PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
May 19, 2008
Herbert M. Allison, Jr.
TIAA-CREF
730 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3206
Dear Mr. Allison:
I hold a TIAA-CREF account through my employment at the City University of New York and have done so since 1991
TIAA-CREF should implement a commodity index fund and a foreign-currency denominated interest bearing fund. Doing so would fulfill your responsibility to be prudent to your account holders. I say this despite current short-term overheating in the commodities markets.
The 1970s were a period of significant challenge to TIAA-CREF because the stock market declined while inflation accelerated. This caused pensioners to receive reduced payments at the very time that inflation posed high costs. TIAA-CREF has a fiduciary duty to take action to anticipate the realistic risk that Federal Reserve Bank policy will again cause stagflation. Conversely, it is imprudent to pretend that stock and interest bearing investments provide all of the diversification that investors need when the Federal Reserve Bank has expanded the money supply by eight percent annually for the past two and one half decades.
To be prudent, you ought to diligently consider the risk of stagflation and take action. Both the stock market and interest bearing dollar denominated accounts are ultra-risky in a stagflationary period, yet those are the only alternatives TIAA-CREF currently has on offer. By failing to diversify into alternative currencies you are shooting craps with shareholders’ accounts. Inflation-indexed bonds are a crap shoot as well because interest rates may skyrocket at the very time that inflation goes up.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Cc: Chronicle of Higher Education
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Correction in Gold and Oil Prices?
Is there going to be a correction in gold, oil and other commodity prices in the coming weeks? It seems like a distinct possibility.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Conservatism, Surgical Radicalism and the Four Party System
The current popular political debate occurs between two kinds of conservatives. The first, called liberals or progressives, argues that the current framework of American democracy, created during the Progressive era and New Deal and now roughly 100 years old, ought to remain in place. In their view introduction of additional institutions, plans and programs like national health insurance along the lines of earlier ones is needed, but today's framework is a good one.
The second kind of conservatives, popularly so called, are not comfortable with the New Deal project---Social Security, government regulation of industry, and large-scale federal social welfare programs, but do not want to repeal these programs either. They follow Edmund Burke, who argued against radical in favor of gradual change. Burke felt that gradual transformation of institutions while protecting liberty was a better path than the French revolution's authoritarianism, political correctness and executions. Rather, he preferred the American revolution's restraint.
Today's conservatives retain Burke's dislike for radical change. But the institutions that exist in America today were radically imposed during the first half of the twentieth century. They did not evolve logically from the market economy of the nineteenth and they did not reflect economic exigencies of the the early 20th century. Rather, they reflected the imposition of a political vision of specific rent-seeking special interest groups and agenda-drive political radicals.
Burke wrote in Britain in the late eighteenth century when barbaric institutions had gradually evolved into more democratic and liberal forms in Britain and to a lesser degree in Europe. Burke did not write about what to do to unravel the harm that the French revolution had caused. Rather, he wrote about how Britain and other liberal nations might best cope with change. This is not the problem that faces America today. An excessive application of Burke is inappropriate. America has had some radical change imposed while partially retaining liberal institutions. Conservatives who wish to create a new liberalism need to be surgical radicals. They need to undo New Deal radicalism's derangement of older versions of liberalism. The derangement has taken a number of shapes, to include social security, urban renewal, welfare, the Federal Reserve Bank, excessive application of eminent domain, and excessive regulation of business. Such radically instituted habits ought to be undone conservatively but radically.
Progressivism and the New Deal were radical upheavals. They rewrote American institutions that were not very old. A radical conservatism is one that is pragmatic, and asks that if radically imposed institutions fail that they be undone. This is a surgical radicalism that devises new liberal institutions where Progressivism and New Deal social democracy have failed.
Conservatives who wish to retain Progressive institutions, who are loyal to the old Federal Reserve Bank and its old-fashioned economic planning, high levels of government spending and support for business are Progressives. Conservatives who wish to retain New Deal institutions like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act are social democratic liberals.
Perhaps Americans should think in terms of a four-party rather than a two-party system. Perhaps there should be a surgically radical conservative party; a Progressive-conservative Rockefeller-Republican Party; a New Deal Party; and a social democratic radical party. Of these, the surgically conservative radical party would be the most radical, liberal and progressive.
The second kind of conservatives, popularly so called, are not comfortable with the New Deal project---Social Security, government regulation of industry, and large-scale federal social welfare programs, but do not want to repeal these programs either. They follow Edmund Burke, who argued against radical in favor of gradual change. Burke felt that gradual transformation of institutions while protecting liberty was a better path than the French revolution's authoritarianism, political correctness and executions. Rather, he preferred the American revolution's restraint.
Today's conservatives retain Burke's dislike for radical change. But the institutions that exist in America today were radically imposed during the first half of the twentieth century. They did not evolve logically from the market economy of the nineteenth and they did not reflect economic exigencies of the the early 20th century. Rather, they reflected the imposition of a political vision of specific rent-seeking special interest groups and agenda-drive political radicals.
Burke wrote in Britain in the late eighteenth century when barbaric institutions had gradually evolved into more democratic and liberal forms in Britain and to a lesser degree in Europe. Burke did not write about what to do to unravel the harm that the French revolution had caused. Rather, he wrote about how Britain and other liberal nations might best cope with change. This is not the problem that faces America today. An excessive application of Burke is inappropriate. America has had some radical change imposed while partially retaining liberal institutions. Conservatives who wish to create a new liberalism need to be surgical radicals. They need to undo New Deal radicalism's derangement of older versions of liberalism. The derangement has taken a number of shapes, to include social security, urban renewal, welfare, the Federal Reserve Bank, excessive application of eminent domain, and excessive regulation of business. Such radically instituted habits ought to be undone conservatively but radically.
Progressivism and the New Deal were radical upheavals. They rewrote American institutions that were not very old. A radical conservatism is one that is pragmatic, and asks that if radically imposed institutions fail that they be undone. This is a surgical radicalism that devises new liberal institutions where Progressivism and New Deal social democracy have failed.
Conservatives who wish to retain Progressive institutions, who are loyal to the old Federal Reserve Bank and its old-fashioned economic planning, high levels of government spending and support for business are Progressives. Conservatives who wish to retain New Deal institutions like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act are social democratic liberals.
Perhaps Americans should think in terms of a four-party rather than a two-party system. Perhaps there should be a surgically radical conservative party; a Progressive-conservative Rockefeller-Republican Party; a New Deal Party; and a social democratic radical party. Of these, the surgically conservative radical party would be the most radical, liberal and progressive.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Chinese Tragedy Ahead
The Chinese have decided to imitate American economic progress. But they have chosen to imitate the wrong thing. American economic success has come in spite of, not because of, government development schemes. In particular, the US government and the states granted large amounts of land and access rights to railroads in the nineteenth century. Although railroads contributed to economic development, they did so at much higher cost to the public than was necessary. The public donations of land were accompanied by considerable incompetence and corruption. More railroads were built than were needed. In today's world, the corruption associated with land grants has not disappeared. The Progressives of the early twentieth century believed that by rationalizing the corruption of the political bosses, government support for business could be rationalized and made honest. In the Progressive tradition, Robert Moses in New York and similar social democratic Progressives in other states involved state and federal governments in considerable grants to business. This tradition is not why America has succeeded. America has succeeded in spite of government support for business. Sadly, the Chinese have chosen to imitate the Jay Gould/Robert Moses tradition. They are attempting to modernize their country through government support for development coupled with inflation.
The way that America did succeed in developing its economy was entrepreneurship. Freedom of enterprise not only permitted entrepreneurial genius to innovate here, but also drew entrepreneurial geniuses from other countries. For instance, Nikola Tesla came to the United States because Europeans refused to invest in his concept of A/C electricity. Thomas Edison, Jonah Salk and an endless list of homegrown and immigrant innovators came here because of American freedom. But a long list of social democrats, media pundits, quack academic economists and socialists have done all they can to destroy America's freedom.
The development that occurred because of Jay Gould, Robert Moses and Bruce Ratner, the successor to the governmental welfare approach to business, is not the development that made America a great country. Rather, America became a great country in spite of Jay Gould, Robert Moses and Bruce Ratner. In the case of Robert Moses, the public housing on which he squandered billions of dollars and was supported by the New York Times caused massive increases in crime, destruction of neighborhoods and the near-bankruptcy of New York City in the mid 1970s. Jay Gould's and his contemporaries' railroads were incompetently run and cost the nation far more than they should have. Despite the massive tax on innovation that corrupt government support for business has posed, the US surged ahead because of the innovation of men like Edison and Tesla. The entrepreneur, free of government impediment and government welfare subsidy, thinks of ways to meet consumer needs and so makes himself wealthy and the world wealthier still.
Tragically, the Chinese perceived the spectacular image of large-scale development and have attempted to emulate Robert Moses's approach with large construction projects, continuing to limit the intellectual and economic freedom on which economic development depends. Equally sadly, Americans lost sight of the reason for their success, and passed laws and regulations, and imposed punitive taxes, that have inhibited entrepreneurship, slowing American economic progress, even as they have increasingly provided welfare payments to incompetent bankers, real estate developers, academics and Wall Street stock jobbers who do not produce wealth.
This country and China have squandered resources in stupid ways. The bubble will burst as all credit bubbles do. America may have enough resources to reassess its errors. The Chinese likely do not, and many there will be hurt.
The way that America did succeed in developing its economy was entrepreneurship. Freedom of enterprise not only permitted entrepreneurial genius to innovate here, but also drew entrepreneurial geniuses from other countries. For instance, Nikola Tesla came to the United States because Europeans refused to invest in his concept of A/C electricity. Thomas Edison, Jonah Salk and an endless list of homegrown and immigrant innovators came here because of American freedom. But a long list of social democrats, media pundits, quack academic economists and socialists have done all they can to destroy America's freedom.
The development that occurred because of Jay Gould, Robert Moses and Bruce Ratner, the successor to the governmental welfare approach to business, is not the development that made America a great country. Rather, America became a great country in spite of Jay Gould, Robert Moses and Bruce Ratner. In the case of Robert Moses, the public housing on which he squandered billions of dollars and was supported by the New York Times caused massive increases in crime, destruction of neighborhoods and the near-bankruptcy of New York City in the mid 1970s. Jay Gould's and his contemporaries' railroads were incompetently run and cost the nation far more than they should have. Despite the massive tax on innovation that corrupt government support for business has posed, the US surged ahead because of the innovation of men like Edison and Tesla. The entrepreneur, free of government impediment and government welfare subsidy, thinks of ways to meet consumer needs and so makes himself wealthy and the world wealthier still.
Tragically, the Chinese perceived the spectacular image of large-scale development and have attempted to emulate Robert Moses's approach with large construction projects, continuing to limit the intellectual and economic freedom on which economic development depends. Equally sadly, Americans lost sight of the reason for their success, and passed laws and regulations, and imposed punitive taxes, that have inhibited entrepreneurship, slowing American economic progress, even as they have increasingly provided welfare payments to incompetent bankers, real estate developers, academics and Wall Street stock jobbers who do not produce wealth.
This country and China have squandered resources in stupid ways. The bubble will burst as all credit bubbles do. America may have enough resources to reassess its errors. The Chinese likely do not, and many there will be hurt.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
