Conservatives and Liberals

[cradleandshoot]

Question: how do you think this Speaker fight resolves?

Here we go...https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Dems made a mistake. They won’t like the vacuum this creates I feel pretty confident. Even if McCarthy is a doughnut.

I wondered about this too, while reading the news this morning. McCarthy was the moron we knew (I like doughnuts, and they have some utility, so I don't want to call him that). Rather than keeping their powder dry and their performance art mouths shut, GOP House members were, last night and this morning, calling for Trump to be Speaker, and issuing demands and conditions on anyone who might run for the Speakership. Anna Paulina Luna, QR of Florida, laid down three conditions:

“I will vote for the Speaker [1] who publicly and clearly commits to defunding Jack Smith’s anti-American election interference witch hunts and [2] subpoenas Hunter Biden while [3] bringing a vote on impeachment of Joe Biden to the floor of the House.”

Pretty good idea to lay out an unworkable and implacable position in advance of a conference meeting when your party is in peril, when the country is realizing that you cannot even get players in place, to say nothing of govern?

After the 6-20 firebrands scream and shout and make demands alienating everyone else, I think the Problem Solvers Caucus eventually puts together a set of commitments and rule changes that puts either one of their own or someone like Tom Cole in place, with Dem crossover support sufficient to exceed the 218.

The rational people in the GOP, whether actual conservatives or moderates, will mostly join that coalition, though some of the more conservative may feel compelled to side with the hard right burn down the house types, given the policy compromises this will entail and the threat of primary challenges. Likewise, some of the most progressive on the Dem side may not be able to crossover, given some of those same policy compromises.

But I suspect the PS Caucus members are already talking in the aftermath of the mess that went down yesterday. Both sides of that caucus have to be appalled at the idea of the extreme dominating going forward.

Apparently (according to McCarthy), last January Pelosi had assured McCarthy that the Dems would prevent the far right from controlling the Speakership when push came to shove, as she had assured Boehner and Ryan...but McCarthy blew the trust down the stretch and his comments blaming Dems over the weekend was the nail in the coffin.

But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to help build a consensus Leadership with R's in charge...but with some power sharing and demonstrated willingness to compromise on various issues. A solid majority on both sides believe supporting Ukraine is essential...R's want tough border policies, the Dems want more dollars for judges and personnel and more legal immigration...there's a deal to be made as Biden and the Dems don't want this issue to persist into the 2024 election cycle with the current sense that they're soft on the border. There's probably a similar set of compromises around crime...and voting...

And of course, these can be largely done within the budget parameters set last spring, albeit with some emergency funding and Ukraine funding.

The extreme will howl, but they're earning a whole lot of animosity from within the GOP Caucus as it is. It's probably the only way the most vulnerable GOP House members have a chance of holding their seats in a general, though they'll possibly need to beat back primary challenges from the extreme right.

Divided government can work to put brakes on the party in most control, but it needs to be practical and realistic. Elections matter.

Good post. I agree that there is a deal to be made, but the likelihood of such a deal seems very remote given the hard-liners' early statements, like the one I posted above, and the absolute intensity of the base that they have created against "working with Democrats." In a government structurally created to force and strike deals made in the name of consensus, working with Democrats is the death knell of a GOP politicians career, or at least an expensive primary from the "right." In order for it to work -- a coalition of sorts -- part of the erstwhile GOP caucus actually will need to step out of those straightjackets and into the fire.

Yes, but the alternative for the moderates and Ukraine supporters looks even worse. Maybe it's a kick the can down the road mentality that gets them stuck with a long government shutdown and failure to support Ukraine and stupid impeachment hearings ad infinitum, but I think those who are used to working across the aisle are very likely looking to how they can aggregate enough support to make that work...I don't think we see that fully emerge until the R's screw the pooch some more, with it being obvious why they can't let the extreme rule. Maybe Jim Jordan takes it on, but if he doesn't shut down the government the extreme won't let him stay and if he doesn't put up a vote to fund Ukraine I can see the moderates taking him down. Scalise has the same problem, though his style would be less inflammatory than Jordan. I think Scalise would be stupid to take it without rule changes. Jordan might be willing.

So, better to be prepared next week with what those compromises and rule changes would need to be. Might not put that forward right away, but it'll likely be floated...you already see Dems signaling openness.

“better to be prepared”

Prepared for a shutdown. I continue to be amazed at how fragile our governance is. I’d like to think it is Putin’s well-placed bribery and kompromat, but probably just an inevitable result of the intersection of demographics (aging Boomers) and unrealized aspirations. Sure can see the antelope as it passes through the snake.

Yes, if Jordan gets the reins, that's what we should expect. And probably a long shutdown. If he take the gig, it will be subservient to the right wing extremists...and we see their demands...

The blowback will be disastrous for the moderates in the GOP in vulnerable districts and damage the brand heavily...but not among the knuckleheads who get a thrill from theatrics and fireworks. And that's what millions of their small dollar MAGA donors want.

We'll also likely see disaster for Ukraine as well. Putin is cheering.

While this will benefit Dems electorally in a year, I think most of the elected Dems are more concerned about the good of the country in the meantime. Not all, but most.

Fingers crossed for the rational folks in both sides to get together and bring some sanity.

Your jumping the gun. If gas is 3 dollars a gallon and 401k accounts bounce back by November 2024 nothing your talking about today will matter to the voters. You should never underestimate the short term memory of most Americans.

[MDlaxfan76]

Question: how do you think this Speaker fight resolves?

Here we go...https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Dems made a mistake. They won’t like the vacuum this creates I feel pretty confident. Even if McCarthy is a doughnut.

I wondered about this too, while reading the news this morning. McCarthy was the moron we knew (I like doughnuts, and they have some utility, so I don't want to call him that). Rather than keeping their powder dry and their performance art mouths shut, GOP House members were, last night and this morning, calling for Trump to be Speaker, and issuing demands and conditions on anyone who might run for the Speakership. Anna Paulina Luna, QR of Florida, laid down three conditions:

“I will vote for the Speaker [1] who publicly and clearly commits to defunding Jack Smith’s anti-American election interference witch hunts and [2] subpoenas Hunter Biden while [3] bringing a vote on impeachment of Joe Biden to the floor of the House.”

Pretty good idea to lay out an unworkable and implacable position in advance of a conference meeting when your party is in peril, when the country is realizing that you cannot even get players in place, to say nothing of govern?

After the 6-20 firebrands scream and shout and make demands alienating everyone else, I think the Problem Solvers Caucus eventually puts together a set of commitments and rule changes that puts either one of their own or someone like Tom Cole in place, with Dem crossover support sufficient to exceed the 218.

The rational people in the GOP, whether actual conservatives or moderates, will mostly join that coalition, though some of the more conservative may feel compelled to side with the hard right burn down the house types, given the policy compromises this will entail and the threat of primary challenges. Likewise, some of the most progressive on the Dem side may not be able to crossover, given some of those same policy compromises.

But I suspect the PS Caucus members are already talking in the aftermath of the mess that went down yesterday. Both sides of that caucus have to be appalled at the idea of the extreme dominating going forward.

Apparently (according to McCarthy), last January Pelosi had assured McCarthy that the Dems would prevent the far right from controlling the Speakership when push came to shove, as she had assured Boehner and Ryan...but McCarthy blew the trust down the stretch and his comments blaming Dems over the weekend was the nail in the coffin.

But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to help build a consensus Leadership with R's in charge...but with some power sharing and demonstrated willingness to compromise on various issues. A solid majority on both sides believe supporting Ukraine is essential...R's want tough border policies, the Dems want more dollars for judges and personnel and more legal immigration...there's a deal to be made as Biden and the Dems don't want this issue to persist into the 2024 election cycle with the current sense that they're soft on the border. There's probably a similar set of compromises around crime...and voting...

And of course, these can be largely done within the budget parameters set last spring, albeit with some emergency funding and Ukraine funding.

The extreme will howl, but they're earning a whole lot of animosity from within the GOP Caucus as it is. It's probably the only way the most vulnerable GOP House members have a chance of holding their seats in a general, though they'll possibly need to beat back primary challenges from the extreme right.

Divided government can work to put brakes on the party in most control, but it needs to be practical and realistic. Elections matter.

Good post. I agree that there is a deal to be made, but the likelihood of such a deal seems very remote given the hard-liners' early statements, like the one I posted above, and the absolute intensity of the base that they have created against "working with Democrats." In a government structurally created to force and strike deals made in the name of consensus, working with Democrats is the death knell of a GOP politicians career, or at least an expensive primary from the "right." In order for it to work -- a coalition of sorts -- part of the erstwhile GOP caucus actually will need to step out of those straightjackets and into the fire.

Yes, but the alternative for the moderates and Ukraine supporters looks even worse. Maybe it's a kick the can down the road mentality that gets them stuck with a long government shutdown and failure to support Ukraine and stupid impeachment hearings ad infinitum, but I think those who are used to working across the aisle are very likely looking to how they can aggregate enough support to make that work...I don't think we see that fully emerge until the R's screw the pooch some more, with it being obvious why they can't let the extreme rule. Maybe Jim Jordan takes it on, but if he doesn't shut down the government the extreme won't let him stay and if he doesn't put up a vote to fund Ukraine I can see the moderates taking him down. Scalise has the same problem, though his style would be less inflammatory than Jordan. I think Scalise would be stupid to take it without rule changes. Jordan might be willing.

So, better to be prepared next week with what those compromises and rule changes would need to be. Might not put that forward right away, but it'll likely be floated...you already see Dems signaling openness.

“better to be prepared”

Prepared for a shutdown. I continue to be amazed at how fragile our governance is. I’d like to think it is Putin’s well-placed bribery and kompromat, but probably just an inevitable result of the intersection of demographics (aging Boomers) and unrealized aspirations. Sure can see the antelope as it passes through the snake.

Yes, if Jordan gets the reins, that's what we should expect. And probably a long shutdown. If he take the gig, it will be subservient to the right wing extremists...and we see their demands...

The blowback will be disastrous for the moderates in the GOP in vulnerable districts and damage the brand heavily...but not among the knuckleheads who get a thrill from theatrics and fireworks. And that's what millions of their small dollar MAGA donors want.

We'll also likely see disaster for Ukraine as well. Putin is cheering.

While this will benefit Dems electorally in a year, I think most of the elected Dems are more concerned about the good of the country in the meantime. Not all, but most.

Fingers crossed for the rational folks in both sides to get together and bring some sanity.

Your jumping the gun. If gas is 3 dollars a gallon and 401k accounts bounce back by November 2024 nothing your talking about today will matter to the voters. You should never underestimate the short term memory of most Americans.

If that happens, the Dems win a blow out anyway as Biden would get credit for it.

But I think a government shutdown that persists and gets ugly will cause all sorts of trauma and anger against those who create it, the GOP. I don't think the result would be lower gas prices or high 401k's. BTW, the stock market is up considerably since Election Day 2020 as well as up considerably from peak 2019 pre pandemic, so not sure what your 401k issue is...

Gas prices aren't much driven by what happens in the US; global dynamics make a much greater difference.

[cradleandshoot]

Question: how do you think this Speaker fight resolves?

Here we go...https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Dems made a mistake. They won’t like the vacuum this creates I feel pretty confident. Even if McCarthy is a doughnut.

I wondered about this too, while reading the news this morning. McCarthy was the moron we knew (I like doughnuts, and they have some utility, so I don't want to call him that). Rather than keeping their powder dry and their performance art mouths shut, GOP House members were, last night and this morning, calling for Trump to be Speaker, and issuing demands and conditions on anyone who might run for the Speakership. Anna Paulina Luna, QR of Florida, laid down three conditions:

“I will vote for the Speaker [1] who publicly and clearly commits to defunding Jack Smith’s anti-American election interference witch hunts and [2] subpoenas Hunter Biden while [3] bringing a vote on impeachment of Joe Biden to the floor of the House.”

Pretty good idea to lay out an unworkable and implacable position in advance of a conference meeting when your party is in peril, when the country is realizing that you cannot even get players in place, to say nothing of govern?

After the 6-20 firebrands scream and shout and make demands alienating everyone else, I think the Problem Solvers Caucus eventually puts together a set of commitments and rule changes that puts either one of their own or someone like Tom Cole in place, with Dem crossover support sufficient to exceed the 218.

The rational people in the GOP, whether actual conservatives or moderates, will mostly join that coalition, though some of the more conservative may feel compelled to side with the hard right burn down the house types, given the policy compromises this will entail and the threat of primary challenges. Likewise, some of the most progressive on the Dem side may not be able to crossover, given some of those same policy compromises.

But I suspect the PS Caucus members are already talking in the aftermath of the mess that went down yesterday. Both sides of that caucus have to be appalled at the idea of the extreme dominating going forward.

Apparently (according to McCarthy), last January Pelosi had assured McCarthy that the Dems would prevent the far right from controlling the Speakership when push came to shove, as she had assured Boehner and Ryan...but McCarthy blew the trust down the stretch and his comments blaming Dems over the weekend was the nail in the coffin.

But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to help build a consensus Leadership with R's in charge...but with some power sharing and demonstrated willingness to compromise on various issues. A solid majority on both sides believe supporting Ukraine is essential...R's want tough border policies, the Dems want more dollars for judges and personnel and more legal immigration...there's a deal to be made as Biden and the Dems don't want this issue to persist into the 2024 election cycle with the current sense that they're soft on the border. There's probably a similar set of compromises around crime...and voting...

And of course, these can be largely done within the budget parameters set last spring, albeit with some emergency funding and Ukraine funding.

The extreme will howl, but they're earning a whole lot of animosity from within the GOP Caucus as it is. It's probably the only way the most vulnerable GOP House members have a chance of holding their seats in a general, though they'll possibly need to beat back primary challenges from the extreme right.

Divided government can work to put brakes on the party in most control, but it needs to be practical and realistic. Elections matter.

Good post. I agree that there is a deal to be made, but the likelihood of such a deal seems very remote given the hard-liners' early statements, like the one I posted above, and the absolute intensity of the base that they have created against "working with Democrats." In a government structurally created to force and strike deals made in the name of consensus, working with Democrats is the death knell of a GOP politicians career, or at least an expensive primary from the "right." In order for it to work -- a coalition of sorts -- part of the erstwhile GOP caucus actually will need to step out of those straightjackets and into the fire.

Yes, but the alternative for the moderates and Ukraine supporters looks even worse. Maybe it's a kick the can down the road mentality that gets them stuck with a long government shutdown and failure to support Ukraine and stupid impeachment hearings ad infinitum, but I think those who are used to working across the aisle are very likely looking to how they can aggregate enough support to make that work...I don't think we see that fully emerge until the R's screw the pooch some more, with it being obvious why they can't let the extreme rule. Maybe Jim Jordan takes it on, but if he doesn't shut down the government the extreme won't let him stay and if he doesn't put up a vote to fund Ukraine I can see the moderates taking him down. Scalise has the same problem, though his style would be less inflammatory than Jordan. I think Scalise would be stupid to take it without rule changes. Jordan might be willing.

So, better to be prepared next week with what those compromises and rule changes would need to be. Might not put that forward right away, but it'll likely be floated...you already see Dems signaling openness.

“better to be prepared”

Prepared for a shutdown. I continue to be amazed at how fragile our governance is. I’d like to think it is Putin’s well-placed bribery and kompromat, but probably just an inevitable result of the intersection of demographics (aging Boomers) and unrealized aspirations. Sure can see the antelope as it passes through the snake.

Yes, if Jordan gets the reins, that's what we should expect. And probably a long shutdown. If he take the gig, it will be subservient to the right wing extremists...and we see their demands...

The blowback will be disastrous for the moderates in the GOP in vulnerable districts and damage the brand heavily...but not among the knuckleheads who get a thrill from theatrics and fireworks. And that's what millions of their small dollar MAGA donors want.

We'll also likely see disaster for Ukraine as well. Putin is cheering.

While this will benefit Dems electorally in a year, I think most of the elected Dems are more concerned about the good of the country in the meantime. Not all, but most.

Fingers crossed for the rational folks in both sides to get together and bring some sanity.

Your jumping the gun. If gas is 3 dollars a gallon and 401k accounts bounce back by November 2024 nothing your talking about today will matter to the voters. You should never underestimate the short term memory of most Americans.

If that happens, the Dems win a blow out anyway as Biden would get credit for it.

But I think a government shutdown that persists and gets ugly will cause all sorts of trauma and anger against those who create it, the GOP. I don't think the result would be lower gas prices or high 401k's. BTW, the stock market is up considerably since Election Day 2020 as well as up considerably from peak 2019 pre pandemic, so not sure what your 401k issue is...

Gas prices aren't much driven by what happens in the US; global dynamics make a much greater difference.

So if the economy has still gone to chit in 2024 and gas is 6 dollars and 401k chit the bed Joe Biden won't get the blame for that? Is this a theoretical one way street we are discussing? I just heard on the radio that Steve Scalise is going to run for speaker. I know he is ill but he should be a godsend for all republicans. Why I even think you might not have a hard time with Scalise as speaker. Anybody fighting multiple myeloma and undergoing chemo and willing to throw their hat into this chitshow is a hero in my book. He sure as hell didn't have to take this obligation on his shoulders. FTR my gramps died from multiple myeloma in 1972. It is a horrible disease with as far as I know still no cure.

[MDlaxfan76]

Question: how do you think this Speaker fight resolves?

Here we go...https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Dems made a mistake. They won’t like the vacuum this creates I feel pretty confident. Even if McCarthy is a doughnut.

I wondered about this too, while reading the news this morning. McCarthy was the moron we knew (I like doughnuts, and they have some utility, so I don't want to call him that). Rather than keeping their powder dry and their performance art mouths shut, GOP House members were, last night and this morning, calling for Trump to be Speaker, and issuing demands and conditions on anyone who might run for the Speakership. Anna Paulina Luna, QR of Florida, laid down three conditions:

“I will vote for the Speaker [1] who publicly and clearly commits to defunding Jack Smith’s anti-American election interference witch hunts and [2] subpoenas Hunter Biden while [3] bringing a vote on impeachment of Joe Biden to the floor of the House.”

Pretty good idea to lay out an unworkable and implacable position in advance of a conference meeting when your party is in peril, when the country is realizing that you cannot even get players in place, to say nothing of govern?

After the 6-20 firebrands scream and shout and make demands alienating everyone else, I think the Problem Solvers Caucus eventually puts together a set of commitments and rule changes that puts either one of their own or someone like Tom Cole in place, with Dem crossover support sufficient to exceed the 218.

The rational people in the GOP, whether actual conservatives or moderates, will mostly join that coalition, though some of the more conservative may feel compelled to side with the hard right burn down the house types, given the policy compromises this will entail and the threat of primary challenges. Likewise, some of the most progressive on the Dem side may not be able to crossover, given some of those same policy compromises.

But I suspect the PS Caucus members are already talking in the aftermath of the mess that went down yesterday. Both sides of that caucus have to be appalled at the idea of the extreme dominating going forward.

Apparently (according to McCarthy), last January Pelosi had assured McCarthy that the Dems would prevent the far right from controlling the Speakership when push came to shove, as she had assured Boehner and Ryan...but McCarthy blew the trust down the stretch and his comments blaming Dems over the weekend was the nail in the coffin.

But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to help build a consensus Leadership with R's in charge...but with some power sharing and demonstrated willingness to compromise on various issues. A solid majority on both sides believe supporting Ukraine is essential...R's want tough border policies, the Dems want more dollars for judges and personnel and more legal immigration...there's a deal to be made as Biden and the Dems don't want this issue to persist into the 2024 election cycle with the current sense that they're soft on the border. There's probably a similar set of compromises around crime...and voting...

And of course, these can be largely done within the budget parameters set last spring, albeit with some emergency funding and Ukraine funding.

The extreme will howl, but they're earning a whole lot of animosity from within the GOP Caucus as it is. It's probably the only way the most vulnerable GOP House members have a chance of holding their seats in a general, though they'll possibly need to beat back primary challenges from the extreme right.

Divided government can work to put brakes on the party in most control, but it needs to be practical and realistic. Elections matter.

Good post. I agree that there is a deal to be made, but the likelihood of such a deal seems very remote given the hard-liners' early statements, like the one I posted above, and the absolute intensity of the base that they have created against "working with Democrats." In a government structurally created to force and strike deals made in the name of consensus, working with Democrats is the death knell of a GOP politicians career, or at least an expensive primary from the "right." In order for it to work -- a coalition of sorts -- part of the erstwhile GOP caucus actually will need to step out of those straightjackets and into the fire.

Yes, but the alternative for the moderates and Ukraine supporters looks even worse. Maybe it's a kick the can down the road mentality that gets them stuck with a long government shutdown and failure to support Ukraine and stupid impeachment hearings ad infinitum, but I think those who are used to working across the aisle are very likely looking to how they can aggregate enough support to make that work...I don't think we see that fully emerge until the R's screw the pooch some more, with it being obvious why they can't let the extreme rule. Maybe Jim Jordan takes it on, but if he doesn't shut down the government the extreme won't let him stay and if he doesn't put up a vote to fund Ukraine I can see the moderates taking him down. Scalise has the same problem, though his style would be less inflammatory than Jordan. I think Scalise would be stupid to take it without rule changes. Jordan might be willing.

So, better to be prepared next week with what those compromises and rule changes would need to be. Might not put that forward right away, but it'll likely be floated...you already see Dems signaling openness.

“better to be prepared”

Prepared for a shutdown. I continue to be amazed at how fragile our governance is. I’d like to think it is Putin’s well-placed bribery and kompromat, but probably just an inevitable result of the intersection of demographics (aging Boomers) and unrealized aspirations. Sure can see the antelope as it passes through the snake.

Yes, if Jordan gets the reins, that's what we should expect. And probably a long shutdown. If he take the gig, it will be subservient to the right wing extremists...and we see their demands...

The blowback will be disastrous for the moderates in the GOP in vulnerable districts and damage the brand heavily...but not among the knuckleheads who get a thrill from theatrics and fireworks. And that's what millions of their small dollar MAGA donors want.

We'll also likely see disaster for Ukraine as well. Putin is cheering.

While this will benefit Dems electorally in a year, I think most of the elected Dems are more concerned about the good of the country in the meantime. Not all, but most.

Fingers crossed for the rational folks in both sides to get together and bring some sanity.

Your jumping the gun. If gas is 3 dollars a gallon and 401k accounts bounce back by November 2024 nothing your talking about today will matter to the voters. You should never underestimate the short term memory of most Americans.

If that happens, the Dems win a blow out anyway as Biden would get credit for it.

But I think a government shutdown that persists and gets ugly will cause all sorts of trauma and anger against those who create it, the GOP. I don't think the result would be lower gas prices or high 401k's. BTW, the stock market is up considerably since Election Day 2020 as well as up considerably from peak 2019 pre pandemic, so not sure what your 401k issue is...

Gas prices aren't much driven by what happens in the US; global dynamics make a much greater difference.

So if the economy has still gone to chit in 2024 and gas is 6 dollars and 401k chit the bed Joe Biden won't get the blame for that? Is this a theoretical one way street we are discussing? I just heard on the radio that Steve Scalise is going to run for speaker. I know he is ill but he should be a godsend for all republicans. Why I even think you might not have a hard time with Scalise as speaker. Anybody fighting multiple myeloma and undergoing chemo and willing to throw their hat into this chitshow is a hero in my book. He sure as hell didn't have to take this obligation on his shoulders. FTR my gramps died from multiple myeloma in 1972. It is a horrible disease with as far as I know still no cure.

Scalise would be better than Jordan, but if the rules leave him forced to do whatever Gaetz says, he’ll be incapable of rational governance. But he won’t get the extremes to support him without such promises and electric shock collar. So… if he’s the guy the Problem Solver Caucus supports and he gets it with Dem support maybe he’ll have sufficient independence that the crazies won’t tank everything.

You are right that the GOP will try to blame inflation and high interest rates on Biden (while ignoring the amazingly resilient performance of the economy, job creation, etc). But the stock market only tanks if the economy truly crashes. The short term soft market right now is because the investors see this hot economy still charging so they expect continued higher interest rates which they believe will hurt corporate earnings and eventually spark a recession.

But the MAGA House as a big sh-tshow will give the Dems legit fodder to blame any downturn on them, instead of just throwing up their hands in frustration over the blame game re Biden.

[Farfromgeneva]

Question: how do you think this Speaker fight resolves?

Here we go...https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Dems made a mistake. They won’t like the vacuum this creates I feel pretty confident. Even if McCarthy is a doughnut.

I wondered about this too, while reading the news this morning. McCarthy was the moron we knew (I like doughnuts, and they have some utility, so I don't want to call him that). Rather than keeping their powder dry and their performance art mouths shut, GOP House members were, last night and this morning, calling for Trump to be Speaker, and issuing demands and conditions on anyone who might run for the Speakership. Anna Paulina Luna, QR of Florida, laid down three conditions:

“I will vote for the Speaker [1] who publicly and clearly commits to defunding Jack Smith’s anti-American election interference witch hunts and [2] subpoenas Hunter Biden while [3] bringing a vote on impeachment of Joe Biden to the floor of the House.”

Pretty good idea to lay out an unworkable and implacable position in advance of a conference meeting when your party is in peril, when the country is realizing that you cannot even get players in place, to say nothing of govern?

After the 6-20 firebrands scream and shout and make demands alienating everyone else, I think the Problem Solvers Caucus eventually puts together a set of commitments and rule changes that puts either one of their own or someone like Tom Cole in place, with Dem crossover support sufficient to exceed the 218.

The rational people in the GOP, whether actual conservatives or moderates, will mostly join that coalition, though some of the more conservative may feel compelled to side with the hard right burn down the house types, given the policy compromises this will entail and the threat of primary challenges. Likewise, some of the most progressive on the Dem side may not be able to crossover, given some of those same policy compromises.

But I suspect the PS Caucus members are already talking in the aftermath of the mess that went down yesterday. Both sides of that caucus have to be appalled at the idea of the extreme dominating going forward.

Apparently (according to McCarthy), last January Pelosi had assured McCarthy that the Dems would prevent the far right from controlling the Speakership when push came to shove, as she had assured Boehner and Ryan...but McCarthy blew the trust down the stretch and his comments blaming Dems over the weekend was the nail in the coffin.

But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to help build a consensus Leadership with R's in charge...but with some power sharing and demonstrated willingness to compromise on various issues. A solid majority on both sides believe supporting Ukraine is essential...R's want tough border policies, the Dems want more dollars for judges and personnel and more legal immigration...there's a deal to be made as Biden and the Dems don't want this issue to persist into the 2024 election cycle with the current sense that they're soft on the border. There's probably a similar set of compromises around crime...and voting...

And of course, these can be largely done within the budget parameters set last spring, albeit with some emergency funding and Ukraine funding.

The extreme will howl, but they're earning a whole lot of animosity from within the GOP Caucus as it is. It's probably the only way the most vulnerable GOP House members have a chance of holding their seats in a general, though they'll possibly need to beat back primary challenges from the extreme right.

Divided government can work to put brakes on the party in most control, but it needs to be practical and realistic. Elections matter.

Good post. I agree that there is a deal to be made, but the likelihood of such a deal seems very remote given the hard-liners' early statements, like the one I posted above, and the absolute intensity of the base that they have created against "working with Democrats." In a government structurally created to force and strike deals made in the name of consensus, working with Democrats is the death knell of a GOP politicians career, or at least an expensive primary from the "right." In order for it to work -- a coalition of sorts -- part of the erstwhile GOP caucus actually will need to step out of those straightjackets and into the fire.

Yes, but the alternative for the moderates and Ukraine supporters looks even worse. Maybe it's a kick the can down the road mentality that gets them stuck with a long government shutdown and failure to support Ukraine and stupid impeachment hearings ad infinitum, but I think those who are used to working across the aisle are very likely looking to how they can aggregate enough support to make that work...I don't think we see that fully emerge until the R's screw the pooch some more, with it being obvious why they can't let the extreme rule. Maybe Jim Jordan takes it on, but if he doesn't shut down the government the extreme won't let him stay and if he doesn't put up a vote to fund Ukraine I can see the moderates taking him down. Scalise has the same problem, though his style would be less inflammatory than Jordan. I think Scalise would be stupid to take it without rule changes. Jordan might be willing.

So, better to be prepared next week with what those compromises and rule changes would need to be. Might not put that forward right away, but it'll likely be floated...you already see Dems signaling openness.

“better to be prepared”

Prepared for a shutdown. I continue to be amazed at how fragile our governance is. I’d like to think it is Putin’s well-placed bribery and kompromat, but probably just an inevitable result of the intersection of demographics (aging Boomers) and unrealized aspirations. Sure can see the antelope as it passes through the snake.

Yes, if Jordan gets the reins, that's what we should expect. And probably a long shutdown. If he take the gig, it will be subservient to the right wing extremists...and we see their demands...

The blowback will be disastrous for the moderates in the GOP in vulnerable districts and damage the brand heavily...but not among the knuckleheads who get a thrill from theatrics and fireworks. And that's what millions of their small dollar MAGA donors want.

We'll also likely see disaster for Ukraine as well. Putin is cheering.

While this will benefit Dems electorally in a year, I think most of the elected Dems are more concerned about the good of the country in the meantime. Not all, but most.

Fingers crossed for the rational folks in both sides to get together and bring some sanity.

Your jumping the gun. If gas is 3 dollars a gallon and 401k accounts bounce back by November 2024 nothing your talking about today will matter to the voters. You should never underestimate the short term memory of most Americans.

If that happens, the Dems win a blow out anyway as Biden would get credit for it.

But I think a government shutdown that persists and gets ugly will cause all sorts of trauma and anger against those who create it, the GOP. I don't think the result would be lower gas prices or high 401k's. BTW, the stock market is up considerably since Election Day 2020 as well as up considerably from peak 2019 pre pandemic, so not sure what your 401k issue is...

Gas prices aren't much driven by what happens in the US; global dynamics make a much greater difference.

So if the economy has still gone to chit in 2024 and gas is 6 dollars and 401k chit the bed Joe Biden won't get the blame for that? Is this a theoretical one way street we are discussing? I just heard on the radio that Steve Scalise is going to run for speaker. I know he is ill but he should be a godsend for all republicans. Why I even think you might not have a hard time with Scalise as speaker. Anybody fighting multiple myeloma and undergoing chemo and willing to throw their hat into this chitshow is a hero in my book. He sure as hell didn't have to take this obligation on his shoulders. FTR my gramps died from multiple myeloma in 1972. It is a horrible disease with as far as I know still no cure.

Scalise would be better than Jordan, but if the rules leave him forced to do whatever Gaetz says, he’ll be incapable of rational governance. But he won’t get the extremes to support him without such promises and electric shock collar. So… if he’s the guy the Problem Solver Caucus supports and he gets it with Dem support maybe he’ll have sufficient independence that the crazies won’t tank everything.

You are right that the GOP will try to blame inflation and high interest rates on Biden (while ignoring the amazingly resilient performance of the economy, job creation, etc). But the stock market only tanks if the economy truly crashes. The short term soft market right now is because the investors see this hot economy still charging so they expect continued higher interest rates which they believe will hurt corporate earnings and eventually spark a recession.

But the MAGA House as a big sh-tshow will give the Dems legit fodder to blame any downturn on them, instead of just throwing up their hands in frustration over the blame game re Biden.

Well and the unwind of a decade of artificial and j force dented monetary loose support. And covid eta protections where no one with student debt ever Brenner’s making those payments in their budgets 40 months later.

Nearly 15yrs of inflated money supply, low rates, bailouts (YRC) etc this isn’t some short term cycle next time we roll through one. It will involve seminal structural changes. Recovery rates and losses will be higher. Cap Ex hasn’t been this expensive with this cost of capital and required “go no go” threshold for investment is going be higher than an entire generation has seen including many fund managers and private equity’s enviro folks in the mid 30a

[MDlaxfan76]

Question: how do you think this Speaker fight resolves?

Here we go...https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Dems made a mistake. They won’t like the vacuum this creates I feel pretty confident. Even if McCarthy is a doughnut.

I wondered about this too, while reading the news this morning. McCarthy was the moron we knew (I like doughnuts, and they have some utility, so I don't want to call him that). Rather than keeping their powder dry and their performance art mouths shut, GOP House members were, last night and this morning, calling for Trump to be Speaker, and issuing demands and conditions on anyone who might run for the Speakership. Anna Paulina Luna, QR of Florida, laid down three conditions:

“I will vote for the Speaker [1] who publicly and clearly commits to defunding Jack Smith’s anti-American election interference witch hunts and [2] subpoenas Hunter Biden while [3] bringing a vote on impeachment of Joe Biden to the floor of the House.”

Pretty good idea to lay out an unworkable and implacable position in advance of a conference meeting when your party is in peril, when the country is realizing that you cannot even get players in place, to say nothing of govern?

After the 6-20 firebrands scream and shout and make demands alienating everyone else, I think the Problem Solvers Caucus eventually puts together a set of commitments and rule changes that puts either one of their own or someone like Tom Cole in place, with Dem crossover support sufficient to exceed the 218.

The rational people in the GOP, whether actual conservatives or moderates, will mostly join that coalition, though some of the more conservative may feel compelled to side with the hard right burn down the house types, given the policy compromises this will entail and the threat of primary challenges. Likewise, some of the most progressive on the Dem side may not be able to crossover, given some of those same policy compromises.

But I suspect the PS Caucus members are already talking in the aftermath of the mess that went down yesterday. Both sides of that caucus have to be appalled at the idea of the extreme dominating going forward.

Apparently (according to McCarthy), last January Pelosi had assured McCarthy that the Dems would prevent the far right from controlling the Speakership when push came to shove, as she had assured Boehner and Ryan...but McCarthy blew the trust down the stretch and his comments blaming Dems over the weekend was the nail in the coffin.

But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to help build a consensus Leadership with R's in charge...but with some power sharing and demonstrated willingness to compromise on various issues. A solid majority on both sides believe supporting Ukraine is essential...R's want tough border policies, the Dems want more dollars for judges and personnel and more legal immigration...there's a deal to be made as Biden and the Dems don't want this issue to persist into the 2024 election cycle with the current sense that they're soft on the border. There's probably a similar set of compromises around crime...and voting...

And of course, these can be largely done within the budget parameters set last spring, albeit with some emergency funding and Ukraine funding.

The extreme will howl, but they're earning a whole lot of animosity from within the GOP Caucus as it is. It's probably the only way the most vulnerable GOP House members have a chance of holding their seats in a general, though they'll possibly need to beat back primary challenges from the extreme right.

Divided government can work to put brakes on the party in most control, but it needs to be practical and realistic. Elections matter.

Good post. I agree that there is a deal to be made, but the likelihood of such a deal seems very remote given the hard-liners' early statements, like the one I posted above, and the absolute intensity of the base that they have created against "working with Democrats." In a government structurally created to force and strike deals made in the name of consensus, working with Democrats is the death knell of a GOP politicians career, or at least an expensive primary from the "right." In order for it to work -- a coalition of sorts -- part of the erstwhile GOP caucus actually will need to step out of those straightjackets and into the fire.

Yes, but the alternative for the moderates and Ukraine supporters looks even worse. Maybe it's a kick the can down the road mentality that gets them stuck with a long government shutdown and failure to support Ukraine and stupid impeachment hearings ad infinitum, but I think those who are used to working across the aisle are very likely looking to how they can aggregate enough support to make that work...I don't think we see that fully emerge until the R's screw the pooch some more, with it being obvious why they can't let the extreme rule. Maybe Jim Jordan takes it on, but if he doesn't shut down the government the extreme won't let him stay and if he doesn't put up a vote to fund Ukraine I can see the moderates taking him down. Scalise has the same problem, though his style would be less inflammatory than Jordan. I think Scalise would be stupid to take it without rule changes. Jordan might be willing.

So, better to be prepared next week with what those compromises and rule changes would need to be. Might not put that forward right away, but it'll likely be floated...you already see Dems signaling openness.

“better to be prepared”

Prepared for a shutdown. I continue to be amazed at how fragile our governance is. I’d like to think it is Putin’s well-placed bribery and kompromat, but probably just an inevitable result of the intersection of demographics (aging Boomers) and unrealized aspirations. Sure can see the antelope as it passes through the snake.

Yes, if Jordan gets the reins, that's what we should expect. And probably a long shutdown. If he take the gig, it will be subservient to the right wing extremists...and we see their demands...

The blowback will be disastrous for the moderates in the GOP in vulnerable districts and damage the brand heavily...but not among the knuckleheads who get a thrill from theatrics and fireworks. And that's what millions of their small dollar MAGA donors want.

We'll also likely see disaster for Ukraine as well. Putin is cheering.

While this will benefit Dems electorally in a year, I think most of the elected Dems are more concerned about the good of the country in the meantime. Not all, but most.

Fingers crossed for the rational folks in both sides to get together and bring some sanity.

Your jumping the gun. If gas is 3 dollars a gallon and 401k accounts bounce back by November 2024 nothing your talking about today will matter to the voters. You should never underestimate the short term memory of most Americans.

If that happens, the Dems win a blow out anyway as Biden would get credit for it.

But I think a government shutdown that persists and gets ugly will cause all sorts of trauma and anger against those who create it, the GOP. I don't think the result would be lower gas prices or high 401k's. BTW, the stock market is up considerably since Election Day 2020 as well as up considerably from peak 2019 pre pandemic, so not sure what your 401k issue is...

Gas prices aren't much driven by what happens in the US; global dynamics make a much greater difference.

So if the economy has still gone to chit in 2024 and gas is 6 dollars and 401k chit the bed Joe Biden won't get the blame for that? Is this a theoretical one way street we are discussing? I just heard on the radio that Steve Scalise is going to run for speaker. I know he is ill but he should be a godsend for all republicans. Why I even think you might not have a hard time with Scalise as speaker. Anybody fighting multiple myeloma and undergoing chemo and willing to throw their hat into this chitshow is a hero in my book. He sure as hell didn't have to take this obligation on his shoulders. FTR my gramps died from multiple myeloma in 1972. It is a horrible disease with as far as I know still no cure.

Scalise would be better than Jordan, but if the rules leave him forced to do whatever Gaetz says, he’ll be incapable of rational governance. But he won’t get the extremes to support him without such promises and electric shock collar. So… if he’s the guy the Problem Solver Caucus supports and he gets it with Dem support maybe he’ll have sufficient independence that the crazies won’t tank everything.

You are right that the GOP will try to blame inflation and high interest rates on Biden (while ignoring the amazingly resilient performance of the economy, job creation, etc). But the stock market only tanks if the economy truly crashes. The short term soft market right now is because the investors see this hot economy still charging so they expect continued higher interest rates which they believe will hurt corporate earnings and eventually spark a recession.

But the MAGA House as a big sh-tshow will give the Dems legit fodder to blame any downturn on them, instead of just throwing up their hands in frustration over the blame game re Biden.

Well and the unwind of a decade of artificial and j force dented monetary loose support. And covid eta protections where no one with student debt ever Brenner’s making those payments in their budgets 40 months later.

Nearly 15yrs of inflated money supply, low rates, bailouts (YRC) etc this isn’t some short term cycle next time we roll through one. It will involve seminal structural changes. Recovery rates and losses will be higher. Cap Ex hasn’t been this expensive with this cost of capital and required “go no go” threshold for investment is going be higher than an entire generation has seen including many fund managers and private equity’s enviro folks in the mid 30a

I'm confident that most of us on here understand less than half of what you wrote, though I suspect the general tone penetrates...

[Farfromgeneva]

Question: how do you think this Speaker fight resolves?

Here we go...https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Dems made a mistake. They won’t like the vacuum this creates I feel pretty confident. Even if McCarthy is a doughnut.

I wondered about this too, while reading the news this morning. McCarthy was the moron we knew (I like doughnuts, and they have some utility, so I don't want to call him that). Rather than keeping their powder dry and their performance art mouths shut, GOP House members were, last night and this morning, calling for Trump to be Speaker, and issuing demands and conditions on anyone who might run for the Speakership. Anna Paulina Luna, QR of Florida, laid down three conditions:

“I will vote for the Speaker [1] who publicly and clearly commits to defunding Jack Smith’s anti-American election interference witch hunts and [2] subpoenas Hunter Biden while [3] bringing a vote on impeachment of Joe Biden to the floor of the House.”

Pretty good idea to lay out an unworkable and implacable position in advance of a conference meeting when your party is in peril, when the country is realizing that you cannot even get players in place, to say nothing of govern?

After the 6-20 firebrands scream and shout and make demands alienating everyone else, I think the Problem Solvers Caucus eventually puts together a set of commitments and rule changes that puts either one of their own or someone like Tom Cole in place, with Dem crossover support sufficient to exceed the 218.

The rational people in the GOP, whether actual conservatives or moderates, will mostly join that coalition, though some of the more conservative may feel compelled to side with the hard right burn down the house types, given the policy compromises this will entail and the threat of primary challenges. Likewise, some of the most progressive on the Dem side may not be able to crossover, given some of those same policy compromises.

But I suspect the PS Caucus members are already talking in the aftermath of the mess that went down yesterday. Both sides of that caucus have to be appalled at the idea of the extreme dominating going forward.

Apparently (according to McCarthy), last January Pelosi had assured McCarthy that the Dems would prevent the far right from controlling the Speakership when push came to shove, as she had assured Boehner and Ryan...but McCarthy blew the trust down the stretch and his comments blaming Dems over the weekend was the nail in the coffin.

But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to help build a consensus Leadership with R's in charge...but with some power sharing and demonstrated willingness to compromise on various issues. A solid majority on both sides believe supporting Ukraine is essential...R's want tough border policies, the Dems want more dollars for judges and personnel and more legal immigration...there's a deal to be made as Biden and the Dems don't want this issue to persist into the 2024 election cycle with the current sense that they're soft on the border. There's probably a similar set of compromises around crime...and voting...

And of course, these can be largely done within the budget parameters set last spring, albeit with some emergency funding and Ukraine funding.

The extreme will howl, but they're earning a whole lot of animosity from within the GOP Caucus as it is. It's probably the only way the most vulnerable GOP House members have a chance of holding their seats in a general, though they'll possibly need to beat back primary challenges from the extreme right.

Divided government can work to put brakes on the party in most control, but it needs to be practical and realistic. Elections matter.

Good post. I agree that there is a deal to be made, but the likelihood of such a deal seems very remote given the hard-liners' early statements, like the one I posted above, and the absolute intensity of the base that they have created against "working with Democrats." In a government structurally created to force and strike deals made in the name of consensus, working with Democrats is the death knell of a GOP politicians career, or at least an expensive primary from the "right." In order for it to work -- a coalition of sorts -- part of the erstwhile GOP caucus actually will need to step out of those straightjackets and into the fire.

Yes, but the alternative for the moderates and Ukraine supporters looks even worse. Maybe it's a kick the can down the road mentality that gets them stuck with a long government shutdown and failure to support Ukraine and stupid impeachment hearings ad infinitum, but I think those who are used to working across the aisle are very likely looking to how they can aggregate enough support to make that work...I don't think we see that fully emerge until the R's screw the pooch some more, with it being obvious why they can't let the extreme rule. Maybe Jim Jordan takes it on, but if he doesn't shut down the government the extreme won't let him stay and if he doesn't put up a vote to fund Ukraine I can see the moderates taking him down. Scalise has the same problem, though his style would be less inflammatory than Jordan. I think Scalise would be stupid to take it without rule changes. Jordan might be willing.

So, better to be prepared next week with what those compromises and rule changes would need to be. Might not put that forward right away, but it'll likely be floated...you already see Dems signaling openness.

“better to be prepared”

Prepared for a shutdown. I continue to be amazed at how fragile our governance is. I’d like to think it is Putin’s well-placed bribery and kompromat, but probably just an inevitable result of the intersection of demographics (aging Boomers) and unrealized aspirations. Sure can see the antelope as it passes through the snake.

Yes, if Jordan gets the reins, that's what we should expect. And probably a long shutdown. If he take the gig, it will be subservient to the right wing extremists...and we see their demands...

The blowback will be disastrous for the moderates in the GOP in vulnerable districts and damage the brand heavily...but not among the knuckleheads who get a thrill from theatrics and fireworks. And that's what millions of their small dollar MAGA donors want.

We'll also likely see disaster for Ukraine as well. Putin is cheering.

While this will benefit Dems electorally in a year, I think most of the elected Dems are more concerned about the good of the country in the meantime. Not all, but most.

Fingers crossed for the rational folks in both sides to get together and bring some sanity.

Your jumping the gun. If gas is 3 dollars a gallon and 401k accounts bounce back by November 2024 nothing your talking about today will matter to the voters. You should never underestimate the short term memory of most Americans.

If that happens, the Dems win a blow out anyway as Biden would get credit for it.

But I think a government shutdown that persists and gets ugly will cause all sorts of trauma and anger against those who create it, the GOP. I don't think the result would be lower gas prices or high 401k's. BTW, the stock market is up considerably since Election Day 2020 as well as up considerably from peak 2019 pre pandemic, so not sure what your 401k issue is...

Gas prices aren't much driven by what happens in the US; global dynamics make a much greater difference.

So if the economy has still gone to chit in 2024 and gas is 6 dollars and 401k chit the bed Joe Biden won't get the blame for that? Is this a theoretical one way street we are discussing? I just heard on the radio that Steve Scalise is going to run for speaker. I know he is ill but he should be a godsend for all republicans. Why I even think you might not have a hard time with Scalise as speaker. Anybody fighting multiple myeloma and undergoing chemo and willing to throw their hat into this chitshow is a hero in my book. He sure as hell didn't have to take this obligation on his shoulders. FTR my gramps died from multiple myeloma in 1972. It is a horrible disease with as far as I know still no cure.

Scalise would be better than Jordan, but if the rules leave him forced to do whatever Gaetz says, he’ll be incapable of rational governance. But he won’t get the extremes to support him without such promises and electric shock collar. So… if he’s the guy the Problem Solver Caucus supports and he gets it with Dem support maybe he’ll have sufficient independence that the crazies won’t tank everything.

You are right that the GOP will try to blame inflation and high interest rates on Biden (while ignoring the amazingly resilient performance of the economy, job creation, etc). But the stock market only tanks if the economy truly crashes. The short term soft market right now is because the investors see this hot economy still charging so they expect continued higher interest rates which they believe will hurt corporate earnings and eventually spark a recession.

But the MAGA House as a big sh-tshow will give the Dems legit fodder to blame any downturn on them, instead of just throwing up their hands in frustration over the blame game re Biden.

Well and the unwind of a decade of artificial and j force dented monetary loose support. And covid eta protections where no one with student debt ever Brenner’s making those payments in their budgets 40 months later.

Nearly 15yrs of inflated money supply, low rates, bailouts (YRC) etc this isn’t some short term cycle next time we roll through one. It will involve seminal structural changes. Recovery rates and losses will be higher. Cap Ex hasn’t been this expensive with this cost of capital and required “go no go” threshold for investment is going be higher than an entire generation has seen including many fund managers and private equity’s enviro folks in the mid 30a

I'm confident that most of us on here understand less than half of what you wrote, though I suspect the general tone penetrates...

Federal funds rate - last time it was over 5 was with people who are now like 32-35yrs old. 1/2-1/3 of a persons working life.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

Money supply, M2

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

Student loan moratorium analysis by substack. Or I mean The Economist which some think is “MSM”

https://www.economist.com/united-states ... a-bad-idea

YRC-Yellow Roadways

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/28/busi ... tdown.html

Taper tantrum 2013 - https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ ... 31004.html

Every CFO is telling me their capex next year is zero or near zero because the discount rate has climbed, equity premia and credit spreads widen with higher rates so the all in cost fo capitala hs made most investment cost prohibitive for businesses until they “grow into the new rate world order”. This is a 15yr unwind, not just an economic cycle. Comparing it to a cycle is not appropriate this time we go through it and what comes out the other side is anyone’s guess.

[a fan]

Every CFO is telling me their capex next year is zero or near zero because the discount rate has climbed, equity premia and credit spreads widen with higher rates so the all in cost fo capitala hs made most investment cost prohibitive for businesses until they “grow into the new rate world order”. This is a 15yr unwind, not just an economic cycle. Comparing it to a cycle is not appropriate this time we go through it and what comes out the other side is anyone’s guess.

For the life of me, I don't know why they don't give the Fed the power to raise taxes. It's the obvious thing to do to hit inflation, without killing economic activity.

Their approach to inflation is: we're going to the poor out of work until inflation settles.

Why not raise taxes, which both slows spending, and lowers the currency in circulation? And pays our debt down. And lowers our debt service.

Meanwhile, your buds in those CFO suites can keep right on keepin' on.

[Farfromgeneva]

Every CFO is telling me their capex next year is zero or near zero because the discount rate has climbed, equity premia and credit spreads widen with higher rates so the all in cost fo capitala hs made most investment cost prohibitive for businesses until they “grow into the new rate world order”. This is a 15yr unwind, not just an economic cycle. Comparing it to a cycle is not appropriate this time we go through it and what comes out the other side is anyone’s guess.

For the life of me, I don't know why they don't give the Fed the power to raise taxes. It's the obvious thing to do to hit inflation, without killing economic activity.

Their approach to inflation is: we're going to the poor out of work until inflation settles.

Why not raise taxes, which both slows spending, and lowers the currency in circulation? And pays our debt down. And lowers our debt service.

Meanwhile, your buds in those CFO suites can keep right on keepin' on.

Well in the world where the fed is not politicized that’s obviously problematic. I’m not opposed to “raising taxes” explicitly but think it could be cleaned up by simplifying the tax code and removing frictions such sides and write offs first, then look to broad based increases. Then make the relationship between federal, state and local expenditures and services for citizens so we understand who pays what and how that’s shifted over the years. Then look to blanket increase in marginal rates starting at the top levels.

This also assumes increased tax revenues are managed appropriately and not diverted elsewhere. There’s a chasm between the dollars arriving and where they get sent, how do we ensure it does in fact pay down debt? The NYS thruway was supposed to be done ages ago but the state liked spending that dough elsewhere-happens at federal level as well. Cultural changes so that departments take ownership of the money rather than treat budget as to be spent necessarily regardless of merit of those expenditures.

[a fan]

Every CFO is telling me their capex next year is zero or near zero because the discount rate has climbed, equity premia and credit spreads widen with higher rates so the all in cost fo capitala hs made most investment cost prohibitive for businesses until they “grow into the new rate world order”. This is a 15yr unwind, not just an economic cycle. Comparing it to a cycle is not appropriate this time we go through it and what comes out the other side is anyone’s guess.

For the life of me, I don't know why they don't give the Fed the power to raise taxes. It's the obvious thing to do to hit inflation, without killing economic activity.

Their approach to inflation is: we're going to the poor out of work until inflation settles.

Why not raise taxes, which both slows spending, and lowers the currency in circulation? And pays our debt down. And lowers our debt service.

Meanwhile, your buds in those CFO suites can keep right on keepin' on.

Well in the world where the fed is not politicized that’s obviously problematic. I’m not opposed to “raising taxes” explicitly but think it could be cleaned up by simplifying the tax code and removing frictions such sides and write offs first, then look to broad based increases. Then make the relationship between federal, state and local expenditures and services for citizens so we understand who pays what and how that’s shifted over the years. Then look to blanket increase in marginal rates starting at the top levels.

This also assumes increased tax revenues are managed appropriately and not diverted elsewhere. There’s a chasm between the dollars arriving and where they get sent, how do we ensure it does in fact pay down debt? The NYS thruway was supposed to be done ages ago but the state liked spending that dough elsewhere-happens at federal level as well. Cultural changes so that departments take ownership of the money rather than treat budget as to be spent necessarily regardless of merit of those expenditures.

All valid points.....i just don't like how bad we are at capitalism, and how many times we use blunt instruments where a softer touch, or different tools would work far better.

[MDlaxfan76]

good discussion above.

[Seacoaster(1)]

good discussion above.

Agreed. Thanks fellas.

[runrussellrun]

good discussion above.

Agreed. Thanks fellas.

yeah....plus 11

[Farfromgeneva]

But I didn’t even include a funny or truly strange link to a YouTube clip!

Just to make sure we’re all on the same page here let me share my second favorite Law and Order character (used to drink at a UWS bar with Christopher Meloni in the mid late 2000s so that will always be my boy)

I introduce: The Dizzer!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oKXkKM2383o

[Farfromgeneva]

I get this pseudoscience/philosophy daily called Big Think. It’s fun but I know I have to check information in it.

“Putting this out there” because I hope to see a discussion amongst this cohort regarding when people peak….

https://bigthink.com/business/case-agai ... id=5p4zXq2

The case against hiring people from Ivy League schools

Get rid of the notion that the best employees come from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

Liz EltingSeptember 27, 2023
Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Dream Big and Win: Translating Passion into Purpose and Creating a Billion-Dollar Business by Liz Elting. Copyright © 2023 by Pink Star, LLC. All rights reserved. This book is available wherever books and eBooks are sold.
When I was first beginning as an entrepreneur, I didn’t know how much I didn’t know in regard to hiring. Most of my learning was of the seat-of-my-pants variety and I made many mistakes. While ethics were important to me from day one, I hadn’t yet learned what else might be important, because ethical doesn’t necessarily mean motivated. There are plenty of fine individuals who are perfectly satisfied with the status quo.

Our first few employees were a comedy of errors. Here’s where we went wrong with hiring in the early days. We had burned ourselves out by working so many 100-hour weeks, trying to get some traction in the industry. We had been successful in landing business, but we were still grinding so hard that we didn’t have the effort to put into our hiring process; we were afraid that would take away from our focus on sales.

The thing about desperation (mixed with exhaustion) is that it doesn’t lead to the best decision-making. We needed people so badly that we settled for the first ones who walked in the door, convincing ourselves that they could do the job, when no part of their interview answers should have led us to that conclusion. That’s when I learned the most important piece of advice there is regarding employees, which comes from my mentor, Jack Daly: Hire slowly, fire quickly. We lost a lot of ground in the beginning because we’d staffed up so poorly.

We should have waited for the rock stars who we could see with us 5 to 10 years down the line, but we were too overwhelmed and over-tired to employ that kind of patience. Great people were hard to find, and back in the mid-1990s, no one was excited to work for a startup, especially given the low draw in sales and crazy hours in production. The dot-com boom was on the horizon, but we were still in the nascent days, so there wasn’t the excitement or cachet of working on the ground floor of a startup. No one had gotten beyond-their-wildest-dreams-rich after their startup had been acquired by Google or Facebook yet — neither entity existed.

While we offered unlimited commissions to our sales teams and bonuses to our rock stars in production, the people we brought in were working such grueling hours that eventually the money wasn’t worth it to them and we’d lose them. Our job in the early days with staffing was trying to maintain that sweet spot between hungry and burned out.

Over the years, I developed a much better sense of who would be the right fit for our team. One of the first assumptions I had to get past was that the best employees would come from Ivy League schools. While I was always impressed with the kind of education that came with a degree from places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, the Ivies didn’t necessarily churn out people who were hungry to be successful in sales or production roles, at least at our company. These kids were often less willing to go out of their way to drum up business or innovate and they had the wrong attitude. In my experience, they often didn’t want to pay their dues, having assumed that obligation had been satisfied through their tuition payments and the performance that had gotten them accepted initially. Their performance had literally peaked in school. The longer I hired people, the less correlation I saw between prestigious schools and success within the company.

I interviewed every single employee myself until we were a 100-person company and many more over the years. Once I’d gotten into the groove of hiring, I discovered that attitude was just as important as experience. I’d seek out those who impressed me, those who thought big. I wanted those looking for a company where they could grow and where they had a stake in growing the company. I wanted them to be able to envision themselves three positions up, ten years in the future. I appreciated those who came prepared with lists of questions, not just about the company, but also about me and my experience, because it showed ambition and a natural curiosity. I wanted to see people who’d make the effort, so I was less impressed with those who wanted to know about information readily available on the first page of our website. If nothing else, at least read the landing page! I figured if they weren’t willing to make the effort for a conversation with me, why would I believe they’d do it with our clients?

Given the choice, I’d opt for someone with skills over experience, a practice favored by Sheryl Sandberg that she learned from Meg Whitman. When Sandberg interviewed at eBay, she was completely honest with Whitman, saying she’d lacked experience in the tech world, a fact that had gotten her summarily rejected by a number of tech companies. (Imagine being the hiring manager who passed on Sheryl Sandberg! That must have felt like all those editors who didn’t see any potential in the first Harry Potter book.)

My ideal employee was someone with integrity who also was incredibly service oriented.
In an interview with Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s cofounder, Sandberg said, “[Meg] said ‘no one has any experience, because no one has ever done this before. I want to hire people with great skills, and I think hopefully you have great skills.’ I really took that lesson to heart…. I decided what mattered was skills. I was going to go hire the best and the brightest, and people who were going to bring their passion and dedication and work hard. And actual experience in the field or related fields didn’t matter. That opens up a lot of hiring, because then you can just look for skills.”

My ideal employee was someone with integrity who also was incredibly service oriented. I particularly liked those who’d been in sports because athletics promotes leadership, a competitive drive, and teamwork. Winning was important to them. I appreciated those who’d waited tables in bars and restaurants because they’d seen people at their worst and had learned to navigate difficult situations with diplomacy. (Few skills will get you better equipped for how rough the world can be than managing the Saturday night dinner rush.) I favored those who came out of college with student loans because those who hadn’t had everything paid for were hungrier. And those who’d encountered adversity were more resilient. I sought out enthusiasm, energy, and a track record of success.

One of my favorite employees started in the early days, and what blew me away was his can-do attitude. Jamie Wengroff was perpetually cheerful and upbeat and could not do enough for his clients. He used to walk around the office saying, “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” He set the standard for the kind of person we wanted to hire.

Sometimes applicants were phenomenal on paper but did poorly in the interviews. I believed that both eye contact and a decent handshake were important and lacking either left me with a poor impression. I was tough in the interviews and had specific expectations. If someone came in and gave answers that didn’t align with what they had written on their CV, I’d pass on them. Dressed unprofessionally? Pass. Job hopper? Pass. If someone presented with low energy, negativity, or no questions? Pasadena.

Please don’t even get me started on the college grads who brought their parents with them to the interview, or, worse, had their folks follow up with me.

I wish I was kidding.

[PizzaSnake]

I get this pseudoscience/philosophy daily called Big Think. It’s fun but I know I have to check information in it.

“Putting this out there” because I hope to see a discussion amongst this cohort regarding when people peak….

https://bigthink.com/business/case-agai ... id=5p4zXq2

The case against hiring people from Ivy League schools

Get rid of the notion that the best employees come from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

Liz EltingSeptember 27, 2023
Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Dream Big and Win: Translating Passion into Purpose and Creating a Billion-Dollar Business by Liz Elting. Copyright © 2023 by Pink Star, LLC. All rights reserved. This book is available wherever books and eBooks are sold.
When I was first beginning as an entrepreneur, I didn’t know how much I didn’t know in regard to hiring. Most of my learning was of the seat-of-my-pants variety and I made many mistakes. While ethics were important to me from day one, I hadn’t yet learned what else might be important, because ethical doesn’t necessarily mean motivated. There are plenty of fine individuals who are perfectly satisfied with the status quo.

Our first few employees were a comedy of errors. Here’s where we went wrong with hiring in the early days. We had burned ourselves out by working so many 100-hour weeks, trying to get some traction in the industry. We had been successful in landing business, but we were still grinding so hard that we didn’t have the effort to put into our hiring process; we were afraid that would take away from our focus on sales.

The thing about desperation (mixed with exhaustion) is that it doesn’t lead to the best decision-making. We needed people so badly that we settled for the first ones who walked in the door, convincing ourselves that they could do the job, when no part of their interview answers should have led us to that conclusion. That’s when I learned the most important piece of advice there is regarding employees, which comes from my mentor, Jack Daly: Hire slowly, fire quickly. We lost a lot of ground in the beginning because we’d staffed up so poorly.

We should have waited for the rock stars who we could see with us 5 to 10 years down the line, but we were too overwhelmed and over-tired to employ that kind of patience. Great people were hard to find, and back in the mid-1990s, no one was excited to work for a startup, especially given the low draw in sales and crazy hours in production. The dot-com boom was on the horizon, but we were still in the nascent days, so there wasn’t the excitement or cachet of working on the ground floor of a startup. No one had gotten beyond-their-wildest-dreams-rich after their startup had been acquired by Google or Facebook yet — neither entity existed.

While we offered unlimited commissions to our sales teams and bonuses to our rock stars in production, the people we brought in were working such grueling hours that eventually the money wasn’t worth it to them and we’d lose them. Our job in the early days with staffing was trying to maintain that sweet spot between hungry and burned out.

Over the years, I developed a much better sense of who would be the right fit for our team. One of the first assumptions I had to get past was that the best employees would come from Ivy League schools. While I was always impressed with the kind of education that came with a degree from places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, the Ivies didn’t necessarily churn out people who were hungry to be successful in sales or production roles, at least at our company. These kids were often less willing to go out of their way to drum up business or innovate and they had the wrong attitude. In my experience, they often didn’t want to pay their dues, having assumed that obligation had been satisfied through their tuition payments and the performance that had gotten them accepted initially. Their performance had literally peaked in school. The longer I hired people, the less correlation I saw between prestigious schools and success within the company.

I interviewed every single employee myself until we were a 100-person company and many more over the years. Once I’d gotten into the groove of hiring, I discovered that attitude was just as important as experience. I’d seek out those who impressed me, those who thought big. I wanted those looking for a company where they could grow and where they had a stake in growing the company. I wanted them to be able to envision themselves three positions up, ten years in the future. I appreciated those who came prepared with lists of questions, not just about the company, but also about me and my experience, because it showed ambition and a natural curiosity. I wanted to see people who’d make the effort, so I was less impressed with those who wanted to know about information readily available on the first page of our website. If nothing else, at least read the landing page! I figured if they weren’t willing to make the effort for a conversation with me, why would I believe they’d do it with our clients?

Given the choice, I’d opt for someone with skills over experience, a practice favored by Sheryl Sandberg that she learned from Meg Whitman. When Sandberg interviewed at eBay, she was completely honest with Whitman, saying she’d lacked experience in the tech world, a fact that had gotten her summarily rejected by a number of tech companies. (Imagine being the hiring manager who passed on Sheryl Sandberg! That must have felt like all those editors who didn’t see any potential in the first Harry Potter book.)

My ideal employee was someone with integrity who also was incredibly service oriented.
In an interview with Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s cofounder, Sandberg said, “[Meg] said ‘no one has any experience, because no one has ever done this before. I want to hire people with great skills, and I think hopefully you have great skills.’ I really took that lesson to heart…. I decided what mattered was skills. I was going to go hire the best and the brightest, and people who were going to bring their passion and dedication and work hard. And actual experience in the field or related fields didn’t matter. That opens up a lot of hiring, because then you can just look for skills.”

My ideal employee was someone with integrity who also was incredibly service oriented. I particularly liked those who’d been in sports because athletics promotes leadership, a competitive drive, and teamwork. Winning was important to them. I appreciated those who’d waited tables in bars and restaurants because they’d seen people at their worst and had learned to navigate difficult situations with diplomacy. (Few skills will get you better equipped for how rough the world can be than managing the Saturday night dinner rush.) I favored those who came out of college with student loans because those who hadn’t had everything paid for were hungrier. And those who’d encountered adversity were more resilient. I sought out enthusiasm, energy, and a track record of success.

One of my favorite employees started in the early days, and what blew me away was his can-do attitude. Jamie Wengroff was perpetually cheerful and upbeat and could not do enough for his clients. He used to walk around the office saying, “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” He set the standard for the kind of person we wanted to hire.

Sometimes applicants were phenomenal on paper but did poorly in the interviews. I believed that both eye contact and a decent handshake were important and lacking either left me with a poor impression. I was tough in the interviews and had specific expectations. If someone came in and gave answers that didn’t align with what they had written on their CV, I’d pass on them. Dressed unprofessionally? Pass. Job hopper? Pass. If someone presented with low energy, negativity, or no questions? Pasadena.

Please don’t even get me started on the college grads who brought their parents with them to the interview, or, worse, had their folks follow up with me.

I wish I was kidding.

Exploitation is a fine art…

“Our job in the early days with staffing was trying to maintain that sweet spot between hungry and burned out.”

[Farfromgeneva]

I get this pseudoscience/philosophy daily called Big Think. It’s fun but I know I have to check information in it.

“Putting this out there” because I hope to see a discussion amongst this cohort regarding when people peak….

https://bigthink.com/business/case-agai ... id=5p4zXq2

The case against hiring people from Ivy League schools

Get rid of the notion that the best employees come from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

Liz EltingSeptember 27, 2023
Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Dream Big and Win: Translating Passion into Purpose and Creating a Billion-Dollar Business by Liz Elting. Copyright © 2023 by Pink Star, LLC. All rights reserved. This book is available wherever books and eBooks are sold.
When I was first beginning as an entrepreneur, I didn’t know how much I didn’t know in regard to hiring. Most of my learning was of the seat-of-my-pants variety and I made many mistakes. While ethics were important to me from day one, I hadn’t yet learned what else might be important, because ethical doesn’t necessarily mean motivated. There are plenty of fine individuals who are perfectly satisfied with the status quo.

Our first few employees were a comedy of errors. Here’s where we went wrong with hiring in the early days. We had burned ourselves out by working so many 100-hour weeks, trying to get some traction in the industry. We had been successful in landing business, but we were still grinding so hard that we didn’t have the effort to put into our hiring process; we were afraid that would take away from our focus on sales.

The thing about desperation (mixed with exhaustion) is that it doesn’t lead to the best decision-making. We needed people so badly that we settled for the first ones who walked in the door, convincing ourselves that they could do the job, when no part of their interview answers should have led us to that conclusion. That’s when I learned the most important piece of advice there is regarding employees, which comes from my mentor, Jack Daly: Hire slowly, fire quickly. We lost a lot of ground in the beginning because we’d staffed up so poorly.

We should have waited for the rock stars who we could see with us 5 to 10 years down the line, but we were too overwhelmed and over-tired to employ that kind of patience. Great people were hard to find, and back in the mid-1990s, no one was excited to work for a startup, especially given the low draw in sales and crazy hours in production. The dot-com boom was on the horizon, but we were still in the nascent days, so there wasn’t the excitement or cachet of working on the ground floor of a startup. No one had gotten beyond-their-wildest-dreams-rich after their startup had been acquired by Google or Facebook yet — neither entity existed.

While we offered unlimited commissions to our sales teams and bonuses to our rock stars in production, the people we brought in were working such grueling hours that eventually the money wasn’t worth it to them and we’d lose them. Our job in the early days with staffing was trying to maintain that sweet spot between hungry and burned out.

Over the years, I developed a much better sense of who would be the right fit for our team. One of the first assumptions I had to get past was that the best employees would come from Ivy League schools. While I was always impressed with the kind of education that came with a degree from places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, the Ivies didn’t necessarily churn out people who were hungry to be successful in sales or production roles, at least at our company. These kids were often less willing to go out of their way to drum up business or innovate and they had the wrong attitude. In my experience, they often didn’t want to pay their dues, having assumed that obligation had been satisfied through their tuition payments and the performance that had gotten them accepted initially. Their performance had literally peaked in school. The longer I hired people, the less correlation I saw between prestigious schools and success within the company.

I interviewed every single employee myself until we were a 100-person company and many more over the years. Once I’d gotten into the groove of hiring, I discovered that attitude was just as important as experience. I’d seek out those who impressed me, those who thought big. I wanted those looking for a company where they could grow and where they had a stake in growing the company. I wanted them to be able to envision themselves three positions up, ten years in the future. I appreciated those who came prepared with lists of questions, not just about the company, but also about me and my experience, because it showed ambition and a natural curiosity. I wanted to see people who’d make the effort, so I was less impressed with those who wanted to know about information readily available on the first page of our website. If nothing else, at least read the landing page! I figured if they weren’t willing to make the effort for a conversation with me, why would I believe they’d do it with our clients?

Given the choice, I’d opt for someone with skills over experience, a practice favored by Sheryl Sandberg that she learned from Meg Whitman. When Sandberg interviewed at eBay, she was completely honest with Whitman, saying she’d lacked experience in the tech world, a fact that had gotten her summarily rejected by a number of tech companies. (Imagine being the hiring manager who passed on Sheryl Sandberg! That must have felt like all those editors who didn’t see any potential in the first Harry Potter book.)

My ideal employee was someone with integrity who also was incredibly service oriented.
In an interview with Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s cofounder, Sandberg said, “[Meg] said ‘no one has any experience, because no one has ever done this before. I want to hire people with great skills, and I think hopefully you have great skills.’ I really took that lesson to heart…. I decided what mattered was skills. I was going to go hire the best and the brightest, and people who were going to bring their passion and dedication and work hard. And actual experience in the field or related fields didn’t matter. That opens up a lot of hiring, because then you can just look for skills.”

My ideal employee was someone with integrity who also was incredibly service oriented. I particularly liked those who’d been in sports because athletics promotes leadership, a competitive drive, and teamwork. Winning was important to them. I appreciated those who’d waited tables in bars and restaurants because they’d seen people at their worst and had learned to navigate difficult situations with diplomacy. (Few skills will get you better equipped for how rough the world can be than managing the Saturday night dinner rush.) I favored those who came out of college with student loans because those who hadn’t had everything paid for were hungrier. And those who’d encountered adversity were more resilient. I sought out enthusiasm, energy, and a track record of success.

One of my favorite employees started in the early days, and what blew me away was his can-do attitude. Jamie Wengroff was perpetually cheerful and upbeat and could not do enough for his clients. He used to walk around the office saying, “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” He set the standard for the kind of person we wanted to hire.

Sometimes applicants were phenomenal on paper but did poorly in the interviews. I believed that both eye contact and a decent handshake were important and lacking either left me with a poor impression. I was tough in the interviews and had specific expectations. If someone came in and gave answers that didn’t align with what they had written on their CV, I’d pass on them. Dressed unprofessionally? Pass. Job hopper? Pass. If someone presented with low energy, negativity, or no questions? Pasadena.

Please don’t even get me started on the college grads who brought their parents with them to the interview, or, worse, had their folks follow up with me.

I wish I was kidding.

Exploitation is a fine art…

“Our job in the early days with staffing was trying to maintain that sweet spot between hungry and burned out.”

I think they prefer the term optimization of inputs…

[PizzaSnake]

I get this pseudoscience/philosophy daily called Big Think. It’s fun but I know I have to check information in it.

“Putting this out there” because I hope to see a discussion amongst this cohort regarding when people peak….

https://bigthink.com/business/case-agai ... id=5p4zXq2

The case against hiring people from Ivy League schools

Get rid of the notion that the best employees come from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

Liz EltingSeptember 27, 2023
Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Dream Big and Win: Translating Passion into Purpose and Creating a Billion-Dollar Business by Liz Elting. Copyright © 2023 by Pink Star, LLC. All rights reserved. This book is available wherever books and eBooks are sold.
When I was first beginning as an entrepreneur, I didn’t know how much I didn’t know in regard to hiring. Most of my learning was of the seat-of-my-pants variety and I made many mistakes. While ethics were important to me from day one, I hadn’t yet learned what else might be important, because ethical doesn’t necessarily mean motivated. There are plenty of fine individuals who are perfectly satisfied with the status quo.

Our first few employees were a comedy of errors. Here’s where we went wrong with hiring in the early days. We had burned ourselves out by working so many 100-hour weeks, trying to get some traction in the industry. We had been successful in landing business, but we were still grinding so hard that we didn’t have the effort to put into our hiring process; we were afraid that would take away from our focus on sales.

The thing about desperation (mixed with exhaustion) is that it doesn’t lead to the best decision-making. We needed people so badly that we settled for the first ones who walked in the door, convincing ourselves that they could do the job, when no part of their interview answers should have led us to that conclusion. That’s when I learned the most important piece of advice there is regarding employees, which comes from my mentor, Jack Daly: Hire slowly, fire quickly. We lost a lot of ground in the beginning because we’d staffed up so poorly.

We should have waited for the rock stars who we could see with us 5 to 10 years down the line, but we were too overwhelmed and over-tired to employ that kind of patience. Great people were hard to find, and back in the mid-1990s, no one was excited to work for a startup, especially given the low draw in sales and crazy hours in production. The dot-com boom was on the horizon, but we were still in the nascent days, so there wasn’t the excitement or cachet of working on the ground floor of a startup. No one had gotten beyond-their-wildest-dreams-rich after their startup had been acquired by Google or Facebook yet — neither entity existed.

While we offered unlimited commissions to our sales teams and bonuses to our rock stars in production, the people we brought in were working such grueling hours that eventually the money wasn’t worth it to them and we’d lose them. Our job in the early days with staffing was trying to maintain that sweet spot between hungry and burned out.

Over the years, I developed a much better sense of who would be the right fit for our team. One of the first assumptions I had to get past was that the best employees would come from Ivy League schools. While I was always impressed with the kind of education that came with a degree from places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, the Ivies didn’t necessarily churn out people who were hungry to be successful in sales or production roles, at least at our company. These kids were often less willing to go out of their way to drum up business or innovate and they had the wrong attitude. In my experience, they often didn’t want to pay their dues, having assumed that obligation had been satisfied through their tuition payments and the performance that had gotten them accepted initially. Their performance had literally peaked in school. The longer I hired people, the less correlation I saw between prestigious schools and success within the company.

I interviewed every single employee myself until we were a 100-person company and many more over the years. Once I’d gotten into the groove of hiring, I discovered that attitude was just as important as experience. I’d seek out those who impressed me, those who thought big. I wanted those looking for a company where they could grow and where they had a stake in growing the company. I wanted them to be able to envision themselves three positions up, ten years in the future. I appreciated those who came prepared with lists of questions, not just about the company, but also about me and my experience, because it showed ambition and a natural curiosity. I wanted to see people who’d make the effort, so I was less impressed with those who wanted to know about information readily available on the first page of our website. If nothing else, at least read the landing page! I figured if they weren’t willing to make the effort for a conversation with me, why would I believe they’d do it with our clients?

Given the choice, I’d opt for someone with skills over experience, a practice favored by Sheryl Sandberg that she learned from Meg Whitman. When Sandberg interviewed at eBay, she was completely honest with Whitman, saying she’d lacked experience in the tech world, a fact that had gotten her summarily rejected by a number of tech companies. (Imagine being the hiring manager who passed on Sheryl Sandberg! That must have felt like all those editors who didn’t see any potential in the first Harry Potter book.)

My ideal employee was someone with integrity who also was incredibly service oriented.
In an interview with Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s cofounder, Sandberg said, “[Meg] said ‘no one has any experience, because no one has ever done this before. I want to hire people with great skills, and I think hopefully you have great skills.’ I really took that lesson to heart…. I decided what mattered was skills. I was going to go hire the best and the brightest, and people who were going to bring their passion and dedication and work hard. And actual experience in the field or related fields didn’t matter. That opens up a lot of hiring, because then you can just look for skills.”

My ideal employee was someone with integrity who also was incredibly service oriented. I particularly liked those who’d been in sports because athletics promotes leadership, a competitive drive, and teamwork. Winning was important to them. I appreciated those who’d waited tables in bars and restaurants because they’d seen people at their worst and had learned to navigate difficult situations with diplomacy. (Few skills will get you better equipped for how rough the world can be than managing the Saturday night dinner rush.) I favored those who came out of college with student loans because those who hadn’t had everything paid for were hungrier. And those who’d encountered adversity were more resilient. I sought out enthusiasm, energy, and a track record of success.

One of my favorite employees started in the early days, and what blew me away was his can-do attitude. Jamie Wengroff was perpetually cheerful and upbeat and could not do enough for his clients. He used to walk around the office saying, “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” He set the standard for the kind of person we wanted to hire.

Sometimes applicants were phenomenal on paper but did poorly in the interviews. I believed that both eye contact and a decent handshake were important and lacking either left me with a poor impression. I was tough in the interviews and had specific expectations. If someone came in and gave answers that didn’t align with what they had written on their CV, I’d pass on them. Dressed unprofessionally? Pass. Job hopper? Pass. If someone presented with low energy, negativity, or no questions? Pasadena.

Please don’t even get me started on the college grads who brought their parents with them to the interview, or, worse, had their folks follow up with me.

I wish I was kidding.

Exploitation is a fine art…

“Our job in the early days with staffing was trying to maintain that sweet spot between hungry and burned out.”

I think they prefer the term optimization of inputs…

Some do; the sociopaths can’t comprehend the distinction.

[Farfromgeneva]

Could’ve dropped this in healthcare. Or conservatives lose their ish but nice piece in bike hot spots in Axios

(Also extracting the embedded streetlight data link too here-https://learn.streetlightdata.com/ranki ... pop-up-CTA)

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/12/biking ... cle-us-map

America's bicycling hot spots, mapped

Data: StreetLight Data; Map: Alice Feng/Axios

Pandemic-era cycling fever appears to be lingering, with the number of average daily bike trips per 1,000 people increasing in almost every major U.S. metro area between 2019-2022.

That's per a new report from mobility data firm StreetLight Data, which uses GPS and other location data to measure urban transportation patterns.
The big picture: The annual nationwide average for daily bike trips grew 37% between 2019-2022.

Most cycling activity is concentrated in and around big cities — the 100 largest metros accounted for 77% of bike activity nationwide in 2022, up from 72% in 2019.
Bike activity increased at least 25% between 2019-2022 in every metro area with about 5 million or more residents, StreetLight found.
Driving the news: Urban cycling took off during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic largely because people were looking for ways to get around or get exercise without potentially exposing themselves to infection.

Urban bike share programs, like Citi Bike (New York), Capital Bikeshare (Washington, D.C.) and Divvy (Chicago), exploded in popularity during the pandemic, making two-wheelers easier to access.
And many cities have been steadily improving their cycling infrastructure, though many are also dealing with a surge in e-bikes, which don't always mesh well with lanes meant for traditional bikes.
Zoom in: When it comes to growth in bike use, the New York City area is king, with 43 more trips per 1,000 people in 2022 compared to 2019.

That's likely at least in part because of a boom in "deliveristas," who crisscross the city with hungry denizens' Grubhub and Uber Eats orders.
Portland, Oregon, was one of the few big cities where cycling activity decreased, if only slightly (down 4 trips per 1,000 people).
That may seem surprising given the city's longstanding bike culture — but it had less room to grow compared to other cities with a smaller cycling scene.
Reality check: Nationwide growth in bike activity flatlined between 2021-2022, at around 9 million total daily trips on average.

Still, even simply holding steady as a post-pandemic normality sets in is a win for bike advocates — and a sign that the COVID bike boom is likely here to stay.
The bottom line: "The flatline in 2022 is a warning that continued investment in safety-focused active transportation infrastructure — especially to support community connectivity, in addition to recreational access — will be critical to re-animating growth," per StreetLight's report.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://apple.news/A6d3lm0F0T-2sZWF4N9YA_Q

Deep State out to get him!! Process crimes!! Leave him alone or he will be elected POTUS!