I heard report of what President Obama said about insurance companies in his weekly radio address and what the GOP response was, i.e. we would have access to more limited choices and the government would control (meaning constrain) our access to doctors and quality care if the healthcare bill in preparation were to pass.
That really made me angry to be honest with you…
· Angry at both Republicans and Democrats: why is it that I feel like neither Republicans nor Democrats are trying really hard to reach a consensus and come up with a landmark bill that will improve the way healthcare is provided in the US whereas there is a general consensus that the system in this country is not good enough by a long shot?
· Angry at Republicans: How can Republicans use scare tactics again to demean a bill that as far as I have heard is unlikely to bring about anything that the GOP representative mentioned? Well, they know scare tactics works – it has been very effective historically and it is not necessary to go back to the dark days of McCarthyism to realize this. Anyone who was in the US in the couple of years after September 2001 knows it in his/her guts.
· Angry at Democrats: it is easy and it feels good to bash Republicans but is it fair to hold only Republicans responsible for another mostly partisan bill despite its historic significance? Was Ted Kennedy the only one who could do bipartisan politics among Democrats?
· Angry at Obama: wasn’t he supposed to do politics differently? Yes, he is trying and I certainly give him credit for that. But this is not working so far and even though it is not only his or his administration’s fault, at the end of the day history will only remember the outcome of this, thus he has to try harder.
Ok, that is a lot of “politics bashing” but it does bug me that elected officials continuously discredit themselves and in the process make the general public increasingly cynical and distrustful. Or maybe I am being too negative…
Monday, October 19, 2009
Does Social Investing’s Success Mean Impact? (II)
See Part I below
Overall, the systemic or macro effect of those funds remains limited today, if not marginal. Despite the publicity that an Acumen has benefited from, the fund’s portfolio does not comprise more than about 25 companies. Root Capital that has grown rapidly over the past 5 years and now has a portfolio of 235 borrowers for $120m disbursed has spread its investments over 30 countries (source: Root Capital’s and Acumen’s web sites), i.e. an average of $4m per country since its inception in 1999. And when looking at a company’s environmental impact, how meaningful can it be – even if that enterprise’s area of intervention is a well-delimited territory – if that entity is the only one in that region trying to improve biodiversity health?
I am the first one to recognize the pioneering role that those funds are playing today. If social investing becomes a much larger industry some day, we will all have to be thankful to those entities. They are pathfinders and not only are they showing the way to those interested in creating investment vehicles but also they offer small- and medium-sized enterprises a better alternative to other forms of financing that generally revolve around less suited options such as microfinance (loans are too small for their size) and commercial banking (rates are high and those banks may not want to take a chance on relatively untested enterprises).
So yes, arguably, the systemic impact is there. But the actual macro effect of those enterprises remains minor because overall maybe a couple hundreds companies have received money from social investment funds so far – does that ever get to one tenth of a 1% of those countries’ GDP?
Now, it is not unheard of that an asset class becomes financially popular before it actually proves its value or merit. After all, the bet of those who invested in venture capital in the 80’s and 90’s was that that industry would be able to generate returns that were way above those of other asset categories.
However, the cause of social investing would be greatly helped if a few things were to happen:
· Set up a mechanism among major social funds to share and consolidate their information around impact: it should be relatively easy to find funders interested to pitch in.
· As a prerequisite, those funds should agree on simple metrics around the “straightforward stuff”: investees’ financial success, social indicators such as average / median household in communities affected or number of jobs created.
· Find a “home” to showcase those aggregate results. Maybe the White House’s Office of Social Innovation could be the right place (visibility would be great) - or some prominent foundation interested in the matter.
· Accelerate the pace of strategic investments: this is the way the impact magnitude issue could be addressed. Most funds organize their work by sector but there is a difference between supporting enterprises here and there and having an explicit strategy of - for instance - focusing only on innovative solutions that cover the whole gamut of existing and emerging technologies in energy or sanitation.
Being in the social enterprise trenches (sic), I feel that social investing will be successful, both money and impact wise. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves and let’s make sure we put in place the key ingredients that will bring about success before marveling about the “next big thing”…
Overall, the systemic or macro effect of those funds remains limited today, if not marginal. Despite the publicity that an Acumen has benefited from, the fund’s portfolio does not comprise more than about 25 companies. Root Capital that has grown rapidly over the past 5 years and now has a portfolio of 235 borrowers for $120m disbursed has spread its investments over 30 countries (source: Root Capital’s and Acumen’s web sites), i.e. an average of $4m per country since its inception in 1999. And when looking at a company’s environmental impact, how meaningful can it be – even if that enterprise’s area of intervention is a well-delimited territory – if that entity is the only one in that region trying to improve biodiversity health?
I am the first one to recognize the pioneering role that those funds are playing today. If social investing becomes a much larger industry some day, we will all have to be thankful to those entities. They are pathfinders and not only are they showing the way to those interested in creating investment vehicles but also they offer small- and medium-sized enterprises a better alternative to other forms of financing that generally revolve around less suited options such as microfinance (loans are too small for their size) and commercial banking (rates are high and those banks may not want to take a chance on relatively untested enterprises).
So yes, arguably, the systemic impact is there. But the actual macro effect of those enterprises remains minor because overall maybe a couple hundreds companies have received money from social investment funds so far – does that ever get to one tenth of a 1% of those countries’ GDP?
Now, it is not unheard of that an asset class becomes financially popular before it actually proves its value or merit. After all, the bet of those who invested in venture capital in the 80’s and 90’s was that that industry would be able to generate returns that were way above those of other asset categories.
However, the cause of social investing would be greatly helped if a few things were to happen:
· Set up a mechanism among major social funds to share and consolidate their information around impact: it should be relatively easy to find funders interested to pitch in.
· As a prerequisite, those funds should agree on simple metrics around the “straightforward stuff”: investees’ financial success, social indicators such as average / median household in communities affected or number of jobs created.
· Find a “home” to showcase those aggregate results. Maybe the White House’s Office of Social Innovation could be the right place (visibility would be great) - or some prominent foundation interested in the matter.
· Accelerate the pace of strategic investments: this is the way the impact magnitude issue could be addressed. Most funds organize their work by sector but there is a difference between supporting enterprises here and there and having an explicit strategy of - for instance - focusing only on innovative solutions that cover the whole gamut of existing and emerging technologies in energy or sanitation.
Being in the social enterprise trenches (sic), I feel that social investing will be successful, both money and impact wise. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves and let’s make sure we put in place the key ingredients that will bring about success before marveling about the “next big thing”…
Does Social Investing’s Success Mean Impact? (I)
I have been meaning to write a short piece on social investing and impact and since this is going to be a longer text than in other entries, it will come in two installments.
It is interesting to compare the success that social investing has been enjoying, as an asset class and as a career path in particular, and the impact that companies that have received funding from those entities have actually had so far. As a result of last year’s financial meltdown, the creation of appropriate investment vehicles, and an increasing interest among many (young and old) in addressing social issues, the whole gamut of social investment funds have gotten a lot of attention lately. It is commonplace to hear that whatever their business models (returning money to investors or not, and if so, serving below-market, at-market, or above-market returns) funds find it pretty easy to raise capital these days.
Also, social investing in its hybrid form represents a very compelling value proposition for young professionals who want to do good and do well, as it supposedly constitutes the perfect combination of for-profit rigor and efficiency and social impact. I have seen first- hand how so many “Millennials” contemplating careers in business are almost magnetically drawn to that career option. And this is probably true also for a lot of us, even those with grey hair (yes, I know, how did that happen?), who have had hybrid careers and believe that market mechanisms can bring about social change when used appropriately.
However, the magnitude of the impact that those social venture funds have through the enterprises they support remains a question mark. Funds like Acumen, Root Capital, E+Co, or Verde Ventures take impact measurement very seriously. Since they mostly receive grant and/or subsidized money, their “raison d’être” is more about the impact they can show than about attractive returns they can serve. Those funds’ web sites certainly try to be informative on the subject. E+Co measures the impact of its clean tech investees by tracking 34 social, financial, and environmental indicators and has a very straightforward section on its web site showing numbers related to the three sets of indicators. Acumen Fund explains its BACO (for "best available charitable option") methodology on its web site but does not elaborate on its portfolios’ actual impact. In order to quantify its investments’ social impact, Acumen compares them to the universe of existing charitable options for that explicit social issue. Root Capital shows cumulative results on its web site (number of loans and borrowers, repayment rate, but also organic agriculture under cultivation or number of farmers reached).
Today social and environmental monitoring remains expensive and there are no cases that I know of where investees are the ones paying for that cost. Monitoring is expensive because of its frequency and complexity. Most funds have set up declarative monitoring processes whereby portfolio companies report on a series of indicators previously agreed upon with the funds. However, a couple of times a year, those funds have to send their staff or external consultants to check impact for themselves. Also, while social monitoring can be relatively straightforward if such indicators as number of jobs created or variation in income of families impacted are used, environmental evaluation is more complex and time-consuming. Thorough baseline studies presenting biodiversity health status of the area affected have to be carried out before relevant measures of what is expected to improve can be determined. Moreover, it is inherently difficult to isolate the impact on biodiversity health of actual actions undertaken by the companies involved as other factors may come into play.
Thus, social investment funds are up against a double pressure of having to raise grant money to pay for M&E (whatever money they make out of their investments is rarely enough to pay for the whole monitoring cost) and showing those funders and the rest of the world the social and environmental benefits generated by the enterprises they are backing.
It is interesting to compare the success that social investing has been enjoying, as an asset class and as a career path in particular, and the impact that companies that have received funding from those entities have actually had so far. As a result of last year’s financial meltdown, the creation of appropriate investment vehicles, and an increasing interest among many (young and old) in addressing social issues, the whole gamut of social investment funds have gotten a lot of attention lately. It is commonplace to hear that whatever their business models (returning money to investors or not, and if so, serving below-market, at-market, or above-market returns) funds find it pretty easy to raise capital these days.
Also, social investing in its hybrid form represents a very compelling value proposition for young professionals who want to do good and do well, as it supposedly constitutes the perfect combination of for-profit rigor and efficiency and social impact. I have seen first- hand how so many “Millennials” contemplating careers in business are almost magnetically drawn to that career option. And this is probably true also for a lot of us, even those with grey hair (yes, I know, how did that happen?), who have had hybrid careers and believe that market mechanisms can bring about social change when used appropriately.
However, the magnitude of the impact that those social venture funds have through the enterprises they support remains a question mark. Funds like Acumen, Root Capital, E+Co, or Verde Ventures take impact measurement very seriously. Since they mostly receive grant and/or subsidized money, their “raison d’être” is more about the impact they can show than about attractive returns they can serve. Those funds’ web sites certainly try to be informative on the subject. E+Co measures the impact of its clean tech investees by tracking 34 social, financial, and environmental indicators and has a very straightforward section on its web site showing numbers related to the three sets of indicators. Acumen Fund explains its BACO (for "best available charitable option") methodology on its web site but does not elaborate on its portfolios’ actual impact. In order to quantify its investments’ social impact, Acumen compares them to the universe of existing charitable options for that explicit social issue. Root Capital shows cumulative results on its web site (number of loans and borrowers, repayment rate, but also organic agriculture under cultivation or number of farmers reached).
Today social and environmental monitoring remains expensive and there are no cases that I know of where investees are the ones paying for that cost. Monitoring is expensive because of its frequency and complexity. Most funds have set up declarative monitoring processes whereby portfolio companies report on a series of indicators previously agreed upon with the funds. However, a couple of times a year, those funds have to send their staff or external consultants to check impact for themselves. Also, while social monitoring can be relatively straightforward if such indicators as number of jobs created or variation in income of families impacted are used, environmental evaluation is more complex and time-consuming. Thorough baseline studies presenting biodiversity health status of the area affected have to be carried out before relevant measures of what is expected to improve can be determined. Moreover, it is inherently difficult to isolate the impact on biodiversity health of actual actions undertaken by the companies involved as other factors may come into play.
Thus, social investment funds are up against a double pressure of having to raise grant money to pay for M&E (whatever money they make out of their investments is rarely enough to pay for the whole monitoring cost) and showing those funders and the rest of the world the social and environmental benefits generated by the enterprises they are backing.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Dynamite Barack
I was a bit stunned when I read about Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. My reactions (in order) were: what??? – then great!! – and well, there could be a backlash here. And oh yes also, I thought, Bill Clinton must be fuming (and that made me laugh…).
The main explanation for the Prize seems to be around providing encouragement to Obama for him to continue the good work he has started, especially around putting diplomacy back in the picture front and center (a stark departure from his predecessor) and making early efforts on nuclear weapons reduction (ongoing negotiations with Iran). Obviously, we should not forget how appalling the image of the US overseas was when Bush was around and how that has changed in not even a year. Now, I can’t say that the other accomplishments measure up with those of previous winners but yes, I get it, it is about encouraging him.
It has been interesting recently, including following the skit on Saturday Night Live (SNL) last week during which the actor playing Obama essentially said that he had done nothing since becoming a President, to start hearing here and there (among his supporters too) that actually, not much had been accomplished since January. Those same folks seem to agree that a lot has been started but are we seeing results? Don’t want to get into this question now (I actually think there have been some significant accomplishments though I have my frustrations with this administration) but my point is that the tremendous pressure that comes naturally out of receiving such a high honor will only be compounded by this insidious impression circulating that we have not seen much yet. And this could create a backlash for Obama.
PS. For the intellectuals among you, you will have noticed the oh so subtle reference to Alfred Nobel in the title of this posting, the inventor of dynamite and creator of the Nobel Prizes. But the Peace Prize is actually awarded by Norway now (not Sweden) – so yeah, you can call me on that one…
Oh by the way, talking about intellectuals and subtle references, one of my students used the word “self-effacement” the other day – that was nice. Rarely hear that word mentioned – maybe a combination of lack of vocabulary and lack of self-effacement…
The main explanation for the Prize seems to be around providing encouragement to Obama for him to continue the good work he has started, especially around putting diplomacy back in the picture front and center (a stark departure from his predecessor) and making early efforts on nuclear weapons reduction (ongoing negotiations with Iran). Obviously, we should not forget how appalling the image of the US overseas was when Bush was around and how that has changed in not even a year. Now, I can’t say that the other accomplishments measure up with those of previous winners but yes, I get it, it is about encouraging him.
It has been interesting recently, including following the skit on Saturday Night Live (SNL) last week during which the actor playing Obama essentially said that he had done nothing since becoming a President, to start hearing here and there (among his supporters too) that actually, not much had been accomplished since January. Those same folks seem to agree that a lot has been started but are we seeing results? Don’t want to get into this question now (I actually think there have been some significant accomplishments though I have my frustrations with this administration) but my point is that the tremendous pressure that comes naturally out of receiving such a high honor will only be compounded by this insidious impression circulating that we have not seen much yet. And this could create a backlash for Obama.
PS. For the intellectuals among you, you will have noticed the oh so subtle reference to Alfred Nobel in the title of this posting, the inventor of dynamite and creator of the Nobel Prizes. But the Peace Prize is actually awarded by Norway now (not Sweden) – so yeah, you can call me on that one…
Oh by the way, talking about intellectuals and subtle references, one of my students used the word “self-effacement” the other day – that was nice. Rarely hear that word mentioned – maybe a combination of lack of vocabulary and lack of self-effacement…
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Kanye and My Mother
I was in Europe last week and I got there just after Obama had commented Kanye’s outburst at the Music Video Award ceremony (timely by the way that he did that just before he was supposed to be one of the first guests of Jay Leno’s comedy show – by the way, I still don’t get how different that show is from what he was doing on the Late Night…). Not only was the US media inundated with the Kanye thing (sic) – Dr Phil was on Larry King Live to give his two cents on this important national issue – but when I got to Paris, my mother asked me what was going on with Obama lashing on that guy (she had no idea who Kanye was by the way…) and said it had been all over the news in France in the past 2 days…
Alright, people – I am sorry but this is the side effect of globalization. With no filter for relevance, the most unimportant news is crossing the pond and traveling to the city of lights and beyond – I am sure the Kuala Lumpur tabloids did their home pages on Kanye’s outburst too… I am not a media basher most of the time but Kanye taking the mike from that poor girl, a matter of national (international!!) importance, really??
I am all for having fun and blowing some steam off after completing a boring task or discussing a serious or difficult issue. But Kanye trumping healthcare reform, wow, Larry King and others in the country + media around the world, you are not doing your job properly here…
Alright, people – I am sorry but this is the side effect of globalization. With no filter for relevance, the most unimportant news is crossing the pond and traveling to the city of lights and beyond – I am sure the Kuala Lumpur tabloids did their home pages on Kanye’s outburst too… I am not a media basher most of the time but Kanye taking the mike from that poor girl, a matter of national (international!!) importance, really??
I am all for having fun and blowing some steam off after completing a boring task or discussing a serious or difficult issue. But Kanye trumping healthcare reform, wow, Larry King and others in the country + media around the world, you are not doing your job properly here…
Sunday, September 13, 2009
San Fran and SOCAP09
I was in San Francisco last week to attend SOCAP09, the second edition of an annual conference focusing on social capital markets. Social investing is the fastest growing segment in the broader social sector, the boundaries of which keeps expanding by the way. Pure-play VC firms doing clean tech or PE firms focusing on emerging markets with no particular social emphasis in their mission are arguably part of this ever-bigger social sector.
The place was bustling last week and there seem to be so many new initiatives – I try to keep informed on what is going on in that space but I was blown away by the number of projects that I did not know about. The level of excitement and activity made me feel that social investing is on the cusp of a tipping point. Maybe it is a fad and nothing much will happen, in that social capital will remain marginal in the greater investment community – but it has the potential to become really big.
My sense is that the size of the socially-conscious investment community is going to grow, mainly through institutions or individuals that may not have that sole focus but 1) are under some obligation to be perceived as more socially-focused, 2) are interested to diversity their asset base and as such, view investing in emerging countries or focusing on clean tech as potential big wins.
The labor market in terms of number of folks, and particularly recent MBA grads, anxious to enter the sector is going to explode for sure. It is one of the hottest areas for MBA students right now and a lot of them seem to be ready to do anything to intern in the sector for free... Now, they won’t work full-time for free for long, thus the sector will have to grow and hire for that enormous interest to be fulfilled.
But this whole sector of social investing could become humongous… It will be fun to be involved and follow its progress.
On the by the way mode – and yes, I like making digressions - the conference took place at the Fort Mason Center in San Francisco, a very cool place by the water that houses a number of local nonprofits. The view of the Golden Gate from where we were was to die for – what a gorgeous city in general, wow!! Who is moving there with me??
The place was bustling last week and there seem to be so many new initiatives – I try to keep informed on what is going on in that space but I was blown away by the number of projects that I did not know about. The level of excitement and activity made me feel that social investing is on the cusp of a tipping point. Maybe it is a fad and nothing much will happen, in that social capital will remain marginal in the greater investment community – but it has the potential to become really big.
My sense is that the size of the socially-conscious investment community is going to grow, mainly through institutions or individuals that may not have that sole focus but 1) are under some obligation to be perceived as more socially-focused, 2) are interested to diversity their asset base and as such, view investing in emerging countries or focusing on clean tech as potential big wins.
The labor market in terms of number of folks, and particularly recent MBA grads, anxious to enter the sector is going to explode for sure. It is one of the hottest areas for MBA students right now and a lot of them seem to be ready to do anything to intern in the sector for free... Now, they won’t work full-time for free for long, thus the sector will have to grow and hire for that enormous interest to be fulfilled.
But this whole sector of social investing could become humongous… It will be fun to be involved and follow its progress.
On the by the way mode – and yes, I like making digressions - the conference took place at the Fort Mason Center in San Francisco, a very cool place by the water that houses a number of local nonprofits. The view of the Golden Gate from where we were was to die for – what a gorgeous city in general, wow!! Who is moving there with me??
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
If Puzzled, Play it Cold…
Alright, folks, I am going to be honest with you, I am puzzled… The stock market is going up and down: it had a strong summer since early July and fears of catastrophe (the DJ index hitting 6000 or even 5000) that went around in March have totally vanished, so it seems. However, the index took a hit last week and I have also read a number of comments to the effect that the stock market with its sharp rebound since March and a good performance in 2009 (about a 10% increase overall) is getting ahead of itself and is showing too much confidence in the soundness of our economic system and the strength and imminence of the economic recovery.
It almost felt good when I heard several folks on CNBC last week say that they had no idea where the stock market was heading… I still have a hard time reconciling the couple of apparently very solid explanations that I got in March about the possibility of the Dow hitting rock bottom (way below 7000) and the current seemingly widespread feeling that a Dow below 9000 seems rather unlikely. How did we get from one to the other so quickly?
Also, the question of the US public debt is an interesting one… Some numbers came out in the past 2 weeks, to the order of 7 to 10 trillion (depending on whether you count the free espressos in or out I guess…) as the US public debt total by the end of the next decade. Those are astounding numbers, aren’t they? But obviously, you have to look at what they represent relative to the US economy and to the country’s ability to sustain debt over the long run. On those two aspects, NYT columnist and Nobel Prize Winner R. Krugman says that we should not worry. In his blog entry The burden of debt, he mentions the examples of the Belgian and Italian economies as having taken on much more public debt as a % of their GDP than the US is currently and also draws a lesson from US history as the country had a huge debt after WWII that went down gradually as a % of GDP (despite the arm race with Russia) because the economy grew so much during those years. His point is that you don’t have to repay your debt as long as you stabilize it over time.
Warren Buffett in another NYT column, The Greenback Effect, argues that as long as there are folks out there who are willing to buy US Treasury bonds, the US economy is good to go. However, he does point out that this lifeline is the country’s very danger because once the Chinese and other sovereign funds stop buying those US Treasuries, guess who will be in major trouble. What that means is that the dollar should continue to be viewed as a currency of reference and the US economy has to be perceived as having reasonably strong prospects.
I find all of this a bit unnerving though - both Krugman and even Buffett seem quite optimistic to me. With the country having a huge amount of private debt ($13.8 trillion or 120% of the US annual income in 2008) as well - though the financial meltdown has prompted lots of folks to start to repay some of what they owe and to engage in saving, I am not sure I see how the “fundamentals of our economy are strong”, as McCain famously said amid the meltdown last year. The Obama administration is arguably not saying that exactly – nor is Krugman – but they are not that far.
I’d like someone to explain to me how a system can sustain itself and remain the anchor of the global economy over time with so much private and public debt – how about some serious systemic risk? Anyone?
PS. By the way, and let me go on a tangent here, I was just in San Francisco last week and on my way back I listened to Coldplay’s Viva la Vida album on the plane. I knew the main song only and I really liked Cemeteries of London and also Lovers in Japan. I’ve missed Coldplay a couple of times in concert in my area but good news - after my wife Anne and I saw a piece about Chris Martin on 60 Minutes some time ago, I think I finally convinced her to go and see them in concert… well, now they have to come back to the States…
It almost felt good when I heard several folks on CNBC last week say that they had no idea where the stock market was heading… I still have a hard time reconciling the couple of apparently very solid explanations that I got in March about the possibility of the Dow hitting rock bottom (way below 7000) and the current seemingly widespread feeling that a Dow below 9000 seems rather unlikely. How did we get from one to the other so quickly?
Also, the question of the US public debt is an interesting one… Some numbers came out in the past 2 weeks, to the order of 7 to 10 trillion (depending on whether you count the free espressos in or out I guess…) as the US public debt total by the end of the next decade. Those are astounding numbers, aren’t they? But obviously, you have to look at what they represent relative to the US economy and to the country’s ability to sustain debt over the long run. On those two aspects, NYT columnist and Nobel Prize Winner R. Krugman says that we should not worry. In his blog entry The burden of debt, he mentions the examples of the Belgian and Italian economies as having taken on much more public debt as a % of their GDP than the US is currently and also draws a lesson from US history as the country had a huge debt after WWII that went down gradually as a % of GDP (despite the arm race with Russia) because the economy grew so much during those years. His point is that you don’t have to repay your debt as long as you stabilize it over time.
Warren Buffett in another NYT column, The Greenback Effect, argues that as long as there are folks out there who are willing to buy US Treasury bonds, the US economy is good to go. However, he does point out that this lifeline is the country’s very danger because once the Chinese and other sovereign funds stop buying those US Treasuries, guess who will be in major trouble. What that means is that the dollar should continue to be viewed as a currency of reference and the US economy has to be perceived as having reasonably strong prospects.
I find all of this a bit unnerving though - both Krugman and even Buffett seem quite optimistic to me. With the country having a huge amount of private debt ($13.8 trillion or 120% of the US annual income in 2008) as well - though the financial meltdown has prompted lots of folks to start to repay some of what they owe and to engage in saving, I am not sure I see how the “fundamentals of our economy are strong”, as McCain famously said amid the meltdown last year. The Obama administration is arguably not saying that exactly – nor is Krugman – but they are not that far.
I’d like someone to explain to me how a system can sustain itself and remain the anchor of the global economy over time with so much private and public debt – how about some serious systemic risk? Anyone?
PS. By the way, and let me go on a tangent here, I was just in San Francisco last week and on my way back I listened to Coldplay’s Viva la Vida album on the plane. I knew the main song only and I really liked Cemeteries of London and also Lovers in Japan. I’ve missed Coldplay a couple of times in concert in my area but good news - after my wife Anne and I saw a piece about Chris Martin on 60 Minutes some time ago, I think I finally convinced her to go and see them in concert… well, now they have to come back to the States…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
