I just read an astonishing essay by Jeanna Smialek in The New York Times arguing that the Fed’s recent rate cut is motivated by a desire to boost incomes of the working class and create more income equality.

This is so absurd on so many levels that I am unable to begin to talk about it.

I’ll say this: A friend of mine was involved in the fight promotion business many years ago. I asked him about all the corruption and he helped me understand why it exists and why it is almost impossible to get rid of. The reason: When the game is fair, the champions can’t last more than one or two defense fights. Thus, the gates are small and nobody makes much money. But when you set up a system that allows champs to stay champs, the press gets excited and they sell more stories. The audience gets excited and they buy more tickets. The owners and fighters and managers and trainers all make 10 times what they would otherwise, and even the popcorn vendors make out better.

Yes, rate cuts may trickle down to the working class. But, at best, it will be a trickle. The real beneficiaries will be the big public companies whose stocks are artificially pumped up (and whose insiders are selling their shares into the fake market), the brokers, bankers, and lawyers that support the financial industry, and, most of all, the incumbent politicians whose chances of getting reelected are almost locked in when the economy is growing.

The difference between the fight game and the economy is this: The cost of rigging the fights is that the quality of the game is diminished. Many would-be champions never get their title fights because it wouldn’t be good for business. The cost of cutting rates (and, thus, pumping fake money into circulation) is that trillions of dollars of debt are being accumulated that we will eventually pay back with either massive inflation or an economic collapse.

In any case, read on. This piece is simply too naïve to believe:

 Pride Flags and Rate Cuts: Fed Loosens Up to Connect With Average Workers 

by Jeanna Smialek 

The Federal Reserve’s decision this week to cut rates for the first time in more than a decade was, in part, a reflection of the central bank’s efforts to be more attuned to the needs of everyday Americans.

Unemployment in the U.S. is close to a 50-year low, but many people remain out of work or have seen only modest pay increases. By lowering rates, the Fed could foster a labor market that draws in disadvantaged workers and prods companies to raise wages.

Despite the positive momentum, many people have remained on the sidelines or have seen only modest pay increases. By lowering rates, the Fed hoped to protect the economy against potential risks to ensure that it keeps growing. The move could foster a labor market that continues to draw in disadvantaged workers while prodding companies to raise wages.

“The best thing we can do for those people is to sustain the expansion, keep it going,” the Fed’s chair, Jerome H. Powell, said after the move. “That’s one of the overarching goals of this move – and all of our policy moves.”

 The wealthiest also benefit from the Fed’s decision, since rate cuts push up stock prices, creating big gains for investors. But the central bank’s push to portray its policy as a win for rank-and-file workers highlights an evolution: The Fed is trying to be more attuned to the needs and attitudes of everyday Americans.

Some of the changes are superficial. Mr. Powell, previously referred to as “chairman” in the Fed’s post-meeting releases, is now a gender-neutral “chair.” The 17-member policymaking body is as diverse as it has ever been, with leadership roles held by two openly gay members, five women, one black member and one person with Indian heritage. The powerful Federal Reserve Bank of New York flew rainbow flags outside for pride month this summer, for the first time.

A visit to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s Instagram account shows that it is following up its #dogsofthefed campaign with a #humansofthefed one, complete with inspirational stories and not-so-candid snaps.

But something more significant is happening under the surface.

An institution long shrouded in mystique and hemmed in by its desire to remain above the political fray is opening up. Fed research has long hit on diverse and even hot-button topics – from social mobility to global warming –  but presidents at its 12 regional banks increasingly promote and publicize that work. They even occasionally take positions on issues like immigration and skills training.

Fed officials have also spent much of the year visiting community groups in places like Augusta, Ga., and Camden, N.J., part of a widely publicized campaign aimed at convincing the public that policymakers are listening to workers’ concerns. Officials now regularly talk about unemployment rates by race and gender.

A political calculus is at play. The Fed needs to shore up public support at a time when President Trump regularly criticizes its actions and when government bodies – especially opaque ones aligned with bankers – are anything but popular. It has come under congressional and popular pressure for being slow to diversify and not focused enough on the most economically disadvantaged.

Mr. Powell nodded to those challenges in a recent speech in Paris, saying, “Our audience has become more varied, more attuned to our actions and less trusting of public institutions.”

America’s shifting social discourse also enables the Fed’s evolution. Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s first female leader, broached the topic of income inequality in an October 2014 speech, questioning whether it was consistent with American values. It was an unusual topic for a Fed leader to take up at the time, and Republican lawmakers chastised her.

“You’re sticking your nose in places that you have no business to be,” Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina representative at the time and now Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, told Ms. Yellen during her testimony to the House Financial Services Committee the next February.

Representative Sean Duffy, a Wisconsin Republican, said the speech showed political bias because Democrats were campaigning on the issue ahead of the midterm election.

Five years later, Fed officials frequently talk about income inequality. In February at a forum with teachers in Washington, Mr. Powell echoed Ms. Yellen’s sentiments – but got no pushback.

“We have work to do to make sure that the prosperity that we do achieve is widely spread,” Mr. Powell said. “We need policies that can make that happen.”

Continue Reading

asseverate (verb)

To asseverate (uh-SEH-ver-ate) is to declare or state solemnly or emphatically. As used in The Atlantic Monthly: “When one begins to asseverate his honesty, his hearers begin to question it.”

Continue Reading

An email from JL:

      Mark – I wanted to say thank you:

For answering an email from an obscure “nobody” back in 2004… agreeing to give feedback on his first front-end package…

For the countless times you performed similar “little miracles” with my copy over the years… 

For being there for me and all of my copywriters, time and again, and the HOURS and even days of time and attention you’ve given us all. We all owe you a huge debt of gratitude…

For your hospitality at your office, the cigar bar, etc., over the years…

For all the tips and guidance on how to become more productive, happier, etc.

For being there… EVERY time I’ve made a big transition in my career… and your willingness just to listen, and provide your wisdom and guidance….

            It has been my honor to work for and with you over the years.

Continue Reading

Are you a senior executive? Do you employ one? If so, watch out. You/he may be dangerous to your company’s bottom line.

The problem is Senior Executive Syndrome (SES): the tendency for a senior executive – someone who has climbed to the top of his business or department – to kick back and goof off.

It happens all the time, but we don’t talk about it. Why? For one of two reasons: Either (a) we work for the lazy bastard or (b) we are the lazy bastard.

I’ve seen it happen to dozens of very good people and in just about every company I’ve owned or worked for. It usually doesn’t happen in the beginning, when everybody is busy and the business is growing. But when things get fat, watch out!

It can happen to anyone. Your boss. His boss. The boss of the business you count on. The boss you are trying to strike a deal with. The perfectly suited senior executive you just hired to run one of your divisions. Your best and most loyal crew leader.

And, yes, it can happen to you too.

 

“Senior Executive Syndrome”: The Anatomy of a Business Disease 

A bright, ambitious person comes into a business and does everything right from day one. Comes in early and leaves late. Emails you on Sunday. Has great ideas. Builds a clutch team. He becomes THE guy.

And so he’s promoted. And he keeps on performing over the years until he gets into a position in which, finally, there is no one looking over his shoulder. He is responsible for the company’s bottom line.

It is expected that he will continue to work as hard and as smart as ever. And for a while, he does just that. Executing new ideas. Streamlining expenses. Improving the executive staff. Business is good, and everybody is happy.

But something happens. Somewhere along the line, he burns out a little. He tries not to show it, because he wants the troops to keep trooping. But inside, he’s tired of the grind and dreaming of a less stressful life.

Several years may go by like this, during which time he refines his key-management team and fine-tunes operating procedures. Then one day he decides (all by himself and without speaking to anyone) that the business can run fine – at least for a while – without so much involvement on his part.

But rather than make that clear so that the proper adjustments can be made, he simply starts to do less. He gets into the office later. He takes long lunch hours. And he may spend an inordinate amount of time traveling to industry seminars.

Meanwhile, the business IS doing fine. But because nobody knows he is doing less, some of the most important stuff he used to do may no longer be getting done.

Let’s take a look at that. To rise to the top of a growing, profitable business, you usually need three things:

  1. A hardcore commitment to growth.

There are basically two kinds of leaders: tenders and growers. Tenders solve problems, clarify goals, and improve communications. Growers create problems because their primary interest is in growing the business – the number of products, the number of employees, and, most importantly the bottom line.

  1. A hardcore commitment to quality.

Once the business is up and growing and the cash flow is strong enough to continue that growth, the CEO (and other senior executives) must put on their tender hats and begin to solve the problems that have arisen and will arise from future growth. Tending to these problems and challenges is not easy. It takes the same level of commitment that growing does.

  1. The willingness to find leaders that can replace you.

This is just as important as a commitment to growth and to quality. If you are not willing to find people to take over all the key parts of the business as it grows, there will come a point where the business will stop growing and you won’t know why. Unless you look in the mirror.

So here’s the problem – how SES comes into play.

If you do a good job at growing, tending, and finding superstars to continue the growing and tending, you will end up with a large business that seems to be running itself.

And as a founder and/or CEO, you may be okay with that.

But if you sit back and allow your superstars to grow and manage your business for you, there will come a time when they themselves will be in a position to follow your lead and kick back.

And if they do, others will follow. The business may do well for a while. But eventually, the growth will slow and so will the profits. Growth will slow because your growers will no longer feel the urgency to grow the business. And profits will diminish because you will be paying big salaries to former growers that are on cruise control.

So how do you solve this problem?

It’s actually easier than you might think. If and when you decide to let up on yourself, don’t allow the senior executives that report to you to feel any less pressure.

You don’t need to have daily meetings and thumb through dozens of weekly and monthly reports. Just make sure that when you meet with your senior staff you come to those meetings with high expectations. Ask questions. Be critical of the answers you get. But most importantly, don’t take on any responsibility during the meetings.

Think of any problems and challenges the business faces as playful monkeys. When you go to an important executive meeting there are problems and challenges you must face. Your job is to listen to the problems and make comments. It’s not your job to solve those problems. So make a mental note to “make sure all the monkeys are on everyone else’s back.”

You probably won’t have to do any more than that because you will be talking to people that made it to where they are by having a strong work ethic, a good deal of personal pride, and a desire to excel. These are your superstars. Your power plant people. They don’t need to be rebuilt from scratch. They just need a spark to get the fire burning again.

One final thought: If your boss has SES, you’re in luck. This is your big opportunity to take over. Volunteer to do what it is clear he doesn’t want to do. Convince him that you can do a great job of it. Promise him the world. And ask him for a cut of the action. If he’s got a really bad case of SES, he’ll be very tempted by your offer.

 

 

Continue Reading

“One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on.” – P.J. O’Rourke

 

 

Continue Reading