “ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws.”

He also voiced criticism of The New York Times.

“If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves of this in their newspaper.”

If I were in the market for a car, a hybrid would look good to me. No so for most Americans. LA Times:

Americans have cut back on buying vehicles of all types as the economy continues its slide. But the slowdown has been particularly brutal for hybrids, which use electricity and gasoline as power sources. They were the industry’s darling just last summer, but sales have collapsed as consumers refuse to pay a premium for a fuel-efficient vehicle now that the average price of a gallon of gasoline nationally has slipped below $2.

“When gas prices came down, the priority of buying a hybrid fell off quite quickly,” said Wes Brown, a partner at Los Angeles-based market research firm Iceology. “Yet even as consumer interest declined, the manufacturers have continued to pump them out.”

Last month, only 15,144 hybrids sold nationwide, down almost two-thirds from April, when the segment’s sales peaked and gas averaged $3.57 a gallon. That’s far larger than the drop in industry sales for the period and scarcely a better showing than January, when hybrid sales were at their lowest since early 2005.

Short-term thinking:

“The price of gasoline dictates what people buy,” AutoNation Chief Executive Mike Jackson said. “Gas fell to $2, and now my lots are filled up with fuel-efficient cars that aren’t moving.”

Consumers who do buy these days tend to focus more on present-day arithmetic than long-term commodity speculation.

A naive sentiment:

In January, President Obama called on the industry to “thrive by building the cars of tomorrow” and prepare for federal and state regulations that could push average fuel economy above 40 miles per gallon by 2020.

“The automakers are in the situation of needing to pacify politicians that are in the position to bail them out with expensive fuel-efficient cars,” said Rebecca Lindland, auto analyst with IHS Global Insight. “But shouldn’t it be more about satisfying the needs of the American consumer?”

Not in Obama’s world, no.

Joseph B. White in this month’s Imprimis:

…How does a juggernaut like this become the basket case that we see before us today? I will oversimplify matters and touch on five factors that contributed to the current crisis—a crisis that has been more than 30 years in the making.

First, Detroit underestimated the competition—in more ways than one.

Second, GM mismanaged its relationship with the United Auto Workers, and the UAW in its turn did nothing to encourage GM (or Ford or Chrysler) to defuse the demographic time bomb that has now blown up their collective future.

Third, GM, Ford, and Chrysler handled failure better than success. When they made money, they tended to squander it on ill-conceived diversification schemes. It was when they were in trouble that they often did their most innovative work—the first minivans at Chrysler, the first Ford Taurus, and more recently the Chevy Volt were ideas born out of crisis.

Fourth, GM (and Ford and Chrysler) relied too heavily on a few, gas-hungry truck and SUV lines for all their profits-plus the money they needed to cover losses on many of their car lines. They did this for a good reason: When gas was cheap, big gas-guzzling trucks were exactly what their customers wanted—until they were not.

Fifth, GM refused to accept that to survive it could not remain what it was in the 1950s and 1960s—with multiple brands and a dominant market share. Instead, it used short-term strategies such as zero percent financing to avoid reckoning with the consequences of globalization and its own mistakes.

Read it all.

Did you know that the ubiquitous poinsettia plants you see during the holidays are largely the work of one family? It’s a fascinating story from the LA Times Column One.

The Eckes of Southern California are to poinsettias what De Beers of South Africa is to diamonds. Over the last century, four generations of Eckes took a cold-weather bloomer few Americans had ever seen and made it a holiday staple.

Their zealous promotion is the reason the poinsettia is the nation’s bestselling potted plant — an astonishing fact considering about 100 million are sold each year in just six weeks. Let’s see the iPhone top that.

German immigrant Albert Ecke and his family were headed to Fiji to open a health spa when they stopped in Los Angeles in 1900 and liked what they saw. They established a dairy farm and fruit orchard a few years later in the Eagle Rock area.

Ecke became intrigued by the red-and-green shrub that is native to Mexico and Central America and grew wild throughout the Southland. The Aztecs extracted dyes and a fever treatment from poinsettias, and the Spanish used it as a Christmas decoration. The plant was brought to the United States in the late 1820s by the first U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Joel Roberts Poinsett.

Ecke was the first to develop the commercial potential. He grew poinsettias on farmland in Hollywood and sold them from street stands. His son, Paul Ecke Sr., had bigger ideas.

A visionary horticulturist and businessman, Paul Ecke Sr. gave the poinsettia a makeover through a secret breeding technique that turned the delicate and gangly weed into a sturdy and voluptuous potted plant. In the 1920s he moved south and laid a carpet of poinsettias stretching from Carlsbad to Encinitas.

His son, Paul Ecke Jr., expanded the business yet again. In the 1960s he moved the poinsettias into greenhouses and pushed cuttings shipped by air instead of mature plants hauled by rail.

Paul Graham:

The economic situation is apparently so grim that some experts fear we may be in for a stretch as bad as the mid seventies.

When Microsoft and Apple were founded.

As those examples suggest, a recession may not be such a bad time to start a startup. I’m not claiming it’s a particularly good time either. The truth is more boring: the state of the economy doesn’t matter much either way.

If we’ve learned one thing from funding so many startups, it’s that they succeed or fail based on the qualities of the founders. The economy has some effect, certainly, but as a predictor of success it’s rounding error compared to the founders.

Which means that what matters is who you are, not when you do it. If you’re the right sort of person, you’ll win even in a bad economy. And if you’re not, a good economy won’t save you. Someone who thinks “I better not start a startup now, because the economy is so bad” is making the same mistake as the people who thought during the Bubble “all I have to do is start a startup, and I’ll be rich.”

So if you want to improve your chances, you should think far more about who you can recruit as a cofounder than the state of the economy. And if you’re worried about threats to the survival of your company, don’t look for them in the news. Look in the mirror.

But for any given team of founders, would it not pay to wait till the economy is better before taking the leap? If you’re starting a restaurant, maybe, but not if you’re working on technology. Technology progresses more or less independently of the stock market. So for any given idea, the payoff for acting fast in a bad economy will be higher than for waiting. Microsoft’s first product was a Basic interpreter for the Altair. That was exactly what the world needed in 1975, but if Gates and Allen had decided to wait a few years, it would have been too late.

Read on.

Rob Long: 

Deep down, I think every business is really a version of the entertainment business.  This is partially because I only know about the entertainment business, and when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

But on the other hand, the recent news from the financial markets has seemed pretty familiar.    It’s hard to hear phrases like “huge losses,” “cash hemorrhage,” and “colossal mismanagement” alongside “enormous executive pay packages,” “whopping year-end bonuses,” and “platinum parachutes,” and not think, hey!  Rewarding failure! That’s just like in show business!

Of course, the past few years in the entertainment business have been challenging.  The country-club years of the 1990’s and early 2000’s are gone.  The huge cash tide has receded, and along with it the fat studio deals.  The business looks leaner these days.  Which has benefits: leaner industries take more, cheaper, risks.  And they also start exploring real growth areas, rather than just pumping money into maturing businesses.

Reading today’s Financial Times, this jumped out at me.  A European investor who runs a private equity fund had this to say about the future of the private equity business:

Guy Hands, chief executive of London-based Terra Firma Capital Partners, told a Hong Kong conference that over time “there will be less people working in the industry and they will get paid less and that is not necessarily a bad thing.”

…Show business doesn’t have a regulator, per se.  But it does have a young customer with an iPhone, an MP3 player, whip-fast broadband access, a zeal for copying music files for free, an unwillingness to watch television without zapping through the commercials, and a preference for spending two hours a day on Facebook, not watching primetime television or sitting in a movie theater.

And here’s the difference:  a middle-aged regulator will bail you out.  A young customer will leave you to die.

Is actually a native of New Jersey who went to law school and made her fortune in telecom and other businesses. She was also, until recently, a fundraiser and supporter of Hillary Clinton.

As she was in June when this interview with Conde Nast Portfolio was conducted.

After she switched to McCain, she caught hell from “all the right people.”

Paul Graham:

Raising money is the second hardest part of starting a startup. The hardest part is making something people want: most startups that die, die because they didn’t do that. But the second biggest cause of death is probably the difficulty of raising money. Fundraising is brutal.

One reason it’s so brutal is simply the brutality of markets. People who’ve spent most of their lives in schools or big companies may not have been exposed to that. Professors and bosses usually feel some sense of responsibility toward you; if you make a valiant effort and fail, they’ll cut you a break. Markets are less forgiving. Customers don’t care how hard you worked, only whether you solved their problems.

Investors evaluate startups the way customers evaluate products, not the way bosses evaluate employees. If you’re making a valiant effort and failing, maybe they’ll invest in your next startup, but not this one.

But raising money from investors is harder than selling to customers, because there are so few of them. There’s nothing like an efficient market. You’re unlikely to have more than 10 who are interested; it’s difficult to talk to more. So the randomness of any one investor’s behavior can really affect you.

Problem number 3: investors are very random. All investors, including us, are by ordinary standards incompetent. We constantly have to make decisions about things we don’t understand, and more often than not we’re wrong.

And yet a lot is at stake. The amounts invested by different types of investors vary from five thousand dollars to fifty million, but the amount usually seems large for whatever type of investor it is. Investment decisions are big decisions.

Read on.

Oy, the farm bill…

Yet you couldn’t write a piece of legislation that more thoroughly represents the Beltway status quo than this one. In every way imaginable, and even a few more, it repeats and compounds the spendthrift errors of previous farm bills.

Since the last farm bill in 2002, the price of cotton is up 105%, soybeans 164%, corn 169% and wheat 256%. Yet when Mr. Bush proposed the genuine change of limiting farm welfare to those earning less than $200,000 a year, he was laughed out of town. The bill purports to limit subsidies to those earning a mere $750,000, but loopholes and spousal qualifications make it closer to $2.5 million. As Barack Obama likes to say, it’s time Washington worked for “the middle class,” which apparently includes millionaire corn and sugar farmers.

Another purported change is the arrival of “fiscal discipline,” in Nancy Pelosi’s favorite phrase from the 2006 campaign. Yet it turns out this farm extravaganza may bust federal budget targets even more than we thought a week ago. That’s because the new price supports – the guaranteed floor payments farmers receive for their crops – have been raised to match this year’s record prices.

Mad yet? Keep reading.

The USDA reports that if crop prices fall from these highs to their norm over the next five years, farm payments will surge. For example, if corn prices return to $3.25 a bushel from today’s $6, farmers would get $10 billion a year in support payments. If bean prices fall to their norm, they’d get $4 billion. Thus, if farm prices stay high, consumers face higher grocery bills and farmers get rich. If farm prices fall, taxpayers kick in the difference and farmers still get rich.

On the same day that Congress fleeces the taxpayer for agribusiness, it spanks oil company executives for making too much money!

Sugar producers also make out like Beltway bandits, receiving the difference between the world price of sugar, which is now $12 per pound, and the guaranteed price of about $21 per pound. That’s a roughly 75% subsidy for already wealthy cane growers and a nice payoff for the $3 million they contribute to House candidates each year.

Any wonder why food prices are going up?

All of this is a status quo that both political parties can believe in. More than a few liberal Democrats are privately embarrassed by this corporate welfare spectacle. But they’ve been mollified by Speaker Pelosi, who spent the last week assuring her left that the bill also includes another $10.4 billion for food stamps and nutrition programs.

This entitlement expansion comes only days after the Congressional Budget Office reported that paying the bills for existing entitlements could require tax rates to climb to 80% in the future. Yes we can!

So the American taxpayer gets screwed coming and going. Now, guess who voted for this piece of crap?

Sen. Hillary Clinton? Yes!
Sen. Barack Obama? Yes!

Sen. John McCain? No.