Giants Trade Prospects approaching deadline

JAYSON WERTH, OF


As the trade deadline nears, it appears the Giants may stand pat and wait for the players on the DL to aid the pennant push in August / Septemeber.

Of the pitchers, none of the top tier names available should be of interest. So, that leave the Giants out of the running for Roy Oswalt, Joakim Soria, Matt Capps, Kevin Gregg, et. al..

Of the big time power bats, I would rather see a run made at Prince Fielder rather than Adam Dunn and only if the cost is more along the lines of Sanchez OR Bumgarner rather than Sanchez AND Bumgarner. I'm not sure the Gigantes have a bat of interest to other teams among their prospects. A premier player like Dunn or Fielder generally goes for two if not three premier prospects. Or one major leaguer plus two prospects.

Of the second tier bats I think I would prefer the Giants make a run at Jayson Werth over Corey Hart and / or either one of the second baseman from Dan Uggla or Jorge Cantu. The Giants have been mentioned from time to time in trade talkes for most if not all of the aforementioned names.

DAN UGGLA, 2B

Drug Testing for naught? No, but maybe a mixed bag at best...

A recent study from the U.S. Department of Education shows that drug testing high school students who participate in athletics and other extracurricular activities doesn’t have any long-term effect on usage rates.

So maybe we're left with a bit of a short-term "buzz" but long-term, we still have the same problems. Isn't it somewhat ironic that this is one of the core arguments against turning to drug use as an escape or a patch over life's problems in the first place?

So maybe in addition to saying 'no' to drugs, we need to look at saying 'no' to policies that may make us feel better about dealing with the problem in appearance, but in reality puts us in no better place than we originally started.


High school drug testing shows no long-term effect on use


http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-07-15-drugtesting14_st_N.htm?referer=d1a38dbaf3c5c3b7d2fad43e9b99a392

THE FINDINGS:

New research paints a decidedly mixed picture when it comes to mandatory drug testing for high school students trying out for sports or other extracurricular activities: While testing seems to reduce self-reported drug use in the short term, it has virtually no effect on teens' plans to use drugs in the future.

A U.S. Department of Education study, out today, surveyed students at 36 high schools that got federal grants to do drug testing. Half of the schools had already begun testing for marijuana, amphetamines and other drugs; the other half had not.

THE PLUSSES AND MINUSES:

The results are mildly encouraging for drug-test proponents: They show that fewer kids in extracurricular activities reported using drugs when testing took place, compared with peers in schools where drug testing hadn't been implemented.

In schools with testing, 16.5% of students reported using tested-for drugs within the previous 30 days, vs. 21.9% in other schools.

And testing didn't seem to discourage students from going out for activities.

But that's basically where the good news ends. Testing didn't seem to have a "spillover effect" on kids who weren't trying out for extracurriculars — in both sets of schools, 36% of these students said they had used drugs in the previous 30 days.And testing had no effect on the number of drug-related "disciplinary incidents." in schools.

What's perhaps most troubling: Testing had no effect on kids' plans to use drugs in the future. In both sets of schools, about one in three students said they "probably" or "definitely" will use drugs in the next year.

Giants management worse than the Knicks?

HELLO BRIAN, YOU STINK!! NO REALLY, I CAN PROVE IT!!

According to Dr. Patrick Rishe, they are:

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/05/the-worst-managed-pro-sports-franchises-of-the-last-5-years/

The methodology is pretty simple and most Giants fans could have told you intuitively that the Gigantes would be in the team picture, but comparable to the Knicks? Brian Sabaean, nearly as inept as Isiah Thomas and Matt Millen? At least we don't have to worry about some of the PR/PC debacles that Thomas put the Knicks through.

THE METHODOLOGY:

I presumed that managerial inefficiency was akin to spending the most money for the least amount of victories and postseason appearances. Thus, the metric used to assess managerial inefficiency was to identify teams with the highest average payroll cost per win AND with no more than 1 post-season appearance in the last 5 years.

To make a cross-league efficiency comparison over the last 5 years, a simple ratio was constructed for each team in pro sports. The ratio was the team's 'payroll cost per win' over the median 'cost per win' for that league. So, for example, a ratio of 150 suggests that the team in question is 50% less efficient than the median standard of efficiency for the league.

Conversely, if we define 'cost effective' organizations as having the lowest 'player costs per win' and having at least a 40% playoff appearence rate over the last 5 years, then the most efficient franchise would be the Indianapolis Colts. Within their own league, they were nearly 5 times more frugal than the Lions and Rams, spending $7.8 million on player costs per win. And using the ratio approach discussed above, the Colts were 39% more efficient than the median NFL franchise (a ratio score of 61). The next closest pro sports team was the Minnesota Twins, who were 33% more efficient than the median MLB franchise.

THE RESULTS:

Using this metric coupled with the post season filter, the 3 most inefficient franchises of each league from the last 5 years are:

MLB

1) NY Mets, 2) Seattle Mariners, 3) San Francisco Giants...The average cost per Mets victory was $1.3 million, with a 20% postseason rate. The Mariners and Giants averaged a cost of $1.2 million per win with no postseason trips between them.

Using this comparative ratio metric (second paragraph above under METHODOLOGY) , the worst managed pro sports franchise of the last 5 years was the Detroit Lions. With an efficiency ratio of 262, this implies that the Lions organization has been 162% less efficient than the median NFL franchise. The St Louis Rams were a close second with a ratio of 260.

Rounding out the top 10 list of worst managed pro sports franchises over the last 5 years (with their inefficiency rating in parenthesis): 3) NY Knicks (222), 4) Oakland Raiders (191), 5) Kansas City Chiefs (159), 6) Minnesota T-Wolves (156), 7) LA Clippers (152), Cleveland Browns (146), 9) Washington Wizards (132), 10) Sacramento Kings (130).

Rounding out the top 10 list of the most managerial savvy franchises in sports over the last 5 years are teams from each major sports league: 3) San Diego Chargers, 4) New England Patriots, 5) Colorado Rockies, 6) Dallas Cowboys, 7) New York Giants, San Diego Padres, 9) Detroit Red Wings, 10) L.A. Lakers.

Giants upper management will find themselves at a crossroads moment with Sabean if the Giants do not make the playoffs this season. Sabean has once again saddled Bochy and Giants fans with another Sabeanesque roster. It is way too reliant on aging veterans, a bit slow (which impacts the defense) and lacks punch. These qualities have been highlighted because the big eraser in the middle of the lineup --- the B-POPE, BLB --- is missing.

Sabean has had some positive to point to, mainly the signings of Aubrey Huff as a free agent and adding Pat Burrell. The farm system is now an organizational plus, highlighted by the play of Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Pablo Sandoval and Buster Posey.

Sabean’s minuses continue to anchor the roster: Aaron Rowand, Edgar Renteria, Mark DeRosa. The farm systems failing is in not producing a quality OF bat in ages.

Will the plusses outweigh the minuses? A playoff appearance will act as a great disinfectant.

Giants now back to even from the Cuzzi call

Giants manager Bruce Bochy gains back the game "lost" to the bad call by Phil Cuzzi in the Mets series and does it at the expense of the hated Dodgers. That's why it doesn't pay to get too geeked up over a bad call here and there, they tend to even out. This one evened out quicker than I expected though. Good spot by Bochy.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers-giants-20100721,0,1312974.story

The Dodgers had a 5-4 lead in the ninth when they brought in Broxton, but the Giants loaded the bases. Then hitting coach Don Mattingly, managing on behalf of the ejected Torre, went to the mound for a strategy talk.

As he was stepping off the mound, first baseman James Loney apparently asked him a question, and Mattingly stepped back on the mound. Inadvertently, Mattingly had technically made two visits to the mound in the same inning and that meant Broxton had to leave the game.

Reliever George Sherrill, who has struggled all season, then came in and promptly gave up a double to Andres Torres, giving the Giants a 6-5 lead, and another hit by Buster Posey off Travis Schlichting drove in another San Francisco run.

Torre said Mattingly "just thought he was still on the mound" when he inadvertently stepped off and then back on the mound, forcing Broxton's removal from the game.

UPDATE: THE HITS JUST KEEP COMING FOR MLB UMPIRES THIS SEASON

Sources: Umpires erred in Dodgers' loss

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5399491

OBR RULE 8.06

A professional league shall adopt the following rule pertaining to the visit of the manager or coach to the pitcher:

(a) This rule limits the number of trips a manager or coach may make to any one pitcher in any one inning;

(b) A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher's automatic removal;

(c) The manager or coach is prohibited from making a second visit to the mound while the same batter is at bat, but

(d) if a pinch-hitter is substituted for this batter, the manager or coach may make a second visit to the mound, but must remove the pitcher.

A manager or coach is considered to have concluded his visit to the mound when he leaves the 18-foot circle surrounding the pitcher's rubber.

Rule 8.06 Comment: If the manager or coach goes to the catcher or infielder and that player then goes to the mound or the pitcher comes to him at his position before there is an intervening play (a pitch or other play) that will be the same as the manager or coach going to the mound.

Any attempt to evade or circumvent this rule by the manager or coach going to the catcher or an infielder and then that player going to the mound to confer with the pitcher shall constitute a trip to the mound.

If the coach goes to the mound and removes a pitcher and then the manager goes to the mound to talk with the new pitcher, that will constitute one trip to that new pitcher that inning.

In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game. The manager should be notified that his pitcher will be removed from the game after he pitches to one hitter, so he can have a substitute pitcher warmed up.

The substitute pitcher will be allowed eight preparatory pitches or more if in the umpire's judgment circumstances justify.

Cuzzi call hurts Giants vs. Mets....It's part of the game, right?

HE'S OUT, RIGHT? NAH, CATCHER MADE A DECENT TAG ATTEMPT. SHOWS YOU WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT UMPIRING IN THE BIGS.

It's continuing to attract national attention when it happens, umpires are under the spotlight due to the replay issue, but they aren't stepping up their game on the MLB level, it seems.

They are violating the first rule of umpiring repeatedly, which is to not influence the outcome of the game on the basis of a demonstrably bad call. It's an umpires biggest nightmare.

Here's the Mets replay:

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100718&content_id=12387276&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym

It cost the Giants a game, a game they will have to make up somewhere so this one doesn't come back to haunt them in late September. Which it won't. They have time left in the season to make up ground lost, they know the situation, these things happen. But they seem to be happening to umpires this year with too much frequency to be tolerated by MLB. Umpires costing teams games, players are robbed at milestone events, these guys have got to get better.

The Giants replay is here: He's still safe

http://bleacherreport.com/tb/b4ZM2

After seeing the replay, Cuzzi is not even on the right side of the plate for this play. He should be third base line extended, then he can see a tag, the slide, the touch of the plate. As it was, he blocked himself off.

Even Blanco was shocked.

"I was surprised when he called him out," Blanco said. "He was safe all the way."

Cuzzi's explanation after the game:

Minutes after the game, Cuzzi said that he had not yet seen the replay. "I'll look at it, but I figured I'd eat first," he said. "(Blanco) made a decent attempt to put the tag on him. That's what it looked to me, and that's why I called him out."

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! HE MADE A DECENT ATTEMPT??? 
WAS "CLOSE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK" TAKEN???

He doesn't even sound like he cares. "I figured I'd eat first"?? C'mon dude. You're paid good money to get it right. The spread can wait, see how out of position you were and how badly you blew the call and take a page out of the Jim Joyce book and take your lumps. Don't justify. That attitude hurts all umpires, all the way down the line.

Considering that this, closely followed an incident between Cuzzi and K-Rod and the appearance is that Cuzzi just lost his poise and concentration for a spell and it came up to bite him. He may have been sub-consciously not wanting to deal with the Mets catcher and dugout again after the prior confrontation.

Here's the mets.com side of the story:

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100718&content_id=12387276&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym

Even Blanco was shocked.

"I was surprised when he called him out," Blanco said. "He was safe all the way."

Blaco added further detail here:

As Blanco put it to the New York Daily News's Andy Martino:

"I hope somebody sees that and punishes him. That's one thing that should not happen in a baseball game. It doesn't matter how mad you are, it should not happen, especially from them. I hope somebody was watching that.

"Bad calls all day. He missed a lot of pitches. I thought he said stuff to Frankie. Then he told Jerry (Manuel) that he wasn't talking to him, he wasn't talking to our dugout. A lot of weird things happened that inning."

There was another controversial call regarding Aubrey Huff and a ball ruled foul that appeared to be clearly fair. It just seems like this is turning out to be a nightmare season for MLB umpires. No excuse for not being in the right position to make the call. Judgement is judgement, but you can't justify being in bad position to make the call initially.

I'm not a big proponent of expanding replay until the game becomes a mockery, but there has to be some sort of penalty for these guys, because they act like they just don't give a shit and that hurts the game. Maybe if they lose some games, sit out and do some remedial umpiring work, these incidents would occur less frequently. The umpires fraternity should be really embarrassed about this and on the MLB level they should do what would be done at every other level when this type of obvious incompetence and lack of professionalism occurs.

THE UMPIRE LOSES GAMES, TOO.

Why the Knicks are the Knicks

This is the guy they got rid of. To make room for the guy they didn't get. Good move slick.

It's for more reasons than this though, seriously. An organization that would even for a minute contemplate bringing back Isiah Thomas as GM--if a spot opened up--is not serious about being anything but a laughing stock of an organization.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/news/story?id=5394864

David Lee continues to represent the New York Knicks well, even though he is no longer a member of the team.

Lee flew from his hometown of St. Louis to New York last week to attend the funeral of Scott Jaffer, who served as an NBA security official at Madison Square Garden for many years, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

According to the Times, Lee knew that much of the Knicks' basketball staff would be unable to attend because they were in Las Vegas participating in the NBA Summer League.

Lee wanted to make sure the Knicks were represented at the funeral -- this despite the fact that Lee was shipped to the Golden State Warriors in a sign-and-trade agreement a couple of days before.

"I thought it was wonderful that he came," Marni Jaffer, Scott's wife, told the Times. "And it also struck me how he stayed in the back, paying his respects quietly, not wanting to have people say, 'Oh, it's David Lee,' and intrude on my husband's moment."

The revelation about Lee comes on the heels of the controversy surrounding the New York Yankees, after no player attended the funeral of longtime Yankees public address announcer Bob Sheppard on July 15.

A stand-up leader who holds himself accountable, even when it's not convenient. From St. Louis, Missouri so he must have some of those old-fashioned Midwestern values in him.

According to his bio on NBA.com while Lee is naturally left-handed, he became essentially ambidextrous when he broke his arm and learned to play right-handed as a sophomore in high school. Lists Jesus Christ, Michael Jordan and Dr. Martin Luther King as historical figures he’d most like to dine with as well. Lee has been one of the Knick's most popular and community-minded athletes throughout his tenure their and it sounds as if he will be sorely missed.

Well, two out three ain't bad. Good job by David Lee.

Let's review, in case you're scoring at home, the Knicks would like to have Isiah Thomas back and seem to believe they cannot win with a guy like David Lee. I must be the crazy one.

Baseball Hotbeds of Talent

Baseball America recently featured an article highlighting the success of the East Cobb (GA) area and the plethora of young HS players who graduated from the program who were drafted recently.

Georgia Tech coach Danny Hall cited the influence of the Braves broadcasts on TBS into homes throughout Georgia fueling interest. Population growth fueled the growth of youth league programs which provided a pipeline for the HS programs. As we will touch on later and in subsequent posts, the soccer retrospectives post-World Cup cited the preeminence of HS programs as the linchpin for talent development in major sports across this country. The youth programs are the tinderbox that lights the fire under most successful HS programs in every major sport in this country. It is how we develop are athletic talent here in the States.

It got me to thinking about where some of the other recent Hotbeds of Baseball Talent are located across the country and internationally. Many of the factors that Coach Hall cites in the Baseball America article are touched on in the book The Talent Code.

FROM THE INTERNATIONAL FRONT:

Daniel Coyle, author of The Talent Code features the Curacao, Venezeula LL programs recent success
http://thetalentcode.com/2009/03/30/pabao-little-league/

The success of the Venezuela programs as well as the never ending stream of talent coming out of the Dominican Republic runs counter to the belief that you need expensive (travel?) programs and equipment in order to succeed. As part of the post-mortem of the World Cup, some of the comments from the introspection of the future of soccer in the US seemed to focus on success depending more on affluence and increased availability of inherently athletic players (recruited from other sports) rather than opportunity, quality coaching and time to achieve success. More on that in later posts.

Of course, Cuba always has to be considered in any list of hotbeds of talent and although the pipeline of talent from Puerto Rico seems to have slowed of late, they will always be a factor internationally.

FROM MLB.COM - TEACHING BASEBALL THE CUBAN WAY
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040127&content_id=631218&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=null

Of late, our neighbors to the north in Canada have been producing more and more quality first rounders and impact players, I don't know of any specific regions of the country that are over producing talent there.

The Hampton Roads / Roanoke VA area has recently been featured due mainly to the success of recent draftees like Michael Cuddyer, Ryan Zimmerman, David Wright and the Uptons (B.J. and Justin).

The Lake Charles, LA area consistently produces quality professional players through their successful youth programs and vaunted HS program Barbe HS which seems to provide a never-ending pipeline of quality players to LSU and other Louisiana college baseball programs.

Of course my former Florida stomping grounds, the Tampa-St Pete.-Clearwater area, are always fertile ground for prospects due to weather and the availability of good coaching in the form of former professional players. Miami, Orlando and Jacksonville are also always in the mix.

The entire state of California, especially the southern area, could be considered a hotbed historically.

Areas that are hosts for the alphabet soup of youth organizations and their tournaments also tend to develop into talent hotbeds. The Aberdeen (MD) area, home of Ripken Stadium, and Omaha (NE) which hosts youth tournaments around the playing of the College World Series are examples. Shawnee (KS) hosts many of the USSSA World Series qualifying tournaments and Cooperstown (NY), home of the Baseball Hall of Fame, are favorite destination points for many travel teams from across the country.

I'm sure I'm leaving an area or two out, it seems like the Seattle (WA) and Raleigh-Durham (NC) regions had their day in the sun as well, but these are the ones that came to mind for me.

Speaking of days in the sun, one factor that seems very intuitive (duh!) is the effect of warm weather on the production of baseball talent. Everyone acknowledges the effect, but I wanted to research how prevalent it was. So as part of a project for a statistics class, I put together a spreadsheet to find out the effect.

Baseball Players by State vs. Temps

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34586202/Baseball-Players-by-State-vs-Temps

I was able to find the number of MLB players whose date of birth was between 1976 and 1982 and sort them by state from the site baseballreference.com.

Then I compiled the % of each states population that is comprised of males age 18-24 from the census.gov site. From this we can derive the pool of males aged 18-24 that are available to be baseball players.

On a macro basis we take the Total Players Produced and divide by this derived Population of Males 18-24 to determine the # of Males 18-24 it takes to produce one baseball player overall.

Then we do the same calculation per state and produce a "production ratio" by comparing the macro rate versus each individual states rate of production.

Now we know, how successful an individual state is producing players versus the national average.

We compare this to the average state temperature obtained from NOAA-CIRES- CDC based on data from NCDC (whatever that means). Appraently, they keep track of these things.

From here we can correlate the effect average temperature has (if any) on the production of baseball players.

The data suggests that there is a .5408 correlation between the Rate of Players Produced versus Average Temperature. A moderate correlation.

This gives us a .2925 r-squared which indicates that about 29.25% of the effect on a states ability to produce baseball players can be attributed to Temperature.

Pretty cool, huh? Groan.....Now we know.

from Wade, World Trade, NPD, Serial Killers and Politicians, Evil and People of the Lie...thanks Google

TRUST ME, MR. WADE, NO SANE PERSON WOULD EVER EQUATE YOU LOSING THREE GAMES TO THIS.

AND I DON'T CARE IF YOU AND THE OTHER TWO AMIGOS WIN THREE GAMES OR THREE CHAMPIONSHIPS - YOU WILL NEVER BE AS HEROIC AS THE THREE MEN SHOWN IN THIS PICTURE

NEVER FORGET - "WORLD TRADE" WAS A NATIONAL TRAGEDY, NOT A TAG LINE FOR A KNUCKLEHEAD

He said it for a reason, the writers didn't miss his words by much. It was his choice of words. This goes to how (self) important these guys think they are in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway, here's the quotes, printed and straight from the horses(ass) mouth. This reflects how these guys think. The magnitude and the level of their self-indulgence and vision of their place and importance in the world is truly staggering.

This post gets rather lengthy--it may seem meandering at times--but bear with me, because the underlying concepts, ideas and themes are extremely important to understand and they apply to everyday life.

Thanks Google, thanks Dewayne or Flash or whatever the hell your name is.

And, never forget.

Wade sorry for 'World Trade' comment

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5392510

Standing at his locker before a group of reporters, Wade said:

"There's going to be times when we might lose one, two games in a row, maybe two games, three games in a row, you never know. It's going to seem like the world is crashed down. You all are going to make it seem like the World Trade has just went down again. But it's not going to be nothing but a couple basketball games lost and we'll have to get back on track."

On Monday, before leaving on a flight to Los Angeles for some television appearances -- he was previously booked to talk with Jay Leno -- Wade issued an apology through the Heat.

In the statement, Wade said: "In an interview yesterday, I attempted to explain how some people may view the Miami Heat losing a few basketball games in a row during the upcoming season. It appears that my reference to the World Trade Center has been either inaccurately reported or taken completely out of context. I was simply trying to say that losing a few basketball games should not be compared to a real catastrophe.

"While it was certainly not my intention, I sincerely apologize to anyone who found my reference to the World Trade Center to be insensitive or offensive."

AOL Fanhouse initially reported the guard saying: "If we lose a couple in a row this season, it will be like the World Trade [Center] is coming down again."

Hours later, AOL Fanhouse published a different version of the quote, citing a transcription error and an editor's note saying, "we deeply regret the error."

-----------------

When I hear stuff like this, that just makes my head spin, of course I go right to Google, cause Google knows everything, and I ask (or query to us geeks) Google - "exaggerated sense of self importance" which is my knee-jerk reaction to the Wade story.

Not surprisingly the # 1 entry is:

What is a personality disorder?

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

What is a personality disorder?

[from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, 1994, commonly referred to as DSM-IV, of the American Psychiatric Association. European countries use the diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization.]

An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectation of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.

A personality disorder is a pattern of deviant or abnormal behavior that the person doesn't change even though it causes emotional upsets and trouble with other people at work and in personal relationships. It is not limited to episodes of mental illness, and it is not caused by drug or alcohol use, head injury, or illness. There are about a dozen different behavior patterns classified as personality disorders by DSM-IV. All the personality disorders show up as deviations from normal in one or more of the following:

(1) cognition -- i.e., perception, thinking, and interpretation of oneself, other people, and events;

(2) affectivity -- i.e., emotional responses (range, intensity, lability, appropriateness);

(3) interpersonal functions;

(4) impulsivity.

NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER - HMMMM....

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

While grandiosity is the diagnostic hallmark of pathological narcissism, there is research evidence that pathological narcissism occurs in two forms, (a) a grandiose state of mind in young adults that can be corrected by life experiences, and (b) the stable disorder described in DSM-IV, which is defined less by grandiosity than by severely disturbed interpersonal relations.
The preferred theory seems to be that narcissism is caused by very early affective deprivation, yet the clinical material tends to describe narcissists as unwilling rather than unable, thus treating narcissistic behaviors as volitional -- that is, narcissism is termed a personality disorder, but it tends to be discussed as a character disorder. This distinction is important to prognosis and treatment possibilities. If NPD is caused by infantile damage and consequent developmental short-circuits, it probably represents an irremediable condition. On the other hand, if narcissism is a behavior pattern that's learned, then there is some hope, however tenuous, that it's a behavior pattern that can be unlearned. The clinical literature on NPD is highly theoretical, abstract, and general, with sparse case material, suggesting that clinical writers have little experience with narcissism in the flesh. There are several reasons for this to be so:

-- The incidence of NPD is estimated at 1% in the general population, though I haven't been able to discover the basis of this estimate.

-- Narcissists rarely enter treatment and, once in treatment, progress very slowly. We're talking about two or more years of frequent sessions before the narcissist can acknowledge even that the therapist is sometimes helpful. It's difficult to keep narcissists in treatment long enough for improvement to be made -- and few people, narcissists or not, have the motivation or the money to pursue treatment that produces so little so late.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.[jma: NPD first appeared in DSM-III in 1980; before that time there had been no formal diagnostic description. Additionally, there is considerable overlap between personality disorders and clinicians tend to diagnose mixes of two or more. Grandiosity is a special case, but lack of empathy and exploitative interpersonal relations are not unique to NPD, nor is the need to be seen as special or unique. The differential diagnosis of NPD is made on the absence of specific gross behaviors. Borderline Personality Disorder has several conspicuous similarities to NPD, but BPD is characterized by self-injury and threatened or attempted suicide, whereas narcissists are rarely self-harming in this way. BPD may include psychotic breaks, and these are uncharacteristic of NPD but not unknown. The need for constant attention is also found in Histrionic Personality Disorder, but HPD and BPD are both strongly oriented towards relationships, whereas NPD is characterized by aloofness and avoidance of intimacy. Grandiosity is unique to NPD among personality disorders, but it is found in other psychiatric illnesses. Psychopaths display pathological narcissism, including grandiosity, but psychopathy is differentiated from NPD by psychopaths' willingness to use physical violence to get what they want, whereas narcissists rarely commit crimes; the narcissists I've known personally are, in fact, averse to physical contact with others, though they will occasionally strike out in an impulse of rage. It has been found that court-ordered psychotherapy for psychopaths actually increases their recidivism rate; apparently treatment teaches psychopaths new ways to exploit other people. Bipolar illness also contains strong elements of grandiosity. See more on grandiosity and empathy and its lack below.]The disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by at least five of the following:

Translation: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior that shows up in thinking and behavior in a lot of different situations and activities. People with NPD won't (or can't) change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of emotional distress to others (or themselves? none of my narcissists ever admit to being distressed by their own behavior -- they always blame other people for any problems). This pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior is not caused by current drug or alcohol use, head injury, acute psychotic episodes, or any other illness, but has been going on steadily at least since adolescence or early adulthood.

NPD interferes with people's functioning in their occupations and in their relationships:
Mild impairment when self-centered or egotistical behavior results in occasional minor problems, but the person is generally doing pretty well.

Moderate impairment when self-centered or egotistical behavior results in: (a) missing days from work, household duties, or school, (b) significant performance problems as a wage-earner, homemaker, or student, (c) frequently avoiding or alienating friends, (d) significant risk of harming self or others (frequent suicidal preoccupation; often neglecting family, or frequently abusing others or committing criminal acts).

Severe impairment when self-centered or egotistical behavior results in: (a) staying in bed all day, (b) totally alienating all friends and family, (c) severe risk of harming self or others (failing to maintain personal hygiene; persistent danger of suicide, abuse, or crime).

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Translation: Grandiosity is the hallmark of narcissism. So what is grandiose?

The simplest everyday way that narcissists show their exaggerated sense of self-importance is by talking about family, work, life in general as if there is nobody else in the picture. Whatever they may be doing, in their own view, they are the star, and they give the impression that they are bearing heroic responsibility for their family or department or company, that they have to take care of everything because their spouses or co-workers are undependable, uncooperative, or otherwise unfit. They ignore or denigrate the abilities and contributions of others and complain that they receive no help at all; they may inspire your sympathy or admiration for their stoicism in the face of hardship or unstinting self-sacrifice for the good of (undeserving) others. But this everyday grandiosity is an aspect of narcissism that you may never catch on to unless you visit the narcissist's home or workplace and see for yourself that others are involved and are pulling their share of the load and, more often than not, are also pulling the narcissist's share as well. An example is the older woman who told me with a sigh that she knew she hadn't been a perfect mother but she just never had any help at all -- and she said this despite knowing that I knew that she had worn out and discarded two devoted husbands and had lived in her parents' pocket (and pocketbook) as long as they lived, quickly blowing her substantial inheritance on flaky business schemes. Another example is claiming unusual benefits or spectacular results from ordinary effort and investment, giving the impression that somehow the narcissist's time and money are worth more than other people's. [Here is an article about recognizing and coping with narcissism in the workplace; it is rather heavy on management jargon and psychobabble, but worth reading. "The Impact of Narcissism on Leadership and Sustainability" by Bruce Gregory, Ph.D. "When the narcissistic defense is operating in an interpersonal or group setting, the grandiose part does not show its face in public. In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident reasonableness."]

In popular usage, the terms narcissism, narcissist, and narcissistic denote absurd vanity and are applied to people whose ambitions and aspirations are much grander than their evident talents. Sometimes these terms are applied to people who are simply full of themselves -- even when their real achievements are spectacular. Outstanding performers are not always modest, but they aren't grandiose if their self-assessments are realistic; e.g., Muhammad Ali, then Cassius Clay, was notorious for boasting "I am the greatest!" and also pointing out that he was the prettiest, but he was the greatest and the prettiest for a number of years, so his self-assessments weren't grandiose. Some narcissists are flamboyantly boastful and self-aggrandizing, but many are inconspicuous in public, saving their conceit and autocratic opinions for their nearest and dearest. Common conspicuous grandiose behaviors include expecting special treatment or admiration on the basis of claiming (a) to know important, powerful or famous people or (b) to be extraordinarily intelligent or talented. As a real-life example, I used to have a neighbor who told his wife that he was the youngest person since Sir Isaac Newton to take a doctorate at Oxford. The neighbor gave no evidence of a world-class education, so I looked up Newton and found out that Newton had completed his baccalaureate at the age of twenty-two (like most people) and spent his entire academic career at Cambridge. The grandiose claims of narcissists are superficially plausible fabrications, readily punctured by a little critical consideration.

The test is performance: do they deliver the goods? (There's also the special situation of a genius who's also strongly narcissistic, as perhaps Frank Lloyd Wright. Just remind yourself that the odds are that you'll meet at least 1000 narcissists for every genius you come across.) [More on grandiosity.]

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Translation: Narcissists cultivate solipsistic or "autistic" fantasies, which is to say that they live in their own little worlds (and react with affront when reality dares to intrude).


3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

Translation: Narcissists think that everyone who is not special and superior is worthless. By definition, normal, ordinary, and average aren't special and superior, and so, to narcissists, they are worthless.

4. Requires excessive admiration
Translation: Excessive in two ways: they want praise, compliments, deference, and expressions of envy all the time, and they want to be told that everything they do is better than what others can do. Sincerity is not an issue here; all that matter are frequency and volume.

5. Has a sense of entitlement
Translation: They expect automatic compliance with their wishes or especially favorable treatment, such as thinking that they should always be able to go first and that other people should stop whatever they're doing to do what the narcissists want, and may react with hurt or rage when these expectations are frustrated.

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
Translation: Narcissists use other people to get what they want without caring about the cost to the other people.

7. Lacks empathy
Translation: They are unwilling to recognize or sympathize with other people's feelings and needs. They "tune out" when other people want to talk about their own problems.

In clinical terms, empathy is the ability to recognize and interpret other people's emotions.

Lack of empathy may take two different directions: (a) accurate interpretation of others' emotions with no concern for others' distress, which is characteristic of psychopaths; and (b) the inability to recognize and accurately interpret other people's emotions, which is the NPD style. This second form of defective empathy may (rarely) go so far as alexithymia, or no words for emotions, and is found with psychosomatic illnesses, i.e., medical conditions in which emotion is experienced somatically rather than psychically. People with personality disorders don't have the normal body-ego identification and regard their bodies only instrumentally, i.e., as tools to use to get what they want, or, in bad states, as torture chambers that inflict on them meaningless suffering. Self-described narcissists who've written to me say that they are aware that their feelings are different from other people's, mostly that they feel less, both in strength and variety (and which the narcissists interpret as evidence of their own superiority); some narcissists report "numbness" and the inability to perceive meaning in other people's emotions.

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
Translation: No translation needed.

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
Translation: They treat other people like dirt.

-----

This led to an article about the close linkage to this similar type of mind-set and that of our politicians and public leaders and serial killers?

Serial killers and politicians share traits

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m6d12-Serial-killers-and-politicians-share-traits

Psychopathy is a personality disorder manifested in people who use a mixture of charm, manipulation, intimidation, and occasionally violence to control others, in order to satisfy their own selfish needs. Although the concept of psychopathy has been known for centuries, the FBI leads the world in the research effort to develop a series of assessment tools, to evaluate the personality traits and behaviors attributable to psychopaths.

Interpersonal traits include glibness, superficial charm, a grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, and the manipulation of others. The affective traits include a lack of remorse and/or guilt, shallow affect, a lack of empathy, and failure to accept responsibility.

The lifestyle behaviors include stimulation-seeking behavior, impulsivity, irresponsibility, parasitic orientation, and a lack of realistic life goals.


Research has demonstrated that in those criminals who are psychopathic, scores vary, ranging from a high degree of psychopathy to some measure of psychopathy. However, not all violent offenders are psychopaths and not all psychopaths are violent offenders. If violent offenders are psychopathic, they are able to assault, rape, and murder without concern for legal, moral, or social consequences. This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want. Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders.

What doesn't go unnoticed is the fact that some of the character traits exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the political arena. While not exhibiting physical violence, many political leaders display varying degrees of anger, feigned outrage and other behaviors. They also lack what most consider a "shame" mechanism. Quite simply, most serial killers and many professional politicians must mimic what they believe, are appropriate responses to situations they face such as sadness, empathy, sympathy, and other human responses to outside stimuli.

Psychopaths are not sensitive to altruistic interview themes, such as sympathy for their victims or remorse/guilt over their crimes. They do possess certain personality traits that can be exploited, particularly their inherent narcissism, selfishness, and vanity. Specific themes in past successful interviews of psychopathic serial killers focused on praising their intelligence, cleverness, and skill in evading capture.


Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund's weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

----
Ultimately it leads to this:

The Book People of the Lie, by Scott Peck

http://www.turtletrader.com/people-of-the-lie.html

People of the Lie: Insight for Traders

Many wise traders look deep. They know to understand human psychology is the bedrock of good living and ultimately success. The book People of the Lie by Scott Peck offers food for thought:

The central defect of 'the evil' is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it. More often than not these people will be looked at as solid citizens. How can that be? How can they be evil and not designated as criminals? The key word is designated. They are criminals in that they commit crimes against life and liveliness...their crimes are so subtle and covert that they cannot clearly be designated as crimes. The theme of hiding and covertness will occur again and again throughout the rest of this book. It is the basis for the title People of the Lie.

Evil deeds do not make an evil person. Otherwise we would all be evil. If evil people cannot be defined by the illegality of their deeds or the magnitude of their sins, then how are we to define them? The answer is by the consistency of their sins. While usually subtle, their destructiveness is remarkably consistent. This is because those who have crossed over the line are characterized by their absolute refusal to tolerate the sense of their own sinfulness.

The poor in spirit do not commit evil. Evil is not committed by people who feel uncertain about their righteousness, who question their own motives, who worry about betraying themselves. The evil of this world is committed by the spiritual fat cats, by the Pharisee's of our own day, the self-righteous who think they are without sin because they are unwilling to suffer the discomfort of significant self-examination. It is out of their failure to put themselves on trial that their evil arises. They are, in my experience remarkably greedy people.

A predominant characteristic of the behavior that I call evil is scapegoating. Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self-image of perfection.

Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them. They seem to live lives that are above reproach. The words image, appearance and outwardly are crucial to understanding the morality of 'the evil'.

While they lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their goodness is all on a level of pretense. It is in effect a lie. Actually the lie is designed not so much to deceive others as to deceive themselves. We lie only when we are attempting to cover up something we know to be illicit. At one and the same time 'the evil' are aware of their evil and desperately trying to avoid the awareness. We become evil by attempting to hide from ourselves.

The wickedness of 'the evil' is not committed directly, but indirectly as a part of this cover-up process. Evil originates not in the absence of guilt but in the effort to escape it.
It often happens then that 'the evil' may be recognized by its very disguise. Because they are such experts at disguise, it is seldom possible to pinpoint the maliciousness of 'the evil'. The disguise is usually impenetrable.

They are not pain avoiders or lazy people in general. To the contrary, they are likely to exert themselves more than most in their continuing effort to obtain and maintain an image of respectability. They may willingly, even eagerly, undergo great hardships in their search for status. It is only one particular pain they cannot tolerate: the pain of their own conscience,
the pain of realization of their own sinfulness and imperfection.

They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.

Those who are evil are masters of disguise; they are not apt to wittingly disclose their true colors - either to others or to themselves. It is not without reason that the serpent is renowned for his subtlety. We therefore cannot pass judgment on a person for a single act. Instead judgment must be made on the basis of a whole pattern of acts as well as their manner and style.

Think of the psychic energy required for the continued maintenance of the pretense so characteristic of 'the evil'! They perhaps direct at least as much energy into their devious rationalizations and destructive compensations as the healthies do into loving behavior. Why? What possesses them, drives them? Basically, it is fear. They are terrified that the pretense will break down and they will be exposed to the world and to themselves.

Evil people would be distinguished by these traits:

1.) Consistent destructive, scapegoating behavior, which may often be quite subtle.

2.) Excessive, albeit usually covert, intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury.

3.) Pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of lifestyle but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives.

4.) Intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophrenic-like disturbance of thinking at times of stress.

This relates to trading? Yes, but more importantly it relates to life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck

According to Peck an evil person[2][3]:

Is consistently self deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self image of perfection

Deceives others as a consequence of their own self deception

Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else ("their insensitivity toward him was selective" (Peck, 1983/1988[3], p105))

Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self deception as much as deception of others

Abuses political (emotional) power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion" (Peck, 1978/1992[2], p298))

Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so

Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)

Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim (scapegoat)

Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury

More references to People of the Lie and The Road Less Traveled by Peck:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/septemberweb-only/32.0d.html

http://www.robertringer.com/people-of-the-lie.html

http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/Perspectives/MalignantNarcissism.htm

http://ejm.tripod.com/people.htm

Report Card on my pre-season baseball predictions

MY PRE-SEASON PREDICTIONS:
http://slavieboy.blogspot.com/2010/04/pre-season-mlb-predictions-2010.html

VERSUS

COOL BASEBALL STANDINGS - "EXPW" OR EXPECTED WINS TOTAL AS OF TODAY
http://www.coolstandings.com/baseball_standings.asp?i=1

Since we gave the G-men a report card, we may as well turn the mirror towards ourselves and see how well our pre-season prognostication is holding up.

AL EAST - A slam dunk across the board in terms of order. Rays on track to win 97 vs 90-95 predicted and Jays could finish .500 versus 7 wins predicted. Orioles worst than expected if that's even possible.

(5-5 hit rate)

AL CENTRAL - A slam dunk again in terms of order of finish. Tightly packed, so that could change daily. WSox about as expected, on pace for 89 wins versus high 80's predicted. Twins in the mid 80's, Tigers around .500, Royals may get to mid 70's predicted, Indians worse than anticipated, if that's possible.

(5-5 hit rate)

AL WEST - Ugh!! Angels roughly as expected, around 85 wins. Rangers outperfroming 93 wins pace versus low 80's predicted. Mariners totally suck, may lose 100 versus low 80's predicted. A' as always, better than expected, near .500 versus mid 70's expected.

(1-4 hit rate, 11-14 in the AL)

Now, to the NL.

NL EAST - Braves way better than expected, on pace for mid 90's wins versus mid 80's expected. Mets are better than expected at high 80's pace rather than .500 expected. Phillies are under performing as a result, an 85 win pace versus 90+ expected. Marlins and Nats are performing as expected.

(2-5 hit rate)

NL CENTRAL - Cards are on 90+ pace as expected. Cubs will be lucky to reach the .500 expected, currently on 75 win pace. Brewers are mid 70's rather than .500 expected. Big miss on the Reds, expected about a 75 win team, on pace for 91 wins. Astros worse than expected 63 wins pace versus 75 expected. Pirates are about right, 100 losses or bust.

(4-6 hit rate)

NL WEST - Hit the Giants on the nose and the Dodgers pretty close. Rockies as expected as well, near .500. Big miss on the Padres to the plus side (96 wins pace versus 70 expected) and the D-Backs on the minus side (61 wins pace versus 85 expected).

(3-5 hit rate, 9-16 in the NL, 20-30 overall)

Two out of three, not too bad. You could make some money in Vegas betting the over/under wins totals at that rate, although some are pretty close.

Overall, probably a B-.

Padres and Reds are the big surprises. I think the Padres are going to be in it all the way, not sure sure about Dustiny's Darlings. Rangers are seizing on their opportunity with the Cliff Lee deal, so they will be players down the stretch.

Santelli and Baseball Crank - That's the Ticket!!

I propose a presidential ticket of Rick Santelli and Baseball Crank with Ron Paul as the next Federal Reserve Chairman. That would end the need for an audit of the Fed that nobody seems to want. Who's with me on this?

Three guys who are generally portrayed as kooks, loons, cranks or crack-pots by the criminally inept MSM, but I would bet that if we had heeded some of their words of advice from the past, we would not be in the economic or political predicament that we are in today. I speak specifically about Ron Paul-- who was portrayed unfairly by the MSM in the last presidential beauty pageant--CNBC commentator Rick Santelli and the writer of one of my favorite blogs Baseball Crank. Baseball Crank is a nom de plume, although his real identity is not much of a secret.

AGAIN I ASK, WHEN DO WE GET TO THIS POINT?


Some of my favorite hits from the past and present from these artists.

RICK SANTELLI - STOP SPENDING!! STOP SPENDING!! STOP SPENDING!!
JUNE 28, 2010 - SANTELLI VS. LIESMAN - THE STOP SPENDING RANT!!!




RON PAUL - END THE FED
FEB 27, 2008 - RON PAUL SCHOOLS BEN BERNANKE



AGAINST THE BAILOUT
SEP 27, 2008 - BEWARE THE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN OF THE BAILOUT




AGAINST THE FED
OCT 24, 2008 - ON GOVERNMENT (IN)EFFICIENCY




AGAINST THE STIMULUS
THE ORIGINAL RANT - FEB 19, 2009 - THE GENESIS OF THE TEA PARTY



Here is Mr. Santelli unplugged, for more than a 30 second sound byte of screaming that CNBC allows and encourages. What he says makes a lot more sense this way.

FROM KINGWORLDNEWS.COM
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/3_Rick_Santelli_files/Rick%20Santelli%207:3:2010.mp3


---
Along with much the same argument and some cool data tables to back them up is Baseball Crank. I posted the entry in it's entirety because it is so good and so important to understand. You can either read it all here or on his site, but read it and understand it you should. If I violated any fair use provisions I am quite certain that being an attorney Mr. Crank will let me know. Happy reading and understanding.


from the blog Baseball Crank

POLITICS: Deficits Are A Symptom. The Problem Is Spending.
JULY 15, 2010

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2010/07/politics_defici_2.php

The Obama Administration has been in something of a quandary lately as to whether to primarily emphasize its plans to spend more taxpayer money as "stimulus" or to paint itself as fighting against deficits. The former has the advantage of looking like the White House is doing - or trying against GOP opposition to do - something about the economy and its still-listless rates of growth and job recovery; the latter has the advantage of allaying voter fears that the Democrats have been doing too much and digging us into a fiscal hole, as well as offering at least the possibility of bipartisanship or faux bipartisanship that helps (whether Republicans accept or reject Obama's offers) blur the lines between the parties on deficits and spending. Remember that the one thing Obama has sought from Day One of his stimulus strategy, and has largely failed at, is to avoid presenting a clear contrast between the two parties on spending and the size of government, that being an argument he cannot win.

With a deficit commission working on proposals that will be delivered after the fall election, some liberal pundits/activists like Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress are trying to keep both options open by arguing that conservatives are somehow hypocritical for complaining about massive deficits under Obama and the Democratic Congress while promoting tax cuts to help with the lack of economic growth. But read their work and notice, as with Obama, what's missing: they talk only about deficits, not about spending - you will search Klein's column in vain for any indication that anyone should care how obese government gets, as long as it's feasting on current tax revenues instead of on deficit financing. And naturally, when and if Obama tries to do something about the deficit, he too will view it mainly as a revenue problem, not a problem with spending and the size of government. Indeed, history shows that even Beltway Republicans have tended to fall into the trap of assuming that the problem is mainly one of raising revenue, or at least that any deal to fix the deficit can only attract Democratic support if it includes Democrats' beloved tax hikes.

This is going about the question all wrong. Would you rather have a federal government that spends 15 cents of every dollar earned in this country, while taxing 12 and making up the difference by issuing debt - or a federal government that takes in and spends 30 cents of every dollar? I'd much prefer the former. The Democrats don't want to have that conversation at all.

Either way the spending is financed, the amount spent by government is a portion of the economy that cannot produce meaningful growth. Yes, wise government can play a role in a better growth environment, and yes, at times the government produces a little growth on its own, e.g., government scientists invent things that can help the economy grow. But by and large, a dollar invested in the public sector is a dollar that will never bear more than a dollar in fruit, and next year the government comes looking for another dollar, while a dollar left in the private sector can grow and be used later in either private or public hands. (In Biblical terms, the dollar in the public sector is like the servant who buried his master's money in the back yard) All of the growth we take for granted as producing increasing wealth over time comes from the portion of the economy that is not consumed by government. So, using our oversimplified example, which obviously excludes the state and local public sector, you have one economy in which 70 cents of every dollar goes back to the private sector to grow, and one in which 85 cents does. Which economy do you think will have more money after a couple of generations of this? Even at a paltry private-sector growth rate of 2% per year, the first economy has produced $1.59 at the end of three years for every dollar, and the second has produced $2.27. As I said, this is a vast oversimplification, but there's simply no way for the first economy to grow faster unless you believe - contrary to the most fundamental tenets of economics and history - that the public sector can produce economic growth at a rate comparable to the private sector.


Moreover, within reason, running a modest deficit can make sense, for reasons somewhat analogous to why a corporation issues bonds as well as stock to raise capital, or why even well-off families (especially under the present tax code) may take out a mortgage: sometimes, debt is cost-effective. As long as it is a safe bet to repay its debts, the US federal government can borrow funds more cheaply than any other entity on earth, and while debt requires us to pay interest, which means mandated spending, if the money not taxed is growing in the private sector at a faster rate than the interest rate paid by the government, then deficit spending makes sense for the same reason why you might buy stocks instead of paying down your mortgage - the rate of return is better. Also, the federal government should never run a surplus, since if the government is collecting, say, 20% in taxes and spending 18%, it's the 20% figure that represents the bite taken out of the private sector. So, the target for revenue should always aim for a little below spending.

But the fact that deficits can make economic sense under the right conditions does not mean that all deficits do - the bigger the debt, the more interest is paid on it (thus, more spending), and the higher rates must be paid (because too-large debt makes bond markets worry about credit risk); and the higher proportion of government spending that's financed by deficits, the worse are your odds that the money left in private hands will grow faster than the interest rate. At some point, deficit financing becomes a very bad bet. And of course, there are situations where the government may need to run a surplus if it needs to use the difference to pay down enough debt to get back to its usual position of running a manageable deficit, a strategy used in the past after the federal government took on excessive debts in a short stretch to fight wars.

So, why are conservatives up in arms now over deficits? Two reasons. One - which the Democrats seem determined to ignore - is that public concern about deficits is often linked to concern about spending and the size of government. Huge deficits can be a major symptom of overspending. But they're the symptom, not the disease. I have a chart below the fold showing federal revenue, spending, deficits, debt and interest as a percentage of GDP, as well as deficits and interest as a percentage of spending (the Def% and Int % columns) and partisan control of the White House, House and Senate from 1947 through 2011.

Until the 2006 elections, we hadn't been over spending 21% of GDP since the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, and hadn't been over spending 23.5% of GDP in the postwar period. But the first year of the new Democratic Congress took us to 20.7%, then 24.7%, with spending projected to crack 25% for 2010 and 2011 for the first time, as the deficit - never above 6% before, below 4% since 1993 and often below 2% during the era of GOP control of Congress - soars to 9.9% in 2009 and projected 10.6% in 2010. This is simply more spending than the economy can bear, and the deficit is a symptom of that problem.

And two, we're in a situation now where the proportion of deficit spending is itself out of hand. Check the Def% column in the chart - in fiscal years 2009 and (projected) 2010, we're paying for over 40% of government spending by issuing debt, while it had topped out at 18.1% during the years the GOP controlled Congress and 25.5% as the postwar high. It's not at all unreasonable to be unconcerned when you're borrowing 10% or 15% of your budget - when you're borrowing 40%, you're living beyond your means. And anybody who thinks you can fix that by collecting a quarter of GDP in federal taxes is insane.

Spending has to come down. That's the only way to fix the deficit problem and the growth problem.

Here's the chart:

Yr Rev Spend Defc Def% Debt Int Int% WH H S
1947 16.5 14.8 1.7 11.49 110.3 1.8 12.16 D D D
1948 16.2 11.6 4.6 39.66 98.4 1.7 14.66 D R R
1949 14.5 14.3 0.2 1.40 93.2 1.7 11.89 D R R
1950 14.4 15.6 -1.1 -7.05 94.1 1.8 11.54 D D D
1951 16.1 14.2 1.9 13.38 79.6 1.5 10.56 D D D
1952 19 19.4 -0.4 -2.06 74.3 1.3 6.70 D D D
1953 18.7 20.4 -1.7 -8.33 71.3 1.4 6.86 D D D
1954 18.5 18.8 -0.3 -1.60 71.8 1.3 6.91 R R R
1955 16.6 17.3 -0.8 -4.62 69.5 1.2 6.94 R R R
1956 17.5 16.5 0.9 5.45 63.8 1.2 7.27 R D D
1957 17.8 17 0.8 4.71 60.5 1.2 7.06 R D D
1958 17.3 17.9 -0.6 -3.35 60.7 1.2 6.70 R D D
1959 16.1 18.7 -2.6 -13.90 58.5 1.2 6.42 R D D
1960 17.9 17.8 0.1 0.56 56.1 1.3 7.30 R D D
1961 17.8 18.4 -0.6 -3.26 55.1 1.3 7.07 R D D
1962 17.6 18.8 -1.3 -6.91 53.4 1.2 6.38 D D D
1963 17.8 18.6 -0.8 -4.30 51.8 1.3 6.99 D D D
1964 17.6 18.5 -0.9 -4.86 49.4 1.3 7.03 D D D
1965 17 17.2 -0.2 -1.16 46.9 1.3 7.56 D D D
1966 17.4 17.9 -0.5 -2.79 43.6 1.2 6.70 D D D
1967 18.3 19.4 -1.1 -5.67 41.9 1.3 6.70 D D D
1968 17.7 20.6 -2.9 -14.08 42.5 1.3 6.31 D D D
1969 19.7 19.4 0.3 1.55 38.6 1.3 6.70 D D D
1970 19 19.3 -0.3 -1.55 37.6 1.4 7.25 R D D
1971 17.3 19.5 -2.1 -10.77 37.8 1.4 7.18 R D D
1972 17.6 19.6 -2 -10.20 37 1.3 6.63 R D D
1973 17.7 18.8 -1.1 -5.85 35.7 1.3 6.91 R D D
1974 18.3 18.7 -0.4 -2.14 33.6 1.5 8.02 R D D
1975 17.9 21.3 -3.4 -15.96 34.7 1.5 7.04 R D D
1976 17.2 21.4 -4.2 -19.63 36.2 1.5 7.01 R D D
TQ76 17.8 21 -3.2 -15.24 35.2 1.5 7.14 R D D
1977 18 20.7 -2.7 -13.04 35.8 1.5 7.25 R D D
1978 18 20.7 -2.7 -13.04 35 1.6 7.73 D D D
1979 18.5 20.2 -1.6 -7.92 33.2 1.7 8.42 D D D
1980 19 21.7 -2.7 -12.44 33.3 1.9 8.76 D D D
1981 19.6 22.2 -2.6 -11.71 32.6 2.3 10.36 D D D
1982 19.1 23.1 -4 -17.32 35.2 2.6 11.26 R D R
1983 17.5 23.5 -6 -25.53 39.9 2.6 11.06 R D R
1984 17.4 22.2 -4.8 -21.62 40.7 2.9 13.06 R D R
1985 17.7 22.9 -5.1 -22.27 43.9 3.1 13.54 R D R
1986 17.4 22.4 -5 -22.32 48.1 3.1 13.84 R D R
1987 18.4 21.6 -3.2 -14.81 50.5 3 13.89 R D R
1988 18.2 21.3 -3.1 -14.55 51.9 3 14.08 R D D
1989 18.4 21.2 -2.8 -13.21 53.1 3.1 14.62 R D D
1990 18 21.8 -3.9 -17.89 55.9 3.2 14.68 R D D
1991 17.8 22.3 -4.5 -20.18 60.6 3.3 14.80 R D D
1992 17.5 22.1 -4.7 -21.27 64.1 3.2 14.48 R D D
1993 17.6 21.4 -3.9 -18.22 66.2 3 14.02 R D D
1994 18.1 21 -2.9 -13.81 66.7 2.9 13.81 D D D
1995 18.5 20.7 -2.2 -10.63 67.2 3.2 15.46 D D D
1996 18.9 20.3 -1.4 -6.90 67.3 3.1 15.27 D R R
1997 19.3 19.6 -0.3 -1.53 65.6 3 15.31 D R R
1998 20 19.2 0.8 4.17 63.5 2.8 14.58 D R R
1999 20 18.7 1.4 7.49 61.4 2.5 13.37 D R R
2000 20.9 18.4 2.4 13.04 58 2.3 12.50 D R R
2001 19.8 18.5 1.3 7.03 57.4 2 10.81 D R R
2002 17.9 19.4 -1.5 -7.73 59.7 1.6 8.25 R R D
2003 16.5 20 -3.5 -17.50 62.5 1.4 7.00 R R D
2004 16.4 19.9 -3.6 -18.09 64 1.4 7.04 R R R
2005 17.6 20.2 -2.6 -12.87 64.6 1.5 7.43 R R R
2006 18.5 20.4 -1.9 -9.31 64.9 1.7 8.33 R R R
2007 18.8 20 -1.2 -6.00 65.5 1.7 8.50 R R R
2008 17.5 20.7 -3.2 -15.46 69.2 1.8 8.70 R D D
2009 14.8 24.7 -9.9 -40.08 83.4 1.3 5.26 R D D
2010* 14.8 25.4 -10.6 -41.73 94.3 1.3 5.12 D D D
2011* 16.8 25.1 -8.3 -33.07 99 1.6 6.37 D D D

Sources here, here and here, from the master budget-history site which has now been moved to the White House website. House/Senate historical partisan breakdowns here and here, including this note on fiscal years:

The Federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on the subsequent September 30. It is designated by the year in which it ends; for example, fiscal year 2007 began on October 1, 2006, and ended on September 30, 2007. Prior to fiscal year 1977 the Federal fiscal years began on July 1 and ended on June 30. In calendar year 1976 the July-September period was a separate accounting period (known as the transition quarter or TQ) to bridge the period required to shift to the new fiscal year.

As with the prior iteration of this chart, I use 1947 as a starting point, as it's the first year after full demobilization from World War II; the war budgets were colossal - in Fiscal Year 1943, the deficit was over 30% of GDP. And before the New Deal, federal spending was generally less than 10% of GDP. The OMB site has projections beyond 2011, but since we don't even have a 2011 budget yet, much less the Congress that will vote on the 2012 budget, the projections further out than that are useless even if you assume that the federal budget forecasters have perfect clairvoyance about the state of the economy two or more years out (hint: I don't).

Giants mid-season (plus two games) report card

THERE'S NOW EVIDENCE THAT BUSTER POSEY CAN CATCH!! WHAT A REVELATION !!!
By the way, his 1.585 OPS in early July isn't bad either.

CATCHER - Buster Posey A-

Just finished catching behind a Tim Lincecum shutout and a Barry Zito shutout on consecutive nights, albeit of the Mutts. So I guess all the talk of this kid not being quite ready to catch on the major league level can be put to rest. The fact that the talk came as friendly fire from the organization, one of whom used to be a major league catcher himself in Manger Bruce Bochy just makes the original comments seem that much more baseball illiterate.

The kid is only hitting .350 or thereabouts, batting clean up in the order at times, flashing more power than originally thought and rapidly becoming the possible future face of the franchise. his opposite field laser beam HR's to right-center are a thing of beauty. That type of power may translate into 20-30 HR per year power rather than the 10-15 HR's per year originally envisioned.

FIRST BASEMAN - Aubrey Huff A-

A pleasant surprise. Has hit better and provided more power than anticipated. One of Sabeans's better signings.

SECOND BASEMAN - Jose Uribe and Freddie Sanchez C+

Uribe can go hot and cold, Sanchez too much time on the DL. Time for one of them to take hold of the position for good.

SHORTSTOP - Edgar Renteria B-

Better than expected.

THIRD BASEMAN - Pablo Sandoval C

Not as good as expected.

LEFT FIELD - Pat Burrell and Andres Torres B

Both have been better than expected.

CENTER FIELD - Aaron Rowand D

Need to find his game again or find some bench.

RIGHT FIELD - Nate Schierholz C

BENCH - Travis Ishakawa, Eli Whiteside and the aforementioned Andres Torres, Juan Uribe B

All have contributed well in spots, just what you're looking for in bench / platoon players.

STARTING PITCHING - Lincecum, Cain, Zito, Sanchez, Bumgarner B-

Could be a bit more dominant at times, the offensive output getting better could lift some weight off the shoulders and allow them to pitch more relaxed. Hopefully, Sanchez or Bumgarner are NOT shipped away for a bat like Corey Hart, as rumored. I think I would like to see this unit pitch together for a while longer.

BULLPEN - Brain Wilson, closer, Jeremy Affeldt, set up man. Sergio Romo, Chris Ray, Denny Bautista and Guillermo Mota as long relief. B

MANAGEMENT - Bruce Bochy and Brian Sabean

Could perhaps use another veteran arm (lefty - LOOGY type) down the stretch. Dontrelle Willis signing provides a possibility if he's near 100%. Another bat with pop would help, the DeRosa signing has shown up bad here. Although, in fairness, considering the veteran signings of Huff, Burrell and DeRosa, the Giants may have exceeded expectations. Still suffering from Rowand and Renteria signings that are providing significantly less than expectations at key positions.

If they are out of it by mid-September, recent first round pick OF Gary Brown should get the chance to prove himself. Also, future SS Brandon Crawford might be worth a look. Hopefully, the G-Men are still in contention until late September and those guys can mature in the AA-AAA environment, with a late season call-up.

OVERALL GRADE - B-

A 49-41 record after 90 games would translate into about 90 wins. That's only going to be good enough for second place at this point. Need to separate themselves from the Dodgers and Rockies as the top chase dog after the Padres. As of right now, the Giants would be tied with the Cardinals for the wild-card spot. The Phillies Mets, Rockies and Dodgers are also in the WC mix. The Cardinals have the best run differential of all the WC contenders, the Giants next. Right now, they are sitting in pretty good shape. If Panda starts hitting up to capabilities, the offense should provide enough runs to allow the Giants to make a run at the division title. I don't want to leave the Giants playoff chances hanging on a WC bid at this point, I don't see them winning that. The Padres recent injuries to the pitching staff (thank goodness for a wayward sneeze) could pull them back to the pack and make August and Spetmeber baseball on the west coast really interesting once again.

What we get from our leaders versus what we need

What we get is more "throw-weight", more B.S., more legislative "look what we've done on your behalf" posturing and less effectiveness.

ILLUSTRATION ABOVE AND ARTICLE TO FOLLOW FROM MARK PERRY'S CARPE DIEM WEBSITE:

http://blog.american.com/?p=16950

‘I Didn’t Have Time to Write a Short Bill, So I Wrote a Long One Instead,’ Part II

By Mark J. Perry

July 16, 2010, 8:05 am

Back in December, Nick Schulz helped put the size of the 2,074-page healthcare bill into some historical context by comparing its length to some previous bills that rank among the most consequential in U.S. history, like the 82-page Social Security Act of 1935 and the 74-page Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now that Congress has passed the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” it might be a good time to compare the 2,319-page financial reform bill (245 pages longer than the healthcare bill) to the previous bills listed below (and see graph) that are considered among the most consequential legislative acts for banking and finance.

1. Federal Reserve Act (1913) - 31 pages.

2. Glass-Steagall Act (1933) – 37 pages.

3. Interstate Banking Efficiency Act (1994) – 61 pages.

4. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) – 145 pages.

5. Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) – 66 pages.

Like Nick said, the numbers pretty much speak for themselves, but I can’t resist making just a few comments:

1. It took only 31 pages of legislation in 1913 to create the nation’s central bank and establish the entire Federal Reserve System, with a Board of Governors and 12 district banks, as well as creating a single new U.S. currency. In comparison, just the table of contents (15 pages) and the list of definitions (11 pages) in the Dodd-Frank bill is almost as long as the entire Federal Reserve Act, and the total Dodd-Frank bill at 2,319 pages is almost 75 times longer.

2. One of the most major acts of banking reform in U.S. history, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which overhauled America’s banking system following 9,000 bank failures in the early 1930s, took only 37 pages of legislation or 1.6 percent the number of pages in the Dodd-Frank bill.

3. The combined size of the five previous major banking bills listed above comes to only 335 pages in total, or about one-seventh the size of the whopping 2,319-page Dodd-Frank bill.

4. Many critics of the 61-page Sarbanes-Oxley Act argued that it could more accurately be called the “Accountants’ Full Employment Act of 2002.” Harvey Pitt, former SEC chief, has already referred to the 2,319-page Dodd-Frank bill as the “Lawyers’ and Consultants’ Full Employment Act of 2010,” and adds that “this legislation fixes nothing, accomplishes nothing, yet promises everything.”

What we need is more old-fashioned common sense and values. What a concept.

COMMON SENSE!!! VALUES!!! THE GOLDEN RULE!!!

Instead we seem content to continue on this path of calling the arsonists who set the fire to come in and put out the fire. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Maybe we should have the burglars investigate and solve the crimes. Oh wait, we do have that in Washington. My bad.

Warren Buffet's self described right-hand man Charlie Munger gets right to the heart of the matter when he spoke before a group of USC Law students many years back.

USC Law: Speaker Charles Munger encourages a lifetime of learning

“The safest way to get what you want is to try and deserve what you want. It’s such a simple idea – it’s the golden rule, so to speak,” Munger said. “You want to deliver to the world what you would buy if you were on the other end. There is no ethos, in my opinion, that is better for any lawyer or any other person to have. By and large, the people who have this ethos win in life.”

Even Sen. Dodd while taking his victory lap of interviews for passage of this legislation -- that will do nothing but provide an appearance of accomplishment -- admitted that this bill will do nothing to prevent the worst elements of human behavior (greed, gluttony, avarice, coveting) to creep in and create a new crisis in the future. What is that line coaches often spew, "Don't mistake activity for accomplishment"?

Thanks, once again, for nothing Senator.


For an analysis of the plusses and minuses provided by the legislation, I give you the most recent article published by Mish Shedlock, who blogs at Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/07/financial-reform-bill-was-stunning.html

Financial Reform Bill was a Stunning Success

To fully appreciate how amazingly good this piece of legislation was, we must look at the pluses (what the bill accomplished), the minuses (objectives the bill failed to meet along with any damages done), and the critical issue (reasonable expectations as to what the bill might have accomplished). Let's start with the minuses.

Financial Reform Minuses

Glass-Steagall: Paul Volcker supported provisions that were hopelessly watered down, so much so that they can accomplish nothing. This was a complete failure.
Derivatives Reform: Banks successfully lobbied for derivative exceptions big enough to drive the planet Jupiter through. They succeeded. Derivatives reform is meaningless.
Too Big To Fail: The reform bill did absolutely nothing to rein in the widely recognized "too big to fail" policies of the Fed. This was a complete failure.
Preventing the Last Crisis: There is not a single thing in the bill that can possibly be construed to have prevented the last crisis. This was a complete failure.
Preventing the Next Crisis: There is not a single thing in the bill that can possibly do anything to prevent the next crisis. This too was a complete failure.


Financial Reform Pluses

None. The bill accomplished virtually nothing.


No doubt quite a few inquiring minds will be wondering how a financial reform bill that failed at 100% of its objectives while accomplishing virtually nothing can possibly be considered a "stunning success".

This is where it pays to consider the crucial point: reasonable expectations.

Reasonable Expectations

The best way I can explain reasonable expectations is via an analysis of the Medical Reform bill, promoted, passed, and signed by President Obama even though a majority of US citizens were dead against it.

Medical reform did nothing to promote competition between states, nothing on tort reform, nothing to allow drug imports from Canada that would lower prescription costs and most importantly, nothing on reducing costs any step of the way.

That's the positive side of medical reform.

The negative side of the balance sheet is that medical reform will cost a trillion dollars while increasing costs on small businesses at a time we can least afford to make that critical mistake. Furthermore, the bill panders to public unions and their luxury 100% paid for plans that put upward pressure on healthcare costs.

Medical Reform vs. Financial Reform

Medical reform not only accomplished nothing, it actually made matters substantially worse.

In sharp contrast to medical reform, I cannot come up with any financial reform provisions that make matters substantially worse.

Given the absolute best we could ever expect out of a major piece of legislation supported and promoted by Obama is nothing, and given that nothing was accomplished with no major detriments making matters much worse, the financial reform bill must be considered a stunning success.

Indeed, we should all be thrilled by it.